The official site and forum of SIVG

The official site of Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG (http://sivg.org) and

the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum (http://sivg.org/forum/)

Attention! There is a group of malicious individuals who are using the same name "Stanford International Victims Group" (SIVG) to cheat the victims. They argue that they are members of the SIVG but it is actually a lie and its purpose is simply to deceive the victims.

STANFORD PONZI SCHEME VICTIMS TO RECOVER ONE PERCENT OF LOSSES

January 11, 2013
By U.S. Receiver (Ralph Janvey)

The Receiver requests that the Court order a first interim distribution of funds from the Receivership Estate for the benefit of defrauded investors in certificates of deposit ("CDs") issued by Stanford International Bank, Ltd. ("SIB"). These investors were the primary source of both the funds that fueled the Stanford Ponzi scheme and the funds recovered by the Receiver. They are also the primary victims of the Stanford fraud by both value and number of claims.

Treatment of Claims under the Interim Plan.

1. The Interim Distribution Amount shall be apportioned among Investor CD Claimants on a pro rata basis. Such Investor CD Claimants shall receive payments equal to a percentage (the "Distribution Percentage") of their Allowed Claim Amounts as reflected in their Notices of Determination. The Allowed Claim Amounts shall be based on the Investor CD Claimants' Net Losses. Any future distributions to Investor CD Claimants shall likewise be pro rata based on Investor CD Claimants' Allowed Claim Amounts.

2. The Distribution Percentage equals the Interim Distribution Amount divided by the sum of: (a) all Allowed Claim Amounts for non-deficient Investor CD Claims as of the filing of the Motion (the "Investors' Allowed Claim Amounts"), and (b) the Receiver's estimate of the Allowed Claim Amounts for all Investor CD Claims that are deficient (the "Investors' Deficient Claim Amounts"). The Distribution Percentage can be represented            mathematically as:

Interim Distribution Amount
____________________________________________________________
(Investors' Allowed Claim Amounts) + (Investors' Deficient Claim Amounts)

3. As of January 2, 2012, the aggregate of the Investors' Allowed Claim Amounts equaled $4,237,737,851.75, and the aggregate of the Investors' Deficient Claim Amounts equaled $893,487,080.90. The Distribution Percentage, therefore, is calculated as follows:

$55,000,000.00
________________________ = 1%
$5,131,224,932.65

4. Investor CD Claimants will receive distributions under the Interim Plan equal to their Allowed Claim Amounts as reflected in their Notices of Determination multiplied by the Distribution Percentage. The amount of a given Investor CD Claimant's interim distribution can be represented mathematically as:

(Particular investor's Allowed Claim Amount) x (Distribution Percentage)

5. If an Investor CD Claimant serves and files a timely objection to a Notice of Determination, the Investor CD Claimant is not disqualified from receiving a distribution under the Interim Plan. However, the Investor CD Claimant shall participate in this interim distribution based initially on the original Allowed Claim Amount in the Notice of Determination. If the Investor CD Claimant ultimately succeeds in increasing the Allowed Claim Amount (either by stipulation with the Receiver or by Court order sustaining the Investor CD Claimant's objection), the claimant shall receive a supplemental payment representing 1% of the difference between the Allowed Claim Amount in the Notice of Determination and the Allowed Claim Amount after final resolution of the claimant's objection.

6. To the extent a claimant receives one or more collateral recoveries, the Receiver will reduce payments to such a claimant to the extent necessary to ensure that all the Investor CD Claimants are treated equally with respect to the percentage of their Allowed Claim Amounts they recover from all sources as of the date of the payments.

7. Each Investor CD Claimant's interim distribution shall be based solely on his Investor CD Claims and not on his other types of Claims, if any.

8. Nothing in this Order shall preclude future distributions to Investor CD Claimants or other Claimants under a different plan. Nor shall anything in this Order restrict the Receiver's authority to compromise and settle any Claim, or resolve any objection to a determination, at any time, as appropriate, without further order of this Court.

Read more: http://sivg.org/article/2013_stanford_victims_to_recover_1_percent.html

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/               

THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION APPEAL AGAINST SIPC

January 11, 2013
By SEC

The Commission has shown that SIPC should be required to file an application for a protective decree as to Stanford Group Company in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

In denying the Commission's application, the district court made two reversible errors:
First, it incorrectly applied a heightened preponderance standard of proof to the Commission's application rather than the more appropriate probable cause standard. Congress created in SIPA a specific process, within the context of a SIPA liquidation, in which investors must prove their claims for coverage under the Act, including their "customer" status, by a preponderance of the evidence. It makes no sense to apply the same standard to the Commission in proving "customer" status on behalf of investors in this preliminary, summary proceeding.

Moreover, Congress's overarching goals of promoting investor confidence in the securities markets by providing speedy relief for investors indicate that a lesser standard of proof should apply to the initial question of whether SIPC should initiate a liquidation. Indeed, perhaps in recognition of this, SIPC itself is held to a lesser standard when it applies to begin a liquidation. The district court was therefore incorrect in applying a higher standard of proof to the Commission, which is SIPC's plenary supervisor.

The district court's error in this regard was based upon the mistaken belief that the application of the provisions of the Exchange Act to SIPA shows a congressional intent to apply the preponderance standard. But there is no sound basis to analogize plenary proceedings under Exchange Act Section 21(e)—used to finally determine whether a permanent injunction should be granted—to this preliminary, summary proceeding used to determine whether SIPC should be required to apply to begin a liquidation proceeding.

Second, the district court incorrectly interpreted SIPA's customer definition to exclude investors who, because of the unusual operation of the Stanford companies, should be deemed to have deposited cash with SGC. The record here provides at least probable cause to believe that the purported legal separateness of SGC and SIBL should be disregarded, such that, by depositing cash with SIBL, SGC accountholders who purchased SIBL CDs through SGC were effectively depositing cash with SGC. Courts facing similar circumstances have disregarded the corporate separateness of SIPC members and non-member affiliated companies, with SIPC's support. The district court's contrary approach improperly elevates form over substance by strictly adhering to the corporate boundaries of the Stanford entities which were designed to perpetrate an egregious fraud.

Even apart from the lack of genuine separateness of the corporate entities, SIPA's "customer" definition includes those who can be deemed to have deposited cash with a broker-dealer under the Old Naples and Primeline cases. Those cases rejected the notion that "customer" status requires that cash be deposited directly with the broker-dealer, and held that investors in certain circumstances fell within the "customer" definition. Those cases are materially indistinguishable from this one, and the district court's belief otherwise was based on a misunderstanding both of those cases and of the record here.

Finally, the Commission's interpretation of SIPA's "customer" definition is the correct one and is, at the very least, a reasonable one entitled to deference under Chevron. The district court declined to give such deference because it perceived an inconsistency between the interpretation and certain past statements of the Commission. The Commission's past statements, however, clearly state only a general presumption and are fully consistent with the Commission's interpretation in this matter.

Read more: http://sivg.org/article/2013_SEC_APPEAL_AGAINST_SIPC.html

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/