Search
Most Recent
AdSurfDaily Agape agent American Integrity Aronson asset sales Attorney av bar reg baker bank bank of america Bankruptcy baumann bermudez black diamond blackwell bridge loan bull cattle CD celebrity cftc charity china China Voice church cityfund claims claims process clawback commission commodities commodity pool computer program congress Crown Forex currency death sentence denver diamond bar disgorgement Distribution Dodd-Frank donnan Dreier dunhill e-bullion elderly E-M Management SEC england Fairfield family FBI FDIC Fees female ponzi scheme financial advisor fine FINRA football forex fraud fufta fugitive Full Tilt gift card guilty plea GunnAllen hawaii Heckscher HSBC india invers forex janvey John Morgan JP Morgan kansas ken bell kenzie las vegas lawsuit lawyer libya Lifland machado Madoff Marian Morgan metro dream homes mets milberg millers a game Morgan European Holdings mortgage multiple schemes NCAA Net Winner new jersey notes objection Oxford Patrick Kiley paul burks PermaPave Pettengill Petters Picard poker Ponzi ponzi scheme ponzi scheme database ponzi scheme list Prime Rate profitable sunrise prosun pta puerto rico Rakoff real estate receiver receivership regulation relief defendants religion remission repeat offender restitution Rothstein RRA sec sentencing simmons sipa sipc snelling standing stanford stettin subpoena td bank telexfree treasury bonds treasury strip Tremont Trevor Cook UBS UFTA uga utah venture advisors Wachovia wilpon wire fraud woman zeek zeek rewards zeekler zeekrewards
Social
Recent SEC Releases
Sunday
Jun192011

SEC Changes Course and Urges SIPC to Compensate Stanford Victims

In a change of course, the SEC exercised its discretionary authority granted under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 ("SIPA") to hold that investors in Allen Stanford's Stanford Group Company that later was revealed to be a giant Ponzi scheme are entitled to compensation from the Securities Investor Protection Corporation ("SIPC").

While this is a victory for investors in Stanford's alleged scheme, such a ruling should not be interpreted as an across-the-board policy change or additional avenue of compensation for others affected by Ponzi schemes.  In Stanford's case, the presence of a Broker-Dealer brought the scheme under the auspices of the SIPC, which, according to its website, operates to compensate investors of failed brokerage firms.  Similar to the FDIC's mission in insuring consumer deposit accounts, SIPC aims to allow customers of troubled brokerage firms to recover portions of their losses without being forced to wait during the pendency of legal proceedings.

Should the SIPC follow the SEC's ruling, a trustee would likely be appointed who would function similarly to a court-appointed Receivership.  Investors would be able to file Proof of Claim forms, whose merit would then be determined by the trustee.  Funds would then be paid out of the SIPC's reserve fund, which is funded entirely by its member securities broker-dealers.

While a promising step for Stanford investors, who have seen the alleged mastermind deny the SEC's claims and seek to take the matter to trial as early as September, the larger effect of the SEC's ruling provides little precedential effect for other similarly-situated Ponzi victims, as the existence of the broker-dealer in Stanford's case has not been widely replicated.  The primary vehicle for many other Ponzi schemes has largely been Hedge Funds, which have historically not fallen under the auspices of SIPC.

 

Source - Some (But Not All) Ponzi Scheme Investors Entitled to Protections of SIPA

 

Page 1 ... 208 209 210 211 212