Bi-partisan coalition steps up for Stanford victims

In a May 6 letter just obtained by The INDsider, the group urges Shapiro to immediately initiate a liquidation of Stanford Group Co. under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) and order the SIPC to pay claims to customers of SGC, which was an SEC-registered broker dealer and SIPC member. In supporting its position, the group reminds Shapiro of the recent SEC inspector general's report that uncovered the SEC's abysmal failure in stopping Stanford, despite knowing since 1997 that the company was likely running a Ponzi scheme.

Created by Congress in 1970, SIPC is funded by member brokers and dealers across the country. It offered more than $500 million in coverage to fraud victims of Bernard Madoff but has repeatedly denied coverage to Stanford victims in 46 states because most of Stanford’s investors lost money earmarked for Antigua-based Stanford International Bank. In reality, however, many of the funds were never even sent to the offshore bank, but were diverted to Allen Stanford himself or back to SGC.

The group of congressmen, which includes Sens. Mary Landrieu and David Vitter, and Reps. Charlie Melancon, Bill Cassidy, Rodney Alexander and Anh "Joseph" Cao, contends that SIPC was created to protect customers whose funds are stolen by a registered broker dealer. And in the Stanford matter, they maintain, customers' funds were indeed stolen by the owner of registered broker dealer.

The Stanford Victims Coalition has been the driving force behind securing this bi-partisan push. "It has been like moving a mountain," says one local Stanford investor who asked not to be identified. "It has been done without teams of lawyers. It has been done largely by a few dedicated people who have spent every day working on this since it has happened, and I think all the victims can finally say someone is listening."

...
written by The Original Northsidian , May 08, 2010 - 12:43 pm

Have the brokers who sold the ponzie scheme cd's either pay back their commissions or go to trial!! But, I don't think the taxpayers should be providing any funding. After all it was evidently by invitation only to become a member of this elite investment group. Why no one wants to talk about the BROKERS!!! Do you really think it is right for the taxpayers to bail out these investors. Who is fighting bailing out the investors in legit investments who lost money in the stock market?

...
written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , May 09, 2010 - 10:52 am

This problema is on the SIPA's lap now because the Sipa was ordered to look the other way, away from the obvious problem, just as the Madoff Scam Monies, is sitting at the Wailing Wall! The Stanford Scam monies is sitting at the disposal of the Republican National Party, These are the cold hard facts....
This is akin to the Home Savings & Loan, where the legislators returned to their home states and secured loans from their local Home Savings & Loan's having the "POLITICAL INSIDER KNOWLEDGE, that they would never have to repay the money, ( As Our Local Lafayette Legislators Were Able To Pull Off This Inside Little Scam Off neatly ) now "NOTICE WHAT PARTY IS WANTING TO USE SIPA MEMBER"S MONEY TO REPAY SOME OF THE INVESTORS LOSS, "Hell, get it from the Republican Party" where the embezelled monies is sitting collecting dust".Sound like fiction, Sheeet, "you can take this to the bank"

...
written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , May 09, 2010 - 11:09 am

I and everyone i know lost money in the stock market in the """MOST ABYSMAL SECRETIVE SINGULAR PARTISAN SCAM EVER PERPETRATED UPON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FULLY CONDONED AND AIDED BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Take That To The Bank RUSH LIMBAUGH, Repo Mouth, While You Pop A Xanax, Loratab, Qualuade, and what ever else is in your bag !

...
written by Existentialist Homme , May 09, 2010 - 11:34 am

This is an obvious farce by these Career Politicians to procure the votes of the people, and to use the monies from people who lost money in the Greatest Politically Endorsed Scam of the century, being the insider-imposed maket crash which truly overshadows the politically endorsed, Home Savings & Loan
Thievery by the United States Legistlators, years ago.......
Now to dream up such a scheme to obtain votes, is so inline with how Career Politicians conduct their underhand moves to insure another term at the "HOG TROUGH "~

...
written by klerg , May 10, 2010 - 04:31 am

Do the Stanford Victims qualify for SIPC protection? They have their CDs so I think that they, unfortunately, don't qualify.

...
written by The Original Northsidian , May 10, 2010 - 04:20 pm

They want to receive SPIC coverage (which is actually taxpayer money) to cover the ponzi scheme loss. But none of them want to return the ponzi scheme interest they received from the bogus cd's. Also (I again ask) why are they not pissed off at the brokers? Something is wrong with this picture. Could it be that the brokers are politically connected?

...
written by SIPC must be provided , May 11, 2010 - 06:52 am

hard understand these ignorant comments, stanford robbed line madoff investor monies, this is another situation compraed to stock market losses. i am glad SIPC will be provided to investors.

...
written by The Original Northsidian , May 11, 2010 - 05:41 pm

SIPC- what about the brokers who sold the bogus cd's, do you think anything should be done to them. Also, do you think the investors should give back the real interest (money) they received on the bogus cd's? I can't understand them wanting the gov't to reimburse them on the cd's, but not to reimburse the gov't on the interest (money) received from the bogus cd's. What they are saying is we bought bogus cd's from crooked brokers and received interest that we don't want to pay back. But, we want the taxpayers to pay us for our loss. Explain this please!!

...
written by Northsidian Shotgun , May 11, 2010 - 07:46 pm

Written by sipc must be provided, "AY Boy, you pay your power bill this month, or did you spend it on mind confusing drugs ?

...
written by Stanford Victim , May 11, 2010 - 07:54 pm

SIPC coverage is similar to FDIC that applies to banks. Member firms pay dues to cover payouts. If a U. S. firm is a member of SIPC then why should it apply in one case and not another. Many of the Madoff victims received SIPC, but the SEC has used a flimsey, technical excuse to deny the coverage to the Stanford victims.

The rank and file victims in the Madoff case were generally, much more affluent than the Stanford victims and were along the eastern seaboard from Florida to New York. You can draw your own conclusions about the role politics may have played in them receiving SIPC.

Another point about the Stanford victims is that the SEC, specifically their Fort Worth director, Spencer Barasch (until around 2005)would not let them go after Allen Stanford, because they were supposedly padding their resume with easy, quick and uncomplicated cases. Stanford didn't fit that mold. Then Mr. Barasch tried 3 times to represent Allen Stanford as legal counsel. He made a statement that every lawyer in Texas and beyond was going to get rich after the case broke and he didn't want to be on the sidelines. Again, draw your own conclusions about Mr. Barasch and his direction of the SEC back as far as 1997, when he first knew of the probable "ponzi scheme".

Based on the above facts, yes the stanford victims deserve SIPC coverage. Remember, these people for the most part were not in the league with Steven Spielberg, a Madoff victim. Yes, I know that there are many wealthy victims in the Stanford case too, but the comparison between the socio-economic status of the two groups is not even close!

...
written by Northsidian Shotgun , May 12, 2010 - 09:58 pm

Stanford Victim, The game is rigged sir..It begins with the greatest thief this century has known, Ex-Presidente Bush, his Pappa, His Mammy and The Gyper, El Cheney, down to Spenser Barasch
the IRS, The Halliburton Oil Field " Monoply Company, the Iraq Scammer.

...
written by another stanford victim , May 17, 2010 - 06:36 am

most stanford victims never saw their interest, they were rolling it over. we have lost our life's savings to allen stanford's lavish lifestyle and now lawyers and the receiver are all getting paid with whatever is left. we were not part of an elite investment group, but regular hard-working, middle class savers. because of greedy and inept people in positions of influence and power we are now starting over with $0 at the age of 55 and older.

...
written by CD Holders , June 06, 2010 - 04:30 am

SIPC should be provide to all Stanford Victms. SFG was a US comany and a member of SIPC. We all trusted the system and the system failed on us. I invested there because it was secure by SIPC coverage so I demand my coverage specially under the circunstances that the case have been handle. No is time for the goverment to improve regulations and checks crooks like Stanford. I paid taxes , I demand that coverage and a better system on place, If not why pay any more taxes.

Cialis Online

Bi-partisan coalition steps up for Stanford victims