Commentaries

Now raising intellectual capital

Stanford investors get fleeced again

July 24, 2009

It’s bad enough being a victim of a Ponzi scheme. But it’s rubbing salt in the wound when the court-appointed receiver charged with cleaning up the mess makes things worse for investors fleeced in the scam.

Yet that’s just what the receiver appears to be doing in the case of R. Allen Stanford, who has been accused of running a $7 billion Ponzi scheme.

In an unusual turn of events, the receiver, Ralph Janvey, again finds himself doing battle with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommended the Dallas attorney’s appointment back in February. A month ago, the SEC opposed a $20 million fee application that Janvey had submitted, saying the receiver’s compensation request was excessive.

Now the SEC is asking the Texas federal court judge who approved Janvey’s appointment to strip the Dallas attorney of the power to bring so-called “clawback” lawsuits against innocent investors. The SEC contends the lawsuits are unnecessarily punitive and not supported by either “logic or law.”

A clawback suit is a favorite remedy of receivers in fraud cases to recapture earlier payouts to investors who may have either had some knowledge of the scam, or received preferential treatment from the Ponzi ringleader.

Janvey, who didn’t return a phone call, already has filed a number of clawback suits against former Stanford brokers, contending that they benefited financially by selling Stanford’s high-yielding certificates of deposit that prosecutors say were bogus.

The SEC says it has no problem with those lawsuits, but it is drawing the line at actions that target investors who simply had the good fortune of cashing in some of their Stanford CDs early.

Worst of all, it’s not even clear the investor suits will bring in enough money to justify the effort. A court-appointed examiner in the Stanford case says it appears that Janvey is willing “to expend $2 in attorneys’ and accountants’ fees chasing a recovery of only $1.”

Cleaning up the Texas-sized mess Stanford created with his offshore bank in tiny Antigua shouldn’t be about generating hefty fees for the receiver and his team.

The SEC should do more than simply seek to limit Janvey’s powers. It’s time to remove him from the case and get a new receiver. (Editing by Martin Langfield)

Comments

The receivers appointed by the Antiguan govt seem to more of the victim’s interests at heart than Mr Janvey. He is going through the little money that is left like a drunken sailor. High time he is reined in.

Posted by Timbo | Report as abusive
 

Yea real amusing stuff.. kind of reminds us how we, a small business got screwed by HUGE investment firm that became “creditor” in a CH11 filing. Background.. company C// levels called and contracted us for services.. then two weeks after paying us (and 600 other firms) filed Ch11. Seems the law and there is NO defense.. if paid within 90 days of Ch11 file, you pay it ALL back. NOTE company never said a word of CH11, but had hired “Expert C// levels and CFO on how to go to CH11.. AKA THEY KNEW THEY WOULD GET IT ALL BACK… from us and 600 other firms.. They wrecked out lives and shut down our small business. but it was “legal”.. so not to much sympathy for these guys.. and wait til the “Record nr of CH11 filings hit with good ole CH11 547c.. as thousands of small business going to get a big surprise in mail. they have TWO years after CH11 to drag you into local fed court in THEIR area.. there is NO defense.. and congress will NOT discuss not will media.

Posted by Charles | Report as abusive
 

Lets bring back the good old days. In Hillsboro NC in 1770 they closed the courts, threatened the judges and publically whipped the attorneys.

Posted by Art Perrone | Report as abusive
 

The difference between the Stanfords and Madoffs of the world and the big investment banks is that the banks have a whole company full of them.

Posted by rich | Report as abusive
 

I Like the comment posted by rich. The banks are even bigger scammers than those creeps.

Posted by Robert Vysther | Report as abusive
 

LOL. While the attorney on the ‘other’ securities fraud case rakes in SEC Civil Process Fees, I have been referred to a homeless shelter with my 5 year old daughter and the engineer gets a presidential appointment! Waiting penniless while they negotiate a ‘bigger fee’…

Once your a crime victim We’re all just a social security number on a billable hour. Over which in such cases, we have no control or recourse.

Aint it Great!

ROTFLMAO

 

WHEN THE LAWYERS GET INVOLVED THE VICTIMS FOR SURE LOOSE THEIR MONEY………..WHY DO THEY NEED A SPECIALLY APPOINTED ATTORNEY WHEN THE GOV. HAS BILLIONS OF ATTORNEYS ON THEIR PAYROLL ALREADY THAT CAN DO THIS JOB. BECAUSE THE APPOINTED ATTORNEYS SPLIT THEIR FEE WITH THE JUDGE THAT APPOINTS THEM ITS AS SIMPLE AS A PONZI SCHEME AND JUST AS ROTTEN, LOW DOWN AND STEALS THE REMAINDER OF THE INVESTORS MONEY WHICH THE JUDGES AND STTORNEYS THINK IS NOW THEIRS FOR THE TAKING……….SORRY VICTIMS AINT NOBODY LOOKIN OUT FOR YOU……..BRING BACK THE GOOD OLD DAYS……..BEAT THEIR ASSES TO A PULP AND THE HORSE THEY RODE UP ON…..

 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •