What The SEC-SIPC Lawsuit Is All About

Source: Securities Investor Protection Corporation

What The SEC-SIPC Lawsuit Is All About

• The SEC has brought an unprecedented lawsuit demanding that the Securities Investor Protection Corporation ("SIPC") guarantee the value of offshore certificates of deposit ("CDs") issued by the Stanford International Bank Ltd. in Antigua.
• SIPC disagrees with the SEC’s position because it is in conflict with the Securities Investor Protection Act, the legislation that created SIPC and has guided it for the last 40 years.
• SIPC is limited by law to protecting customers against the loss of missing cash or securities in the custody of failing or insolvent SIPC-member brokerage firms. SIPC was not chartered by Congress to combat fraud or guarantee an investment’s value, and its protections also do not cover investments with offshore banks or other firms that are not SIPC members.

Why The Securities Investor Protection Act Does Not Cover The Stanford-Antigua Situation

---

• This case is about investments in certificate of deposits ("CDs") issued by the Stanford International Bank Ltd. in Antigua. Stanford International Bank Ltd. is an offshore bank: it is not a SIPC-member brokerage firm and has never been a SIPC member.
• The Securities Investor Protection Act only covers the custodial function of a SIPC-member brokerage, by offering limited protection to customers against the loss of missing cash or securities when a SIPC-member brokerage firm is holding cash or securities for an investor but fails financially.
• The Act does not authorize SIPC to protect monies invested with offshore banks or other firms that are not SIPC members. The Act also does not protect investors against a loss in value of a security, including because of mismanagement or fraud.
• In addition, this case involves CDs that were delivered, not a situation in which a SIPC-member brokerage firm had custody of securities but failed before delivery could occur.

The Facts

• This case is about investments in CDs issued by the Stanford International Bank Ltd. in Antigua. Stanford International Bank Ltd. is a chartered bank formed under the laws of Antigua and Barbuda. This Antiguan bank is in liquidation in Antigua under the administration of liquidators in Antigua.
• Stanford International Bank Ltd. advertised interest rates that were higher (often much higher) than banks in the U.S., but its CDs now have the value, if any, of a debt instrument issued by a failed bank.
• Stanford International Bank Ltd. is not a SIPC-member brokerage firm and has never been a SIPC member.
• Investors received Disclosure Statements from Stanford International Bank Ltd. stating that these investments were not “covered by the investor protection or securities insurance laws of any jurisdiction such as the U.S. Securities Investor Protection Insurance Corporation….”

SIPC Letter of August 14, 2009 to Ralph S. Janvey, Receiver, Stanford Financial Group Receivership

Stanford - Madoff: The Key Differences

SIPC protection is available for investors who had brokerage accounts directly at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“Madoff Securities”). Madoff Securities was a SIPC-member brokerage firm. Customer cash and securities were placed in the custody of Madoff Securities and were missing from the customer’s accounts when the firm failed. SIPC protection is thus available to protect customers, within limits, against the loss of their net equity balances.
By contrast, the Stanford case is about CDs that investors purchased from the Stanford International Bank Ltd. in Antigua. Stanford International Bank Ltd. is not a SIPC-member brokerage firm and has never been a SIPC member.
The Securities Investor Protection Act does not authorize SIPC to protect investors against the loss of monies invested with offshore banks or other firms that are not SIPC members. The Act also does not protect investors against a loss in value of a security, including because of mismanagement or fraud. In addition, this case involves CDs that were delivered, not a situation in which a SIPC-member brokerage firm had custody of securities but failed before delivery could occur.

Why SIPC Is Not The FDIC And Does Not Protect Against Securities Fraud

---

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, state securities regulators and experts have estimated that investment fraud in the U.S. totals $40 billion a year.¹ Market manipulation schemes alone generate an estimated $6 billion in losses annually.²
With a reserve of slightly more than $1 billion, SIPC could not continue operations for long if its purpose was to compensate all victims with losses due to investment fraud. SIPC is limited by law to protecting customers against the loss of missing cash or securities in the custody of failing or insolvent SIPC-member brokerage firms.
It is important to understand that SIPC is not the equivalent of the banking industry's Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") for investment fraud. Congress considered whether to guarantee investment losses and rejected that sort of protection as unrealistic and inappropriate.




For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:

http://sivg.org.ag/

The Stanford International Victims Group Forum

Provisional Liquidators to Stanford Development Company (“SDC”) Explain Provisional Liquidation Process

Marcus Wide of Grant Thornton (British Virgin Islands) Limited and Hordley Forbes of Forbes and Associates (Antigua) were appointed as Provisional Liquidators of SDC. Within that role, they have taken over the company and are duty-bound to preserve its assets. Further, until further notice, SDC’s former directors’ powers are withdrawn and there is a stay of proceedings in place as to any actions that may be commenced against SDC without a court order.

The next step is likely the resolution of an application to wind up SDC. Though the result is not known, in most instances, the company will transition from provisional liquidation to liquidation at which point a liquidator(s) will be appointed. The role of the liquidators will be to wind up the company and settle all debts.

In the interim, the Provisional Liquidators continue to confer with creditors, the Antiguan government and other interested parties to bring a speedy resolution to SDC’s provisional liquidation by, among other things, paying creditors and getting SDC’s books and records in order. Notably, since a provisional liquidation does not involve a claims process, there is no need to submit a claim at this time.

For further information related to SDC, please see the SDC tab at www.sibliquidation.com for information posted by the Provisional Liquidators.




For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:

http://sivg.org.ag/

The Stanford International Victims Group Forum

The SEC's Civil Action Against Stanford

  The SEC's Civil Action Against Stanford

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:

http://sivg.org.ag/

The Stanford International Victims Group Forum

Michigan-based Butzel Long law firm seeks assistance with underfunded pension obligations

LANSING, MI — Butzel Long PC has requested that a federal agency salvage its pension plan that’s underfunded by more than $9 million.

The Detroit-based firm says it can no longer afford to pay its pension obligations, which were underfunded by $9.1 million as of October, if it wants to continue paying attorneys competitively.

It asked the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. to take over the retirement plan. The PBGC is a federal government agency but does not use general tax revenues. Sponsors of defined-benefit plans pay insurance premiums to be covered by the agency.

Butzel Long has offices in Detroit, Ann Arbor, Bloomfield Hills and Lansing. It also has offices in New York and Washington, D.C., along with alliance offices in China and Mexico. It employs about 250 people, including some 135 lawyers.

The firm covers several areas of law and regularly represent clients before the PBGC. It also represents the Michigan Press Association, of which MLive Media Group is a member.

The pension plan has about 460 members. Its market value was nearly $33.4 million in 2011, according to an Internal Revenue Service filing.

Firm President and managing shareholder Justin Klimko said low interest rates, market conditions and longer life expectancies contributed to the plan’s problems.

The firm froze the benefits for all attorneys in 2004 and for other employees in 2007. Since then, there have been no more benefits accrued or new members added to the plan, he said. Employees are now offered a defined-contribution 401(k) plan.

“The size of the future contributions would affect our ability to pay competitive compensation for our people,” Klimko said. “That’s the name of the game in our business.”

Though some companies that apply for relief through the PBGC are facing bankruptcy, Klimko said that’s not the case for Butzel Long.

The PBGC insures about 990 pension plans sponsored by Michigan companies. In 2011 it paid about $384 million to more than 45,000 Michigan retirees in failed plans, according to its website.

Law practice consultant Edward Poll has chided law firms for not meeting their pension obligations.
“You have to know that at some point, you’re obligated to pay that, and if you don’t have the cash set aside to pay that, you’re going to have a problem. To me that’s just mismanagement,” said Poll, owner of Venice, Calif.-based LawBiz Management Co.

Poll said he knows of only a few law firms that have funded pension plans for their attorneys. He said he understands that external factors contribute to underfunding, but said it’s still "irresponsible" to let a plan get to that point.

Most law firms have 401(k) retirement plans. Pensions are more common in government and collective bargaining shops than they are among private employers.

The state of Michigan has been making changes to public employee pensions. Laws impacting long-term state employees and teachers have ended up in court on constitutionality questions.

Automakers also have struggled with pension obligations. Ford Motor Co.’s plan is underfunded by $18.7 billion, The Detroit News reported on Tuesday.

Email Melissa Anders at manders@mlive.com. Follow her on Twitter: 



For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:

http://sivg.org.ag/

The Stanford International Victims Group Forum