Categories

Alert: H.R.1982 – New Cosponsor

H.R. 1982: Restoring Main Street Investor Protection and Confidence Act – New Co-sponsor- Congressman Pete Olson [R-TX22] has signed on to co-sponsor H.R. 1982. The bill now has 49 cosponsors (39 Republicans, 10 [...]

ALERT:

H.R. 1982 – Two New Co-Sponsor: Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart [R-FL25] and Congressman Jared Huffman [D-CA2] have signed on to cosponsor H.R. 1982 – Restoring Main Street Investor Protection and Confidence [...]

ALERT:

H.R. 1982 New CoSponsor
Congressman Christopher “Chris” Smith [R-NJ4] has signed on to support H.R. 1982!
If you reside in Congressman Smith’s district, please take a moment and send a Thank You letter by clicking here. [...]

ALERT

H.R. 1982 New CoSponsor
Congressman Cedric Richmond [D-LA2] has signed on to support H.R. 1982!
If you reside in Congressman Richmond’s district, please take a moment and send a Thank You letter by clicking here. [...]

ALERT H.R. 1982 New Cosponsor

– Congresswoman Kay Granger [R-TX12] has signed on to support H.R. 1982!

If you reside in Congresswoman Granger’s district, please take a moment and send a Thank You letter by clicking [...]

LEGISLATIVE ALERT - SIPC LEGISLATION REINTRODUCED TO HELP MADOFF, STANFORD, AND MCGINN SMITH INVESTORS

HR 1982 – RESTORING INVESTOR PROTECTION & CONFIDENCE ACT OF 2015
INTRODUCED BY CONG GARRETT & MALONEY WITH OVER 40 ORIGINAL CO-SPONSORS

After months of anticipation, Capital Markets Subcommittee Chairman Garrett and Congresswoman Maloney announced the reintroduction of the long-awaited SIPC legislation that promises SIPC protection for all investor customers of broker-dealers, and relief for thousands of innocent Madoff and Stanford victims. The legislation is precisely the same as what was introduced in the 113th Congress, and retains the original name: The [...]

U.S. not liable for alleged SEC negligence in Stanford fraud – court

A federal appeals court said on Monday the United States is not liable to victims of Allen Stanford’s fraud who claimed that the Securities and Exchange Commission was incompetent for having taken too long to uncover the swindler’s $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme. A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Miami said the government is entitled to sovereign immunity. More on Reuters [...]

Stanford fraud victims hope new Congress will tweak rules that have blocked compensation

WASHINGTON — As Congress returns to a radically realigned Washington this week, most lawmakers’ attention will be glued to energy, immigration and spending bills as the new Republican-led majority asserts itself. But behind the headlines, many victims of Allen Stanford’s massive Ponzi scheme will be looking for help, too. They want Congress to rewrite the rules for a large, government-created insurance fund that has yet to pay them a penny. About 20,000 investors worldwide lost $5.5 billion in capital when federal authorities halted Stanford’s scheme in 2009. But first, they’ll have to persuade the Dallas congressman whose voice against their proposal probably counts most in the Capitol. More in the Dallas Morning News [...]

Stanford investors ride court-rulings rollercoaster

Sometimes the federal judiciary rules in favor of small investors who lose their savings to slick promoters like Robert Allen Stanford, of Houston, Texas. On other occasions, federal judges can crush those same investors. That was the roller coaster ride federal courts provided in 2014 for about 1,000 Louisiana residents and more than 20,000 people in other states and countries. By year’s end, those towering ascents and stomach-churning plunges left diminished hope of recovering much of the $5.5 billion to $7 billion estimated to have been swindled from people who placed their savings with Stanford Group Co. That firm and its sister companies were shut down by federal regulators in February 2009. More in The Advocate [...]

Why Ponzi Schemes Work: An In-Depth Look At The Allen Stanford Fraud

Texan Allen Stanford first appeared on the radars of financial regulators in 1997. Julie Preuitt, then a branch chief in the SEC’s Fort Worth Broker-Dealer Examination group, was becoming “very concerned” about the “extraordinary revenue” Stanford claimed to me making in his investment fund. It took authorities more than 12 years until Stanford was charged with a crime.Texan Allen Stanford first appeared on the radars of financial regulators in 1997. Julie Preuitt, then a branch chief in the SEC’s Fort Worth Broker-Dealer Examination group, was becoming “very concerned” about the “extraordinary revenue” Stanford claimed to me making in his investment fund. It took authorities more than 12 years until Stanford was charged with a crime. More in FinAlternatives [...]