tfartgrEEIs af f(E SnuetI SfateEI

Bkrsgtttgtan, <3C 20515

November 13, 2009

The Honorable Mary L. Schapiro Chairman U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549

Dear Chairman Schapiro, We write to you on behalf of the thousands of American citizens whose lives have been devastated by the alleged fraud of Stanford Group Company, an SEC registered broker dealer, member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC), and member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), The alleged Ponzi scheme carried out by Allen Stanford and the Stanford group of companies is one of the most substantial financial crimes ever carried out in the U.S., and SIPC is the only system in place to protect investors when funds are stolen by a broker dealer. Fraudulent Stanford International Bank Certificates of Deposit were sold to U.S. investors by a network of over 200 FINRA-member advisors employed by SIPC member, Stanford Group Company (SGC). These Certificates of Deposit were purchased by investors who believed that their investment would be insured by SIPC. It is our understanding SIPC coverage has been denied to these investors, We also understand that the SEC has plenary authority over SIPC and request that the Commission take immediate action to order a liquidation proceeding of SGC, which we believe to be insolvent, under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) and re examine the possibility of extending SIPC coverage to its customers. It is clear to us that the complexity of the facts surrounding the SGC fraud requires diligent review in light of the reasons currently stated for denial of SIPC coverage. While we acknowledge that this is a unique case, we do believe that SIPC is the correct venue for investor protection for SGC investors. As you know, SIPA was enacted to protect investors and instill investor confidence in our financial markets. Investor confidence has been shattered in the wake of numerous financial frauds over the past few years, most notably the Stanford and Madoff Ponzi schemes. Accordingly, we ask for your reconsideration of SIPC coverage. Further, we understand that a coalition representing the thousands of defrauded SGC investors may be meeting with you to discuss these issues in the near future. We would greatly appreciate your careful consideration of the information that they will present. We thank you in advance for your cooperation and look forward to your quick response.
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Sincerely,

Rep. Bill Cassidy

Sen. David Vitter

R ep, harles W. o u

y,Jr.

S en. Mar L a

rieu

Rep, Charlie

l a n c on

en. Thad Cochran

Rep. Steve Scalise

Sen. R g

W i c k er

Rep. Ahn "Joseph' Cao

en, Johnny sakson

Rep. Rodk ey Ale ander

Sen. Mark Pxyor

p. John Fleming

Sen. Blanche Lincoln

R ep. Gr

Ha r p er

. Richard Burr

p. Gene Taylo

Sen. Robert P. Casey, Jr.

ep, Bennie homps

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen

t&islQ
Rep. Travis Childers Rep. Lamar Smith

Rep, Ciro Rodriguez

R p. John Boozman

Rep. Robert sexier

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Rep. Ron Klein

Rep. Al'cee Hastings

R ep. R

B l unt

Re A l l ys o

. S c h wartz

Rep. Tim Murphy

ep. Sue Myrick

Rep. Bill Delahunt

Rep l i j ah Cummings

(e-oa)
5
Rep. Tom Cole Rep. Mike Rogers

Re

ohn Ha11

Rep. Joe Wilson

aine Luetkeme r

Re . Kenny Marchant

ep, Phil I n gre

ep. Harold Rogers

R . L i ncoln

i a z-Balart

Rep, M io Diaz- alart

Sen. Kit Bond

Rep. Rush Holt

e . om Rooney

Rep. Brad Miller

Rep. Pete Sessions

Cnttgtcss' nf ttjt Rttittb Statt5

Biles'Ijittgton, QC 20510 November 25, 2009 The Honorable Mary L. Schapiro Chairman U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549

Dear Chairman Schapiro; We are writing to request that the SEC conduct a formal review of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation's (SIPC) decision that the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) could not be used to initiate a liquidation of Stanford Group Company (SGC) to satisfy the claims of victims of the alleged Ponzi scheme carried out by Allen Stanford and the Stanford group of companies. The SEC filed a civil complaint against Allen Stanford and the Stanford group companies on February 16, 2009. The report completed by the court-appointed receiver for all Stanford assets revealed an extraordinarily complex fraudulent scheme meant to steal investor funds for Allen Stanford's personal use and for the benefit of the Stanford companies. This alleged Ponzi scheme is one of the most substantial financial crimes ever carried out in the U.S, It is our understanding that SIPC coverage, a system in place to protect investors when funds are stolen by a broker-dealer, has been denied to investors with SGC who purchased fraudulent Stanford International Bank Certificates of Deposit. We also understand that the SEC has plenary authority over SIPC and we request that the SEC seriously review the denial of SIPC coverage and at the appropriate time respond in detail to the legal arguments recently presented to the SEC by the Stanford Victims Coalition in the attached letter, dated November 12, 2009. We look forward to your response and thank you for recently meeting with the Stanford Victims Coalition and to working cooperatively to uncover the facts of this fraud that has devastated the lives of thousands of Americans and severely shaken investor confidence. Sincerely,

Lamar Alexander United States Senator

Bob Corker United States Senator

Marsha Blackburn Member of Congress

eve ohen

ember of Congress

John Tanner Member of Congress

CortgEIEI of ffr 'frfTIfffI SfafEI

'Nasgrngiarr, <35 M515

May 6, 2010 Chairman Mary Schapiro U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, NE

Washington, DC 20549 Dear Chairman Schapiro;

We were encouraged by your recent meeting with the Stanford Victims Coalition and thank you for your continued efforts to seek an amicable resolution to their claims.

On behalf of the thousands of American citizens in 46 states whose financial livelihoods have been
devastated by the $7.2 billion Stanford Financial Group Ponzi scheme, we urge the Securities and

Exchange Commission (SEC) to heavily consider immediately initiating a liquidation of StanFord

Group Company under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) and order the Securities

Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) to pay claims to customers of Stanford Group Company (SGC), an SEC-registered broker dealer and SIPC member.
As the recently released SEC Office of the Inspector General's report revealed, innocent investors were left unprotected by the SEC. The report suggests that had the SEC's Fort Worth office taken action in 1997 to stop this unprecedented and inconceivably complex scheme when it became aware of evidence indicating fraudulent activity, investor losses may have been mitigated, seeing

as a majority of U.S. investment in the fictitious Stanford International Bank CDs occurred after
2006 almost a full 10 years after the SEC suspected Stanford was engaging in dubious financial activities. The SEC's primary function is to protect investors, and it would appear that the SEC

Enforcement Director and other staff members at the SEC's Fort Worth oFfice committed

impermissible acts of discretion that needlessly prolonged the extent and severity of the fraud.
It is our understanding the Stanford Victims Coalition (SVC) has been in discussions with SEC staff for several months about their legal argument for obtaining SIPC coverage. It is also our understanding that SGC customers do not have a textbook case for SIPC. SIPC was created to

protect customers whose funds are stolen by a registered broker dealer. SGC customers' funds
were stolen by the owner of a registered broker dealer and ultimately diverted to the bank account of the broker dealer. SGC customers' funds were not used to purchase securities as directed by its customers. It appears the SEC's enforcement action that was 12 years in the making alleges that instead of purchasing securities, Allen Stanford and other co-conspirators diverted customer funds either to himself, or back to SGC. It would seem illogical and contrary to the spirit of SIPA to tell SGC customers their funds were stolen by the owner of the broker dealer, yet the manner in which the theft occurred precludes the customers from receiving their due relief.

PRINTED ON RECTLED PAPER

In accordance with existing laws and regulations, we urge the SEC to heed the OIG report in
making its final deter mination regarding the payment of SIPC claims to victims of the SGC Ponzi scheme, and seek the SEC's urgent and full cooperation to ensure justice for those who have been wronged by this crime.

We thank you in advance for your cooperation and look forward to your quick response. Sincerely,

/ r /.

re

1. 2. 3. 4,

Senator Roger Wicker Senator Mark Pryor Senator Thad Cochran Senator Blanche Lincoln

5, Senator David Vitter

6. Senator Richard Burr 7, Senator Mary Landrieu 8. Rep. Sue Myrick 9. Rep. Allyson Y, Schwartz 10. Rep. Kay Granger 11. Rep. Charlie Melancon 12. Rep. Bill Cassidy 13. Rep. Michael McCaul 14. Rep. Gregg Harper 15. Rep. Charles W. Boustany, jr. 16. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords 17. Rep. Gene Taylor
18. Rep. Lamar Smith 19. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

20. Rep. Pete Sessions 21. Rep. Lynn C. Woolsey 22. Rep. Travis W. Childers 23. Rep. Brad Milier
24. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer 25, Rep. Steve Cohen

26, Rep, Ron Paul 27. Rep. Al Green 28. Rep. Kenny Marchant
29. Rep. Patrick McHenry

30. Rep. Marsha Blackburn 31. Rep. Rodney Alexander

32. Rep. Ron Klein

33. Rep. Steve Scalise 34. Rep. Anh "joseph" Cao

35. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart

36. Rep. Chet Edwards

37. Rep. Melvin L. Watt 38. Rep. Bennie Thompson 39. Rep. Silvestre Reyes

40, Rep. Tim Murphy 41. Rep. Ciro D. Rodriguez

CLAIRE McCASKILL
MISSOURI

1Roitol 5tste @mat~

WASHINGTON, DC 20510

May 12, 2010 The Honorable Mary Shapiro Chairman

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549

Dear Chairman Shapiro: I have been informed that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is currently reviewing whether victims of the alleged $7.2 billion ponzi scheme perpetrated by Stanford Financial Group are entitled to
coverage from the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). I would urge you to conduct a careful review and provide all due consideration to the victims who have lost a vast amount of wealth as a result of the fraud.

While relatively few of the victims of the Stanford ponzi scheme reside in Missouri, those that do have
suffered immensely. Some have lost all of their retirement savings while on the brink of retirement. Others are now all but destitute. I understand that this case is particularly difficult because of Stanford's complicated corporate structure and the transnational nature of their transactions. I also think it is important to bear in mind that it was Stanford, and not the SEC, that is alleged to have stolen the victims' money. However, the reports by the

SEC's Inspector, General on both the Madoff and Stanford ponzi schemes, as well other scandals, have
shaken investors' confidence in the commission. I know that you are working hard to rebuild the SEC's reputation. One effort that can help is to make sure that victims of Stanford and all other ponzi schemes are treated as fairly and judiciously as possible.

The SEC must do everything in its power to combat any perception that one group of victims is receiving
different consideration than another.

Please keep me updated of any developments in the Stanford case.

Sincerely,

CLAIRE MCCASKILL United States Senator

June 14, 2010

Chairman Mary Schapiro Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street NE Washington, D.C. 20549

Dear Chairman Schapiro,

I have been talking with my colleague Vic Snyder, who represents many other Members, who have signed a letter to you urging that victims of the fraud perpetrated by the Stanford Financial Group Ponzi scheme be given access to the SIPC, We are talking clearly here about innocent victims, and I agree that everything should be done within the law to extend protection to them. I know that you share our conviction that innocent people should be given the fullest benefits of a court interpretation of the law, and I write in support of the request you received. I believe that the officers make a substantial case for separate coverage, although 1' realize that the final decision will rest with you and the lawyers who advise you,

BARNEY FRANK BF/la

Kottgnss of tflt Sttittb States

58n5fjittgtott, SC 20510 March 16, 2011

The Honorable Mary L. Schapiro Chairman Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20549-0001 Dear Chairman Schapiro, It has been more than two years since thousands of Americans lost their savings in the Stanford Ponzi scheme. For many of the victims, these losses reflect most, if not all, of their retirement funds that were accumulated over many years of hard work. These Americans relied on the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) to uphold its federal mandate to protect investors and the SEC failed in this regard. For twelve years, the SEC failed to seriously investigate the Stanford Ponzi scheme, which grew from approximately $500 million in investments in 1997 to $7.2 billion in 2009, In 2010, SEC Inspector General David Kotz revealed the SEC was aware as early as 1997 that Stanford investors' funds were in jeopardy of being stolen. It was not until 2004 s even years after the SEC first became aware of problems at Stanford t hat an official investigation was opened. By the time the SEC took action in this case, it was too late for the Stanford victims. Stanford investors lost virtually everything,

While we understand there are numerous complexities involved in the Stanford case, the
bottom line is that investors' funds are tnissing and the SEC failed to act in a timely manner to put an end to Allen Stanford's fraud. In addition, we understand that many Stanford investors were customers of Stanford Group Company (SGC), a broker-dealer that was a member of Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). We are also keenly aware of ongoing SEC efforts to determine whether Stanford Victitns qualify for coverage under the Securities Investors Protection Act ("SIPC coverage"). As you continue to review and reconstruct the fraud of the Stanford Ponzi scheme, we urge you to prioritize the determination of whether Stanford Victims qualify for SIPC coverage. We are aware of several issues the SEC staff has raised with respect to whether Stanford

Victims qualify for SIPC coverage. It is our understanding that SEC counsel has informally
stated that SGC customers are not eligible for SIPC coverage at this time because (1) SGC was merely an introducing broker-dealer, and (2) SIPC is not meant to compensate customers of worthless securities. Before making a formal decision, we request the SEC consider the facts set

forth in the Declaration of Karyl Van Tassel (attached hereto as "Exhibit A"), which illustrates how the funds for SGC were generally routed to continue Stanford's fraudulent business practices, rather than purchasing securities. We are concerned that the SEC's ongoing review of Stanford Victims'eligibility for SIPC coverage reflects a lack of urgency. We trust you will expedite your review of this issue and keep us informed of your findings. Sincerely yours,

Ro r U.S.

. W i c k er n a t or

ry L. andric .S. Se tor

Thad Cochr U.S. Senator

Robert P. Casey U.S. Senator

Richard Burr U.S. Senator

Mark Pryor U,S. Senator

Bob Corker U.S. Senator

Jo n lb e r son U, . e p resentative

Lamar S. Smith U.S. Representative

John J U.S. R

uncan Jr. resentative

eana Ros-Lehtin U.S. Representative

Ron Paul U.S. Representative

David E. Price U.S. Representative

Lynn . W oolsey U,S. Representative

Bennie G. Thompson U.S. Representative

Lloyd Doggett U.S. Representative

Sue Myrick U.S. Representative

Kevin Brady U.S. Representative

Kay a n g er U.S. epresentative

ete Sessions U.S. Representative

helley Berkley U.S. Representative

ik Ross U.S. Representative

Rodney . A l exander U.S. Repr sentative

M ar a W. Bl c u r n U.S. Representative
7

Bonner U.S. Representative

M ichae C. Burgess U.S. Representative

g.t.

Brad Miller U.S. Representative

n R. Carter

U.S. Representatives

c
les W. Boustan U.S. Representative

7,

Michael McCaul U.S. Representative

nny Marchant U.S. Representative

Mike Con way U.S. Representative

' llyson . Schwartz U.S. Representative

Vern Bucha n U.S. Representative

Kathy Cas r U,S. Representative

Steve Scalise U.S. Representative

Bill , assidy U.S. Representative

J Fl e m i n g U. . Representative

Gregg cr U.S. Representative

u ey U.S. Rep e ntati e

Pete G. Olson U.S. Representative

T Roo n ey U.S. Representative

Ted Deutch U.S. Representative

ico Cans o U.S. Representative

Bill Flores U.S Repre ntative

Tim Griffin U.S Representative

Lan resentative Alan Nunnelee U.S. Representativ

Steven Palazzo U.S. Representative

Cedric Richmond U.S. Representative

Allen B. West U.S. Representative

U.S. Senator

Exhibit A
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICI' COURT POR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OP THUS DALLAS DIVISION

5
SECUIUTIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
V.

5
5

5 5

STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK, LTD, et czE., Defendants.

5 Case No, 3-o9-CV-o298-N

g
5 5

DECLARATION OF

IGQKYL VAN TASSEL

I, Karyl Van Tassel of ioox Fanniu, Suite i4oo', Houston, TX ~oo2 state on oath as follows: I am a Certified Public Accountant in the State of Texas and a Senior Managing Director of FTI Consulting, Inc. The statements made in this declaration are true and, correct based oa the knowledge I have gained. from the many documents I have reviewed. and other work I and my team have performed in the course of PTI's investigation on behalf of the Receiver. 3. On F ebruary 16, 2oo9, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas appointed Ralph S. Janvey the Receiver for all legal entities owned, directly or indirectly, by the named defeadants (" Stanford Entities" ) in the U.S. Securities ind Exchange Commission ("SEC") action as of the date the Receivership was instituted. On the same day, the Receiver retained, PTI to perform a variety of services, including assisting in the capture and safeguarding of electronic accounting and other records of the Stanford Entities and forensic accounting analyses of those records, including cash tracing. I oversee, and am

personally involved in, FTI's forensic accounting and cash tracing activities for the Stanford Entities. The purposes of FITs work have been, in part, to (a) determine

the roles the various Stanford Entities played in the fraud. alleged by the SEC and specificaliy in the sale and redemption of Stanford International Bank ("SIB") certificates of deposit ("CDs"); (b) identify the source(s) of income and cash flows
for the various Stanford Entities; and (c) trace those funds to determine how they were allocated and disbursed throughout the Stanford Entities.

4. Thi sdeclaration is being made in connection with the Stanford Victims Coalition's ("SVC") request to the SEC to direct the Securities Investor Protection Corporation ("SIPC") to initiate a liquidation of Stanford Group Company ("SGC") under the Securities Investor Protection Act ("SIPA") to compensate SGC customers whose funds were lost through SGC. Allen Stanford (" Stanford" ) was the sole owner of Stanford Group

Holdings which is in turn the sole owner of Stanford Group Company ("SGC"). SGC is an SEC-registered broker dealer and SIPC Member with offices throughout the United States. Stanford was also the owner of Stanford International Bank Limited, an offshore bank chartered in Antigua, Vilest Indies; Stanford Trust
Coinpany ("STC"), a financial institution chartered in the state of Louisiana where custoiner accounts were established to hold custody of SIB CDs sold to SGC customers; and, Stanford Financial Group Company ("SFGC"), which provided

shared services, including treasury and investment services to the Stanford Entities. Additionally, Stanford also, directly or indirectly, owned more than i3o separate entities which together with SGC, STC, SFGC and SIB comprised a single,
commonly-owned financial services network called the Stanford Financial Group, ("SFG"), which was headquartered in Houston, Texas. 6, Sta n f ord, along with a close band of confidantes, controlled SFG (of which SGC, STC, SFGC and SIB were a part). These confidantes included James Davis as CFO for SFGC and SIB, and Laura Pendergest Holt, Chief Investment

Officer for SFGC. 7, S I B was nothing like a typical commercial bank SIB had one principal financial product certificates of deposit one principal source of and
funds customer deposits from CD purchases. 8. Mos t , and perhaps all, of the Stanford Entities, were part of the Ponzi scheme alleged by the SEC or derived benefit from it. The U.S. Stanford entities

that were the most closely involved with the sale and redemption of SIB CDs were
SGC and STC. Registered representatives of SGC sold SIB CDs to investors, and STC held custody of SIB CDs sold by SGC to customers who held IRA accounts at STC.

9.

Th e substantial majority of funds received or utilized by the Stanford

Entities, in particular SGC and SFGC, were proceeds from the sale of SIB CDs. ao. S G C customer funds sent by wire transfer and intended to purchase SIBI. CDs did not go to Stanford International Bank in Antigua. Once the funds were received they were managed by SFGC personnel in the U,S. SGC customer funds were routed through bank accounts in the name of SIB or STC and then disbursed by SFGC personnel among the Stanford Entities, including SGC.

n.

A m ajority of the funds deposited into the operating bank accounts in

the name of SGC at Trustmark National Bank came from sources traceable to SIB accounts that were funded almost exclusively by customer deposits intended to purchase SIB CDs. Vhthout income related to SIB CDs, SGC would have been insolvent from at least 2oo4 forward (and likely before). Referral fees and CD related compensation constituted the majority of SGC's revenue in each year from

2oo4 thru 2oa8. Even when this CD related compensation is considered with
other income received by SGC in the ordinary course of business, SGC showed negative cash Qows from operations in each year from 2oo4 thru 2008. The only reason SGC's Qnancial statements did not reflect negative cash flows is because SGC received millions of dollars in capital contributions, which consisted

primarily of SIB CD funds.

x3. T h e substantial majority of funds used to pay loans, bonuses, "Performance Appreciation Rights Plan" ("PAR") payments and commissions to SGC Qnancial advisors who sold the SIB CDs were the proceeds from the sale of the SIB CDs, x4. C Df u nds not used to pay interest, redemptions and operating expenses of the Stanford entities, including commissions for the SGC Qnancial advisors, up-front bonuses used to recruit the Qnancial advisors and PAR payments for the financial advisors were either placed in speculative investments

(many of them illiquid, such as private equity deals), diverted to other Stanford entities "on behalf of the shareholder," i.e. for the beneQt of Allen Stanford, or used

to finance AHen Stanford's lavish lifestyle (e.g. jet planes, a yacht, other pleasure . craft:, luxuxy cars, homes, travel, company credit card, etc.). At least from 2ooj until the SEC complaint was filed on Febroary 17, 2oo9, SGC customer funds intended for the purchase of SIB CDs were used to

make purported interest and redemption payments on preying CDs because

SIB did not have sufficient assets, reserves, and investments available to cover the total customer deposit habihties, redemptions, and interest payments. x6. N o t withstanding SIB's insolvency, sales of CDsby SGCcontinued until February 16, aoo9 when the SEC and the U.S. Court intervened. x7. I correct. d eclare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and

Van Tassel, CPA

FTI Consulting, Inc.

Executed this ~+ day of February, sou

MARCO R U BIO
FLORIDA

COMMITTEES

COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

Bmttd gutta QrtIIItt

WASHINGTON, DC 20510

FOREIGN RELATIONS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP

April 1, 2011

The Honorable Mary L. Schapiro

Chairman

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, NE

Washington, DC 20549 Dear Chairman Schapiro:

It has been more than two years since thousands of Americans lost their savings in the Stanford Ponzi scheme. For many of the victims, these losses reflect most, if not all, of their retirement funds that were accumulated over many years of hard work. I urge the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to expedite its review of these claims. I understand that many Stanford investors were customers of Stanford Group Company (SGC), a broker-dealer that was a member of Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). I am also

aware that the SEC is in the process of determining whether Stanford Victims qualify for
coverage under the Securities Investors Protection Act ("SIPC coverage"). As you continue to review and reconstruct the fraud of the Stanford Ponzi scheme, I urge you to prioritize the determination of whether Stanford Victims qualify for SIPC coverage. The SEC staff has raised issues with respect to whether Stanford Victims qualify for SPIC

coverage. Before making a forrnal decision, the SEC should consider the facts set forth in the Declaration of Karyl Van Tassel, which illustrates how the funds for SGC were generally routed to continue Stanford's fraudulent business practices, rather than purchasing securities.
I respectfully request that the SEC expedite its review of this issue and issue a ruling on SIPC coverage for victims of the Stanford Ponzi scheme in the near future.

Sincerely,

Marco Rubio

United States Senator (R-FL)

Pmij.b Pinij.s +enate

Q'XSulXGTOX. nC 20.'i10 G90>
B1l l. iU.sOi
VLOl)ID'

April 4, 2011

The Honorable Mary L. Schapiro Chairman U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549 Dear Chairman Schapiro, I understand the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is currently considering whether the thousands of victims of the Stanford Ponzi scheme qualify for reimbursement of losses under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA). In 2009, the SEC charged Allen Stanford and his associates with fraud in connection with Stanford Financial Group's $8 billion certificate of deposit investment scheme. Over the last two years, the victims of Mr. Stanford's scheme have struggled to pay their bills and have had to endure the misery of financial uncertainty regarding restitution. The SEC could have minimized the magnitude of Mr, Stanford's fraud had it followed-through on the initial investigation and filed an emergency action against Stanford International Bank in 2005. Victims in my state of Florida have raised a number of concerns regarding the SEC review of whether defrauded investors qualify for coverage through the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. Based on their comments, I am concerned that the SEC review of this matter lacks a sense of urgency. I encourage you to expedite your review and prioritize the determination of whether Stanford victims' losses are covered under our securities laws. And before making a formal decision, I urge you to carefully consider the submissions and declarations provided by Stanford victims residing in Florida and around the country. Thank you in advance for your assistance and attention to this matter. Please keep me informed of developments as final decisions are inade. Sincerel

'BIIittd NtIItta @tmtr.

WASHINGTON, DC 20510

April 21, 2011 The Honorable Mary Shapiro Chairman Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20549 Dear Chairman Shapiro: As we have discussed previously, we have been contacted by our Missouri constituents who were victims of the alleged ponzi scheme propagated by Allen Stanford, Those constituents do not believe they have received a fair hearing from the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) with respect to the claims they submitted for compensation for their losses in the Ponzi scheme. Specifically, they believe that SIPC has improperly disregarded arguments and evidence they have produced to dispute the SIPCs decision to deny coverage, In order to maintain public trust in institutions like SIPC, it is imperative that claimants receive a fair hearing and have full access to all appropriate avenues of appeal. It is our understanding that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) can review and, if it deems such action appropriate, overturn a SIPC decision on coverage. We would encourage you to bring the Stanford claims before the commission for a full review as soon as possible. The pain and anguish that the Stanford victims have suffered has been particularly acute in light of the financial crisis. Not only v,ere innocent victims defrauded of billions by Stanford and his associates, they also saw huge portions of their retirement savings evaporate as financial markets unraveled. For some of our constituents, their loss was so severe that they now face poverty. We request a response detailing the efforts the SEC has made to review the Stanford case, a review by the full Commission and an explanation of the full Commission's subsequent decision on the matter, and a detailing of what steps the SEC plans to take moving forward. We look forward to your response. Sincerely,

Claire McCaskill United States Senator

Roy Blu
United States Senator

STEVE COHEN
9TH DISTRICT, TENNESSEE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

SUBCOMMITTEES:
COURTS, COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW RANKING MEMBER
CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

1005 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

WASHINGTON, DC 20515

TELEPHONE: (202) 225-3265

(Kottgeess of tile 3Ettiteb 8 tates

38attse of Kepreseotatiues Rasptogion, (I 2 I I515 4209

FAx: (202) 225-5663

CLIFFORD DAVIS/ODELL HORTON FEDERAL BUILDING

167 NORTH MAIN STREET

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

SUBCOMMITTEES:
AVIATION

SUITE 369 MEMPHIS, TN 38103

TELEPHONE: (901 ) 544-41 31

FAX: (901) 544-4329

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

www.cohen. house.gov

April 15, 2011 The Honorable Mary L. Schapiro Chairman U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549 Dear Chairman Schapiro, I am writing to urge the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to expedite its decision regarding coverage for Stanford Group Company (SGC) customers under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA). Many of my constituents lost their retirement savings accumulated over many years as a result of the Stanford Ponzi scheme, and they have waited for more than 2 years for the SEC's determination on what appears to be their only potential source of a meaningful recovery. I am aware of several issues the SEC staff has raised with respect to whether SGC customers qualify for payments by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) of up to $500Kof the stolen funds. I t i s m y u nderstanding that SEC counsel has informally stated that Stanford Group Company (SGC) customers are not eligible for SIPC coverage at this time because SIPC is not meant to compensate customers for the loss of value in a security or worthless securities. Before making a formal decision, I request the SEC consider very carefully the Commission's positions taken in the Old Naples Securities and New Times Securities cases as well as the details set forth in the attached Declaration of Karyl Van Tassel, which demonstrates SGC customers' funds were not used to purchase securities, but were instead routed through various Stanford bank accounts before being acquired by SGC t o pay the expenses of the broker dealer. This misappropriation of customer funds by a SIPC member seems to me like it should be protected under the SIPA. While I understand the Stanford case is not a "textbook" case for compensation by SIPC, the bottom line is that investors' funds given to an insolvent broker dealer and SIPC member to purchase securities were instead stolen while the SEC delayed enforcement action to put an end to Allen Stanford's fraud for more than 12 years.

I trust you will make this issue a priority, Please keep me informed of your findings. As always, I remain, Most sincerely,

/ y!
.= St ve Cohen

Member of Congress

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR.

PENNSYLVANIA
COMMITTEES:

AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

FOREIGN RELATIONS
HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

lIIoitol 5tatrs 5mstt

WASHINGTON, DC 20510

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING

JOINT ECONOMIC

May 24, 2011

Honorable Mary Schapiro Chairman Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549

Dear Chairman Schapiro,

Over the course of the past two years, I have followed with great interest the efforts of the

Stanford Victims Coalition to obtain protection under the Securities Investor Protection Act. I write to you today because I understand a decision by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is forthcoming.
As the SEC prepares to announce its formal recommendation, I encourage the Commission to consider the lack of investor protection in this particular case. According to the Commission's Office of the Inspector General, the SEC's Fort Worth office first became aware that Stanford

Group Company customers' funds were in jeopardy of being stolen through a possible Ponzi scheme in 1997. Despite repeated warnings from the Examination Group at the Fort Worth
office, the SEC took no enforcement action to safeguard SGC's investor funds. Instead, the

company was permitted to continue perpetrating an $8 billion dollar fraud by selling fictitious securities to thousands of U.S. citizens, including a number of Pennsylvanians.
I hope that the SEC will continue to work with the victims of this crime to ensure a quick and fair final resolution.

Sincerely,

,$h.
Robert P. Casey, Jr.
United States Senator