Sept 7 (Reuters) - A lawsuit claiming U.S. securities
regulators were negligent in failing to respond earlier to Allen
Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme can go forward for now, a
federal judge ruled in Florida on Friday.
U.S. District Judge Robert Scola rejected the U.S.
government's motion to dismiss the case, according to court
documents. The government claimed the court did not have
jurisdiction over the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's
handling of the Stanford case.
The purported class action complaint, filed by two investors
who say they lost a combined $1.65 million when the scheme
collapsed, claims the SEC knew as early as 1997 that Stanford
was likely operating a Ponzi scheme but took no action against
him until 2009. The SEC had a duty to notify the Securities
Investor Protection Corp (SIPC) of Stanford's fraud, the lawsuit
asserts.
The SIPC, funded by the brokerage industry, handles
investors' claims when brokers fail and has overseen liquidation
proceedings for Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme and the collapse
of MF Global.
In his ruling, Scola found that the SEC was required to act
if it concluded that Stanford was running a Ponzi scheme.
"When the Securities and Exchange Commission believes that a
broker or dealer is in or approaching financial difficulty then
it must report that broker/dealer to the Securities Investor
Protection Corporation," he wrote.
Scola did, however, dismiss the lawsuit's second claim,
which faulted the SEC for not considering whether to deny
Stanford's company's annual registration as an investment
advisor. The judge agreed with the government's argument that
such decisions are entirely within the SEC's discretion.
The government's argument that the SEC did not know Stanford
was running a Ponzi scheme will be addressed if and when it
moves for summary judgment, the judge said.
A similar $18.7 million lawsuit against the U.S. was tossed
by a Texas federal judge last year for lack of jurisdiction.
In a March 2010 report, the SEC's inspector general found
the SEC was aware since 1997 that Stanford was likely running a
Ponzi scheme and that numerous agencies, including the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the Justice Department and the Secret
Service, all probed Stanford's operations at one time or
another.
An SEC spokeswoman declined to comment on Friday's ruling.
"This is a historic ruling showing that the SEC can finally
be held accountable for not notifying SIPC," said Gaytri
Kachroo, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.
Stanford was sentenced in June to 110 years in prison for
bilking investors with fraudulent CDs issued by Stanford
International Bank, his bank in Antigua.
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and
certification of the class action.
The case is Zelaya et al. v. United States, U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 11-62644.
