What Did SEC Learn After Failing to Take Down Stanford Earlier? Um, It Did the Best It Could?

Categories: Crime, Politics
spencerbarasch.jpeg
Spencer Barasch
We mentioned this morning that Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro was in town speaking to business journalists gathered on the SMU campus. Turns out, during her speech she mentioned something that rings a bell: The failure of the Fort Worth office to shut down Allen Stanford's Ponzi scheme years before the feds finally took action. As you may recall, investors swindled by Pete Sessions's pal filed suit against the SEC only weeks ago in Dallas federal court. We'll get back to that in a second.

Anyway. Said Schapiro, who took the gig in late 2008: What we had here was a failure to communicate. Or, more specifically, the proverbial ball was dropped because of "escalating issues. It was about training our people. It's about how do you focus on what's important and what presents risks to investors, rather than what gets us numbers in the column of examinations done."

Now, back to that suit. With a tip of the cap to Bloomberg News, you'll find on the other side the SEC's motion to dismiss the litigation brought by those who blame the feds -- and, very specifically, Dallas attorney Spencer Barasch, a former SEC enforcement chief in Fort Worth who did some work for Stanford -- for allowing their money to go adios. It was filed yesterday at the Earle Cabell, and long story short, the SEC says, tough, that's the way investigations go:
Federal securities laws give the SEC broad discretion in deciding whether to investigate possible violations and, when wrongdoing is suspected, take enforcement action. This discretion is subject to important policy considerations, including how to best use limited agency resources to enforce the nation's securities laws. The discretionary function exception therefore bars Plaintiffs' claims.
DartezvUSA_MotiontoDismiss

Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
8 comments
Not Sayin
Not Sayin

Federal securities laws give the SEC broad discretion in deciding whether or not to stick their heads up their collective, ...

well, you know.

Sanders Kaufman
Sanders Kaufman

Under the Bush Republicans, the SEC did do the best it could.

Oak Cliff Townie
Oak Cliff Townie

I never had the hundreds of thousands to invest like the folks who were taken in this scheme had to invest .But now I guess they don't either.

NoSirAllen
NoSirAllen

The SEC's response actually says "declining a particular case hardly means that the SEC’s lawyers and economists will go twiddle their thumbs..." Uh, yeah, not when there's porn to watch!

observist
observist

I wonder how many of these plaintiffs support the Republican party platform of trying to shrink goverment, defund government, cut government programs, get government off the backs of business, pay goverment employees less, etc.... and are now suing the government for not preventing other Republicans from stealing their money.

Oak Cliff Townie
Oak Cliff Townie

We think the Law will protect us... But how can it protect US from us .

It is hard to get folks to think when they have Dollar signs in their eyes .

You can see the folks that invested weren't stupid . They weren't robbed They willingly turned over their Money . Buyer Beware isn't just for the little guy.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/8034...

Megan
Megan

I will never have hundreds of thousands to invest either, but that does not make it right. What the SEC is saying in their arguement is that they don't have be be held accountable for not doing their job. I would be angry if i lost 5,000 because the SEC wasn't doing their job. It has nothing to do with funding. They didn't use the resources available to them. This is scary stuff and it could happen to anyone because the SEC isn't being held accountable.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...