House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises Hearing

Good morning. My name is Angela Shaw Kogutt, and I am the Director and Founder of the Stanford Victims Coalition, a nonprofit advocacy group for the victims of the Stanford Financial Group Ponzi scheme.

Chairman Garret and Ranking Member Maloney, thank you for holding this hearing today to discuss a much-needed amendment to the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (SIPA). I applaud you both for your leadership in introducing H.R. 3482, the "Restoring Main Street Investor Protection and Confidence Act," which has given hope to thousands of financially devastated investor victims across the country who feel they've been unfairly denied the protection of which the SEC has determined they are entitled. Also, thank you to the distinguished Subcommittee Members who have already joined H.R. 3482, and to those of you here today to consider this important legislation.

I want to point out right away that I am not the typical face of Stanford victims. I am a second-generation victim. Most of the victims are senior citizens, and for the past almost five years now, I have spent a majority of my life serving as their advocate, hoping to help recover some of their losses. I've done this because I am younger than they are, and because they deserve it.

Like thousands of other Stanford victims, my life was forever changed by the events of February 17, 2009. As we watched the news and feared the worst in the immediate aftermath of Madoff's confession, we eventually realized that Allen Stanford had stolen what two generations of my family worked four decades to build--and he did it through Stanford Group Company (SGC), a registered broker dealer and member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) the SEC had known for more than a decade was operating a Ponzi scheme. While Madoff had outsmarted the SEC, Stanford hadn't, and the SEC knew for 12 years that he was using his U.S. broker dealer to steal customer funds intended to purchase CDs from Stanford International Bank (SIB). In that time frame, the Stanford Ponzi scheme grew by more than $5 billion.

My father-in-law is an 87-year-old World War II veteran and first-generation American who, again like so many Stanford victims, was able to live the "American Dream," only to have it snatched away practically overnight. In 1965, he started a manufacturing business with a few thousand dollars borrowed from family members. He and my mother-in-law put in long hours for several years, and eventually all three of their sons--including my husband--joined the business. The family worked together for more than three decades to build the business to more than 300 employees and close to $20 million a year in revenue. At that point, the business had outgrown the family, and they made the decision to sell it at just the right time--before the economic collapse in 2008.

As soon as the sale of the business closed, the lawyer who handled the transaction advised us to invest it with a brokerage firm that specialized in managing large accounts. She then recommended what she called a "boutique" brokerage firm, Stanford Group Company, which specialized in high wealth clients. The family had never heard of Stanford, but agreed to have a meeting, which she arranged. But the family didn't just go with her recommendation outright. Other firms were also considered, but Stanford really stood out because of their enthusiasm, their professionalism, their high public profile, the top-notch credentials of their advisors, and what we misinterpreted as genuine and sincere interest in our investment goals. What we didn't know is that the Financial Advisors at <org>Stanford Group Company were hooked on what they internally called "Bank Crack"--the highly lucrative commissions and bonuses they received for selling certificates of deposit from Stanford International Bank in Antigua. Also, little did we know, none of the Financial Advisors at Stanford Group Company knew what assets were held (if any) in Stanford International Bank's investment portfolio. How someone who has a fiduciary duty to their clients could recommend putting any of their funds in an investment vehicle for which they didn't even know what the underlying investments were seems extremely questionable, but that was also an inside secret that Stanford paid them enough to overlook.

Ultimately, a substantial portion of the proceeds from the sale of the family's business was entrusted to two Stanford Group Company Financial Advisors, Patrick Cruickshank and Bill Leighton. At the very first meeting with Bill and Patrick, the family explained they were very conservative and risk averse. Bill, an estate planning lawyer, and Patrick, a Certified Financial Planner and NFL, NBA, and NHL approved Financial Advisor with a Series 7 license, told us their safest, most conservative investment was their exclusive, signature product--the Stanford International Bank CD program for Accredited Investors.

We learned at that meeting that the entire Stanford Financial Group of Companies, which included Stanford Group Company, Stanford International Bank, Stanford Trust Company, and more than 100 other Stanford entities all owned by Allen Stanford--was headquartered and operated out of Houston, Texas, and regulated by the SEC and numerous state securities regulators as SGC had 33 offices across the country.

When the family expressed concern about the "international" aspect of the investment, we were told that Allen Stanford, a Texan like us, managed all of his company's operations from the U.S., and that even the bank's portfolio was managed by Stanford Capital Management (SCM) in Memphis, Tennessee. SCM, which was also regulated by the SEC, purportedly had a team of expert money managers overseeing the purported $8 billion SIB bank portfolio. SCM was also regulated by the SEC, so the international CDs started sounding more like domestic securities and not like a risky investment. The best part about the international bank CDs, we were told, was that the Stanford International Bank CDs were securities backed by SIPC and even Excess SIPC so our entire investment would be insured "dollar for dollar," whereas a U.S. bank CD would only be protected by FDIC for $100K. The interest rate was only 1.6% higher than a U.S. bank CD so this security CD thing sounded pretty safe--especially since it was all regulated by the SEC. Plus, the "dollar for dollar" protection meant a lot to us.

But, as conservative as our family is, we didn't just buy the Stanford hype right away, although it was impressive--glossy brochures, beautiful annual reports, slick personalized presentations--all prominently emblazoned with "SIPC Member." We hired an attorney to conduct due diligence on Allen Stanford and the Stanford Financial Group of Companies. Her report stated she found no red flags--only a handful of disgruntled employee lawsuits that had been dismissed.

Now that our lawyer had given us the go ahead, three separate family members signed Customer Agreements with Stanford Group Company and opened SGC brokerage accounts for the very purpose of purchasing the CDs. Pershing served as the custodian for SGC customer's investments, and SGC had the authority to buy and sell securities in our account. We were instructed by SGC on how to fund the brokerage accounts in order for SGC to effectuate the transaction to purchase the SIB CDs. On January 31, 2008, three members of the family invested a totally of $4.5 million. And just like that, the "American Dream" was gone, and the thieves proudly displayed the SIPC logo everywhere we looked--because they were required to.

In the aftermath of the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group, SIPC immediately, and admittedly without seeing any documents except the SEC's complaint against Stanford, et al, made an adamant public announcement that Stanford victims did not qualify for protection under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA).

Almost five years later and SIPC has continued denying protection to Stanford Group Company customers by saying we received the securities we purchased through SGC, which simply isn't true. Our money was stolen. How could we have gotten any security when the owner of the broker dealer stole our funds? Allen Stanford is serving a 110-year jail sentence for stealing our money right here in the US--not for committing an Antiguan bank fraud (which has not been alleged in Antigua).

In November 2009, the Stanford Victims Coalition formally asked the SEC to review SIPC's determination about SGC customers' right to protection under SIPA. After more than a year of the SVC suffering the burden of proof and producing hundreds of SGC customer documents at a time, only to have the target moved and more documents requested, it appeared the SEC was obviously avoiding making a determination. The SVC's members then asked our political leaders to urge the SEC to make a determination. More than 50 Members of the House and Senate signed on to a letter asking the SEC to give the SVC an answer. Still, no answer--only repeated promises that a vote would happen "soon," which I've now learned in SEC language could be months or even years given the way they've handled the Stanford case. Finally, when it appeared this game would go on forever while Stanford victims were losing their homes and going without life necessities, Senator Vitter blocked the nomination of an incoming SEC Commissioner until Stanford victims were given an answer. Senator Vitter never told the SEC how to vote--just to take a fair vote and give the victims an answer. The vote was taken, and as the SVC and counsel had hoped, the SEC determined that SGC customers WERE entitled to protection under SIPA because the SIB CDs were fictitious securities, and the SGC customer funds intended to purchase the CDs were either acquired by Stanford Group Company to pay the broker dealer's expenses, or were outright stolen by Allen Stanford (see attached affidavit of Karyl Van Tassell).

Of course SIPC refused to comply with the SEC's recommendation to initiate a liquidation of SGC in order to pay net equity claims for SGC customers, and the SEC took the unprecedented action to initiate an Enforcement Action against SIPC by asking for a court order to compel SIPC to discharge its obligation under SIPA.

The animosity Stanford victims have seen from SIPC is truly astonishing. SIPC President Stephen Harbeck even told a Senate staffer he would resign if SIPC had to pay claims to Stanford victims. What kind of investor protection regime is led with that kind of mentality? Certainly not one looking out for investors who entrust their savings to a SIPC member firm.

Stanford victims did not simply make a bad investment in a worthless security. We didn't even make an investment. We tried, but our money was intercepted before any security could be purchased.

Stanford Group Company customers wired funds to their Pershing accounts, wrote checks they handed to their SGC advisor, or rolled their IRA over directly to Stanford Group Company. NONE of those funds went to Stanford International Bank in Antigua. They went to Allen Stanford's or to the SGC Financial Advisors pockets. No CDs were purchased. No CDs even existed.

What Allen Stanford and the Stanford Financial Group did can only accurately be described as an act of financial terrorism. Now SIPC has apparently become an accomplice as it has gone out of its way to avoid applying the case law in similar SIPC cases in which the owner of a SIPC-member broker dealer used an affiliate entity to launder customer funds in order to steal them.

SIPC has grossly mislead Congress and the Courts about the REAL facts of this case, and even convinced the SEC to agree to stipulations in the District Court that were absolutely false (see attached email exchange with SEC Chief Litigator Matt Martens).

I can say in all sincerity and honesty that Stanford's victims are good, hardworking and law-abiding people. They are the kind of people you want as neighbors, friends and family. They are middle-class people who were targeted because they had a nest egg. They are war veterans, retired teachers, nurses, small business owners, refinery workers--the kind of small investors SIPA was enacted to protect

We did not simply lose our investments with the Stanford Financial Group; our investments were stolen. SIPC may not protect fraud, but it is supposed to protect theft.

No one could imagine the harrowing stories I've heard from Stanford victims all over the world. They range from not having money to bury family members to not being able to afford life-saving medical treatments. I've watched as so many have died impoverished. I have received letters from victims on their death beds pleading with me to help their surviving relatives recover their inheritances. I've received phone calls from sobbing strangers in foreign countries explaining their hardships in broken English. Countless victims have been, and are suicidal. Some have even taken their own lives.

The impact of this crime is immeasurable, and it is truly a human tragedy as well as a financial one. Allen Stanford thrived on cheating the system while preying on the middle class, and our financial regulatory structure let him do it. They knew what he was doing. FINRA knew Stanford Group Company was in financial difficulty, and SIPC was either not notified or just didn't act.

Chairman Garrett, Ranking Member Malony and the honorable members of the subcommittee, thank you for hearing me today. I urge you to pull the reigns in on SIPC. It is not above the federal government, yet it is spending its fund litigating against its federal oversight authority. The SIPC fund was created by Congress to be used to protect investors, not cost our taxpayers an untold amount of money by engaging in time consuming litigation while innocent, elderly investors who entrusted their funds to a SIPC member are left out here with no safety net and SIPC is acting as our adversary rather than our advocate.

Thank you for your time and your attention.

Read this original document at: http://financialservices.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HHRG-113-BA16-WState-AKogutt-20131121.pdf