Eccleston Law: For Investors. For Advisors
About
Who We Are
Testimonials
Disclaimers
Attorneys
For Advisors
Broker Transition
Transition Negotiations
Employment Matters
State Registration Problems & Discipline
FINRA Matters
Promissory Note Matters
Team/Parnership Disputes
CFP Board Matters
FINRA Enforcement Matters
State Registration Problems & Discipline
Transition Negotiations
Broker Litigation & Arbitration
Employment Matters
Regulatory Matters
Strategic Consulting
Whistleblower Law
Promissory Note Matters
Compliance Protection
Lawyer Referral Network
Expungement of CRD/BrokerCheck Disclosures
For Investors
Securities Fraud
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Negligent Investment Management
Unauthorized Trading
Lawyer Referral Network
News & Articles
News
Articles
Financial Counsel Blog
Videos
Newsletter Signup
Contact
Site Menu
About
Who We Are
Testimonials
Disclaimers
Attorneys
For Advisors
For Advisors: Overview
Broker Transition
Broker Transition Overview
Transition Negotiations
Employment Matters
State Registration Problems & Discipline
FINRA Matters
Promissory Note Matters
Team/Parnership Disputes
CFP Board Matters
FINRA Enforcement Matters
State Registration Problems & Discipline
Transition Negotiations
Broker Litigation & Arbitration
Employment Matters
Regulatory Matters
Strategic Consulting
Whistleblower Law
Promissory Note Matters
Compliance Protection
Lawyer Referral Network
Expungement of CRD/BrokerCheck Disclosures
For Investors
For Investors: Overview
Securities Fraud
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Negligent Investment Management
Unauthorized Trading
Lawyer Referral Network
News & Articles
News
Articles
Financial Counsel Blog
Videos
Newsletter Signup
Contact

Pershing must pay Stanford Ponzi scheme victims $5.6M as fallout grinds on

Posted on February 27th, 2020 at 3:44 PM
Pershing must pay Stanford Ponzi scheme victims $5.6M as fallout grinds on

This article was originally published on financial-planning.com by Kenneth Corbin

A FINRA arbitration panel has ordered Bank of New York Mellon's Pershing to pay more than $5.6 million in damages to a bevy of victims of the Ponzi scheme run by R. Allen Stanford more than a decade ago, and more cases are on the way.

In a unanimous decision, the panel held Pershing responsible for losses suffered by the victims for its role in providing clearing services to the Houston brokerage that Stanford controlled.

Donald Ferguson, the lead attorney for the Stanford investors, says that he is preparing to bring another case against Pershing in the "next several weeks." The timing isn't precise, says Ferguson, because he is still gathering documentation from investors who will claim they were fleeced by Stanford.

"We're shooting for the next case in the $10 to $12 million range, and Pershing will be fighting it again," Ferguson says.

Pershing did not immediately respond to a request for comment. An attorney representing the clearing firm in the case and a spokeswoman for BNY Mellon both declined to comment.

Ferguson notes that the timing of the FINRA award almost precisely coincides with the 11th anniversary of regulators shutting down Stanford's Ponzi scheme and seizing control of his Houston-based brokerage.

"Here we are 11 years later and we're able to recover monies for these investors," Ferguson says. "It's very gratifying, I can tell you that."

The case stems from clients of Stanford's brokerage firm who were enticed to purchase certificates of deposit through the bank he controlled that was located in Antigua. The CDs turned out to be worthless, and many investors suffered catastrophic losses.

In 2012, Stanford was sentenced to 110 years in prison for his role in orchestrating the $7 billion Ponzi scheme.

Pershing served as a clearing firm for Stanford's brokerage from December 2005 through February 2009, when the scheme collapsed.

Pershing has argued that, as a third party, it should not be held liable for the actions of the brokerage firms it worked with, and has generally prevailed in litigation stemming from the Stanford affair.

Ferguson won damages for victims in one FINRA arbitration case in Mississippi last year. But even that result was a decidedly mixed bag, as some claimants received all of the damages they were seeking, while others received only a portion of the compensation they sought and still others received nothing at all.

Because arbitrators are not required to offer any explanation for how they determine how much claimants are entitled to receive in damages, the rationale for that case and the one resolved this month remains unclear.

Pershing has won in all the other FINRA arbitration cases, and successfully beat back a class action over its involvement with Stanford.

Still, in its annual report this week, BNY Mellon cited litigation relating to the Stanford affair as a risk factor. In that report, the firm says that Pershing had been targeted by more than a dozen lawsuits brought by Stanford investors, as well as a series of cases brought before FINRA arbitration panels.

Any precedent that emerges from those cases would concern the role of a clearing provider to conduct due diligence on the firms it works with. Those assumptions have been evolving in the aftermath of the Stanford and Madoff schemes, as well as the larger economic collapse of 2008-09, according to Bill Singer, a veteran securities attorney who runs the Broke and Broker blog.

"Frankly, the Great Recession has altered what was typically seen as a clearing firm's absolute immunity,” he says. “Ultimately, the issue for the courts is what Pershing knew, [what] it should have known and whether there was a duty imposed upon [it]."

It remains to be seen whether Pershing will ask a judge to vacate the arbitration award, though Ferguson notes that courts overwhelmingly uphold FINRA arbitration decisions.

Jim Eccleston, managing member of the Eccleston Law firm, says that investor claims against clearing service providers are rarely won, given the high burden of proof required to establish liability against a firm that did not have a direct relationship with the broker's clients.

"It is true that clearing firms must conduct due diligence on each introducing firm with which they do business," Eccleston says. "However, for investor lawyers attempting to show liability, it has been most difficult to prove that red flags existed, were discovered and should have caused a clearing firm to terminate the relationship and report suspected wrongdoing to the regulators."

But Ferguson made the case to FINRA arbitrators that those red flags existed, and that Pershing ignored them. Stanford, who solely controlled the brokerage and bank in question, was himself the subject of extensive media coverage prior to the regulatory crackdown that ended his operation.

"Their position was Allen Stanford wasn't our client, [and] the broker-dealer in Houston was. Well, I responded, ‘Allen Stanford owned that broker-dealer,’" Ferguson says. "You should have known that dealing with the bank, dealing with the broker-dealer in Houston, you were dealing with Allen Stanford, and he was no good."

Ferguson fully intends to bring that argument to the next case he will present to FINRA arbitrators, likely in the Dallas area, and to future cases involving Stanford investors down the road.

"FINRA arbitration awards really are not legal precedents to speak of, but they always find their way into subsequent hearings by the victor," Ferguson says. "This one will find its way into the next hearing."

Related Attorneys: James J. Eccleston

Tags: james eccleston, eccleston law, eccleston law llc, eccleston, finra stanford ponzi scheme, arbitration decision

Share

Return to Archive

Latest Articles
Infinity Q Fund Halts Investors Redemptions In Wake of Alleged Fraud
March 8th, 2021 at 1:38 PM
Texas Advisor, Fired for Unapproved Outside Business Activity, Transitions to New Firm
March 5th, 2021 at 1:33 PM
Read More »
Latest News
CFP Board is the New Sheriff and it Is Not Your Friend
October 24th, 2020 at 10:04 AM
Defending Against a Customer Complaint First Requires Selecting Correct Legal Counsel
October 15th, 2020 at 10:02 AM
Read More »
Share

Request a Free Consultation

Attorneys are standing by during regular business hours. Call us now for immediate service, or complete the form below and we will contact you as soon as possible.

Your E-mail Address:
 
Chicago
55 West Monroe St.
Suite 610
Chicago, Illinois 60603
(312) 332-0000
(312) 332-0003
New York City
One Liberty Plaza
165 Broadway, 23rd Floor
New York, New York 10006
(312) 332-0000
(312) 332-0003
Boca Raton
2255 Glades Road
Suite 324A
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
(312) 332-0000
(312) 332-0003
2021 © Eccleston Law, LLC.
All Rights Reserved.
The law is continuously changing. Please do not rely on information found on this site without consulting a lawyer to determine if any recent changes in the law may have an impact.