{"id":1042,"date":"2012-03-28T18:01:26","date_gmt":"2012-03-28T18:01:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com\/2012\/03\/texas_securities_fraud_state_l"},"modified":"2022-09-19T09:54:06","modified_gmt":"2022-09-19T14:54:06","slug":"texas-securities-fraud-state-l","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/texas-securities-fraud-state-l\/","title":{"rendered":"Texas Securities Fraud: State Law Class Action in R. Allen Stanford\u2019s Ponzi Scam Not Barred by SLUSA"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>\t\t\t\tIn a reversal of a district court&#8217;s decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act does not bar the investor state law class action lawsuit that was filed by victims of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/2012\/03\/texas_securities_fraud_sipc_as\">R. Allen Stanford&#8217;s Ponzi scheme<\/a>. The case is <em>Roland v. Green<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>The appeals court said that the state court <a href=\"https:\/\/texas.stockbroker-fraud.com\/\">securities lawsuits<\/a>, which are claiming common law and statutory violations, could go forward because the alleged fraud is only tangentially related to the buying and selling of covered securities under SLUSA.  Four complaints are on appeal. In each case, investors submitted state court actions that charged a number of defendants with misleading them into using their individual retirement accounts to invest in Stanford International Bank-issued certificate of deposits that have since proved worthless. Investors have lost $7 billion in Stanford&#8217;s Ponzi scam.  <\/p>\n<p>The defendants had the lawsuits moved to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which found that SLUSA precluded the claims because of their connection to a covered security. Under SLUSA, state class actions claiming fraud related to the sale or purchase of a covered security are barred. The district court judge in Dallas had dismissed the cases because Stanford marketed the CDs as regulated and securities-backed and because certain investors had sold securities to finance their purchase of the CDs, this, placed the CD-related suits under SLUSA. <\/p>\n<div class=\"read_more_link\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/texas-securities-fraud-state-l\/\"  title=\"Continue Reading Texas Securities Fraud: State Law Class Action in R. Allen Stanford\u2019s Ponzi Scam Not Barred by SLUSA\" class=\"more-link\">Continue Reading \u203a<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In a reversal of a district court&#8217;s decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act does not bar the investor state law class action lawsuit that was filed by victims of R. Allen Stanford&#8217;s Ponzi scheme. The case is Roland v. Green. The appeals court [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3804,3792,3750],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1042","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-class-action-lawsuits","category-ponzi-scams","category-texas-securities-fraud"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Texas Securities Fraud: State Law Class Action in R. Allen Stanford\u2019s Ponzi Scam Not Barred by SLUSA &#8212; Investor Lawyers Blog &#8212; March 28, 2012<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In a reversal of a district court&#039;s decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act &#8212; March 28, 2012\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/texas-securities-fraud-state-l\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Texas Securities Fraud: State Law Class Action in R. Allen Stanford\u2019s Ponzi Scam Not Barred by SLUSA &#8212; Investor Lawyers Blog &#8212; March 28, 2012\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"In a reversal of a district court&#039;s decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act &#8212; March 28, 2012\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shepherd Smith Edwards &amp; Kantas, LLP\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Texas Securities Fraud: State Law Class Action in R. Allen Stanford\u2019s Ponzi Scam Not Barred by SLUSA &#8212; Investor Lawyers Blog &#8212; March 28, 2012","description":"In a reversal of a district court's decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act &#8212; March 28, 2012","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/texas-securities-fraud-state-l\/","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Texas Securities Fraud: State Law Class Action in R. Allen Stanford\u2019s Ponzi Scam Not Barred by SLUSA &#8212; Investor Lawyers Blog &#8212; March 28, 2012","twitter_description":"In a reversal of a district court's decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act &#8212; March 28, 2012","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shepherd Smith Edwards &amp; Kantas, LLP","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/texas-securities-fraud-state-l\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/texas-securities-fraud-state-l\/"},"author":{"name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards &amp; Kantas, LLP","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"headline":"Texas Securities Fraud: State Law Class Action in R. Allen Stanford\u2019s Ponzi Scam Not Barred by SLUSA","datePublished":"2012-03-28T18:01:26+00:00","dateModified":"2022-09-19T14:54:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/texas-securities-fraud-state-l\/"},"wordCount":574,"articleSection":["Class Action Lawsuits","Ponzi Scams","Texas Securities Fraud"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/texas-securities-fraud-state-l\/","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/texas-securities-fraud-state-l\/","name":"Texas Securities Fraud: State Law Class Action in R. Allen Stanford\u2019s Ponzi Scam Not Barred by SLUSA &#8212; Investor Lawyers Blog &#8212; March 28, 2012","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2012-03-28T18:01:26+00:00","dateModified":"2022-09-19T14:54:06+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"description":"In a reversal of a district court's decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act &#8212; March 28, 2012","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/texas-securities-fraud-state-l\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/texas-securities-fraud-state-l\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/texas-securities-fraud-state-l\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Texas Securities Fraud: State Law Class Action in R. Allen Stanford\u2019s Ponzi Scam Not Barred by SLUSA"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/","name":"Investor Lawyers Blog","description":"Published By Investment Fraud Attorneys \u2014 Shepherd Smith Edwards &amp; Kantas, LLP","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431","name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards &amp; Kantas, LLP","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Shepherd Smith Edwards &amp; Kantas, LLP"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pedX9K-gO","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1042","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1042"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1042\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28651,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1042\/revisions\/28651"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1042"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1042"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1042"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}