Continued from page 1

But he doesn’t think it will have wide-ranging impact on the handling of other Ponzi-type schemes.

Mr. Prickett said Ponzi schemes don’t tend to have the type of written agreements for “certificates of deposits” seen in the Stanford case.

“I think if people apply [the 5th Circuit opinion] based on its facts, it won’t have a ton of broader implications,” he said.

Mr. Stanford remains jailed awaiting trial on federal charges that he sold self-styled “certificate of deposits” that promised impossibly high returns but were said to be part of a Ponzi scheme that afforded Mr. Stanford a jet-setting lifestyle.