Las víctimas olvidadas de Stanford ahora disponible en español

Las víctimas olvidadas de Stanford, ahora disponible en español en:

Friday, October 17, 2014

Ponzi Receiver Can Go After Tiger's Charity

DALLAS (CN) - The court-appointed receiver for R. Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme can go after the Tiger Woods Foundation charity for $500,000 in alleged fraudulent transfers, a federal judge ruled.

 Ralph Janvey, a partner with Krage Janvey in Dallas, sued the Tiger Woods Foundation and Tiger Woods Charity Event Corp. in April. He claimed they received the money in two transfers from Stanford Capital Management LLC, Stanford Financial Group Co. and the Stanford Financial Group Building Inc. Janvey claimed the money was from " innocent, unwitting " Stanford investors.

 U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on Wednesday, finding that the charity could not prove Janvey's claims are time-barred.

 Godbey said the foundation relies on "far too many factual ambiguities" for its motion to be granted. 

Janvey's fraudulent transfer claim under Texas law has a 4-year statute of limitations; his unjust enrichment claim has a 2-year limit. "

The parties agree that the relevant date of reference here is December 13, 2013, the date on which the parties signed the tolling agreement," the 9-page order states. "Thus, the Receiver's [fraudulent transfer] claim is time barred if he could have discovered it before December 13, 2012, and the unjust enrichment claim is time barred if it accrued before December 13, 2011. The Receiver argues that because he pleads the discovery rule, an issue of fact exists as to when he discovered his causes of action and his complaint cannot be dismissed. The court agrees."

 The discovery rule under Janvey's fraudulent transfer claim gives plaintiffs a year to sue after the claim "could reasonably have been discovered by the claimant."

 "Application of the discovery rule is generally a fact-intensive issue inappropriate for resolution in a motion to dismiss," Godbey wrote. "Even once a plaintiff has been exposed to information that gives rise to a duty to inquire, whether the plaintiff has been diligent in making that inquiry is ultimately a question of fact" to be determined at trial.

 Godbey was not persuaded by the foundation's argument that Janvey failed to plead "diligence at all" in discovering the transfers.

 "This argument fails because, as discussed, the Receiver does allege diligence in discovering these transfers by claiming his team spent hours pouring over obscure financial records in order to identify actionable transfers," the order states. "Defendants take issue with the fact that the Receiver has not specifically contended that these particular transfers were concealed or difficult to discover. But, that would require too much of the complaint at the motion to dismiss stage."

 Godbey found that in a light most favorable for Janvey, it is "perfectly reasonable" to conclude that the "generally complex and obfuscated nature of the Stanford financial records made these particular transfers difficult to discover."

 The foundation did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.

 Janvey has aggressively tried to recover funds originating from the Ponzi scheme, filing approximately 50 lawsuits against recipients since his appointment, according to the Courthouse News database.

 His targets have included the Miami Heat basketball team, Texas A&M University, the University of Miami, the PGA Tour and the ATP Tour, among others.

Read More here:

For a full and open debate on the Stanford receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official Forum

Friday, October 10, 2014

Stanford Promises to Prove his Innocence and Repay Victims

To the Stanford International Bank depositors, and clients of the global Stanford Financial Group 

 As this is the first statement from me since the February 17, 2009 destruction of the global Stanford companies, and my imprisonment for allegedly operating a fraud that has been referred to as a "Ponzi scheme", I want to be direct, clear and emphatic. The actions taken by the U.S. government against me and my companies and that resulted in such harm to so many of you, was baseless, opportunistically contrived and, most importantly, unlawful. To many of you, and especially those of you who believe in and trust the accuracy and veracity of the American media machine, for now I will simply advise you of the series of legal actions taken by me in recent months and ask that you look at them on line, read them carefully and then follow their progress through the American legal system. In the coming days and weeks, as these legal initiatives make their way through the courts I will be posting a daily message on this site to keep informed those of you who have been harmed. 

Meanwhile, I want all of you to know, the many of you around the world who entrusted me and my companies with your investment monies, that it is my intent, and in fact my mission in this life, to restore my good reputation as an honest man, and to personally repay each and every one of you... in full ...each and every dollar that was so wrongfully taken from you by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The manner in which I intend to achieve this will be made clear in the coming weeks. 

Thank you,

 R. Allen Stanford

Read More here:

For a full and open debate on the Stanford receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official Forum

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Investor frustration peaking over stockbroker insurance

"The more you learn about what's going on down [on Wall Street], the more you learn is that it's not a safe place to invest," said Boston University economist Lawrence Kaltikoff.

You get blindsided in a wreck, and you expect your insurance company to pay.

 Your bank goes belly up, and you expect the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to reimburse your losses up to $250,000.

Your stock broker fails, and you expect the Securities Investor Protection Corporation to be good for your losses up to $500,000.

 But five years after Allen Stanford's $7 billion fraud on his investors, SIPC has paid them nothing.

 "I call Wall Street 'Fraud Street' these days," said Boston University economist Lawrence Kaltikoff. "Because the more you learn about what's going on down there, the more you learn is that it's not a safe place to invest."

 Not safe, he said, because the SIPC — which is supposed to protect investors when brokerages fail — has done nothing to protect the victims of Allen Stanford.

 "If SIPC wasn't behind Stanford, he never would have been able to run a business as he did," said Mary Oliver.

 She and scores of others went to Stanford's office in The Crescent office building in Dallas and invested their 401k money back in 2008. The seal of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation was on her broker's business card, and on the office door.

 The market was nervous, and SIPC insurance was a prime inducement to place her money with Stanford.

 Five years later, the SIPC claims all those Stanford losses aren't its problem. In fact, the SIPC says investors who lose money in some brokerage failures could actually owe money to the SIPC.

 In addition, this summer a federal appeals court upheld a ruling that what Allen Stanford sold investors weren't Wall Street securities, but certificates of deposit. Therefore, the SIPC should not be on the hook for the investor losses.

 It was all in the small print, the SIPC argued.

 "The Allen Stanford victims were supposed to read somewhere in 30 pages of documents when they signed up that their investments were [certificates of deposit], and not covered by SIPC," Kaltikoff said. "I think [the] SIPC should be ashamed of themselves. I would be embarrassed to be doing what they're doing.

 "I couldn't sleep at night to do that to people who've already been victimized," he added.

 Mary Oliver joined the Stanford Victims Coalition, which went to Washington to try to change the law. Their goal: To make SIPC more responsive to fraud, and to get some of their money back. 

House Bill 3482, which would do that, has been knocking around Congress for a year. It's been held up in the House Financial Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Dallas.

 Hensarling is a big recipient of campaign donations from the brokerage industry, which funds SIPC insurance through premiums. Those premiums could potentially go up if the SIPC were reformed.

 In the 2013-14 election cycle, Hensarling received $41,000 from two Wall Street brokerages alone. 

We asked him for an interview to discuss House Bill 3482. He was "unavailable."

 In a written statement, Hensarling said he sympathizes with the Stanford victims, but "concerns regarding SIPC's actions [...] are best addressed by the courts."

 He blamed the Stanford debacle on regulatory failures by the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

"When Congress reconvenes early next year, I expect there will be a renewed debate about the purpose and scope of SIPC," Hensarling said in the statement.

 It's been five years since the Stanford fraud came to light. So far, investors have received one penny for every dollar they've invested.

 None of it came from the SIPC.

Read More here:

For a full and open debate on the Stanford receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official Forum

Monday, October 6, 2014


R. Allen Stanford—the billionaire fraudster and cricket enthusiast—with some cricket players in 2008. Photo by Brian Smith/Corbis Outline

A former Securities and Exchange Commission official and his law firm sought millions of dollars in new legal business in 2006 from financier R. Allen Stanford—during the same period of time the law firm had agreed to defend Stanford before the SEC, despite warnings from the SEC’s ethics counsel that any such representation would be illegal.

 Stanford lavished lucrative legal business on former SEC enforcement officer Spencer C. Barasch and the Houston law firm of Andrews Kurth, where Barasch is a partner, to persuade them to defend him before the SEC. Initially, in 2005, Barasch and Andrews Kurth turned Stanford down when he asked them to represent him before the SEC, telling him that to do so would violate federal conflict-of-interest laws. In 2006, however, Barasch ignored the legal prohibition and agreed to do so anyway.
Confidential Andrews Kurth billing records show that in 2006, while Stanford was pressing Barasch and Andrews Kurth to defend him before the SEC, Stanford hired the law firm to represent him on seven other legal matters, adding an eighth in 2007. In addition, according to a former Andrews Kurth employee, Barasch told his fellow partners that they stood to earn as much as $2 million a year for defending Stanford before the SEC. Previously, Stanford had been only a relatively modest client for the law firm. Barasch and Andrews Kurth declined to comment for this story.

 As the former chief enforcement officer of the SEC’s Fort Worth regional office, Barasch had overseen the agency’s monitoring of Stanford’s bank and brokerages. Between 1998 and 2005, Barasch had personally quashed six separate investigations of Stanford, according to government records. Officials at the SEC finally approved its first formal investigation of Stanford exactly one day after Barasch left the agency; examiners whom Barasch had stymied for years acted knowing they might succeed once he was gone. In 2009, the SEC and Justice Department would charge Stanford with masterminding a $7 billion Ponzi scheme, the second-largest in American history.

 It was because of Barasch’s Stanford-related work at the SEC that Stanford wanted to hire Barasch so badly, according to interviews and records. Barasch had inside information on what had worked in the past to persuade his colleagues to shut down earlier investigations of Stanford. Barasch even boasted to one of Stanford’s top deputies about his access and influence with former colleagues he might be able to persuade once again, now from the outside, not to investigate the billionaire financier. Stanford was determined to do whatever he could to get Barasch “on board asap,” he wrote in an email to two of his deputies.

 The 2006 SEC investigation would go on to reveal that Stanford’s international banking empire was one built on a foundation of financial fraud, deception, and bribery. It would take more than a decade after SEC examiners first uncovered evidence that he was engaged in a Ponzi scheme for Stanford to face criminal charges brought by a federal grand jury and the SEC. Stanford would be convicted by a federal jury in June 2012 and sentenced to a 110-year term in federal prison.

 The new information in this story—that Stanford awarded Andrews Kurth with eight new legal representations while trying to persuade them to defend him before the SEC—provides the first explanation of why Barasch and Andrews Kurth would risk violating the law—and the consequences of doing so. A former employee of the firm told me that the prospect of lucrative legal work played a role in persuading some of the firm’s partners to ignore the law, and Andrews Kurth’s billing records, confidential emails, and other documents appear to partially confirm this.

Read the Full Article here:

For a full and open debate on the Stanford receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official Forum