Las víctimas olvidadas de Stanford ahora disponible en español

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

http://victimasolvidadasdestanford.blogspot.com/

Monday, June 20, 2016

Receiver files 14th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 1st Interim Distribution Plan

On June 17, 2016, the Receiver filed his 14th Schedule of distribution payments under the 1st Interim Distribution Plan with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 14th Schedule will be followed by others, each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis.

To view a copy of the 14th Schedule, please click here.


For a full and open debate on the Stanford receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official Forum http://sivg.org.ag/


Saturday, June 11, 2016

Grant Thornton Update to Creditors June 2016

In an effort to keep you informed, below are some of the actives the Joint Liquidators have been working on since the filing of our last report.

The Creditors Advisory Committee
The CAC has been re-formed and a meeting was held recently to discuss the current status of the liquidation and its future plans. Some of the salient initiatives are listed below.


TD Bank Litigation 
TD has filed its Amended Statement of Defense and the JLs are in the process of preparing and finalizing our Reply. Meanwhile, the estate is pushing for the commencement of production and discovery proceedings. We have also been working closely with US Class Counsel to advance and coordinate the bank claims.

 Law Firm Claims 
We are continuing to prosecute the claims against the law firms in Antigua. It is expected that hearings on the jurisdictional issues will be heard towards the end of this year

 HSBC Claims 
HSBC agreed to provide disclosure on an agreed list of requests. In our view this issue has not been fully complied with. It has also become clear that we need to examine individuals, a position to which HSBC has yet to agree. Our current tolling agreement extending the time for filing expires on 30 June. Thus, we are of the view that we need to invoke S236 for proper production and examination. We anticipate our request to be contested.

 Based on the information we have to date, we suspect that there were deficiencies in procedures by the bank and that certain “red flags” existed. We are working closely with our advisors to develop the case..........................


To view the full article, click Here.


For a full and open debate on the Stanford receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official Forum http://sivg.org.ag/


Saturday, May 7, 2016

Investors file second class action against law firm for alleged role in Stanford Ponzi scheme

Last week, victims of Robert Allen Stanford’s Ponzi scheme filed another class action lawsuit against the law firm that, they allege, helped the former chairman and CEO conceal the fraudulent scheme from government regulators.

The named plaintiffs, Sandra Dorrell and Phillip A. Wilkinson, both Texas residents, filed their complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, April 28.

The defendants include Proskauer Rose LLP, an international law firm that is headquartered in New York City and has 13 offices worldwide, and Thomas V. Sjoblom. Sjoblom was a partner at Proskauer from 2006 to 2009.

“All of the Plaintiffs and members of the putative class invested in the Stanford Financial Ponzi scheme by purchasing SIBL (Stanford International Bank Ltd.) CDs or placing their money in other investment accounts with SIBL,” the investors explained in their 96-page complaint. “Over the years that Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class purchased and maintained investments in SIBL, Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class were repeatedly and uniformly told, either directly by their Stanford Financial FAs or via Stanford Financial promotional materials, that, inter alia: (1) an investment in SIBL was safer than investing in U.S. banks because SIBL did not make loans but instead held its funds in a safe and highly liquid portfolio; (2) Stanford Financial was a U.S.-based business regulated by the U.S. Government; and (3) that an investment in SIBL was completely safe and secure because it was guaranteed and insured by Lloyd’s, was thoroughly regulated, was audited by an ‘outside’ audit firm and subjected to regular, ‘stringent’ risk management examinations.


To view the full article, click Here.


For a full and open debate on the Stanford receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official Forum http://sivg.org.ag/


Tuesday, May 3, 2016

Chadborne Pays $35M in Stanford Ponzi Suit; Proskauer Faces New Class Action

Two months after a federal appeals court rejected their case, investors who lost billions in a Ponzi scheme orchestrated by R. Allen Stanford have filed a brand-new class action against the company’s former outside counsel at Proskauer Rose.

The move comes as Chadbourne & Parke, which also once counted Antigua-based Stanford Group as a client, has agreed to pay $35 million to resolve parallel investor claims. (The settlement was first reported in February, but the size of the deal was not known.) If the settlement is approved, the funds, minus a contingency fee, will be distributed among investors who bought bogus Stanford CDs.

The new case against , meanwhile, landed Friday in federal district court in Dallas, claiming $5 billion in damages. Once again, the plaintiffs are looking to hold Proskauer responsible for the actions of its former partner, Thomas Sjoblom, who allegedly helped Stanford conceal his Ponzi scheme from regulators.

Sjoblom, who joined Proskauer from Chadbourne in 2006 and represented Stanford’s company while at both firms, is also named as a defendant.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the original case against Proskauer on March 10, following six years of litigation and two trips through the appeals courts. The panel found that, under Texas law, an attorney is shielded from liability if the alleged wrongdoing occurred while he was defending a client.

But according to Friday’s complaint, the Fifth Circuit’s decision also left open a narrow window for the plaintiffs to sue again under Texas’ Securities Act. Their 99-page complaint, filed by Edward Snyder of San Antonio-based Castillo Snyder and cocounsel Strasburger Price on behalf of a putative class of 21,000 Stanford investors, hopes to take advantage of that window..................


To view the full article, click Here.

For a full and open debate on the Stanford receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official Forum http://sivg.org.ag/