Las víctimas olvidadas de Stanford ahora disponible en español

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

http://victimasolvidadasdestanford.blogspot.com/

Monday, December 14, 2015

Latest Press Release from Grant Thornton December 2015

To view the December 2015 report from Grant Thornton which includes updates regarding Toronto Dominion, Credit Suiss, Claw backs and much more 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/


Friday, December 11, 2015

US Ambassador Disappointed in Nanes Shnitzer Bail Debacle

David Nanes Shnitzer was caught on San Pedro on November third, the day before General Elections. He was taken to court on November sixth and charged for uttering on a forged driver's license. He was remanded to prison and got ten thousand dollars Supreme Court bail two weeks later - despite the fact that his passport had been revoked two days earlier on November the 18th. He hasn't been seen since.

It's caused consternation in Mexico where authorities there wanted Nanes Shnitzer for defrauding investors of 42 million dollars. Mexico has a 2011 warrant for his arrest for unauthorized securities transactions. Belize was supposed to hold him until both sides could get through the paperwork to get him over to Mexico.

The Mexicans have made their displeasure known by sending the government of Belize two diplomatic notes of protest. But, what is lesser known is the involvement of the Americans. Their US Marshals are the ones who - working with San Pedro police - captured Nanes Shnitzer on San Pedro. They had reportedly been on the island for three weeks trying to track him down.

And that's probably because Nanes Shntizer was a part of the US based Allen Stanford Ponzi Scheme. Stanford was sentenced to 110 years in the US for defrauding investors of 7 billion dollars. 

So today when I had a chance to speak to the US Ambassador Carlos Moreno in Belmopan - I asked him what's the position of his embassy. The former judge said they are very disappointed:


Carlos Moreno, US Ambassador "
I don't have any details as to how it's being handle currently, but I can just say that as a judge for 25 years I am extremely disappointed that bail was set in such a low amount and that he was release with those conditions. It's clearly a case involving an indictment by the Mexican Department of Justice and not the United States. All we did was assist in making the connection between his false name and his true name. But that was the extent of our involvement. But again, based on my experience and the fugitive recovery over the years, he will be apprehended at some point and I think justice will ultimately be served."

Read more here.

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


Thursday, November 26, 2015

Texas Supreme Court will weigh in on the Allen Stanford litigation and the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act

The Texas Supreme Court is poised to consider a significant fraudulent transfer case stemming from the Allen Stanford Ponzi scheme. The origins of Janvey v. Golf Channel date back to 2009. In the wake of Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme, the Northern District of Texas appointed a receiver for Stanford and his related entities. The receiver sued the Golf Channel (among others), claiming the nearly $6 million Stanford paid for advertising was a fraudulent transfer under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“TUFTA”).


Read the Entire Article 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, November 21, 2015

Texas Justices Will Hear Key Ponzi Scheme Case In January

The Texas Supreme Court on Friday teed up a key legal question for oral argument in the R. Allen Stanford Ponzi scheme’s receiver’s quest to recover millions from The Golf Channel Inc. and other businesses paid by Stanford during his sprawling fraud.

The high court said it will hear oral argument in January on a certified question from the Fifth Circuit on what constitutes “value” under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. The answer will determine whether the market value of ads the now-defunct Stanford Financial...


To view the Entire Article, 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/


Friday, November 20, 2015

Receiver files 2nd Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 2nd Interim Distribution Plan

On November 19, 2015, the Receiver filed his 2nd Schedule of distribution payments under the 2nd Interim Distribution Plan with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 2nd 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 2nd 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/


Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Multi-billion lawsuit against TD Bank headed to trial

Stanford liquidators seeking damages of US$5.5 billion

The Superior Court of Justice — Ontario has dismissed a motion for summary judgment from Toronto-Dominion Bank, which sought to dismiss a multi-billion dollar claim against the bank by the liquidators of Stanford International Bank Ltd. (SIB).

According to the court's ruling on the motion, TD was SIB's main correspondent bank until the Antigua-based bank was exposed as a massive Ponzi scheme in 2009, and collapsed. In 2011, the liquidators commenced an action against TD on behalf of SIB and its customers, seeking damages of US$5.5 billion for alleged negligence and knowing assistance. Those allegations have not been proven.

"Essentially, the claim alleges that as SIB's correspondent bank from the 1990s to 2009, TD failed to act in accordance with the standard of care applicable to a reasonable banker," the motion decision says.

"The plaintiffs allege that TD failed to conduct proper due diligence before it started providing banking services to an Antiguan off-shore bank, and compounded its negligence by continuing to provide banking services to SIB for 20 years. They allege that TD ignored public information and red flags that should have led it to terminate SIB's access to TD's facilities, report the conduct of Stanford and others to the appropriate authorities, and/or freeze SIB's accounts," the decision says.

TD brought a motion seeking a summary judgment to dismiss the claim on the basis that it came after the two-year limitation period had expired. TD argued that the bank's previous liquidators ought to have known that SIB had a claim against TD before Aug. 22, 2009, based on the widespread publicity surrounding the case, among other things.

However, the court dismissed the motion, ruling that it could not determine, without a trial, when a possible claim against TD could have been discovered.

"The issue of when the former officeholders ought to have known that SIB had a potential claim against TD cannot be fairly adjudicated on this motion and is a genuine issue for trial," the decision says.

To View the Court Ruling 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, November 3, 2015

Law Firms, Banks Face Fallout from Stanford Ponzi Investors


For years, investors in R. Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme have been struggling to eke out any significant recoveries. But things are looking up for Stanford’s 21,000 global investors, not to mention for the lawyers representing them on a contingency basis.

Unable to knock out a series of investor suits, four banks and four former law firms that serviced Stanford's business empire are increasingly feeling the pressure from plaintiffs asserting billions of dollars in claims. As the defendants fight to overturn their courtroom losses—and to find out if they must face the plaintiffs as a class—counsel for the investors are now enjoying the advantage.

In early 2012, three years after the Stanford fraud was exposed, the investors’ position appeared far weaker. Court-appointed Stanford receiver Ralph Janvey and his counsel at Baker Botts had recovered just 3 cents for each dollar lost, with nearly half going toward professional fees. By contrast, in his first two years on the job, Irving Picard, the liquidation trustee for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, had already recovered $7.2 billion from the widow of Madoff investor Jeffry Picower, and $3 billion from others.

“We never had a Mrs. Picower,” said Butzel Long partner Peter Morgenstern, cocounsel in a Stanford investor class action against TD Bank, HSBC, Societe General and two smaller Texas banks that collectively processed billions of dollars of transactions for Stanford’s sham businesses.


Read the Entire Article Here.

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


Friday, October 30, 2015

Allen Stanford loses appeal



A U.S. appeals court on Thursday rejected Texas financier Robert Allen Stanford's bid to overturn his conviction and 110-year prison sentence for running what federal prosecutors called a $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans turned aside 10 arguments raised by Stanford. 

These included that he was not competent to stand trial, the government did not prove its case, the sentence was too long, and the trial judge was biased toward prosecutors, including by denying him a lawyer of his choice.

 "We find no evidence that the district court was partial to the government in derogation of Stanford's right to a fair trial under the Constitution," Circuit Judge Edith Brown Clement wrote for a three-judge panel.

Stanford represented himself in his appeal, after having retained more than a dozen lawyers over the course of his criminal case. He could not immediately be reached for comment.

Once considered a billionaire but later declared indigent, Stanford was convicted by a Houston federal jury in March 2012 on fraud, conspiracy and obstruction charges.

 Prosecutors said he ran a two-decade scam centered on the sale of fraudulent high-yielding certificates of deposit through his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank, and used investor funds to make risky investments and fund a lavish lifestyle.

 The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed related civil charges over Stanford's fraud, which authorities uncovered in 2009.

 A court-appointed receiver has been liquidating Stanford's companies. He and thousands of former Stanford investors have also pursued lawsuits against two New York law firms over their alleged dealings with Stanford.

 Now 65, Stanford is housed in the high-security Coleman II federal prison in Sumterville, Florida. He is not eligible for release before 2105, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

The case is U.S. v. Stanford, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-20411.

Read more Here.

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


Thursday, October 8, 2015

Former Stanford Financial executive found negligent

A Dallas federal civil court jury found that a former Stanford Financial Group executive failed to act in the best interests of the Antigua bank at the heart of a global, multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme. 

Losses worldwide were estimated at as much as $7 billion, with about $1 billion suffered by about 1,000 investors in the Baton Rouge, Lafayette and Covington areas.

 The jury in the civil case found that Patricia Maldonado, Stanford Financial’s treasury manager from 2000 to 2009, failed to protect the interests of Stanford International Bank Ltd. in connection with numerous improper transfers from customer accounts. Those transfers included more than $200 million funneled to a secret Swiss bank account that documents said convicted swindler Allen Stanford and his former Chief Financial Officer, James Davis, ultimately used to pay bribes to auditors and regulators. The transfers were part of a scheme that stole billions from investors in Baton Rouge and worldwide.

 The jury also concluded that Maldonado caused $50 million in damages to the bank by failing to protect its interests. 

It’s unclear whether Maldonado will have to cover any of those damages.

 Attorneys for Baker Botts LLP, who represent the bank’s court-appointed receiver, and Maldonado are in discussions, said Joseph F. Colvin Jr., one of Maldonado’s attorneys, who said he had no further comment.

 The bank sold certificates of deposit that Stanford and others told investors were as safe as CDs from a U.S. bank. But the money for the Stanford bank’s CDs paid for Allen Stanford’s lavish lifestyle. 

The Stanford Ponzi scheme was the second-largest in U.S. history. In these scams, early investors are paid dividends on their investments, but the payments usually come from a small portion of later investors’ money. As word of the fake profits spreads, more investors are sucked in, allowing the Ponzi criminals to pocket even more cash.

 Stanford was sentenced to 110 years in prison for his 2012 conviction. Last month, Stanford filed a lengthy appeal with the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.


Read more 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, October 6, 2015

High Court Won't Revive Stanford Victims' Claims Against SEC

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider an argument by victims of Robert Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme that the Eleventh Circuit’s decision shielding the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from a negligence suit gives the agency blanket immunity.

 The high court denied a June petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to overturn the Eleventh Circuit’s determination that a Florida district court correctly applied exceptions in the Federal Tort Claims Act to toss the proposed class action, which accused the SEC of failing to report the Stanford scheme despite having knowledge of its underpinnings through investigations since the late 1990s. The two victims told the justices that the decision oversteps the act’s intended purpose of protecting the SEC in its fulfillment of regulatory functions.

 “While immunity for core regulatory functions was the goal of the legislative scheme of the FTCA, decisions such as the Eleventh Circuit’s here would morph conduct-specific exceptions into agency-wide blanket immunity.” the petition said. “Further, by treating the exceptions as a jurisdictional matter and incrementally expanding the conduct purported to be covered by such exceptions, the Eleventh Circuit seeks to secure unprecedented immunity for the SEC.”

Read the entire article Here.

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


Thursday, October 1, 2015

Senate panel ponders if Stanford Ponzi scheme victims should be compensated


Sen. David Vitter, R-La., reiterated his dissatisfaction Wednesday with the Securities Investor Protection Corp. for failing to provide compensation for investors who bought fraudulent certificates of deposit from Texas businessman Allen Stanford.

 Vitter told a Senate subcommittee Thursday that many brokers "plaster the SIPC logo across their doors," offering assurances that they won't be victimized by a fraudulent investment.

 "Investors believe that if their broker dealer fails, SIPC will be there to help them," Vitter told the subcommittee. "I can tell you from experience watching the Stanford case, trying to help them however I can, that is just patently false."

 Vitter said thousands of Louisiana investors, many from Baton Rouge, were left in the cold when the SIPC rejected a request from the Securities & Exchange Commission to compensate the victims. 


Read the entire article Here.

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


Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Victims of Stanford Group still fight for their money

It’s been more than six years since federal agents stormed the offices of the Stanford Financial Group, and more than three years since Allen Stanford was convicted of running a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme. Back in 2009, Stanford’s victims, many of whom had lost their entire retirement savings, held public forums with their elected leaders and pleaded for someone, anyone, to make them whole again.

 The victims have been much quieter lately. A website belonging to the Stanford Victims Coalition seems not to have been updated in years, and it hosts a purported link to a Louisiana victims group that leads nowhere. Business Report tried to contact local victims who have spoken out in the past; they either did not return the call or declined to be interviewed, explaining that they’re burned out on talking about their plight.

 But the fight to obtain some sort of compensation for Stanford’s victims continues.

 “There’s a lot going on,” says Baton Rouge attorney Phil Preis, who is pursuing a class action on behalf of the victims. “I remain optimistic that, within the next six months to a year, there are going to be some major recoveries. I know a lot of people are spending a lot of time trying to make it happen.”

 There have been setbacks. Last year, a District of Columbia appellate court ruled that, unlike Bernie Madoff’s victims, people swindled by Stanford were not entitled to money from the industry-funded Securities Investor Protection Corp. because Stanford’s Antigua-based bank was not an SIPC member.

 But the Stanford Financial Receivership, headed by Dallas attorney Ralph Janvey, is fighting on many fronts. A number of those claims have been successful, although so far investors have received only a penny or two on the dollar, Preis says.

Read the full article Here.

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


Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Stanford Ponzi Investors Ordered to Return $2M

Two dozen investors in R. Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme must return approximately $2 million in profits they received, a Dallas federal judge ruled Tuesday.

 U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey granted in part court-appointed receiver Ralph S. Janvey's motions for partial summary judgment in six lawsuits filed in 2009 and 2010 against investors who received more money than what they invested.

 "The court previously granted the receiver's motion for summary judgment against similarly situated net-winner defendants," the 11-page order said. "The court found that the receiver had established Stanford operated a Ponzi scheme, and that the net-winner defendants had not provided 'value' to the Stanford entities for the interest payments they had received. Based on those conclusions, the court granted the receiver's motion as to net winner defendants whose interest payments had been factually established. The Fifth Circuit subsequently affirmed the court's orders."

 The appeals court ruled in Sept. 2014 that allowing net-winner investors to keep their profits would "further the debtors' fraudulent scheme at the expense of other" investors. It concluded that any recovery would be paid out of money "rightfully belonging" to the other victims of the Ponzi scheme, not from the Stanford entities' own assets "because they had no assets they could legitimately call their own."

 Relying on that ruling, Godbey wrote the defendants "have not suggested that the court's analysis should be any different here" regarding their alleged failure to provide "value" for the payments.

 The defendants include Anibal Morgado, David Morgado, and Vasco M. Diniz Morgado, who were ordered to return over $672,000. Chloee K. Poag and G. Dan Poag Jr. were ordered to repay over $247,000. The remaining individual defendants were ordered to repay $23,000 to $178,000.

 Godbey also ruled that Janvey cannot recover $181,000 from Joyce S. Erfurdt and T. Mark Kelly, having addressed their objections to the receiver's claims in a separate order.

 He also declined to order payment from George and Dolores Rollar, concluding there is still an unresolved issue of fact over whether Janvey acted diligently in serving them.

 Janvey has filed approximately 50 lawsuits against Stanford money recipients since his appointment.

Read more 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, September 19, 2015

Fifth Circuit Refuses Stanford Litigation Stay


Weary of waiting years for a court-appointed receiver to finish his job securing millions in assets connected to R. Allen Stanford's $7 billion dollar Ponzi scheme through federal court litigation, some of the imprisoned financier's victims would like to pursue their claims in Texas state courts.

But for the second time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has refused to grant a plaintiff's request to lift a litigation stay imposed over them five years ago by U.S. District Judge David Godbey of Dallas.

Godbey's stay halts state law claims against Stanford from proceeding, thereby protecting the assets a receiver he appointed is seeking to collect as part of federal civil litigation filed against Stanford by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2009.

The Sept. 16 decision in Rishmague v. Winter, prevents two separate cases from proceeding in state court in which plaintiffs allege they were harmed by Stanford who allegedly purported the CDs they bought at his bank were backed up by insurance when they weren't. Stanford is currently serving 110 years in prison after a Houston federal jury convicted him of numerous fraud allegations. More than 100 civil actions involving Stanford assets are pending before Godbey.

The plaintiffs in Rishmague asked Godbey to lift the stay, were refused, and they appealed his decision to the Fifth Circuit because "the receivership stay has been in place for five years with no end in sight," according to their appellate brief in the case.

In his decision, Judge Stephen Higginson noted that the court had previously denied other plaintiffs' attempts to lift Godbey's stay, noting that the trial court has broad authority to issue stays to preserve property placed into receivership pursuant to SEC actions. And he also noted that Godbey has more than a dozen Stanford receiver cases set for trial in the next year and half. [See "R. Allen Stanford Civil Litigation Hits the Stage," Texas Lawyer, Feb. 16, 2015."]

"We are mindful that four years have passed since that decision" first upholding Godbey's litigation stay, Higginson wrote. "At this time, however, as the district court continues to receive itself as well as coordinate and oversee extensive litigation, relating to asset recovery, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in declining to lift the litigation stay."

Kevin Sadler, a partner in the Palo Alto office of Baker Botts who represents receiver Ralph Janvey in the case, is pleased with the Fifth Circuit's decision upholding the litigation stay.

"The receiver continues to pursue numerous lawsuits to recover funds for the benefit of the more than 18,000 victims of the Stanford Ponzi scheme. Asset-recovery litigation is a very difficult and lengthy process," Sadler said. "The litigation stay affirmed by the Fifth Circuit's decision allows the receiver to continue to focus his efforts on these lawsuits against parties who aided or profited from the Stanford Ponzi scheme."

 Leslie Hyman, a partner in San Antonio's Pulman, Cappuccio, Pullen, Benson & Jones who represents the investor plaintiffs in the case, is disappointed in the Fifth Circuit's decision— given that Godbey has lifted the stay for investors seeking similarly situated claims against Stanford in federal court "and we're not being allowed to proceed in state court."

"Now he's lifted the stay as to investors suing in federal court as to investors suing in state court. And the Fifth Circuit said, apparently, that was fine," Hyman said of Godbey. "What we were hoping for was at the very least some guidance as to when it might be appropriate to lift the stay but they chose not to offer that guidance."

Read the entire article Here.

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


Thursday, September 17, 2015

Fifth Circuit to Allen Stanford victims: You’ll have to keep waiting


When Dallas lawyer Ralph Janvey was appointed receiver in the Allen Stanford fraud case in 2009, a federal judge in Dallas put in place an order blocking other cases that might interfere with Janvey’s efforts to claw back the $5.5 billion in deposits Stanford’s duped clients had invested.

 Four years ago, plaintiffs sought to have that stay lifted, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal judge overseeing the cases in Dallas had “broad authority” to issue the stay and refused to lift it.

 Today, a second challenge was similarly rejected, even as the appeals court conceded that the wheels of justice in the Stanford cases are moving very slowly.

 The appellate court’s reason: While it’s been a very long time, Janvey is still pursuing his cases and, absent evidence that the abused his discretion, it’s his call as to whether to keep the stay in place. 

“Emphasizing the district court’s ‘broad authority to issue blanket stays of litigation to preserve the property placed in receivership pursuant to SEC actions,’ this court previously upheld this same litigation stay against similar challenges. We are mindful that four years have passed since that decision. At this time, however, as the district court continues to receive itself as well as coordinate and oversee extensive litigation, relating to asset recovery, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in declining to lift the litigation stay.”


View the Fifth Circuit s District Court Ruling on Litigation Stay HERE: 

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


Friday, September 4, 2015

Court Rules on Net Winners & Preference Creditors


For a copy of the court ruling, 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/


Thursday, August 6, 2015

Fifth Circuit Vacates Golf Channel Opinion and Seeks Guidance from Texas Supreme Court

On June 30, 2015, the Fifth Circuit vacated its March 11, 2015 opinion in the Golf Channel case and asked the Texas Supreme Court for guidance regarding the meaning of “reasonably equivalent value” as that term is used in the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Briefing in the Texas Supreme Court will begin on September 16, 2015. The Fifth Circuit case is stayed pending completion of the proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court.

For a copy of the Fifth Circuit’s order, 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/


Monday, July 27, 2015

Ponzi schemer Allen Stanford's victims wait for outcome of US federal appeal

HOUSTON, USA -- Those observers who have been following Allen Stanford's $7 billion Stanford International Bank Ponzi scheme, with the resulting 110-year sentence imposed upon him, are awaiting an opinion by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is handling Stanford's criminal appeal.

The appellant's reply brief was filed back in March, but the Court has not yet made it ruling on the sentence and conviction.

Though Stanford requested oral argument, and the US government argued none was necessary, the Court has not assigned the appeal to the oral argument calendar, and since three-quarters of Federal criminal appeals are decided without hearing oral argument, it is probable that it will not be approved. Stanford appears to have an uphill battle in his case, as statistically only around five percent of such appeals are reversed.


 If his conviction and sentence are affirmed, Stanford's release date will remain April 17, 2105, ninety years from now. He is presently serving his sentence at USP Coleman, in Florida. Although it is little consolation to those investors who lost everything due to Stanford's massive fraud, he will not live to the age of 155, to be released back into the community.

Read more Here.

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


Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Receiver files 12th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 1st Interim Distribution Plan

Receiver files 12th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 1st Interim Distribution Plan.

On July 21, 2015, the Receiver filed his 12th 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 12th Schedule will be followed by others, each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis as additional responses to Certification Notices are received and processed.

To view a copy of the 12th 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/


Thursday, July 16, 2015

Litigator of the Week: Gold and Coin Wholesaler Wins Take-Nothing Verdict in Stanford Litigation


An Addison-based coin and gold wholesaler won a take-nothing verdict in a fraud case involving ongoing Stanford litigation.

With the favorable outcome on July 10, the wholesale company, Dillon Gage, successfully fought back against a $5.1 million clawback claim. The receiver, who represents claimants who lost assets with R. Allen Stanford's Ponzi scheme, had filed the lawsuit against Dillon Gage.

Orrin Harrison, who represents Dillon Gage, worked hard during a trial to unlink in jurors' minds any relationship between Stanford's Ponzi scheme and his client's customer.

"We were able to show that our customer was not part of the Ponzi scheme," said Harrison, of Gruber Hurst Elrod Johansen Hail Shank.

Stanford, a Houston financier behind the Ponzi scheme, was sentenced to 110 years in federal prison after his 2012 fraud conviction.

 In a complaint, Ralph Janvey, the receiver for Stanford International Bank, alleged that Stanford Coins and Bullion made $5,120,155.67 in payments to Dillon Gage with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud one or more of its creditors. In addition, Janvey alleged that when Dillon Gage accepted those transfers, it had been notified that Stanford Coins and Bullion was "diverting customer money to try to stay afloat."

 In its answer and at trial, Dillon Gage denied the allegations. A pivotal jury charge instructed the jurors that a debtor's mere intention to prefer one creditor over another did not indicate fraud.

Kevin Sadler, a partner in Baker Botts' Palo Alto office, who represents Janvey, did not return a call for this story.

 "The receiver has done a great job of shutting Stanford down and seeing fraud under every rock," Harrison recalled telling jurors at his closing. But the dynamics between his client and Stanford Bullion and Coins were nothing more than "playing the float," he told the panel members. He compared Dillon Gage's customer's action to paying off one credit card using funds available from another card.

 In less than four hours of deliberations, the jurors agreed, 7-0, with Harrison's characterization—enough at least to issue the take-nothing verdict.

Read more Here.

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


Thursday, July 9, 2015

SCOTX to Take Swing at Stanford Litigation Involving the Golf Channel


The attempts to recover $7 billion R. Allen Stanford took in his massive Ponzi scheme has required six years of claw-back litigation in a Dallas U.S. district court, numerous decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and even an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 And now the Texas Supreme Court is likely to weigh in on a question in the case that could determine whether several companies who unwittingly did about $40 million in business with the former Houston financier will to have to give the money back to a court-appointed receiver.

Stanford was sentenced to 110 years in federal prison after a jury convicted him of fraud in 2012.

In March, the Fifth Circuit handed a big victory to Ralph Janvey in Janvey v. Golf Channel, by allowing the court-appointed receiver to recover nearly $6 million Stanford paid the Golf Channel to promote his golf tournament under the Texas Uniform Transfer Act (TUFTA).


Read the entire article Here.

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


Thursday, June 25, 2015

Fifth Circuit Holds that “Value” under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Statute Requires a Showing of Value to the Transferor’s Creditors Where the Transferor Operated a Ponzi Scheme

In its decision in Janvey v. The Golf Channel, 2015 WL 1058022 (5th Cir. 2015), the Fifth Circuit reiterated its requirement that value for purposes of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act requires a showing of value to the transferor’s creditors where the transferor was operating a Ponzi scheme. The facts in the case were undisputed. Stanford International Bank operated a Ponzi scheme over the course of many years. In order to increase its name recognition, Stanford decided to sponsor the St. Jude’s Championship, a golf tournament broadcast on The Golf Channel. The Golf Channel offered Stanford an advertising package which included a range of marketing services, and for which Stanford paid The Golf Channel $5,900,000 by the time it was placed into receivership. The receiver sued to recover these payments on the grounds that they were fraudulent transfers.

 In light of established Fifth Circuit precedent providing that transfers made by the perpetrator of a Ponzi scheme are fraudulent for purposes of the UFTA, the parties stipulated that the payments by Stanford to The Golf Channel were fraudulent. The parties also stipulated that The Golf Channel acted in good faith in accepting the payments. Consequently, the only issue in the dispute was whether, in providing advertising and marketing services to Stanford, The Golf Channel gave reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the payments.

 In finding that The Golf Channel did not give reasonably equivalent value, the court held that the market value of the marketing and advertising services failed to meet the standards for “value” under the statute. The court held that “value,” for purposes of the UFTA is measured “from the standpoint of the creditors, not from that of a buyer in the marketplace.” Further, the court held that services—even legitimate services provided by an entity which has no knowledge of the fraudulent scheme—which further the scheme, have no value as a matter of law. When dealing with a Ponzi scheme, which is inherently illegitimate and insolvent from its inception, the court stated that the “primary consideration . . . is the degree to which the transferor’s net worth is preserved.” As a result, the fact that The Golf Channel’s services would have been valuable to legitimate businesses in the marketplace was of no moment. In the context of a Ponzi scheme, they had no value as a matter of law.

Read more Here.

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


Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Big U.S. law firms must face Stanford receiver's Ponzi lawsuit

* Chadbourne & Parke, Proskauer must face malpractice claims

* Allen Stanford receiver claimed that law firms aided fraud By Jonathan Stempel

 June 24 (Reuters) - Two large New York law firms failed to persuade a federal judge to throw out a malpractice lawsuit seeking to force them to pay creditors of imprisoned swindler Allen Stanford for aiding the Texas financier's $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme.

 U.S. District Judge David Godbey in Dallas on Tuesday said Chadbourne & Parke and Proskauer Rose must face most claims brought by Ralph Janvey, a court-appointed receiver liquidating Stanford's companies, and a committee of Stanford investors helping him recover money for creditors.

 Stanford, 65, is serving a 110-year prison term following his March 2012 conviction for scheming to sell fraudulent high-yielding certificates of deposit through his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank. Prosecutors said he used customer funds to make risky investments and fund a lavish lifestyle. 

Janvey claimed that Chadbourne and Proskauer should be held liable because Thomas Sjoblom, a lawyer who worked at both firms, allegedly obstructed investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators into Stanford, and helped hide the SEC probe from Stanford's auditor.

 Godbey said the receiver may pursue several claims including professional negligence, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent supervision and civil conspiracy.

 The allegations suggest that Sjoblom "was aware that Stanford was engaged in a fraudulent enterprise, and that the enterprise was very possibly a Ponzi scheme," the judge wrote. "Because Sjoblom's knowledge is imputed to both Chadbourne and Proskauer, plaintiffs have alleged that all defendants were aware of sufficient wrongdoing on Stanford's part."

 Godbey dismissed a claim alleging aiding and abetting fraudulent transfers, saying Texas law would not recognize it.

 Chadbourne, Proskauer, a lawyer for Sjoblom, and a lawyer for Janvey did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

 Ed Snyder, a lawyer for the investor committee, said he is pleased with the decision.

 Janvey's lawsuit is separate from a proposed class action by roughly 18,000 former Stanford investors against the two law firms. Godbey in March refused to dismiss that lawsuit, and Chadbourne and Proskauer are appealing.

 The Ponzi scheme was uncovered in 2009. Stanford is appealing his conviction, and had during the course of his defense claimed he was indigent.

 The case is Janvey et al v. Proskauer Rose et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, No. 13-00477. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Andrea Ricci)

Read more 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, June 9, 2015

Ex-Stanford Execs' Convictions Upheld By 5th Circ.

Errors committed by a judge in the trial of two former Stanford Financial Group executives sentenced to 20 years in prison for their roles in Robert Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme were ultimately harmless, the Fifth Circuit ruled Friday.

 Former Stanford Financial Group execs Mark Kuhrt, left, and Gilbert Lopez were convicted for their roles in Robert Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme. (Credit: AP) A three-judge appeals court panel in a published opinion affirmed the 2013 convictions of Gilbert T. Lopez Jr., the former chief accounting...

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/


Wednesday, June 3, 2015

Monday, June 1, 2015

Stanford Financial Group Receivership and SIB Liquidation… Hope, punishment, or fraud?


Six years and three months have passed since Stanford’s debacle destroyed the lives of 21,739 innocent families around the world when on February 17, 2009, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) abruptly seized Stanford Financial Group in the United States.

The largest group is Latin American families with 15,270 victims representing 70% of the total depositors in the Stanford International Bank, Ltd. (“SIBL”) and more than $4 billion in losses. Depositors from the United States are the second largest group. These families entrusted their savings to a company belonging to an American conglomerate regulated and supervised by the U.S. Government.

The majority of Stanford’s depositors are modest people; many are elderly, ill, close to retirement, or families with special needs children. All are unable to pay for their critical medical treatments and living expenses. A great number continue to die while waiting in vain for even a small portion of their savings to be returned in time for life-saving operations, or treatment of cancer, and other life-threatening diseases.

 The reality is that injustice continues for these victims as the U.S. Receiver for the Stanford Financial Group and the Joint Liquidators for SIBL in Antigua insatiably persist in generating fees and expenses for themselves, their attorneys, and other professionals, the sole beneficiaries so far, charging millions of dollars.

 The U.S. Receiver, Ralph Janvey has “recovered” approximately $240.9 million as of December 31, 2013, and spent more than $127.5 million in fees and expenses. Mr. Janvey’s accomplishments in the recollection of assets for the depositor’s distribution fund have been lacking. According to Examiner John Little, “The Receiver and his professionals have not identified any significant Stanford assets or accounts that were not identified in the earliest days of the Receivership.” In contrast, Irving Picard, the trustee unwinding Bernard Madoff’s fraud has recovered more than $10.6 billion for victims. That is 60% of the $17 billion in principal lost by thousands of investors in Madoff’s investment advisory business...............................................


Read the Full Article 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 26, 2015

Stanford Ponzi Receiver Sues State Department

The receiver for R. Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme demands documents from the State Department and Customs as he hunts for $16.4 million in fraudulent transfers.

 Ralph Janvey filed motions to compel the two agencies to deliver records on forrmer Stanford insiders David Miguel Nanes and wife Hasibe Elizabeth Ancona. His May 21 motion in Federal Court seeks their passport records and any contact information on file.

Stanford was convicted in 2012 in Houston of selling phony certificates of deposit. He is serving 110 years in federal prison.

 "The Receiver believes that Mr. Nanes and Ms. Ancona have both possession and knowledge of the location of several million dollars that Mr. Nanes and his companies received as fraudulent transfers from the Stanford Ponzi scheme," the 20-page motion to compel the State Department states. "Indeed, the receiver has a judgment against Mr. Nanes's company, Wealth Management Services, Ltd., in a separate lawsuit for over $9.8 million in fraudulent transfers."...................


Read the Full Article 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 19, 2015

Two Recent Decisions Potentially Expand Fraudulent Transfer Exposure in Ponzi Schemes

Two recent decisions from the Fifth Circuit and Eighth Circuit could expand the fraudulent transfer exposure of unknowing third parties that provide goods, services, or funding to companies operating Ponzi schemes.

 Janvey v. The Golf Channel 

 The Fifth Circuit's recent decision in Janvey v. The Golf Channel, Inc., if followed by courts in other circuits, could leave many unknowing vendors and service providers in Ponzi scheme cases without a defense to fraudulent transfer claims by a trustee or receiver. 

The decision arises from the highly-publicized, multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Allen Stanford. In 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil enforcement action in the Northern District of Texas, obtained a freeze of all assets of Stanford International Bank, Ltd. ("Stanford") and its affiliates, and requested the appointment of Ralph S. Janvey as receiver ("Receiver"), which the district court granted.

 Advertising provided no value to creditors, transfers recoverable by receiver

 Stanford had paid The Golf Channel, Inc. ("Golf Channel") a total of $5.9 million for advertising and other promotional services related to Stanford's sponsorship of a PGA Tour event held in Memphis, Tennessee.........


Read the Full Article Here:

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


Monday, May 18, 2015

US firms pay $2.7m in settlement over Ponzi schemes

The two Louisiana firms have not admitted liability but have agreed to pay at least $1m each to settle claims that their conduct helped jailed former billionaire Allen Stanford operate a gigantic Ponzi scheme. 

 Adams and Reese is paying $1m while Breazeale Sachse & Wilson will pay $1.7m. The claims were brought by an investors committee and a court-appointed receiver. The two firms are reported to have written opinion letters about the operations of Mr Stansford's scheme.

 Best interest 

 While neither practice accepted any liability, Breazeale's managing partner Scott Hensgens commented: 'However, after years of protracted litigation, we felt it was in the best interest of the firm to settle this matter.


Read More 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 16, 2015

BDO settles Stanford litigation for $40M

BDO USA LLP, one of the world’s largest accounting firms, has agreed to pay $40 million to settle claims brought by thousands of investors who lost money in R. Allen Stanford’s Ponzi scheme. 

Lawyers for the receiver appointed to recover money lost in the $7 billion international fraud scheme and attorneys for about 20,000 investors, many of whom lost their life savings, disclosed the settlement Friday in a Dallas federal court filing. They asked the court to approve the deal.

 “It’s really the first significant settlement for the victims after six years,” said Edward Valdespino, a lawyer with San Antonio’s Strasburger & Price LLP, one of the law firms representing investors. Before this settlement, he believes the biggest award for victims had been about $5 million.

 BDO made no admission of wrongdoing in the settlement. In a statement, it said the settlement made the most sense given its insurance coverage and the costs associated with litigation...............


Read the Full Article Here:

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


Thursday, May 14, 2015

Law Firms Pay $5M for Stanford Ponzi

DALLAS (CN) - Two Louisiana law firms will pay $5 million to settle claims they referred clients to R. Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme and gave fake opinions to Antiguan banking authorities. 

A proposed class of Stanford investors sued New Orleans-based Adams & Reese, Baton Rouge-based Breazeale Sachse & Wilson and several individuals in Federal Court in 2011.

 Court-appointed receiver Ralph Janvey filed a second suit in 2012, accusing the defendants of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting.

 Janvey also sued Adams & Reese attorneys Robert Schmidt and James Austin, Breazeale Sachse & Wilson attorney Claude Reynaud and Stanford Trust Co. directors Cordell Haymon and Thomas Frazier.

 Janvey said the defendant law firms "embarked on their own campaign to enrich themselves at their other clients' expense," and that while providing legal services to Stanford Financial, they referred their own clients to Stanford ...................


Read the Full Article Here:

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


Friday, May 1, 2015

Ad Funds Paid to Network Recoverable as Fraudulent Transfer

Fraudulent transfer statutes like the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA) generally provide an affirmative defense for transferees who can prove that they accepted a transfer in good faith and gave the debtor "reasonably equivalent value" in return. In the context of a failed Ponzi scheme, this defense may fall short if the goods or services provided by the transferee served to perpetuate the scheme in some way. In Janvey v. Golf Channel, 780 F.3d 641 (5th Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered whether approximately $5.9 million in advertising fees accepted in good faith by the Golf Channel Inc. could be recovered as a fraudulent transfer by the court-appointed receiver of the failed Stanford International Bank Ponzi scheme.

A three-judge panel of the court clarified that the threshold question of whether "value" was given under TUFTA must be answered from the standpoint of creditors, rather than from a market perspective, and held that "services furthering a debtor's Ponzi scheme provide no value to the debtor's creditors" as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court rejected Golf Channel's affirmative defense, reversed the district court's dismissal of the receiver's complaint, and rendered judgment in favor of the receiver....................



Read the Full Article Here:

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


Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Judge allows case against Stanford banks to go on

A federal judge in Dallas has upheld most of the claims in a major lawsuit against five banks accused of playing a role in Texas financier Allen Stanford's massive Ponzi scheme.

Tuesday's ruling by U.S. District Judge David Godbey means the suit filed in 2009 on behalf of thousands of Stanford victims can proceed against the banks, which include HSBC, Societe Generale, Toronto Dominion Bank, Trustmark National Bank and the Bank of Houston. The suit accuses the banks of playing "an essential role" in the $7 billion fraud, which each bank has denied.

While Godbey threw out some of the claims the victims were pursuing under Texas state law, the ruling allows the bulk of the case to move forward in federal court. That is important to the more than 20,000 Stanford victims, because unlike victims of the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme uncovered just two months earlier, they have recovered almost nothing. Also, while the Justice Department and federal authorities reached a $2 billion settlement last year with Madoff's primary banker, JPMorgan Chase, they have thus far declined to pursue similar cases against Stanford's bankers. That means that for Stanford's victims, this civil case may be one of their last remaining hopes for a meaningful recovery.

Read the court Ruling 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, April 21, 2015

Stanford Investors Suing Proskauer, Chadbourne Seek Cert.

Investors accusing Chadbourne & Parke LLP, Proskauer Rose LLP, two insurance brokers and a financial services firm of aiding Robert Allen Stanford’s Ponzi scheme urged a Texas federal judge on Monday to grant class certification in their malpractice action.

Investors led by Mexican citizen Samuel Troice argued that from at least 1988 until 2009 Stanford engaged in a common course of conduct and uniform scheme to dodge the federal government’s banking and securities laws. Stanford uniformly failed to disclose his illegal conduct or tell investors that...

Read the entire article 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, April 18, 2015

Ex-Diplomat Can't Ditch Order To Return Stanford Ponzi Funds

A Texas federal judge on Wednesday denied a former ambassador to Ecuador's post-trial request and entered final judgment ordering the accused insider of Robert Allen Stanford's Ponzi scheme to pay more than $950,000 to the receiver for accepting fraudulent transfers.

In denying former high-ranking diplomat Peter Romero’s request for judgment as a matter of law, Judge David C. Godbey ruled there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s unanimous February verdict that the court-appointed receiver for Stanford’s companies and victims made timely claims under a Texas state...

Read the entire article Here:

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


Thursday, April 16, 2015

Kachroo Legal Services Update Regarding Zelaya v SEC

Dear KLS Stanford Clients:

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Decision In Action Against SEC

As you are aware from our previous updates, KLS filed its appellate brief in Zelaya, et al. v. United States of America, the class action brought against the SEC for negligently failing to act on available information to prevent the Stanford Ponzi scheme. After an intense oral argument on September 11, 2014, the Court of Appeals handed down its decision today, March 30, 2015. A copy of the judgment is attached.

In its decision, the Court notes that the SEC’s failure to act was.......................

Read Kachroo Legal Services Update Here:

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


Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Stanford Receiver Argues Firms Can't See Class Cert. Data

The receiver overseeing assets in the Robert Allen Stanford bank deposit Ponzi scheme told a Dallas federal judge Monday that Chadbourne & Parke LLP and Proskauer Rose LLP, accused of malpractice by Stanford investors, have no immediate right to data such as names and contact information about potential class members.

Receiver Ralph S. Janvey's filing before U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey is part of a potentially high-stakes discovery fight as the sides tussle over whether a class of plaintiffs should be certified in claims targeting...

Read the entire article Here:

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


Monday, March 30, 2015

U.S. not liable for alleged SEC negligence in Stanford fraud: court

Allen Stanford (C) leaves the Federal Courthouse where the jury found him guilty, in Houston March 6, 2012
A federal appeals court said on Monday the United States is not liable to victims of Allen Stanford's fraud who claimed that the Securities and Exchange Commission was incompetent for having taken too long to uncover the swindler's $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme.

A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Miami said the government is entitled to sovereign immunity.

Stanford's victims accused the SEC of negligence for having waited until 2009 to uncover the Ponzi scheme, despite having had evidence of it as early as 1997.

But the court said the SEC had discretion to decide how to enforce securities laws, and could not be liable for certain misrepresentations. It said this justified shielding it from claims raised by the victims under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

"We reach no conclusions as to the SEC's conduct, or whether the latter's actions deserve plaintiffs' condemnation," Circuit Judge Julie Carnes wrote for a three-judge panel. "We do, however, conclude that the United States is shielded from liability for the SEC's alleged negligence."

Victims claimed that the SEC thought Stanford's business was a fraud after each of four examinations between 1997 and 2004, but failed to advise the Securities Investor Protection Corp, which compensates victims of failed brokerages.

The plaintiffs were led by Carlos Zelaya and George Glantz, who claimed to lose a combined $1.65 million, and sought class-action status. Monday's decision upheld rulings in 2013 by U.S. District Judge Robert Scola in Miami.

Gaytri Kachroo, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 

The U.S. Department of Justice, which represented the SEC in the appeal, did not immediately respond to similar requests.

In 2013, federal appeals courts in New York, Philadelphia and Pasadena, California, dismissed lawsuits accusing the SEC of incompetence in investigating Bernard Madoff.

Stanford, 65, is appealing his March 2012 conviction and 110-year prison term for what prosecutors called a scam centered on his sale of fraudulent high-yielding certificates of deposit through his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank.

The SEC's inspector general in 2010 criticized the regulator for being too slow to uncover Stanford's fraud.

The case is Zelaya et al. v. U.S., 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 13-14780.

Read more Here:

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


Allen Stanford receiver’s case against former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes delayed; settlement talks likely underway

Former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes was expected to testify later this week at a federal trial in Dallas. That trial has been taken off the calendar as the parties are reportedly deep into settlement talks. Photo of Barnes in his Washington office by Michael A. Lindenberger

The civil case against former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes was slated to begin today in federal court in Dallas, but it’s been put on hold as attorneys for him and the court-appointed receiver in the Allen Stanford case discuss a settlement.

No settlement papers have been filed with the court, but an attorney for the receiver said this morning the case has been postponed. A clerk in U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey confirmed this morning that the case has been taken off the trial calendar, something she said only happens if settlement talks are very serious. She said the parties called last week to have the case taken off the calendar.

Barnes, 76, was Speaker of the Texas House by the time he was 26, and was lieutenant governor — and arguably the most powerful leader in Texas — before he was 30. LBJ thought he’d be president someday, though those expectations ended after a 1972 bid for governor collapsed. Since then, he’s made millions in real estate, survived an early bankruptcy, and emerged in the past 25 years as one of the state’s leading peddlers of counsel, influence and access. A former director of American Airlines and other large companies, he’s also been a prolific donor to political campaigns. He maintains offices in Austin and in Washington.

But 50 years after fist winning the Speaker’s gavel in 1965, he has for the past year been facing the prospect of a trial in Dallas over more than $5 million in fees paid to his firm by disgraced ex-billionaire Allen Stanford...................

Read the entire article 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, March 28, 2015

Golf Channel Wants Mulligan On $6M Stanford Suit

TGC LLC, doing business as Golf Channel, asked the Fifth Circuit on Wednesday to rehear its decision that the receiver for R. Allen Stanford’s Ponzi scheme could sue the sports channel for about $6 million, arguing that a previous ruling by the appeals court is at odds with the decision.

Golf Channel challenged a March 11 opinion finding that the Stanford receiver could attempt to claw back $5.9 million paid by a Stanford International Bank Ltd. unit as part of a two-year media contract because the...

Read the entire article Here:

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


Thursday, March 26, 2015

Stanford-Related Fraud Class Sees Some Claims Trimmed

A Texas federal judge on Monday trimmed back class claims stemming from Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme against attorneys and directors accused of aiding and abetting in a breach of fiduciary duty and a fraudulent scheme, among other allegations, saying that some of the claims were time-barred.

The class plaintiffs allege that numerous attorneys and former Stanford executives contributed to the sale of more than $7.2 billion in sham certificates of deposit from the mid 1980s until 2009, but Judge David C. Godbey ruled that...

Read the entire article Here:

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


Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Chadbourne, Proskauer Renew Bid For Class Info In Ponzi Suit

Chadbourne & Parke LLP and Proskauer Rose LLP are redoubling their fight for documents in the possession of the receiver for Allen Stanford's Ponzi scheme that they say will reveal important information about a proposed class of plaintiffs suing the law firms for malpractice.

 The two law firms, defendants in a suit brought by victims of Robert Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme, say receiver Ralph Janvey should have to give them information about who is in the class.

 “To date, defendants have received no discovery...


Read the Full Article here


Thursday, March 12, 2015

Client Update March 2015 Zelaya v United States



Read Read more Here:

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


5th Circ. Says Golf Channel Can't Dodge $6M Stanford Suit

The Fifth Circuit on Wednesday said Golf Channel Inc. can be sued for about $6 million by the receiver for R. Allen Stanford's Ponzi scheme because the channel did not provide reasonably equivalent value for ads that Stanford bought, potentially paving the way for dozens of similar clawback suits.

 Golf Channel contends the $5.9 million it received from Stanford's businesses was payment for media services the network performed under contracts that had nothing to do with the Ponzi scheme and therefore was not a fraudulent transfer...


Read the Full Article here including Janvey's lawsuit against the Golf Channel


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


Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Grant Thornton to Issue Claims Cheques Directly

For future reference all payments will be issued by cheque direct from Grant Thornton and sent to the registered address of the claim victim.

 Marcus has been made aware of all the problems that victims have had in receiving payments from ItalBank and in light of all the complaints has decided to sever Grant Thornton’s original arrangement to have payments sent through ItalBank.

 The initial concept was because of the problems experienced mainly by the Latin American victims who were not receiving payments coming from Gilardi on behalf of the payment schedules from Ralf Janvey.

 It was thought that working with ItalBank (a Latin American Based Bank) and allowing the Latin American victims to be able to open accounts for their payments would help address and solve the problem. Unfortunately this was not the case and ItalBank seemed to have created more problems than they solved.

 Marcus Wide has asked that any victim that has experienced difficulty in receiving their payments should make Grant Thorton aware of their problems and Grant Thornton will check the claims and where payment has not been received, they will remedy this oversight.

 Please do not waste time and money by making spurious claims that have already been paid, but genuine oversights by ItalBank will be addressed and oversights rectified.

 Marcus Wide has made his personal email address available so that he can monitor and have knowledge of the problems.

 All outstanding – unpaid – claims should be sent to either

 marcus.wide@uk.gt.com or Stanford.enquiries@uk.gt.com


Read Read more 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, March 10, 2015

Chadbourne Loses Discovery Bid In Stanford Ponzi Suit

A Texas magistrate judge on Monday denied a bid by Chadbourne & Parke LLP to force the receiver in a suit brought by victims of Robert Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme to turn over the identities, residences and citizenship of the proposed class members, among other information. Proskauer Rose LLP and Chadbourne had filed the motion after Chadbourne subpoenaed the receiver in November, requesting him to produce documents they claim are critical to its analysis of the proposed class certification. But U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy...


Read The Full Article Here:

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


Ex-Stanford Workers Can't Force Arbitration, SEC Tells Court

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday asked the Fifth Circuit to find that former employees of convicted Ponzi schemer Robert Allen Stanford cannot arbitrate $215 million in claims brought by the receiver for the fraudster’s various entities, saying arbitration would undermine the reasoning behind receivership.

 In an amicus curiae brief, the SEC said that while there is a strong public policy in favor of arbitration, the Supreme Court has found that when mandatory arbitration conflicts with the fundamental purposes of another statutory scheme, courts...


Read The Full Article Here:

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


Thursday, March 5, 2015

Stanford Receiver Wins First Fraudulent Transfer Jury Trial

In the Northern District of Texas, in mid-February, a jury handed down the first verdict in a fraudulent transfer case arising from the Robert Allen Stanford Ponzi scheme. Second only to Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme in sheer scope and alleged losses, Stanford’s scheme purportedly cost defrauded investors over $7 billion before it finally unraveled in 2009. Stanford had offered investors high rates of return on supposedly secure certificates of deposit through Stanford International Bank and a Byzantine web of other, related international financial institutions. The litigation overseen by Ralph Janvey, the Receiver appointed to unwind Stanford’s illegitimate empire and recover funds for defrauded investors, has resulted in a Supreme Court decision (Chadbourne & Park LLP v. Troice), dozens of reported cases, and scandalous allegations about the SEC’s diligence in investigating Stanford; however, until now, there have been no jury verdicts requiring those who purportedly received ill-gotten investor funds to return those funds to the Receiver.


Read The Full Article Here:

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


DOJ to 5th Circuit: Allen Stanford belongs in prison, says his Ponzi scheme lasted 20 years

Allen Stanford once ruled a global banking empire with reported
assets of more than $8 billion. In fact, it was a massive Ponzi
scheme from the beginning. Here, he poses in his Houston
attorney’s office in 2009. He was convicted three years later.

WASHINGTON–The Department of Justice’s reply brief contesting Allen Stanford’s last-ditch effort to get out of prison makes for tough reading, especially for the more than 20,000 victims who lost their investments to Stanford’s widespread and enormous Ponzi scheme.

 After months spent wading through Stanford’s nearly 300-page appeal, the U.S. Department of Justice has finally responded with a tome of its own. In nearly 200 pages filed Tuesday, the DOJ confronts each of Stanford’s many, many arguments for why he was wrongly convicted in 2012. He’s serving a 110-year sentence in a federal prison in Central Florida.

 Stanford’s October appeal, which he wrote himself, raised many legal issues, but I’ll leave it to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to sift through his arguments–and their counterpoints made by the Justice Department. In short, though, he claims that the CDs issued by Stanford International Bank in Antigua weren’t really securities under the law, and therefore not subject to SEC jurisdiction or the reach of the U.S. securities laws in general. He claims that the federal judge in Houston who heard his case was biased, that he made many errors and that Stanford was left without adequate funds or time to properly defend himself.

Read the Full Article here including the USA Response to the Stanford Appeal

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


Thursday, February 19, 2015

Government Eyes Stanford Lands

The Antigua and Barbuda Government plans to make an offer to the Joint Liquidators of the Stanford Development Company (SDC) for the purchase of the Pavilion Restaurant and seven acres of adjacent land.

 This comes out of a meeting of the Cabinet on Wednesday. Reliable sources say the decision to procure the property which sits within the precincts of the V.C. Bird International Airport is influenced by a number of factors........



Read The Full Article Here:

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


Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Five years after Stanford scandal, many victims penniless


Five years after learning they were victims of a $7 billion Ponzi scheme, investors in the Stanford Financial Group say they feel abandoned, even though their losses rival those in the Madoff scam that was revealed two months earlier.

Unlike the Madoff case, in which a court-appointed trustee has said he is well on his way to recovering all of the investors' principal—estimated at $17.5 billion—Stanford victims have recovered less than one penny on the dollar since the Securities and Exchange Commission sued the firm and a court placed it in receivership on Feb. 17, 2009.

 "I do have to say the Stanford victims do feel like the stepchildren in the Ponzi world," said Angela Shaw Kogutt, who estimates her family lost $4.5 million in the scam. Shaw heads the Stanford Victims Coalition, which has been trying for years to drum up support in Washington.

 Some 28,000 investors—10 times the number of direct investors in the Madoff case—bought certificates of deposit from Stanford International Bank in Antigua, which was owned by Texas financier R. Allen Stanford. Stanford's U.S. sales force had promised the investors—many of them retired oil workers—that the CDs were at least as safe as instruments from a U.S. bank. But a jury later found most of the clients' money financed Stanford's lavish lifestyle instead of the high-grade securities and real estate it was supposed to.

Read The Full Article 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, February 14, 2015

Ex-envoy who aided Ponzi schemer Stanford must pay $758,000, Dallas jury decides

A federal jury decided Friday that former U.S. Ambassador to Ecuador Peter Romero can’t keep more than $758,000 in fees, expenses and interest he earned while lending his counsel and credibility to disgraced billionaire Allen Stanford.

 Romero will have to pay that sum to the court-appointed receiver who sued him and about a dozen other members of Stanford’s handpicked cadre of well-connected advisers. Romero’s was the first of many such trials, including one set for March seeking to claw back $5 million paid to former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes.

 Stanford was convicted in 2012 of money laundering and fraud and is serving a 110-year sentence in a federal prison in Florida. He has appealed his conviction to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Receiver Paul Janvey has alleged that Romero and the other well-placed consultants failed to ask even the simplest of questions about Stanford’s phony banking empire.

Read The Full Article Here:

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


Friday, February 13, 2015

Stanford Receiver's $1.1M Trial Against Ex-Diplomat Wraps Up

Law360, Dallas (February 12, 2015, 7:50 PM ET) -- A former diplomat facing down a fraudulent-transfer suit brought by the receiver in the R. Allen Stanford Ponzi scheme told a Texas jury on Thursday there is a "meanness" in the claim he must return $1.1 million he was paid in eight years of working for Stanford.

 On the final day of a four-day trial against former U.S. Ambassador to Ecuador Peter Romero, Romero's attorney Pat Long of Squire Patton Boggs LLP told jurors in closing statements it's not right for the receiver to try to...

Read The Full Article Here:

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


Thursday, February 12, 2015

Ex-ambassador says he ‘had no earthly idea’ of Stanford fraud

Former U.S. Ambassador Peter Romero looked straight at his seven jurors Wednesday and told them that in seven years working as a key adviser to Allen Stanford, he never had a clue that the man who had helped hire him away from the State Department in 2001 was a criminal or a cheat.

 “I had no earthly idea that Stanford Financial Group was a Ponzi scheme,” Romero said.

 Stanford is serving 110 years in prison, and about 20,000 investors who bought his bank’s certificates of deposit over at least 10 years have recovered only a penny on the dollar as more than $5 billion disappeared in the widest-reaching financial fraud in modern history.

 Romero is being sued for $1.1 million, including $700,000 in fees, plus expenses, that Stanford paid him over seven years to sit on his international advisory board. The trial is in federal court in Dallas before U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey.

Read The Full Article Here:

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


Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Federal trial of former Stanford aide, an ex-ambassador, continues in Dallas


In a mostly empty federal courtroom in downtown Dallas this week, seven jurors are hearing evidence about the last days of the $7 billion banking empire of the now-imprisoned Houston ex-billionaire Allen Stanford. The testimony comes in a civil trial against former U.S. Ambassador to Ecuador Peter Romero, the first of several well-placed former officials and political heavyweights whom Stanford paid as advisors during the last years of his banking scheme. (Previous story, here.)

 A trial against the former Houston mayor and Clinton Administration drug czar Lee Brown is scheduled for later this year, and a trial against former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes is slated for March.

 In those cases, and others to come, court-appointed receiver Paul Janvey of Dallas is demanding the defendants return fees that total tens of millions of dollars paid to them by Stanford using money stolen from clients. The receiver is suing Romero, who spent 25 years in the Foreign Service and was eventually assistant Secretary of State for the western hemisphere, repay $1.1 million in fees.

 So far the trial has made for grim testimony.

 “That’s right,” testified Lula Rodriguez, who had been assistant secretary of state under President Clinton, and then with Citigroup and later Stanford.

Read The Full Article Here:

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


R. Allen Stanford Civil Litigation Hits the Stage

Edward F. Valdespino, partner in the San Antonio
office of Strasburger & Price.

U.S. District Judge David Godbey has started his first "clawback" trial in which a receiver is attempting to recover millions taken in R. Allen Stanford's Ponzi scheme. And he's allowing another suit to go forward against Greenberg Traurig and Hunton & Williams—in which investors allege the large firms assisted in the convicted Houston financier's misdeeds.

Godbey began testimony in Janvey v. Romero on Feb. 9, a case in which receiver Ralph S. Janvey is attempting to recover more than $560,000 that Stanford paid to Peter Romero, a former U.S. ambassador, for consulting work allegedly with Ponzi money.

And on Feb. 4, Godbey denied the majority of the motions to dismiss filed by the defendant law firms in Official Stanford Investors Committee v. Greenberg Traurig. In that case, a putative class of investors accuse Greenberg Traurig and Hunton & Williams of helping Stanford shield his "offshore Ponzi bank" from regulatory scrutiny and deceive Stanford customers into believing his investment business was legitimate. [See " Stanford Investors, Court-Appointed Receiver Sue Greenberg Traurig, Hunton & Williams," Texas Lawyer, Nov. 16, 2012.]

Read The Full Article Here:

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