Stanford 20/20 for 20: Reliving Embarrassing Moment in England's Cricket History

BY FREDDIE WILDE (FEATURED COLUMNIST) ON OCTOBER 31, 2013

Five years ago today, a Kevin Pietersen-led England played against a team called the "Stanford Superstars," which was made up of West Indian cricketers in a Twenty20 match in which the winners would pocket $20 million.

The extravaganza was funded by Allen Stanford, a multi-millionaire who lived in the Caribbean. 

The match was intended to be the first of five—one played annually—but when Stanford was arrested for fraud and sentenced to 110 years in prison, the ECB terminated their contract with the financier and the tournament was consigned to the annals of history. 

Five years on from one of the most embarrassing sagas in English cricket history, B/R takes a look back at the whole gruesome escapade. 

The ECB were keen to enter in a deal with Stanford to help find a solution to the growing problem of the Indian Premier League. 

The T20 league in India offered English players unparalleled riches, and the ECB were concerned about losing control of their players during the six-week tournament that clashed with the beginning of the English season.

The Stanford Super Series therefore posed a handy alternative that offered England's players the opportunity to earn significant sums of money in an ECB-endorsed tournament that could be played at a time in the calendar in which there were few schedule clashes. 

In light of what happened later, with Stanford's arrest, his gratuitous welcome onto the Nursery Ground with his helicopter at Lord's, the Home of Cricket, was cringeworthy and embarrassing.  

Flanked by ECB chairman Giles Clarke and West Indian cricket legend Sir Gary Sobers, Stanford prowled around the Lord's Nursery Ground. 

He had been involved in West Indian cricket before the launch of the Stanford Super Series—running the domestic T20 tournament in the Caribbean and putting together a group of "legends" to endorse his project. 

West Indian cricket has a rich heritage. The fact that legends such as Sobers and Sir Viv Richards were drawn into the whole facade is a huge shame.  

Perhaps the most enduring image of the saga will be Stanford flanked by cricketing head-honchos and former players, standing tall, and beaming behind a glass box of $20 million. Whether the money was even real is unknown, in the light of the fraud scandal, but it was a grotesque show of wealth and power. 

Stephen Brenkley, writing prior to the tournament in The Independent, was prescient in his assessment of the series:

Of all the short-form matches currently being organised, the conclusion is easily reached that Stanford Superstars v England is the most offensive. It has no context as a proper sporting competition, it is neither country versus country, club versus club or invitation XI versus invitation XI. It is a rococo hybrid. It has money but nothing else going for it. 

When the series eventually got underway, the walking, talking disaster continued. 

The pitches were poor, the cricket was shoddy and the show was horribly stage-managed. Cricket was Stanford's toy and he was enjoying playing with it. 

Perhaps the most embarrassing moment of the tournament was when Emily Prior—wife of England wicket keeper Matt Prior—was seen bouncing on the knee of Stanford. who looked like the cat who had got the cream. 

To top the whole thing off, England lost the $20 million match, thus taking home nothing and rendering the initial point of getting involved unfulfilled. 

It wasn't even a close match, with the Stanford Superstars romping home by 10 wickets. England looked disenchanted, fed up and wholly unimpressed with the occasion. And who could blame them? 

The Stanford Saga should be remembered as one of the most embarrassing moments in cricket history, and an accurate reflection of an era dictated to by money and greed. 

Source article: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1832090-stanford-2020-for-20-reliving-embarrassing-moment-in-englands-cricket-history

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

SEC lifts suspension for Dallas attorney accused of helping Stanford’s $7 billion fraud avoid detection

By Michael Lindenberger
mlindenberger@dallasnews.com

Shown here in 2002, former SEC enforcement official Spencer Barasch has been reinstated to practice law before the Security and Exchange Commission, about one year after he was suspended. Government officials say he helped steer investigators the other way when convicted schemer R. Allen Stanford was defrauding investors of $7 billion.

The Dallas lawyer accused by the U.S. Department of Justice’s inspector general of single-handedly using his position at the Securities and Exchange Commission to let R. Allen Stanford get away with defrauding investors of $7 billion is free to practice law again before the SEC.

Spencer Barasch worked 17 years for the SEC, including seven years as its chief of enforcement at the division office located in Fort Worth. After he resigned in 2005, he began representing Stanford before the SEC.

The inspector general’s report concluded that over the years as enforcement chief he had repeatedly denied federal investigators’ pleas to investigate suspicious aspects of Stanford’s offshore investment accounts, which later were determined to have been frauds.

Barasch denied wrongdoing at the time. He paid $50,000 to the Department of Justice to settle civil claims alleging impropriety.

Stanford was indicted in 2009 and convicted last year. He is serving a 110-year sentence in federal prison.

Last year, the SEC suspended Barasch from practicing before the commission, and said he could apply for readmission in one year. Barasch’s attorney released a statement at the time saying that Barasch had accepted the suspension to save on legal bills.

Barasch was head of enforcement for the SEC’s Fort Worth office from 1998 to April 2005. After leaving the government, he represented Stanford before the SEC in 2006.

A 2010 article in The Dallas Mornings News about the inspector general’s report included this anecdote:
In 2005, the report said, an SEC staff attorney presented the agency’s latest findings at a regional meeting of securities law enforcers attended by Barasch. The audit showed growing concern that the alleged Ponzi scheme was growing and putting billions of dollars at risk.
During the presentation, Barasch was said to look “annoyed.” Afterward, he reportedly told the attorney he had “no interest” in bringing action against Stanford.
“I thought I’d turned in a good piece of work and was talking about it to significant players in the regulatory community,” Victoria Prescott, the attorney, said in the report. “And I no sooner sit down, shut up and the meeting ended, but then I got pulled aside and was told this has already been looked at and we’re not going to do it.”
Some former colleagues defended him, however, with one telling The News that, at worst, he had used bad judgment.

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

SEC wins dismissal of lawsuit over handling of $7 bln Stanford fraud

Published: Tuesday, 13 Aug 2013 | 12:40 PM ETBy: Jonathan Stempel



* SEC protected by exception to Federal Tort Claims Act

* Victims say SEC knew of Stanford Ponzi scheme in 1997

* Stanford serving 110-year prison term for $7.2 bln fraud

Aug 13 (Reuters) - A federal judge in Florida has thrown out a lawsuit accusing the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of negligence for failing to report that the now-imprisoned swindler Allen Stanford was running a $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme.

U.S. District Judge Robert Scola in Miami said the market regulator was shielded under an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act that bars claims arising from misrepresentation or deceit.

The plaintiffs, Carlos Zelaya and George Glantz, said they lost a combined $1.65 million with Stanford, and sought class-action status on behalf of investors who were victims of his fraud. They plan to appeal Monday's decision, their lawyer Gaytri Kachroo said. SEC spokesman Kevin Callahan declined to comment.

Stanford, 63, is serving a 110-year prison sentence after he was convicted on criminal charges in March 2012 for a fraud that the government said was centered in certificates of deposit issued by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank.

Zelaya and Glantz claimed that the SEC considered Stanford's business 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 SEC filed civil charges against Stanford in February 2009, two months after the multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme of New York-based swindler Bernard Madoff was uncovered. In a typical Ponzi scheme, investors are promised high or consistent returns relative to the amount of risk taken, and older investors are paid with money from newer investors.

Last September, Scola let the lawsuit against the SEC go forward, saying the plaintiffs could argue that the regulator had breached a duty to report Stanford's misconduct.

But on Monday, he said the FTCA exception barring claims of misrepresentation deprived him of jurisdiction.

"The plaintiffs claim that they were induced into entering disadvantageous business transactions because of the SEC's misrepresentation," he wrote. "The plaintiffs' cause of action is a classic claim for misrepresentation."

Their lawyer Kachroo said: "We believe that the judge did not draw the appropriate distinction between a claim based on a misrepresentation and our claim based on a failure to warn in line with the SEC's mandatory duty to notify SIPC."

In 2010, the SEC's inspector general criticized the regulator, finding that it knew as early as 1997 that Stanford was likely running a Ponzi scheme.

Earlier this year, federal appeals courts in New York and California dismissed lawsuits against the SEC by victims of Madoff's fraud.

The case is Zelaya et al. v. U.S., U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, No. 11-62644.

Read more: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=103

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

US SEC judge rules Stanford executives are liable for fraud

In a victory for federal regulators, an administrative judge has found three former executives who worked for Allen Stanford's now-defunct brokerage liable for fraud and said they should banned from the industry.

The ruling comes more than a year after Stanford was sentenced to 110 years in prison for bilking investors through a Ponzi scheme with fraudulent certificates of deposit issued by Stanford International Bank, his bank in Antigua.

In her ruling, Securities and Exchange Commission Judge Carol Fox Foelak described as "egregious" the conduct of former Stanford Group Co. chief compliance officer Bernerd Young, former president Daniel Bogar and Jason Green, a former head of the private client group.

Foelak also ordered the three executives to pay fines and forfeit ill-gotten profits.

The SEC's case against the three executives did not allege they actually knew about Stanford's Ponzi scheme.

Instead, it hinged on whether they sufficiently ensured that marketingmaterials and other disclosures were adequate for investors.

All three executives have vigorously denied any wrongdoing.

Young, who was previously a regulator with the group now known as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, told Reuters in the summer of 2012 that he took due diligence steps including reviewing quarterly financial statements and reading annual reports about the bank.

But he said in the exclusive interview that Antiguan privacy laws kept him from seeing more details about the investment portfolio, so he relied on the bank's compliance experts.

"If there is such a thing as a...perfect scam, this was the perfect scam," Young told Reuters last year.

Foelak ordered Young, Bogar and Green to each pay a $260,000 civil penalty.

In addition, Young was ordered to return roughly $592,000 plus interest. Bogar was ordered to forfeit about $1.5 million, and Green must pay $2.6 million.

Lawyers for both Young and Bogar said they were disappointed in the judge's ruling and are still considering their options.

If they decide to appeal, the case would first go before the full five-member SEC.

"Mr. Young...is deeply troubled by the initial decision's disturbing implications for the securities compliance industry and the newer and more Draconian standards that compliance officers may be facing," said Randle Henderson, Young's attorney.

"The decision demonstrates the real danger to compliance officers relying upon advice of independent outside counsel, fully licensed and qualified accounting firms and the audited financial opinions they issue, and the sovereign financial regulatory agencies of foreign countries."

Thomas Taylor, a lawyer for Bogar, said that while he felt his client got a "full and fair hearing," he disagreed with her outcome profoundly.

An attorney for Green could not be immediately reached.

Friday's ruling by the administrative judge marked the second big trial victory for the SEC in one week.

On Thursday, a jury in New York found former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. vice president Fabrice Tourre liable for federal securities law violations for his role in a complex mortgage deal that cost investors $1 billion when it failed.

Read more: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=100

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

Allen Stanford thinks he is his best attorney

Allen Stanford thinks he is his best attorney

Text Size Published: Wednesday, 31 Jul 2013 | 7:32 PM ET By: Scott Cohn | CNBC Senior Correspondent

Craig Hartley | Bloomberg | Getty Images

R. Allen StanfordConvicted fraudster Allen Stanford—who has at one time or another been represented by 18 different attorneys—has now decided the best person for the job is himself.

Writing from the federal prison in Florida where he is serving a 110-year sentence for his role in a $7 billion international Ponzi scheme, Stanford complained to the federal court hearing his appeal that his court-appointed attorney is not responsive enough, and is unprepared to effectively represent him. So Stanford, who has no legal training, says he is invoking his right to represent himself.

The merry-go-round of Stanford attorneys began spinning soon after his arrest in 2009, when a federal court froze his assets—which once topped $2 billion. Some attorneys quit when it became clear they could not be paid. Others were fired by the famously temperamental Stanford. At his 2012 trial, Stanford was represented by court-appointed attorneys Robert Scardino and Ali Fazel, though they too tried unsuccessfully to quit the case days before trial.

After Stanford was convicted on 13 counts and ordered to forfeit $5.9 billion tied to the fraud, the court appointed Houston attorney Lourdes Rodriguez to represent Stanford in his appeal. But the two never clicked.

In his affidavit written in prison, Stanford said Rodriguez "has been elusive at times, not answering the phone, e-mails, and never responding to my letters," and he complained she has not been willing to accept his assistance in the case.

Rodriguez did not respond to a request for a comment. In a letter to the court after Stanford first began complaining earlier this year, she said Stanford's real issues were not with her, but "revolve around his expressed disdain and repudiation of the United States criminal justice system."

Now, the two may finally be parting ways. On Tuesday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that in light of Stanford's motion to represent himself, it was suspending a September deadline to file his appeal.

—By CNBC's Scott Cohn; Follow him on Twitter @ScottCohnCNBC

Read more: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=95

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

News Summary: SEC paying $580,000 to settle suit by former assistant inspector general

By Associated Press

SEC SETTLES SUIT: The Securities and Exchange Commission is paying $580,000 to settle a lawsuit by a former assistant SEC inspector general who accused the agency of firing him in retaliation for bringing possible misconduct to light.
RAISED CONCERNS: The fired assistant inspector general, David Weber, had raised concerns about possible inappropriate relationships between the former SEC inspector general and women he worked with on investigations of the Ponzi schemes run by Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford. Weber also warned of a security flaw in some SEC computers that contained sensitive stock-exchange data.

REVIEW BY ANOTHER IG: A report by the U.S. Postal Service’s inspector general, provided to the SEC in September, substantiated some of Weber’s allegations.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/news-summary-sec-paying-580000-to-settle-suit-by-former-assistant-inspector-general/2013/06/10/54f23066-d22f-11e2-9577-df9f1c3348f5_story.html

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

Stanford Judge Approves Interim Distribution to Victims

A plan by a court-appointed receiver to distribute assets recovered from R. Allen Stanford’s Ponzi scheme to investors was approved by a federal judge in Dallas.

U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey accepted the plan by Ralph Janvey, the receiver appointed in 2009 to marshal and liquidate Stanford’s personal and business assets, to make a $55 million interim distribution to about 17,000 claimants, or about 1 cent for each of the $5.1 billion lost in the fraud scheme.
“We will follow it up in a subsequent distribution as the money comes in,” Janvey’s attorney, Kevin Sadler of Baker Botts LLP, told Godbey at a court hearing in April.

Ponzi scheme victims of Bernard L. Madoff, who was arrested in December 2008, recovered more than $5.4 billion. Clients of the MF Global Inc. brokerage were paid about $4.9 billion after its parent, MF Global Holdings Ltd., failed in October 2011. Victims of a scheme by Peregrine Financial Group Inc. founder Russell Wasendorf, who prosecutors last year said stole $215 million, received an interim distribution of $123 million.

A federal jury in Houston last year found Stanford, 63, guilty of lying to investors about the nature and oversight of certificates of deposit issued by his Antigua-based bank. The jurors decided he must forfeit $330 million in accounts seized by the U.S. government.

The SEC case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank, 09-cv-00298, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The criminal case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09-cr-00342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Harris in the Chicago federal courthouse at
aharris16@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net


Read more: http://sivg.org/article/2013_Stanford_Judge_Approves_Interim_Distribution_to_Victims.html

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

Stanford Art Collection Nets $2.9 Million for Ponzi Victims

Stanford Art Collection Nets $2.9 Million for Ponzi Victims
Text Size Published: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 | 3:09 PM ET By: Scott Cohn
CNBC Senior Correspondent

Source: Heritage Auctions
A print from the 1983 collection of ten prints entitled "Endangered Species"Former billionaire Allen Stanford, convicted last year of running one of the biggest investment frauds in history, had particularly expensive tastes in art.

Wednesday in Dallas, an auction of some of his most prized possessions brought in just over $2.9 million. The proceeds are to be turned over to victims of the $7 billion scam, who thus far have recovered next to nothing.

(Read More: Allen Stanford: Descent from Billionaire to Inmate # 35017-183)
Stanford's art collection consisted mostly of modern and contemporary works from the likes of Picasso, Dali and Miro. The top prices went to two collections of prints by Andy Warhol. A 1983 collection of ten prints entitled "Endangered Species' sold to an unidentified bidder for $338,500. A second collection from 1985 entitled "Ads" sold to another unidentified bidder, also for $338,500.

One of the most anticipated items—an eight foot glass and steel chandelier by American artist Dale Chihuly, sold for $158,500, slightly more than expected,according to the web site of Heritage Auctioneers in Dallas, which conducted the sale.

Last year, a federal jury found Stanford ran a $7 billion scam involving bogus certificates of deposit. Prosecutors said he used most of his customers' money to fund his lavish lifestyle.

A court-appointed receiver rounding up funds to return to victims has had limited success. Earlier this year, a federal judge cleared the way for the return of some $300 million that had been tied up in foreign accounts. But that represents just pennies on the dollar.



Once the 205th richest American according to Forbes, Stanford was sentenced last year to 110 years in prison. He is appealing his convictions on 13 counts including fraud, obstruction and conspiracy.

—By CNBC's Scott Cohn; Follow him on Twitter:@ScottCohnCNBC

Source: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=73

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

Stanford chandelier sells for $158,500 at auction

Stanford chandelier sells for $158,500 at auction
The Associated Press DALLAS --
A chandelier by glass artist Dale Chihuly that once belonged to former Texas tycoon R. Allen Stanford has sold at auction for $158,500 as part of an effort to compensate victims of his Ponzi scheme.

The 7-foot-tall, 6-foot-wide chandelier of cascading blue glass was sold Wednesday by Dallas-based Heritage Auctions.

Stanford was convicted last year on 13 fraud-related counts and sentenced to 110 years in prison.

The chandelier was offered through a federal court-appointed receivership overseeing the sale of assets previously owned by Stanford. A 42-foot-long sculpture by Terence Main called "Terrestrial Tale" that the receivership had also put up for auction did not sell Wednesday.

Stanford's assets have been sold at several auctions over the last few years.

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

Canadian lawyer sues U.S. government over Allen Stanford ponzi scheme

Investors lost billions in the ponzi scheme orchestrated by Texas tycoon Allen Stanford, and now a Canadian lawyer believes he has an innovative legal strategy to recover funds for victims of the fraud who reside outside the United States.

Todd Weiler, who specializes in international law, believes that “unconscionable negligence and/or manifest incompetence” on the part of U.S. regulators may have breached the foreign investor protection provisions of several international trade treaties signed by the U.S. government.

If this had happened to Americans in Mexico, there’d be no doubt that those Americans would be bringing a NAFTA claim against Mexico

A request for arbitration and statement of claim the London, Ont. lawyer has delivered to the U.S. Department of State alleges that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was aware of problems at the Stanford Group of Companies (SGC) and at Stanford Financial Group (SFG) as early as 1997. Yet in a “shocking and egregious failure,” SEC officials failed to shut Stanford down until 2009, the claim alleges.

Mr. Weiler alleges that the U.S. refused to take steps to shut Stanford down earlier because U.S. officials believed the majority of Stanford’s victims were not U.S. nationals. The Canadian lawyer argues that international trade treaties, among them the North American Free Trade Agreement, require that the U.S. government treat investors from all signatory countries equally, regardless of their residency.

“If this had happened to Americans in Mexico, there’d be no doubt that those Americans would be bringing a NAFTA claim against Mexico, and that they would deserve to win,” Mr. Weiler said in an interview. “The Americans have for 100 years used these agreements and other policies to bring other governments to heel and make sure they get this kind of protection and legal security.”

The U.S. State Department web site shows that it has received notice of legal actions Mr. Weiler has filed on behalf of Stanford victims from Guatemala, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Uruguay, Chile and Peru, and which are brought under various trade agreements the U.S. has signed with those countries. However, the U.S. government has not yet acknowledged on the web site that it has received the NAFTA claim that Mr. Weiler has filed on behalf of Mexican and Canadian residents. All the claims contain allegations that have yet to be proven at a hearing.

A high-flying Texas businessman who built a series of financial institutions in the United States and the Caribbean, Stanford was eventually arrested and charged with fraud in 2009. He had been known as “Sir Allen Stanford” in recognition of his services to the government of Antigua and Barbuda. He was tried in U.S. federal court and sentenced to 110 years in prison upon his conviction for fraud in 2012. His knighthood was revoked in 2010.

Investors who placed funds with Stanford International Bank received “certificates of deposit” or CDs that were supposed to be low risk investments that offered generous returns. The scheme took in more than US$7-billion. Some 21,000 investors from around the world were taken in.

SEC officials, who are responsible for protecting the investments of investors, acted with unconscionable negligence

Stanford’s activities caught the attention of U.S. regulators as early as 1997, a mere two years after the Stanford Group of Companies registered with the SEC in 1995, according to a report completed in 2010 by David Kotz, who was at the time the SEC’s inspector general. The NAFTA claim filed by Mr. Weiler relies on that report, which concluded that the SEC could have sought legal action to shut down Stanford years earlier than it did.

“SEC officials, who are responsible for protecting the investments of investors such as the claimants against criminal enterprises such as SFG, acted with unconscionable negligence and or manifest incompetence, causing millions of dollars of losses to the claimants as a result,” the claim states.

Because Mr. Weiler’s claim is structured as a proposed international arbitration, the legal action is open only to non-U.S. residents from countries with which the U.S. has signed trade agreements. Mr. Weiler says the action, which he is bringing in conjunction with several other lawyers from the United States, could include “several thousand” clients.

Other third parties have been targeted for their connection to Stanford. Liquidators of Stanford International Bank have sued Toronto-Dominion bank in Quebec and other jurisdictions on the theory that, as Stanford’s banker, TD should have known the Texan businessman was up to no good. TD denies the allegation.

Source: http://sivg.org/article/2013_Canadian_lawyer_sues_US_government_Stanford.html

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

Law professors support SIPC in dispute with SEC over Stanford fraud

An amici brief filed by renowned law professors supports the industry-backed Securities Investor Protection Corp. in its dispute with the Securities and Exchange Commission over the liquidation of convicted Ponzi schemer R. Allen Stanford’s brokerage firm.

Phyllis Skupien (Westlaw Journal Securities Litigation and Regulation).

In an appeal before the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the SEC seeks. to force the SIPC to liquidate Stanford Group Co. for the benefit of investors.

Like Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, which cost investors an estimated $17 billion, Allen Stanford’s fraud dwarfed most others and is estimated to have cost investors over $7 billion.

The SEC says Stanford’s victims are entitled to protection under the Securities Investor Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aaa, which compensates investors when their brokers become insolvent.

Prior proceedings

In 2009 the SEC charged Stanford and Stanford Group, which is currently in court-ordered receivership, with violating federal securities laws. SEC v. Pendergest-Holt et al., No. 09-CV-298, complaint filed (N.D. Tex. Feb. 17, 2009).

Stanford was sentenced to 110 years in prison in a related criminal proceeding last year for defrauding investors with fraudulent certificates of deposit issued by Stanford International Bank, his bank in Antigua. United States v. Stanford et al., No. 09-CR-00342, defendant sentenced (S.D. Tex., Houston June 14, 2012).

According to the SEC’s suit against the SIPC, the agency directed the SIPC in June 2011 to initiate proceedings to liquidate the Stanford Group, but the SIPC has refused to do so.

In July 2012 U.S. District Judge Robert L. Wilkins of the District of Columbia denied the SEC’s request for an order compelling the liquidation, and this appeal followed.

Not ‘customers’

The SIPC maintains it has no responsibility to the investors because the SEC cannot show that the Stanford Group ever physically possessed their funds at the time of their purchases.

The amici brief supports the SIPC and says the investors were not “customers” of the domestic broker-dealer because they lent money to the offshore Antigua bank — a foreign institution not subject to regulation under U.S. law.

The amici brief was filed by Professor Joseph A. Grundfest of Stanford Law School, former SEC Commissioner Paul S. Atkins, former SEC General Counsel Simon M. Lorne, Emory Law School professor William J. Carney and Stanford Law School professor emeritus Kenneth E. Scott.

They say the SEC’s actions would dramatically expand the scope of persons covered by the SIPC and should be rejected.

The SEC’s proposal to “deem” purchasers of CDs issued by a foreign bank to be “customers” of a domestic broker-dealer is contrary to the Securities Investor Protection Act and is “at odds with 40 years of judicial precedent,” the amici say.

The SEC’s expansion of the definition of the term “customer” would substantially increase the financial exposure of the SIPC fund, they add.

The agency has presented no economic analysis for the implications of this expanded coverage, the professors say, noting that the industry itself must pay fees to support the SIPC fund.

The professors urge the appeals court to reject the SEC’s “unprecedented interpretation” of the term “customer” and affirm Judge Wilkins’ decision.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the Financial Services Institute also filed amici briefs supporting the SIPC.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., No. 12-5286, amici brief filed (D.C. Cir. Apr. 19, 2013)

Source: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=69

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

Allen Stanford Told to Disgorge $6.7 Billion in SEC Case

R. Allen Stanford, the Texas financier convicted last year of leading an investment fraud scheme, was ordered to disgorge more than $6.7 billion by the judge in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge David Godbey in Dallas issued the order yesterday against Stanford, his Stanford Group Co. and the Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd.

The order may clear the way for Godbey to grant a court- appointed receiver’s request to make an interim $55 million payout to investors who lost money after buying certificates of deposit issued by the Stanford Bank.

“The fraud perpetrated was obviously egregious, was done with a high degree of scienter, caused billions in losses and occurred over the course of a decade,” Godbey said, using the legal term to describe the mental state of intent to deceive.

A federal jury in Houston convicted Stanford of lying to investors about how their money was being handled.

“The truth is that he flushed it away,” Justice Department lawyer William Stellmach told jurors in his closing arguments at the March 2012 trial. “He told depositors he was using their money in one way and the truth was completely different.”

Stanford, 63, was sentenced to 110 years in prison. Maintaining his innocence, he has appealed the verdict.


Parallel Judgment


Godbey referred to the jury’s guilty finding in granting the SEC’s request he render a parallel judgment in their case filed in February 2009, four months before the financier was indicted. The judge also cited the August 2009 guilty plea by Stanford Group Chief Financial Officer James Davis.


“The court finds that $5.9 billion is a reasonable approximation of the gains connected to Stanford’s fraud,” Godbey said of the sum he would order disgorged. He then added more than $861 million in interest for a total of $6.76 billion. Davis too is jointly liable.

Finally the judge imposed a $5.9 billion penalty on Stanford and a $5 million assessment against Davis, who received a five-year prison sentence.

The court-appointed receiver, Ralph Janvey, asked Godbey this month for permission to begin repaying some of the losses incurred by the more than 17,000 claimants. At an April 11 hearing, the judge told Janvey’s lawyer, Kevin Sadler, he was concerned about doing so before a final order had been entered against Stanford.


Societe Generale


In a separate filing today, a group of Stanford investors asked Godbey to grant them a judgment of at least $95 million in a lawsuit against a unit of Paris-based Societe Generale SA. (GLE)

The lender’s Societe Generale Private Banking (Suisse) unit took the money from a Stanford bank account with his permission in December 2008 to repay a loan made to him four years earlier, according to court papers.

The financier had caused a business funded by Stanford investor-depositor money to guarantee the loan in 2007, the investors alleged, while those depositors received no benefit. The transfer of that money to Societe Generale just two months before the SEC sued Stanford and shut down his businesses was a fraudulent transfer, the investors claimed in today’s filing.

Ken Hagan and Jim Galvin, New York-based spokesman for the French bank, did not immediately reply to voicemail messages seeking comment on the allegations.


Slush Fund


Davis, the CFO, testified at Stanford’s trial that the financier maintained a Societe Generale Swiss bank account, funded by investor deposits.

“It was a slush fund, just used for whatever the holder wanted to use it for,” Davis said during the Houston federal court trial in February 2012.

The SEC case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank, 09-cv-00298, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The criminal case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09-cr-00342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).

The investors’ case is Rotstain v. Trustmark National Bank, 09-cv-02384, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Harris in the Chicago federal courthouse at aharris16@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net


Source: http://sivg.org/article/2013_Stanford_Disgorge_6Billion.html

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

Stanford's Civil Tactic Makes SEC Indignant: April 11, 2013

Stanford's Civil Tactic Makes SEC Indignant
By DAVID LEE
ShareThis

DALLAS (CN) - R. Allen Stanford must be held civilly liable for his massive Ponzi scheme, the Securities and Exchange Commission argued, scoffing at the implication his criminal trial was unfair.
In a 2009 federal complaint, the agency accused Stanford of running an $8 billion Ponzi scheme through the sale of certificates of deposit. U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor then entered a temporary restraining order, froze his assets, and appointed a receiver.
Stanford later faced a criminal trial for the scheme, and a jury convicted him in 2012 on 13 of 14 counts of conspiracy, wire fraud and mail fraud. He was sentenced in June to 110 years in federal prison.
With the SEC now seeking partial summary judgment on its civil claims, Stanford moved on March 25 for a time extension to secure sealed exhibits from his criminal trial.
The SEC replied Monday that this extension should be denied.
"First, for all the reasons noted above, these pleadings cannot add any substantive information relevant to the commission's motion for summary judgment because they relate to arguments that have already been rejected in Stanford's criminal case," it said in a six-page response. "In fact, the materials were attachments to a motion for new trial that was denied. The only reason for the Court to examine these pleadings would be to re-examine the fully litigated decisions made in the criminal case. The pleadings cannot give any basis to ignore the well-established precepts of collateral estoppel that demonstrate Stanford's civil liability in this parallel proceeding."
The SEC said Stanford has offered no basis to avoid the "estoppel effect" of his criminal conviction.
"In his response, Stanford admits, as he must, that he has been criminally convicted based on the very conduct that is at issue in this case," the filing states. "And he, in essence, concedes that the elements of collateral estoppel have been met here, including the fact that the same issues were at stake. His only argument is that the criminal trial did not provide him with a full and fair opportunity to litigate the common issues and that, as a result, collateral estoppel does not apply."
It is "beyond dispute" that Stanford had full and fair opportunity to try the criminal case against him, the agency added.
"As he admits, he was represented by competent counsel," the reply states. "His trial lasted over thirty days and over thirty witnesses testified. As even a cursory review of the docket sheet from that proceeding demonstrates, Stanford's criminal trial was fully and fairly litigated, even if Stanford does not like the results."
Stanford had even moved in October 2010 for change of venue based on the same pretrial publicity of which he complains now, the SEC said.
"He had a fair and full opportunity to litigate his motion for continuance," it wrote. "Stanford has pointed to no case suggesting that in circumstances like this collateral estoppel does not apply. Nor could he."
The SEC also sued several Stanford-controlled entities, including Antigua-based Stanford International Bank, Houston-based broker-dealer/investment adviser Stanford Group Co., and investment adviser Stanford Capital Management. The SEC also sued Stanford International Bank CFO James Davis and Laura Pendergest-Holt, chief investment officer of Stanford Financial Group.
At the time of the suit, former SEC enforcement chief Linda Chatman Thomsen had called the conspiracy "a massive fraud based on false promises and fabricated historical return data to prey on investors."
Rose Romero, former regional director of the SEC's Fort Worth division, called it "a fraud of shocking magnitude that has spread its tentacles throughout the world." Romero is currently a partner with Thompson Knight in Dallas.
The SEC says Stanford International Bank sold roughly $8 billion of CDs by promising improbable and unsubstantiated high interest rates. These rates were supposedly earned through bank's unique investment strategy, which purportedly allowed the bank to achieve double-digit returns on its investments for 15 years.


Source: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=59

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

SDC workers picket over non-payment of wages

ST JOHN’S, Antigua – There’s very little end in sight for unpaid striking workers of Stanford Development Company (SDC) as neither SDC’s former directors nor the liquidators of Allen Stanford’s empire in Antigua are able to say when they will receive their monies.

      The 65 workers reported they have not received wages and salaries since January 15. They said their former bosses, Barbara Streete and Andrea Stoelker, can no longer pay staff since a court ruled the two were not properly appointed as directors of the company.

      The duo had appealed the ruling and applied for a stay of execution (a hold on enforcement of the judgment). The appeal is set for a date two months from now, but the application for a stay was recently rejected, workers confirmed.

      Staff had hoped the liquidators of most of Stanford’s assets here could help, but liquidator of Stanford International Bank (SIB) Marcus Wide told OBSERVER media last night he can offer no relief.

      “As of now we have no authority over SDC and while we are very sympathetic to their situation, regretfully, we cannot assist the employees,” Wide said.

      Wide said SIB was not responsible for the removal of the directors or freezing of their bank accounts.

      Up to yesterday, Wide said he was unaware the workers had not been paid since January and further that they had begun protesting.

      Affected workers are car park attendants, landscapers, maintenance crew and security at SDC properties.

      Efforts to reach the former directors were unsuccessful.

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

Accountant appointed to investigate Stanford companies

Accountant appointed to investigate Stanford companies
By Tahna Weston - Tuesday, April 2nd, 2013.


ST JOHN’S, Antigua – An accountant has been appointed to look into the business affairs of companies of former financier R Allen Stanford.

Hordley Forbes of Forbes & Associates, Chartered Accountants, will conduct investigations into Stanford Development Company (SDC) Ltd and three other affiliated companies who are registered owners of property in Antigua.

Attorney General Justin Simon QC on March 5 obtained a court order for the investigation.

Forbes has been empowered to enter into SDC’s owned or operated properties to demand and examine books, documents, correspondence, contracts, corporate and accounting records.

He will also be seeking the co-operation of directors, managers, former directors, accountants, and legal counsel, all of whom are under an injunction not to interfere with or prevent the inspector from conducting his investigation.

“The application was filed in October 2012 on a number of grounds including that SDC and the other companies may have been formed and managed for a fraudulent and unlawful purpose and in particular to defraud customers of Stanford International Bank. That its obligation to pay severance to ex-employees remains outstanding despite disposition of real property, and the management of the company is questionable with the sole shareholder and director having been sentenced to 108 years imprisonment for massive fraud.

“The investigator is to report back to the court within 30 days of his appointment. The order was served on the registered office of the companies and personally on Barbara Streete and Andrea Stoelker with a Penal Notice attached,” Simon told OBSERVER media.

In January this year, SDC applied to the High Court for leave to file a claim against the Registrar of Companies for her refusal to accept and file documents, which seek to appoint Barbara Streete, a director and to amend the company’s Articles of Association to allow persons who do not hold shares in the company to be appointed directors.

The registrar was reportedly not satisfied with the authenticity of the documents presented. The application was heard on February 28 and decision has been reserved.

Following the filing of that case in June 2010, Andrea Stoelker resigned as director in August 2010, and obtained a power of attorney from R Allen Stanford, which he subsequently revoked.

SDC in September 2012 filed an application against Stanford International Bank Ltd. (SIBL), which is in liquidation.

The High Court ruled on January 21, 2013, that Barbara Streete and Hugh Marshall Jr lacked the authority to conduct affairs on behalf of SDC.

It was also found during the ruling that the company “has no properly constituted Board of Directors and as such it has no legal capacity to conduct the business of SDC”, and that “Ms Barbara Streete is not a director of SDC and should cease holding herself out as such.”

That decision is being appealed by SDC.

(More in today’s Daily OBSERVER)

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

Stanford fighting SEC fines

Convicted Ponzi-scheme operator R. Allen Stanford, who continues to protest what he says was an unfair criminal trial, is now fighting the government’s quest to squeeze billions of dollars in penalties out of him in a related civil lawsuit.
Stanford, currently serving a 110-year prison sentence, this week filed an objection to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s bid to impose billions of dollars in monetary penalties against him and several other defendants in a civil securities fraud lawsuit. He was convicted last year of criminal charges that he defrauded investors out of about $7 billion.
In court papers, the SEC argues that Stanford’s criminal conviction validates the similar claims it makes in its civil suit. The agency says Stanford, two of his businesses and one of his former associates should, at a minimum, face a penalty of $5.9 billion — the amount that federal prosecutors have ordered Stanford to forfeit in the criminal proceeding.

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

Stanford investors’ lawsuit heads to federal court

Eighty-nine investors defrauded by now-imprisoned Houston financier Robert Allen Stanford want $115 million from seven insurance companies in addition to claims that could total as much as $1 billion against the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions and SEI Investments Co.
But six of the insurers responded Monday by transferring the investors’ 4-year-old state court suit to Baton Rouge federal court, action the investors have fought hard in the past.
“We feel confident that this case should not be removed to federal court, because the state court has already ruled on it” and granted the investors class-action status, said Phillip W. Preis, Baton Rouge attorney for the investors.
Telephone and email requests for comment from three New Orleans attorneys for the insurance companies were not returned.
The investors sued OFI and Pennsylvania-based SEI in 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge in 2009. That was soon after the Securities and Exchange Commission shut down Stanford’s worldwide operations and alleged his investment program was nothing more than a fraudulent scheme.
But a federal judge in Dallas, where the SEC had filed its complaint, yanked the Louisiana investors’ suit into his Texas court and then dismissed the case.
The Dallas judge ruled in 2011 that the Baton Rouge investors suit violated a Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act prohibition against state court litigation that could negatively affect the nation’s financial markets.
Last year, however, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the Dallas judge and concluded that investors could pursue recovery of their losses in Baton Rouge state court.
That returned the investor claims to state District Judge Michael Caldwell, who held hearings on disputed allegations that OFI knew of Stanford’s misdeeds and should have warned investors, as well as a complaint that SEI ignored a duty to tell investors that Stanford’s assets were grossly overvalued. SEI’s services were contracted by Stanford.
Caldwell issued a judgment last year that certified the investors’ suit as a class action, meaning that all people who lost investments at Stanford Trust Co.’s Baton Rouge office could join the suit as plaintiffs against SEI, OFI and now SEI’s seven insurers.
Caldwell has not yet scheduled a trial for the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on appeals of related Stanford investor cases in October.
In Baton Rouge, attorneys for both SEI and OFI repeatedly have denied all allegations that their clients failed any responsibility to alert investors about Stanford’s frauds.
“The role of the OFI is to regulate, not to ensure that those who invest in companies subject to OFI regulation will never lose money as a result of criminal behavior,” OFI attorney David Latham told Caldwell in one court filing.
“SEI did not make any false statements” to Stanford investors, SEI attorney J. Gordon Cooney Jr. told Caldwell in September. Cooney later added: “SEI has not violated Louisiana securities law.”
Court records show the investors added SEI’s insurers to its list of defendants in an amended complaint that was filed Feb. 13 under seal.
Preis said Monday the amended complaint was filed under a nonpublic seal because it contains information related to OFI’s exam reports on Stanford Trust, which Caldwell ruled earlier must remain confidential.
The six insurers that transferred the dispute Monday to U.S. District Judge James J. Brady are Allied World Assurance Co. (U.S.) Inc., Continental Casualty Co., Arch Insurance Co., Indian Harbor Insurance Co., Nutmeg Insurance Co. and certain underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
Those insurers told Brady a seventh firm — Endurance Specialty Insurance Ltd., of Bermuda — did not join their motion because Endurance officials had not yet been served with a copy of the investors’ suit.
Stanford has been in federal custody since June 2009, when he was indicted by a federal grand jury in Houston for worldwide frauds alleged to exceed $7 billion. He was convicted on fraud charges last year and sentenced to a prison term of 115 years.

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

Allen Stanford Investors May Get Some Money Back

Investors in Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme, who have recovered nothing in the four years since it blew up, could finally get some money back under a $300 million multi-national settlement in the case.

For years, investors, attorneys and regulators have been wrangling over Stanford assets frozen in Canada, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The complex settlement, still subject to court approval in five countries, would clear the way for most of the $300 million to be distributed to investors later this year.

The agreement was announced Tuesday by the court-appointed receiver in the U.S. and by liquidators appointed by the court in Antigua, where Stanford's offshore bank was based. The U.S. Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission are also part of the settlement.

(Read More: Allen Stanford: Descent from Billionaire to Inmate # 35017-183)

"The Settlement Agreement is a product of the parties' common goal of optimizing and enlarging the overall recovery for creditor-victims as quickly and cost-effectively as possible. The parties to the Agreement all believe that the Agreement is in the best interests of the victims of the Stanford fraud," the receiver and liquidators said in a joint statement.

(Read More: Allen Stanford Investors Face Long Haul to Recover Money.)

According to the statement, the agreement ensures the money will go to victims—not to the IRS or the Antiguan government.

The agreement, while significant, would still leave Stanford's 28,000 investors with devastating losses. Since the Securities and Exchange Commission shut down Stanford's financial empire in February, 2009, none of the $7 billion in Stanford assets has been returned to investors.

Last year, the U.S. receiver asked for court approval to distribute some $55 million, and is still awaiting court approval. The new settlement would be on top of that. Another $700 million is still tied up in litigation.

(Read More: Allen Stanford Investors Could Get (Tiny) Payout)

Authorities said Allen Stanford skimmed most of the investors' money to fund his lavish lifestyle. Stanford, who is serving a 110-year sentence at a federal penitentiary in Florida, is appealing his conviction last year on 13 criminal counts.



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

KRCL Stanford Ponzi Scheme Litigation Update

            It has been more than four years since the District Court for the Northern District of Texas appointed Ralph Janvey as Receiver for the Stanford Entities-shutting down what the SEC alleged to be a $7 billion Ponzi scheme. In that time, R. Allen Stanford and some of his associates have been tried and convicted in criminal courts, while hundreds of civil lawsuits continue to creep forward. Most of the civil suits are consolidated for pretrial purposes into MDL 2099, in the Northern District of Texas. This litigation alert will briefly address the criminal convictions, followed by an update on the SLUSA appeal that KRCL wrote about in April.[1] Lastly, this alert will report on some of the new complaints filed by the Receiver and the Official Stanford Investors Committee in February.

The Criminal Trials

On June 14, 2012, Judge Hittner of the Southern District of Texas sentenced R. Allen Stanford to 110 years in federal prison for various counts of fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction. The court also imposed a $5.9 billion judgment against Stanford individually. Stanford has appealed the conviction to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Stanford's conviction and judgment followed a six-week trial at which his former chief financial officer, James Davis, testified against Stanford as part of a plea agreement. The court sentenced James Davis to five years in prison and imposed a $1 billion money judgment.

Laura Pendergest-Holt, Stanford's former chief investment officer, plead guilty to obstruction and received a sentence of 36 months in prison and no monetary judgment.

On February 14, 2013, the court sentenced Gilbert Lopez, Stanford's former chief accounting officer, and Mark Kuhrt, the former controller, to 20 years in prison. These defendants have signaled their intentions to appeal.

The Lopez and Kuhrt sentences bring an end to the criminal trial proceedings, other than those related to Leroy King, an Antiguan banking regulator whom prosecutors are attempting to extradite to the United States for trial.

The SLUSA Appeal

As we have previously written, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA") prohibits state-based securities class actions if the claims allege "a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase of a covered security." Judge Godbey in the Northern District of Texas previously ruled that the plaintiffs' claims, which related to CDs issued by Stanford International Bank, were sufficiently related to "covered securities" to warrant SLUSA preemption.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court, holding that SLUSA preemption does not apply and breathing life back into the plaintiffs' claims.

Last month, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the SLUSA issue.[2] The Supreme Court granted certiorari in spite of opposition from the Solicitor General, who wrote in an amicus brief that the facts presented are too peculiar to provide any assistance to lower courts that may later face SLUSA preemption issues.

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the October 2013 Term. If the high court reverses the Fifth Circuit, the plaintiffs' claims that are based on state law securities violations will be dismissed, significantly diminishing the plaintiffs' ability to recover against financial services defendants.

The February 15 Lawsuits

The Official Stanford Investors Committee is a court-appointed group consisting of seven members that purportedly represent a "cross-section of the Stanford victims' community." The Receiver assigned certain of its claims to the Committee, which has brought suits in its own name and has also intervened in some lawsuits.

Despite the uncertainty created by the pending SLUSA appeal, the Committee has recently increased its litigation activity. On February 15, 2013, the Committee filed three complaints with the MDL Court-a complaint in intervention and two original complaints.

The Committee filed the complaint in intervention in Rotstain v. Trustmark National Bank, HSBC Bank PLC, The Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Bank of Houston, No. 3:09-cv-2384. Rotstain is a purported class action brought by victims of Stanford's purported Ponzi scheme. The Receiver and the Committee had previously intervened, but had not alleged claims directly against the defendant banks until this filing. The Committee alleges various claims related to fraudulent transfers, conversion, and conspiracy. The Committee also seeks punitive damages for the banks' alleged participation or abetting of Stanford's fraudulent scheme.

On the same day, the Committee filed an original complaint styled The Official Stanford Investors Committee v. Bank of Antigua, et al., No. 3:13-cv-0762. In this action, the Committee seeks recovery from eight foreign banks for claims similar to those alleged in the Rotstain matter. The Committee alleges that the Antiguan government and its monetary regulator, the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank, were complicit in and integral to Stanford's fraud. According to the complaint, the Antiguan government's seizure of the Bank of Antigua (a Stanford-controlled entity) resulted in the dissemination of Stanford assets to various Caribbean-based banks. The Committee seeks to recover these assets, alleged to be in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, under theories of fraudulent transfer and conversion.

In addition, the Committee filed suit directly against the nation of Antigua and Barbuda, in a case styled The Official Stanford Investors Committee v. Antigua and Barbuda, No. 3:13-cv-0760. In this Complaint, the Committee levies its most serious accusations against the Antiguan government, alleging that the country "became a 'blood brother' to Stanford" and that key government officials "were literally Stanford's partners in crime." By this action, the Committee seeks to recover almost one hundred million dollars in unpaid loans made by Stanford to the government of Antigua and Barbuda.

The Receiver also filed a new lawsuit on February 15, 2013. In Janvey v. Pablo M. Alvarado, et al., No. 3:13-cv-0775, the Receiver seeks to recover from 23 former directors and officers of various Stanford entities for breach of fiduciary duty. The suit essentially alleges that the directors and officers either knew of the fraud or facilitated the fraud by ignoring numerous "red flags." Laura Pendergest-Holt, Mark Kuhrt, and Gilberto Lopez are among the defendants.

KRCL will continue to monitor the Stanford litigation closely.

[1] The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Revives Securities Fraud Claims in Stanford Entities Securities Litigation
[2]The consolidated cases are Chadbourne & Park LLP v. Troice, No. 12-79; Willis of Colorado, Inc. v. Troice, No. 12-86; and Proskauer Rose LLP v. Troice, No. 12-88.

Source.

Read more: http://sivg.org/article/2013_krcl_Stanford_Ponzi_Scheme_Litigation_Update.html

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