U.S. justices say Allen Stanford victims can sue lawyers, brokers

BY LAWRENCE HURLEY

Convicted financier Allen Stanford, who is serving 110 years in prison for his $7 billion Ponzi scheme, arrives at Federal Court in Houston for sentencing June 14, 2012.

CREDIT: REUTERS/RICHARD CARSON

RELATED TOPICS

• U.S. »
• Politics »
• Money »

(Reuters) - Investors in Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme can sue to recoup losses from lawyers, insurance brokers and others who worked with the convicted swindler, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.

On a 7-2 vote, the court held that lawsuits filed in state courts can go forward. The majority said the ruling would not affect the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) ability to enforce securities law as some had feared.

Stanford's fraud involved the sale of bogus certificates of deposit by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank. He is serving a 110-year prison sentence.

New York-based law firms Chadbourne & Parke LLP and Proskauer Rose LLP and insurance brokerage Willis Group Holdings Plc were sued by former Stanford investors. The investors also sued financial services firm SEI Investments Co and insurance company Bowen, Miclette & Britt.

"It's clear the justices understood that ruling for the defendants would create an immunity that Congress never imagined," said Tom Goldstein, a lawyer representing the former Stanford clients.

Representatives from the two law firms said that when the case returns to the lower court the defendants would move to dismiss the suit on other grounds.

Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) did not prevent the state lawsuits from proceeding. The law says that state lawsuits are barred when the alleged misrepresentations are "in connection with" the purchase or sale of a covered security, which is defined as a security listed on a national exchange at the time the alleged unlawful conduct occurred.

As the defendants in the case were not selling securities traded on U.S. exchanges, "it is difficult to see why the federal securities laws would be - or should be - concerned with shielding such entities from lawsuits," Breyer wrote.

IMPACT ON SEC

The Obama administration, representing the SEC, had sided with the defendants to try to protect the agency's authority to pursue wide-ranging investigations.

The administration said the "in connection with" language in SLUSA that limits state court lawsuits mirrors language in federal law that gives broad authority of the SEC to pursue such misrepresentations.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a dissenting opinion that the ruling would have a negative impact on the SEC because it "casts doubt on the applicability of federal securities law to cases of serious securities fraud." Kennedy was joined in dissent by Justice Samuel Alito.

Securities law experts backed the majority's view that the ruling was relatively narrow.

Donald Langevoort, a professor of law at Georgetown University, said he was "very surprised" the SEC tried to argue that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could diminish the government's enforcement powers.

"The opinion is imminently correct as a matter of common sense and legal policy," Langevoort said.

Charles Smith, of the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP who represents clients before the SEC, said the agency would be comforted by the limited scope of the ruling.

"The decision is crafted in a way that is intended not to interfere with the SEC's enforcement authority," he said.

The SEC, via a spokesman, declined to comment.

The defendants had sought Supreme Court review after the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2012 said the lawsuits brought under state laws by the former Stanford clients could go ahead.

The former Stanford clients are keen to pursue state law claims because the Supreme Court previously held that similar "aiding and abetting" claims cannot be made under federal law.

The class-action lawsuits filed by the former investors accused Thomas Sjoblom, a lawyer who worked at both law firms, of obstructing a SEC probe into Stanford, and sought to hold the other defendants responsible as well.

The cases are Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice et al, U.S. Supreme Court. No. 12-79; Willis of Colorado Inc et al v. Troice et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-86; and Proskauer Rose LLP v. Troice et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-88.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley, additional reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; editing byHoward Goller, G Crosse and Amanda Kwan)

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

SLUSA: Justices say Allen Stanford victim lawsuits can go forward

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that lawyers, insurance brokers and others who worked with convicted swindler Allen Stanford cannot avoid lawsuits by investors seeking to recoup losses incurred in his $7 billion Ponzi scheme.

Thomson Reuters

Convicted financier Allen Stanford arrives at Federal Court in Houston for sentencing.

On a 7-2 vote the court held that lawsuits filed in state court can go forward. New York-based law firms Chadbourne & Parke and Proskauer Rose and insurance brokerage Willis Group Holdings Plc were all sued by former Stanford investors. The investors also sued financial services firm SEI Investments and insurance company Bowen, Miclette & Britt.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller)

This post originally appeared at Reuters. Copyright 2014. Follow Reuters on Twitter.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-justices-say-allen-stanford-victim-lawsuits-can-go-forward-2014-26#ixzz2uT6YFosE


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

Is the SEC Here to Help Defrauded Victims in a Ponzi Scheme, Or Not?

Posted by Kathy Bazoian Phelps

 The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) plays an active role in protecting the rights of investors. Its own mission statement is:

    The mission of the Securities and Exchange Commission is to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation.

Yet, in the high-profile Ponzi scheme case of R. Allen Stanford and Stanford Financial Bank, the SEC is finding itself aligned both for and against efforts to recover funds for the benefit of the defrauded victims. Positions taken by the SEC in two different pending litigation matters in the Stanford case may have polar opposite effects on the financial outcome for defrauded investors.

 One case, SEC v. SIPC, now pending in the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, involves a battle between the SEC and the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) over whether the defrauded victims are “customers” under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) and therefore entitled to payment from SIPC. This is the first time that the SEC has ever commenced an action seeking SIPC coverage for investors. The lower court found that the Stanford investors are not entitled to SIPC coverage, but the SEC continues to champion the cause of the investors in the Circuit Court seeking SIPC coverage for them.

 The other case, Chadbourne & Park LLP v. Troice et al., involves an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court over the issue of whether Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) bars lawsuits by a class of victims against third parties to recover their losses from alleged wrongdoers. The Fifth Circuit held that the claims against two law firms, an insurance brokerage firm and a financial services firm could proceed despite SLUSA. The U.S. Government, on behalf of the SEC and other agencies, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court arguing that the investor claims should be barred under SLUSA. If the Government’s position prevails, defrauded victims will be denied recovery on their claims.

 In what would be a worst case scenario for the investors, the SEC will lose in SEC v. SIPC so that investors will be denied “customer” status and protection, and the Government’s position in the Chadbourne & Park case will prevail, denying investors the ability to use self-help to sue alleged wrongdoers.

 At a quick glance, it seems that the SEC is on the wrong side of the SLUSA fight in Chadbourne & Park, given the potentially adverse consequences for investors if the SEC’s position is adopted. But perhaps the issue has more do with the way that the applicable statutes are written and interpreted than with any intent on the part of the SEC.

 In Chadbourne & Park, the principal question to be considered by the Supreme Court is:

    Does the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”), 15 U.S.C. 77p(b), 78bb(f)(1), prohibit private class actions based on state law only where the alleged purchase or sale of a covered security is “more than tangentially related” to the “heart, crux or gravamen” of the alleged fraud?

SLUSA prohibits a state law class action alleging a purchase or sale of a covered security “in connection with” an untrue statement or omission of material fact. A “covered class action” is a lawsuit in which damages are sought on behalf of more than 50 people, and a “covered security” is a nationally traded security that is listed on a regulated national exchange. So the question remaining is: What does “in connection with” mean?

The target defendants in the litigation at issue argue that “in connection with” covers the following two factual scenarios that touch “covered securities” in the Stanford case: (1) that Stanford lied to purchasers of CDs and told them that the CDs were backed by investments in stocks; and (2) that some of the CD purchasers must have liquidated stocks in order to purchase the CDs.

 The Fifth Circuit did not agree that either of these two scenarios were sufficient to bar claims under SLUSA, holding that the purchase or sale of a covered security must be more than tangentially related “to the ‘heart,’ ‘crux,’ or ‘gravamen’ of the defendants’ fraud.”  The Fifth Circuit held that the claims against the defendants could proceed.

 The Government, on the other hand, has taken the position in its amicus brief to the Supreme Court that the relevant language of SLUSA was taken from the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and should be read consistently with similar language in Section 10(b) of the Act.  In urging a broad reading of the words “in connection with,” the Government contends that:

    [A] broad reading is essential to the achievement of Congress’s purpose in enacting both Section 10(b) and SLUSA.  Under Section 10(b), it enhances the SEC’s ability to protect the securities markets against a variety of different forms of fraud. Under SLUSA, it furthers Congress’s objective of preventing the use of state-law class actions to circumvent the restrictions by the PSLRA [Private Securities Litigation Reform Act] and by this Court’s decisions constraining private securities-fraud suits.

In an amicus brief taking the contrary position, 16 law professors directly challenge the concept of broadening the application of SLUSA to include the certificates of deposit purchased by the Stanford investors. They note that the certificates of deposit are not themselves covered securities and argue that therefore SLUSA should be “interpreted in a way that does not preclude investors from using state courts to pursue claims seeking traditional state law remedies for acts that do not involve covered securities within the meaning of the federal securities laws.”

 To stress their position that SLUSA should not apply to non-covered bank-issued securities that may be potentially backed by covered securities, the 16 law professors float the following hypothetical class action claims, among others, that they contend would improperly be prohibited under SLUSA if interpreted that broadly:

    * "A car dealer who lies to customers about the terms of a car loan, where the car loans are securitized in a pool and interests in the pool are sold off as covered securities."
    * "A credit card company that securitizes credit card balances fails to pay appropriate wages to telephone operators and answering card holder questions, and the operators file a state class action alleging violations of state wage and hour laws."
    * "A nationally-traded securities clearing firm engages in sex discrimination in compensating clerical workers for work done in the securities office, and the workers file a sex discrimination class action law suit."

In summary, where the Supreme Court draws the lines on the application of SLUSA could have a significant impact on a variety of state law claims that may or may not have much to do with securities. The SEC stands behind a broad reading of SLUSA under the pretense of protecting the securities market, but its position appears to have the consequence of harming, not helping, defrauded victims by blocking state law damage claims.

 The issues are undoubtedly complicated, and there are a variety of competing considerations. From the investors’ perspective, however, they can just add this to the list of roadblocks to getting their money back.

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

The final decision

Stanford Group sold the CDs while claiming that they were backed, at least in part, by SLUSA-covered securities.

 Therefore, the government's lawyers say, the bogus investments were in fact sold "in connection with" covered securities. And for SLUSA to work, it must be interpreted broadly, and the SEC's views (as the SLUSA watchdog) must be given deference.

 "Congress intended the phrase 'in connection with' to sweep widely enough to ensure achievement of 'a high standard of business ethics in the securities industry,'" while reining in excessive class actions, the government argues.

 But Preis says the SEC is backing what Goldstein calls a "newfound interpretation of the securities laws" to broaden its enforcement power "at the expense of backing the Stanford victims." Since the Stanford products that local investors bought were not sold on the New York Stock Exchange, state law should apply, he says.

 Regardless, it's an intriguing turn in the SEC's complicated role in the Stanford fiasco. Many victims blame the regulators for not catching on to Allen Stanford's scheme early. But the SEC backed investors' controversial bid for relief from the Securities Investor Protection Corp., even though the Stanford International Bank in Antigua, which issued the worthless CDs, was never a SIPC member.

Read more: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=127

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

This just in from Baker Botts, hope it helps

The answer to your question concerning payments to trust beneficiaries is addressed on the Frequently Asked Questions page of the Stanford Financial Receivership Claims Website -- under FAQs relating to Trusts, Deceased Accountholders, and Related Beneficiaries -- which states specifically:

 1. How will the Receiver handle payments to beneficiaries of trusts, including trusts formerly administered by Stanford Trust Company, Ltd. in Antigua? Pursuant to the Notices of Determination issued by the Receiver, any payments regarding trusts' accounts will be made to the trusts themselves as payees. However, should the Receiver receive a request to change the payee from a trust to the trust beneficiaries, the Receiver will first need to verify the identities and ownership capacities of all beneficiaries of the trust, which may involve requests for additional information from those individuals, before making the requested change. Please note that any request to change the payee from a trust to its beneficiaries must include the express approval of all such beneficiaries.

The link to the FAQ section of the website is as follows:

 http://www.stanfordfinancialclaims.com/Home/FAQ#52

Requests to have checks reissued, along with supporting documentation, can be submitted to the Receivership within 180 days of the date the check was issued in writing by email at info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com and by mail at Stanford Financial Claims, c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC, P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990.

 As we also state in the FAQs, people should not include requests for changes to payee names on the certification forms they return, and such requests will not be honored. Most claimants who had similar issues properly raised them as part of the notice of determination objection process, as the payee names are stated in the notices of determination. The only other way to make such a request after the check has issued is in writing per the instructions above. Claimants certainly can contact Gilardi by phone but the actual request for the payee name change and check reissuance must be in writing and signed by all beneficiaries of the trust.

 I have inquired with Gilardi regarding the answering of phone calls, and they have indicated they are continuing to receive and handle phone calls on a regular basis.

 As to claims that were listed for payment on the second distribution schedule, the checks were actually mailed on September 26, 2013. Thus, it is likely that many, have not yet arrived at their destinations. Regards,

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

Golden Receivers – Trustees make a killing mopping up frauds

Golden Receivers – Trustees make a killing mopping up frauds
By JAMES DORAN
New York Post | August 12, 2009
Link to article

There’s a bull market on Wall Street.
Not for investors, but for a handful of elite lawyers and financial pros acting as court-appointed receivers or trustees of firms whose principals have been snagged by authorities and charged with running Ponzi schemes.
These lucky few, whose jobs most times are built around retrieving assets and winding down operations, can earn anywhere from $4,500 an hour to almost $2 million a week.
In the larger cases, professionals can earn $100 million over the life of the case.
And with the economy in recession and a surge in fraud cases being filed — from Bernie Madoff to R. Allen Stanford, Tom Petters and Ezra Merkin — there is no shortage of work.
“Many of the receivers I know are pretty busy,” said Robb Evans, whose firm has been appointed receiver in 28 cases this year through July, including the $1.5 billion fraud at WG Trading, which snared New Yorkers Paul Greenwood and Stephen Walsh.
Over the same period last year, Evans was appointed in 11 cases.
Ralph Janvey, the receiver winding down Stanford Financial Group, asked the court to approve more than $27 million of fees for just a few months’ work on the case. Janvey will pay accountants and lawyers at 14 different firms with the funds.
When the Securities and Exchange Commission and investors objected to Janvey’s massive fees, he told them he had already given them a 20 percent discount “out of concerns for the victims.”
While it is hard to pinpoint exactly what percentage of the total assets in any fraud will be eaten up by the professional fees of these “Golden Receivers,” in one recent $6.6 million fraud, the receiver distributed 43 percent of the assets to the victim — the rest went to professionals.
The percentage of assets eaten up by professional fees in the larger, $1 billion-plus cases, is expected to be lower.
“It’s a gravy train,” said Billy Procida, CEO of Procida Inc, who for a short time was appointed receiver to The Petters Group Worldwide after its founder, Tom Petters, was accused of running a $4 billion Ponzi scheme.
Procida, a Donald Trump protégé who was asked to become the receiver by a group of Petters creditors, was forced aside when a Minnesota court appointed Doug Kelley, a local lawyer and former Republican gubernatorial candidate, to wind down the business.
“I have dealt with a number of receiverships, and for these lawyers it’s like the full employment act,” Procida said.
In all, five $1 billion-plus frauds and alleged frauds have been unearthed in the last year.
Irving Picard, the court-appointed trustee in the Madoff fraud, is also raking in the dough. Picard last week asked for more than $15 million of fees for just 15 weeks of work — but got only $12.6 million.
Bart Schwartz, one of two receivers presiding over Merkin’s investment funds in New York, has had his fees capped by the court at just $150,000 a month but isn’t going to finish soon.
“There is a strong possibility that this receivership will last a fairly long time,” he said. “It is our job to make as much money for the investors as possible. Given current market conditions, it might be better to wait until things improve before we liquidate some of these assets.”
And while Schwartz is waiting, the meter is still running.
Procida believes the Golden Receivers should be paid on performance, not on time taken to complete their task. “They should get paid a percentage of their net proceeds, not gross. This would stop them from spending a million dollars to recoup hundreds.”
One of Madoff’s former investors filed court papers asking Picard to make public his time sheets, so the victims could see how the receiver spends his $1 million a week
Picard has said his work on the Madoff case could last at least five years, which means he could make upwards of $250 million if the court continues to allow his billing at the current rate.
“If he drags it out long enough,” said Helen Davis Chaitman, a lawyer representing hundreds of Madoff victims, “he will make more money than Madoff.”
Tags: Billy Procida, Doug Kelley, James Doran, New York Post, Ponzi Schemes, Receiver, Tom Petters
Share and Enjoy:

One Response to “Golden Receivers – Trustees make a killing mopping up frauds”
Laser Haas says:
November 25, 2009 at 5:32 pm
You have published a story that has hit the nail on the proverbial head.
Receivers, Trustees and others that are elite. Need not compete for jobs. As is evident by the comments within the story Procida. He was not removed for excess billings or bad performance. He was removed so that a “good ole boy” could be placed within.
.
Doug Kelley was initially hired by PGW and even went public stating Creditors are a last consideration. Then he was made a Federal Receiver – violating Ethics, Model Rules and common sense.
.
Being that the law is being cast assunder – the Judge gave Doug Kelley and his counter Hansen Judicial Immunity.
.
Exactly where does one find the Federal authority to hand out Judicial Immunity?
.
Then Doug Kelley – with willful blindness of the US Trustee (the police of the system) – where the US Trustee even then overtly Helped Doug Kelley to illegally become the Trustee.
.
Even the American Bar Association states that once a bankruptcy is filed the Receiver is moot.
.
This means the Bankruptcy Judge joined the fray in permitting skirts of the Law.
.
When ordinary citizens skirt (break) the Law – they go to jail!
.
We barked about Petters, Traub and others for years now. Even with all the arrests and pleads of guilt – felony violations and Collusions continue – including the Polaroid sale(s) etc.
.
This website fits the bill – for cronyism & corruption we must kill!
Sincerely
Laser@petters-fraud.com

Read more: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=133

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/