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/

SEC Order Against Stanford

April 25, 2013
By U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey

Securities and Exchange Commission, Plaintiff, vs. Stanford International Bank LTD., et al. Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-0298-N

This Order addresses Plaintiff Security and Exchange Commission's ("SEC") motion for partial summary judgment [1779]. The Court grants the motion. The Court also denies Defendant R. Allen Stanford's motion for extension of time [1807].

The Court grants the SEC's motion for summary judgment. The Court enjoins Stanford from violating the Exchange Act § 10(b), Rule 10b-5, the Securities Act § 17(a), and the Advisers Act § 206(1) and (2), enjoins Davis violating the Exchange Act § 10(b), Rule 10b-5, the Securities Act § 17(a), and enjoins SGC and SIB from violating the Exchange Act § 10(b), Rule 10b-5, the Securities Act § 17(a), the Advisers Act § 206(1) and (2), and the Investment Company Act § 7(d). The Court finds Stanford, Davis, SGC, and SIB jointly and severally liable to disgorge the $5.9 billion fraudulently acquired by Stanford's scheme. The Court adds $861,189,969.06 of prejudgment interest to this total, for a total disgorgement liability of $6,761,189,969.06. Finally, the Court imposes a civil penalty of $5.9 billion on Stanford and $5 million on Davis.

Read the complete Order of U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey.


Source: http://sivg.org/article/2013_SEC_Order_Against_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/

Louisiana officials want release of SEC report in Stanford case

A Louisiana senator told officials of the Securities and Exchange Commission Friday that he wants immediate release of a year-old report by the commission’s inspector general on efforts to recover money for victims of a multibillion-dollar fraud.
U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., described as incompetent efforts by a court-appointed receiver to find and distribute assets of convicted con man Robert Allen Stanford.
Stanford, 63, of Houston, is serving a 110-year prison sentence for a fraud conviction that followed estimated worldwide losses of approximately $7 billion. About $1 billion of those losses were from about 1,000 investors in the Baton Rouge, Lafayette and Covington areas, according to estimates by state Sen. Bodi White, R-Central, and Baton Rouge attorney Phillip W. Preis.
“The fraud caused an absolute tragedy for many Louisiana families who invested their hard-earned retirement savings in good faith that it would be there for them when they retired,” Vitter said Friday in a letter to Mary Jo White, who chairs the SEC.
Vitter said the receiver in the case, Dallas attorney Ralph Janvey, spent $100 million to collect $55 million for Stanford’s victims.
“In the best light, Janvey’s actions can only be seen as incompetent,” Vitter told White in that letter. He urged White to release the SEC inspector general’s report on Janvey, noting that it was completed in March 2012.
There are more than 20,000 Stanford victims across more than 100 countries.
A retired Zachary couple, Louis and Kathy Mier, saw $240,000 of their savings stolen by Stanford’s fraudulent scheme.
“Whatever any of our congressmen do to shed light on the truth of what happened, and whatever they can do to help us get our money back and be whole again, would make Louis and me very, very happy,” Kathy Mier said Friday.
John J. Nester, a spokesman for the SEC, said in an email Friday that neither he nor other SEC officials would comment on Vitter’s request before White issues a response to the senator’s letter.
U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., released a statement through her staff: “The Stanford victims deserve answers, and the immediate release of the IG’s report is the very least the SEC can do.”
U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy, R.-Baton Rouge, said through his staff: “I strongly urge the SEC … to release the full results of the inspector general’s report. The victims of this crime were hard working Louisiana families, and they are entitled to see the details of the report.”
Vitter noted that Janvey, against the SEC’s wishes, unsuccessfully sued some Stanford victims in an effort to seize money those victims retrieved before Stanford’s operations were shut down in February 2009.
“Given the demonstrated incompetence of the court-appointed receiver, it makes you wonder how bad this (inspector general’s) report gets,” Vitter added. “The Stanford victims deserve to see.”
“Given the demonstrated incompetence of the court-appointed receiver, it makes you wonder how bad this (inspector general’s) report gets. The Stanford victims deserve to see.” U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La.

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

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

SEC Can't Force Help For Stanford Victims, DC Circ. Told

The Securities Investor Protection Corp. asked the D.C. Circuit on Monday to affirm a landmark district court ruling declaring it doesn’t owe compensation to victims of Robert Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme, suggesting the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission succumbed to political pressure in bringing the suit.

The SIPC asked the appeals court to affirm U.S. District Judge Robert L. Wilkins’ decision dismissing the agency’s application to compel the SIPC to pay the fraud victims’ claims through a liquidation proceeding.

A top agency official had originally agreed that the SIPC did not owe funds under the Securities Investor Protection Act, SIPC claims, but that changed after U.S. Senator David Vitter, R-La., threatened to block the nominations of two SEC officials in June 2011, the SIPC said.

“The record shows that the SEC's general counsel agreed that SIPA did not apply to the Stanford case,” the SIPC said. “It was only two years later that the SEC sought to force SIPC's hand, apparently bowing to pressure from a U.S. senator,” referencing a June 14, 2011, press release from Vitter.

The corporation, funded by the brokerage industry to cover investors who lose money in failing firms, also claims the SEC didn’t seek a liquidation until two years after its 2009 case against Stanford.

“If the SEC had thought the Stanford fraud was within the scope of what SIPA protects, it was under a legal obligation to notify SIPC immediately,” the SIPC said. “The SEC did not do so, even though it filed an enforcement action against Stanford and secured the appointment of a receiver over U.S. Stanford assets in February 2009.”

On July 3, Judge Wilkins ruled that Stanford's U.S.-based Stanford Group Co. was a member of the SIPC, but that the Antigua-based Stanford International Bank was not. Stanford International Bank Ltd. was an offshore bank, not a registered broker-dealer, which is what the SIPC oversees, Judge Wilkins said.

Judge Wilkins’ decision was a major blow to victims of the Ponzi scheme, who together lost upwards of $7 billion in certificates of deposit administered by Stanford International Bank. It also carried broader legal significance, marking the first time since the enactment of SIPA 42 years ago that a federal court had ruled on how much power the SEC has to command a SIPC liquidation.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that brokerage customers cannot force such proceedings, but that the SEC has the authority to do so.

Because of its precedential nature, a key issue in the Stanford dispute was the standard of proof required of the SEC. The agency argued for a more lenient standard than the SIPC did, describing its burden as merely probable cause supported by hearsay. Judge Wilkins ultimately chose the higher standard requested by the SIPC: a preponderance of the evidence. In an SIPC liquidation, an investor must meet a preponderance standard to prove the validity of his or her claim.

In its appellate brief filed in January, the SEC said Judge Wilkins had taken a too-narrow view of the term "customer." The agency argued that transactions with both Stanford entities should be treated the same way under SIPA because the company operated “as a single fraudulent enterprise that ignored corporate boundaries.”

“This interpretation of the statute to allow for flexibility in certain circumstances is the correct one, and it is at least a reasonable one that was entitled to deference by the district court,” the SEC said.

The SEC added that it was not seeking customer status for all Stanford investors, but only for those who held accounts with Stanford Group Co., purchased fraudulent certificates of deposit through SGC and deposited funds with Stanford International Bank Ltd.

But SIPC said Monday that the terms of its mission were clear: to protect investors when a member brokerage fails, adding that Judge Wilkins' purportedly narrow view of the term 'customer' was appropriate.

"By its terms, the statute does not insure against fraud or investment losses, instead protecting only the 'customer' property that an SIPC-'member' brokerage firm holds in custody when the brokerage fails,” the corporation added.

The corporation also said the SEC’s case was unprecedented because it has not made similar requests in proceedings related to the downfall of a major financial institution.

“In 40 years and over 300 liquidation proceedings — including the recent liquidations ofLehman Brothers Inc., Madoff Investment Securities LLC, and MF Global Inc. — this is the first the the SEC had ever tried to compel a liquidation. '

Stanford was sentenced in June to 110 years in prison for his role in the fraud.

SIPC is represented by Edwin John U, Eugene F. Assaf Jr., John C. O'Quinn, Michael W. McConnell and Elizabeth M. Locke of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

The case is U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., case number 12-5286, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Source: http://www.sivg.org/article/2013_SEC_Cant_Force_Help_For_Stanford_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'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/

Stanford Victim Penny-a-Dollar Payment Plan Goes to Judge

R. Allen Stanford’s investors may recoup some of their losses more than four years after the Stanford Group Co. founder was sued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and put out of business.
Ralph Janvey, the receiver appointed by a federal judge in 2009 to marshal and liquidate Stanford’s personal and business assets, today asked permission 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 U.S. District Judge David Godbey today in Dallas.
The proposed payout would trail the more than $5.4 billion paid to victims of Bernard L. Madoff, who was arrested in December 2008; about $4.9 billion paid clients of the MF Global Inc. brokerage after its parent MF Global Holdings Ltd. failed in October 2011; and the $123 million interim distribution for victims of Peregrine Financial Group Inc. founder Russell Wasendorf, who prosecutors last year said stole $215 million.
“No distribution plan can satisfy every claimant,” Janvey’s lawyers said in a Feb. 12 court filing. “But the receiver’s interim plan, which drew only three objections from thousands of claimants, comes remarkably close.”
Cross-Border Protocol
Godbey didn’t rule today on Janvey’s bid for payment plan approval. The judge granted a request to approve the Cross- Border Protocol, a cooperation agreement between the Dallas court-appointed receivership and U.S. authorities on one side, and Antiguan court-appointed liquidators of Stanford assets outside the U.S. on the other. That approval could boost investors’ final recovery.
“The court finds the motion to be well-taken,” Godbey said in a two-page order. He heard more than two hours of argument this morning.
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.
Sentenced to 110 years in federal prison, Stanford has appealed the verdict.
Godbey today asked Sadler whether it was proper to distribute Stanford’s money before entering a final order in the SEC case against the financier and his businesses.
No Precedent
No legal precedent requires Godbey to first issue such a ruling, Janvey’s lawyer replied. He also told the judge that in a prior decision he said “not a nickel” of the money recovered by the receiver from Stanford entities was not taken by fraud.
One objection to the payout plan came from the law firm Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP. A lawyer for the firm, Myles Bartley, told the judge today that it’s owed $1.4 million for work done for Stanford entities and isn’t included in the first group of distributions.
Sadler said there would be enough funds to resolve those claims even if the judge approved the proposed payment plan.
In an e-mailed statement, Sadler called the judge’s ruling today “a significant milestone” in the receivership’s effort to get money to Stanford fraud victims.
Godbey’s order requires the Janvey receivership and the Antiguan liquidators to “perform in accordance with their rights and obligations as outlined in the settlement agreement.”
Long Dispute
Lawyers for both factions battled for months for control of $300 million of Stanford assets outside the U.S.
“So long as it continues, millions of dollars in assets that could otherwise be distributed to victims of the Stanford Ponzi scheme will remain tied up in the courts,” Sadler told Godbey in a filing last month.
The liquidators, Grant Thornton International Ltd. accountants Hugh Dickson and Marcus Wide, joined in the approval request through a separate filing.
For dropping their dispute with Janvey and the U.S. Justice Department, the Antiguan liquidators will receive fees of $36 million from Stanford’s frozen funds in the U.K., according to a statement jointly released by both receivers on March 12. The Antiguan liquidators already have received $20 million from the U.K. accounts.
About $23 million in Canadian funds and $132.5 million in Swiss funds will be transferred to the Justice Department and Janvey for distribution to investors through a system the U.S. receiver is establishing, according to the joint statement.
‘Ransom’ Payment
Angie Shaw, a founder of the Stanford Victims Coalition, has denounced the agreement as “ransom” that rewards the Antiguan liquidators at the investors’ expense.
“There is no Plan B,” Sadler told the judge.
Edward H. Davis Jr., an attorney for the liquidators, told Godbey today that an Antiguan court approved the agreement this week.
He said the agreement funds a “war chest” for the liquidators to further pursue lawsuits.
“The Joint Liquidators are pleased to have obtained the approval of the settlement from the High Court in Antigua this past Monday,” Davis said today in an e-mailed statement.
Attorneys representing law firms already defending suits filed by Janvey in the U.S. objected to the accord, arguing that it would result in more litigation offshore.
“There is obviously a jurisdictional issue,” Godbey said. “There is no getting around it.”
Fees Paid
Janvey’s professionals had been paid $63.3 million in fees and expenses as of Feb. 7, according to his most recent status report. That represents about a quarter of the $230.2 million Janvey has recovered for the estate. He has paid out $53.3 million more in costs to wind up Stanford’s business interests.
Shaw couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on Godbey’s ruling this afternoon. Peter Morgenstern, an attorney who serves on the official Stanford Investors Committee, also didn’t immediately reply to voice-mail and e-mail requests for comment.
An additional $4.1 million in Stanford-related assets have been identified in an account held by Pershing LLC, according to a court filing by Sadler yesterday seeking an order for the turnover of those funds.
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).

Source: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=58

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

SEC Not Liable for Missing Bernie Madoff Scheme: Court

Investors who lost billions in Bernie Madoff’s infamous Ponzi scheme may be angry with securities regulators for failing to catch him during his decades-long crime, but a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday the investors cannot sue them.

The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s rejection of claims by a number of defrauded Madoff clients who argued “the SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] negligently failed to adequately investigate Bernard Madoff despite numerous warnings.”

INVESTIGATION: The Madoff Scandal: Behind the Headlines

The three-judge panel said SEC employees are shielded by what’s known as the Discretionary Function Exception, which protects the government from certain lawsuits even if a private employer could be held liable under similar circumstances.

“We recognized that challenging the SEC would be difficult but this was a case that needed to be fought,” said plaintiff’s attorney, Howard Elisofon.  “We believe that our clients were wronged (both by Madoff and the SEC) and their rights needed to be vindicated.”

PHOTOS: The Secret World of Bernie Madoff

The judges said they have “sympathy” for the plaintiffs, and they called the SEC’s failure to uncover Madoff’s scheme “regrettable.”  However, the judge said, “Congress’s intent to shield regulatory agencies’ discretionary use of specific investigative powers… is fatal to the plaintiffs’ claims.”

“We were disappointed,” said another of the plaintiff’s attorneys, Howard Kleinhendler, who told ABC News he plans to appeal to the United States Supreme Court.  “The SEC completely failed.  They failed to collect the facts.  They failed to properly investigate.  They broke down and should be held accountable.”

The SEC declined to comment on the decision.

Madoff pleaded guilty in 2009 to orchestrating a colossal fraud that cost his clients at least $17 billion.  He is serving what amounts to a life sentence at a federal prison in North Carolina.

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/

Report Exposes Secrets of Off-Shore Tax Havens

The off-shore tax havens of least 30 Americans accused of fraud, money laundering or other financial crimes have been unearthed in a groundbreaking report by The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and a global consortium of news outlets.

The first articles based on a cache of 2.5 million files were published Thursday, exposing secrets of more than 120,000 offshore entities -- including shell corporations and legal structures known as trusts -- used to hide the finances of politicians, crooks and others from more than 170 nations.

These havens are harboring an enormous amount of money. One study estimated the total could be as high as $32 trillion. That's roughly the size of the U.S. and Japanese economies combined.

The documents give a first-ever look at how agents for giant private banks would incorporate companies in Caribbean and South Pacific micro-states. These companies would then have front people called "nominees" to serve, on paper, as directors and shareholders -- creating another layer of secrecy and protection for the companies' real owners.

The ICIJ's review of documents from just one company which sets up off-short companies and trusts, Singapore-based Portcullis TrustNet, identified 30 American clients who are in legal trouble for their financial dealings. According to the ICIJ, these include Paul Bilzerian, a corporate raider who was convicted of tax fraud and securities violations in 1989, and Raj Rajaratnam, a billionaire hedge fund manager who began serving an 11-year prison sentence in January for his role in one of the biggest insider trading scandals in U.S. history.

The documents also reveal detailed information about the financial dealings of array of notorious people and companies including international arms dealers, smugglers and a company the European Union says is a front for Iran's nuclear-development program. Records have also been found on:

-- Maria Imelda Marcos Manotoc, daughter of the late Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Following the release of the data, Philippine officials said they hope to learn if any of the money now held by Manotoc is part of the estimated $5 billion her father amassed through corruption.
-- Individuals and companies who stole $230 million from Russia's treasury in a case which strained U.S.-Russia relations and led to a ban on Americans adopting Russian orphans.
-- A Venezuelan man accused of using offshore companies to fund a U.S.-based Ponzi scheme and spending millions of dollars to bribe a Venezuelan government official.
-- A corporate mogul who got billions of dollars in contracts from the government of Azerbaijan while serving as a director of offshore companies owned by the Azerbaijani president's daughters.

The ICIJ and 86 investigative journalists worked for more than a year to make sense of the cache of 2.5 million files. The reporters came from new outlets in 46 countries, including The Guardian and the BBC in the U.K., Le Monde in France, Süddeutsche Zeitungand Norddeutscher Rundfunk in Germany, The Washington Post, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and 31 other media partners around the world.

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/

SIPC: $5.44 BILLION NOW DISTRIBUTED TO MADOFF VICTIMS

Madoff Trustee’s Third Distribution Sends Approximately $506.2 Million to Customers With Allowed Claims

WASHINGTON, DC – April 1, 2013 - With the distribution of approximately $506.2 million to victims in the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), a total of $5.44 billion will now have been distributed to BLMIS customers with allowed claims.   The Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) today applauded the hard work of Trustee Irving H. Picard and his attorneys in their continued efforts to recover and return funds to BLMIS customers.

When combined with the funds already returned to BLMIS customers from the Customer Fund and advances from SIPC, more than 50 percent of the total Madoff accounts with allowed claims will be fully satisfied following the third interim pro rata distribution. A total of 1,106 accounts will be fully satisfied following the third interim distribution out of a total of 2,178 accounts with allowed claims. 

Since December 2008, $9.32 billion has either been recovered or agreements reached to recover funds to return to BLMIS customers.  This amount is more than 53 percent of the approximately $17.5 billion in principal estimated to have been lost by BLMIS customers who filed allowed claims. The Trustee’s recovery of more than $9.32 billion has been made possible through advances provided by SIPC, which is funded by the securities industry.  To date, SIPC has committed approximately $807 million to pay customer claims and over $718 million to fund the liquidation proceeding.  No monies recovered by the Trustee have been used to pay any administrative expenses.  All recoveries made by the Trustee benefit customers. 

SIPC President Stephen Harbeck said: “Thanks to the significant Tremont Funds settlement, which allocated more than $1 billion to the BLMIS Customer Fund, and additional funds recovered by Trustee Picard and his team since last fall, additional distributions continue to be made in an effort to fully satisfy as many BLMIS allowed claims as possible. We applaud the hard work Trustee Picard has undertaken to recover monies and distribute them to customers at the failed BLMIS brokerage.  His successful efforts have resulted in the ability to fully satisfy more than half of the BLMIS accounts with allowed claims, a significant achievement.  SIPC is pleased to continue to facilitate the work of the Trustee to make possible the maximum recovery and return of funds to customers. ”

ABOUT SIPC

The Securities Investor Protection Corporation is the U.S. investor's first line of defense in the event of the failure of a brokerage firm owing customers cash and securities that are missing from customer accounts. SIPC either acts as trustee or works with an independent court-appointed trustee in a brokerage insolvency case to recover funds.

The statute that created SIPC provides that customers of a failed brokerage firm receive all non-negotiable securities - such as stocks or bonds -- that are already registered in their names or in the process of being registered. At the same time, funds from the SIPC reserve are available to satisfy the remaining claims for customer cash and/or securities held in custody with the broker for up to a maximum of $500,000 per customer. This figure includes a maximum of $250,000 on claims for cash. From the time Congress created it in 1970 through December 2011, SIPC has advanced $ 1.8 billion in order to make possible the recovery of $ 117.5 billion in assets for an estimated 767,000 investors.

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

Proskauer, Hunton, Chadbourne Attack Antiguan Stanford Deal

Proskauer Rose LLP, Hunton & Williams LLP and Chadbourne & Parke LLP on Thursday challenged a settlement between the U.S. and Antiguan receivers in charge of compensating victims of Robert Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme, saying the deal exposes them to duplicative litigation.

The three firms join Greenberg Traurig LLP in urging a Texas court to reject the settlement, which will resolve disputes about jurisdiction over $300 million that Stanford had in the U.K., Switzerland and Canada.

Proceedings are already underway in the U.S. that are looking to hold the law firms liable with respect to their legal work for Houston-based Stanford Financial Group, alleging that they did not do enough to stop Stanford’s fraud.

Furthermore, the deal ignores earlier court-ordered prohibitions to the U.S. and Antiguan receivers pursuing independent lawsuits against lawyers and duplicating their efforts in the two nations' court systems, as well as terms that would allow the Antiguan receivers to conduct U.S. discovery without being subject to the personal jurisdiction of U.S. courts, the firms argue.

The settlement agreement includes a provision that allows the receivers and government agencies to pursue the same claims in different jurisdictions, the firms contend. This could force them to defend themselves against the same allegations both in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and again in Antigua.

“This result creates the possibility of inconsistent judgments, and in any event would entail a waste of judicial resources and the resources of the parties,” Proskauer said in its objection to the deal.

The firms are asking the court to either deny the settlement should or remove the provision that allows for the duplicate claims.

Stanford rose to prominence as the head of the multinational financial services group that bore his name, whose banking arm was the Stanford International Bank in Antigua. The four firms that have objected served as outside law firms to some of Stanford's companies for a time, but all have denied any knowledge or culpability in his massive scheme.

After investigators in February 2009 alleged that the consistently above-average returns Stanford promised were possible only because of fraud, regulators in both Antigua and the U.S. appointed receivers to handle the claims. They had been at odds until the settlement was reached.

The settlement, announced March 12, would allow distributions to victims to go forward without litigation between the U.S. receiver and his counterparts in Antigua — joint liquidators Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson of the accounting firm Grant Thornton — threatening to disrupt the process as it had in the past.

A hearing in Antigua on the proposed settlement, which requires U.S., U.K. and Antiguan approval, is scheduled for April 8.

Stanford was convicted of securities fraud in March 2012 and sentenced to 110 years in prison.

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/

KLS - Stanford Update March 2013

March 14, 2013
By KACHROO LEGAL SERVICES, P.C.
In our last update, we notified you that the magistrate judge in our SEC class action denied the Government's request to stay all discovery. We are summarizing here the outcome of the discovery hearing which was held in Miami on February 14, 2013. One of the key hurdles to overcome in an action against the Government is the discretionary function exception. The magistrate made clear that this hurdle has been overcome and the court had already ruled on the sovereign immunity issue. The magistrate also held that "it is not obvious that [the Government's second motion to dismiss] will succeed." A copy of this ruling is attached for your review. Following this ruling, we have moved forward with discovery and we continue to wait for the district court to rule on the Government's second motion to dismiss.

In view of the delays caused by the Government's motion to stay discovery, we requested that the Court push back certain pre-trial and trial deadlines to allow us adequate time to pursue the discovery required to prove our case. We are happy to report that the Court granted our request and pushed back discovery deadlines to afford us this opportunity, which also resulted in a new trial date set for April 7, 2014.

In accordance with the foregoing and the undersigned's rulings in open Court, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1.- The Motion to Stay Discovery [D.E. 50] is DENIED.

2.- The Motion to Compel [D.E. 51] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Request No. 1 and Interrogatory No. 6 based on Defendant's agreement to supply the names and contact information of the SEC Fort Worth District Office staff members in response to Interrogatory No. 1. Such information is hereby designated as "CONFIDENTIAL, FOR ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY", and shall be provided to Plaintiff's counsel by February 19, 2013.

3.- The Motion to Compel [D.E. 51] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Request Nos. 2, 13-16 and Interrogatory Nos. 1-5, 7-8 subject to the following terms. Plaintiffs may notice a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the SEC, designating as categories the information sought in their discovery requestes, but narrowed in terms of time, entity and scope as more fully explained at the February 14, 2013 hearing. Within one week of receipt of the Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition, Defendant may submit a letter to the undersigned setting forth any objections to the designated categories at the undersigned's e-file address, otazo-reyes@flsd.uscourts.gov. Plaintiffs may respond to any such objections, by the same means, within one week. Thereafter, the undersigned will rule on the objections or, if necessary, set a telephonic hearing to address them. The parties' letters will be appended to the Order on the objections.
The Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the SEC shall be scheduled on a date that is mutually agreeable to the parties, and at a time when the undersigned will be available to rule on any disputes that may arise regarding its scope. To this end, counsel may contact Chambers to coordinate the deposition date. Further, the parties may submit a proposed confidentiality order prior to the deposition.

To read the Zelaya Order on Motion to Stay and Motion to Compel: http://sivg.org/article/2013_KLS_Stanford_Update_SEC_Litigation.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 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/

Stanford U.S. Receiver Has Deal With Antigua Counterpart

R. Allen Stanford’s Antiguan- appointed liquidators agreed to stop seeking control of the convicted financier’s assets in a deal that may allow defrauded investors to recover some of the $300 million Stanford stashed in accounts outside the U.S.
Receivers appointed by the U.S. and the Antiguan courts have battled for four years to control assets recovered from Stanford’s financial-services empire. Stanford, 62, was convicted last March of leading a $7 billion investment fraud based on bogus certificates of deposit at his Antigua-based bank. He was sentenced to 110 years in prison.
“The funds that are the subject of this agreement represent the largest available source of investor money that Allen Stanford had not already spent by the time his Ponzi scheme collapsed,” Kevin Sadler, lead attorney for U.S. receiver Ralph Janvey, said in an e-mail today. “In the absence of this agreement, these funds would remain out of reach of the Stanford victims for years to come.”
For dropping their dispute with Janvey and the U.S. Justice Department, the Antiguan liquidators will receive fees of $36 million from Stanford’s frozen funds in the U.K., according to a statement jointly released by both receivers today.

Professional Fees

The Antiguan liquidators have already received $20 million from the U.K. accounts, so the additional payment will boost their professional fees to $56 million -- almost as much as Janvey’s receivership team has been paid since U.S. securities regulators seized Stanford’s operations in February 2009.
Janvey’s professionals had been paid $63.3 million in fees and expenses as of Feb. 7, according to his latest status report. That represents about a quarter of the $230.2 million Janvey has recovered for the estate. He has paid out an additional $53.3 million in costs to wind up Stanford’s business interests.
Janvey recently proposed a $50 million interim distribution be paid to investors, pending court approval.
Angie Shaw, a founder of the Stanford Victims Coalition, denounced the agreement as “ransom” that rewards the Antiguan liquidators at the investors’ expense.
“While the agreement does end a four-year international turf war that has cost the victims untold millions of dollars, the only true beneficiary of the agreement is the Antiguan liquidators,” Shaw said in an e-mail today. “The Antiguan liquidators are essentially getting a ransom fee in exchange for dropping their litigation for control over the frozen foreign accounts holding what is left of the victims’ life savings.”

Dallas Judge

While Janvey was awarded control over all Stanford assets by the Dallas judge in charge of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission case against Stanford, courts in the U.K., Switzerland and Canada initially awarded control of about $320 million in foreign accounts to Antiguan court-appointed liquidators Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson of Grant Thornton.
The Justice Department placed an administrative hold on the European funds, and it has been trying to repatriate the money since Stanford and his co-conspirators were convicted last year.
The Antiguan liquidators have fought to retain control and have filed some asset-recovery lawsuits that duplicate actions already initiated by Janvey, according to court filings. Wide and Dickson haven’t publicly stated how much they’ve been able to recover for Stanford’s investors.

Stanford Victims

Edward H. Davis Jr., one of the Antiguan liquidators’ attorneys, said in an e-mail today that Dickson and Wide have already recovered and frozen more than $227 million in Stanford assets “independent of the amounts recovered by Janvey and in addition to the approximately $300 million frozen” in overseas accounts.
“The joint liquidators have conducted intensive investigations and lodged claims and are in the process of launching additional lawsuits that have the potential to yield billions of dollars in recoveries to pay the victim creditors,” Davis said. “To suggest that the joint liquidators held the estate for ransom demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about how a liquidation process maximizes recoveries for victim creditors.”
Peter Morgenstern, a lawyer who sits on the Official Stanford Investors Committee, said the investors should be allowed to decide whether the Antiguan liquidators receive more fees or whether the U.S. government should continue fighting to recover Stanford’s frozen European funds through international accords designed to recover criminal proceeds.

‘Significant Assets’

“The issue is how significant assets recovered by the U.S. government for the benefit of Stanford victims should be spent,” Morgenstern said in an e-mail. Much as creditors have a say in how bankruptcy proceeds are distributed, he said, the defrauded investors should also be consulted before such a large part of the estate is paid in professional fees.
Janvey has asked U.S. District Judge David Godbey in Dallas to hold a hearing at which investors can express their opinions of the deal. No hearing has been set.
Under terms of the agreement announced today, the Antiguan liquidators will distribute the $44 million remaining in the U.K. accounts to investors after the liquidators have received their $36 million in working capital. Wide and Dickson will also distribute about $60.5 million of the funds currently frozen in Switzerland, according to the joint statement.

Fund Transfers

About $23 million in Canadian funds and $132.5 million in Swiss funds will be transferred to the Justice Department and Janvey for distribution to investors through a system the U.S. receiver is establishing, according to the joint statement.
The agreement “creates a plan for the distribution of almost 90 percent of the frozen assets from the U.K., Canada and Switzerland pursuant to which distributions will be made as soon as the necessary approvals are obtained from the pertinent authorities in those countries,” the Antiguan liquidators said in the joint statement.
Courts in the U.S., Antigua and the U.K. must still sign off on the deal before any funds are transferred, according to the statement.
Sadler, the U.S. receiver’s attorney, said the deal was the result of months of negotiations involving officials in five nations.
“This agreement is one of the most complex undertakings of its kind,” he said in an e-mail. “This was no easy task.”
The criminal case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09-cr-00342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston). The SEC case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank, 09-cv-00298, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).

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

OPEN LETTER TO JANVEY AND JLs. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 12, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:
Mr. Ralph Janvey
Mr. Marcus Wide
Mr. Hugh Dickson

CC:
Mr. John Little
Mr. Edward C. Snyder
Mr. Kevin M. Sadler
Mrs. Jennifer Ambuehl

Dear Mr. Janvey, Mr. Wide and Mr. Dickson,
Months have gone, it is March 2013 and the real victims of the Stanford fraud (hereinafter "we", "us") have not yet received any information about the distribution of our money located in the USA and abroad.

So far we have suffered from lack of information and transparency. However this should not happen because you are working for us.

As it was mentioned by the OSIC in January 22, 2013: "We (the OSIC) strongly believe that you, the victims of this horrible crime, should decide how your money is spent, and whether all available funds should be distributed to you, or to fund ongoing efforts by the receivership or the joint liquidators"

We demand that all the money collected so far to be immediately distributed to us.

We agreed all together with this petition and as both of you are working for us (and both of you have being paid so far with our money), you must listen to our petition. We have taken this decision, so please inform us as soon as possible:
1- how much money there is for distribution so far identified in the USA and abroad
2- how the complete distribution will be effectively implemented and how all the money will be paid to us.

We cannot keep waiting and waiting.

Sincerely,
The real victims of the Stanford fraud

Sign the open letter to Janvey and JLs. ( View how many victims have accepted this letter)

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

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

Senator to Play Offense for Saints Against SEC Nominee; Stanford news

Senator to Play Offense for Saints Against SEC Nominee

By Dave Michaels & Cheyenne Hopkins - Mar 8, 2013 11:58 AM CT

How can a U.S. senator score easy points with home-state voters? Bring up football when others are talking about the minutiae of Wall Street regulation.

Senator David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, plans to cross-examine Mary Jo White next week about her assessment of wrongdoing by New Orleans Saints players and coaches in the National Football League team’s “Bountygate” scandal. White, nominated by President Barack Obama to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission, was retained by the NFL in 2011 to review evidence that team paid players to injure opponents.

The probe resulted in the suspension of several key defensive players and coaches, including Saints head coach Sean Payton. The players suspensions were overturned last year on appeal. The Saints didn’t recover from the suspensions, finishing with a 7-9 win-loss record in 2012, one year after going 13-3. The team won Super Bowl XLIV in 2010.

“If Mary Jo’s work at the SEC is anything close to her botched work for the NFL, folks who want to protect their investments, like the victims of the Stanford Ponzi scheme, are in trouble,” Vitter said in a statement. The senator’s state is home to many Stanford investors.

The three-member arbitration panel that overturned the players’ suspensions faulted NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell for his handling of the discipline. It didn’t address White’s review of the facts or the quality of the investigation.

Vitter’s staff says he plans to ask White how many of the NFL’s cooperating witnesses actually mentioned a “pay for injury” program, and if any of them had an interest in verifying the league’s claims.

Read more: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=35

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

Obama chooses lawmaker accused of corrupt ties with Chavez to attend funeral

Obama chooses lawmaker accused of corrupt ties with Chavez to attend funeral
By Julian Pecquet - 03/07/13 06:43 PM ET


President Obama is sending a lawmaker whose relationship with Hugo Chavez has come under scrutiny in the past to represent the United States at the Venezuelan strongman's funeral on Friday.

Rep. Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.) allegedly met with Chavez in 2006 at the bequest of one of his donors, indicted Ponzi schemer Allen Stanford, to request a criminal probe into a Venezuelan banker who had fallen out with Stanford, The Miami Herald reported in 2009. The banker, Gonzalo Tirado, was charged with tax evasion and theft a year after the meeting with Meeks.


Meeks said at the time that the trip was aimed at thanking Chavez for providing heating oil for poor Americans through Citgo, a subsidiary of the state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela. Citgo is the primary donor of heating oil to Citizens Energy, a nonprofit organization led by former Rep. Joseph Kennedy (D-Mass.) that provides discounted heating oil to poor families.

“I am honored to be a part of a delegation that will represent the United States at the Funeral of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Friday, March 8,” Meeks said in a statement Thursday. “My deepest sympathies go out to the family of President Chavez and the people of Venezuela. Venezuela is an important nation to the Western Hemisphere. I remain committed to building the relationship between our nations. As always, I stand in continued support of the Venezuelan people especially at this time of mourning.”

His office did not respond to a query about his ties to Chavez.

Stanford's lawyer, Kent Schaffer, acknowledged at the time that his client had talked with Meeks about Tirado -- but denied anything improper happened, The New York Post reported.

"I know from my conversation with Allen Stanford that there's no reason to believe that anything illegal or unethical was asked of the congressman," he said.

"They were having problems with an employee they believed was stealing from the bank . . . and he simply was reporting what had happened. I'm not aware of him making any request for anything in particular."

The good-government group CREW has long accused Meeks of corruption.

“It’s one thing to accept gifts of real estate and cash. It’s a whole new level to reach out to dictators on behalf of any donor – the fact that it was Allen Stanford just makes it creepier,” CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan said at the time the allegations first came to light. “It seems there is nothing Rep. Meeks won’t do for cash. He needs to be held accountable for his actions.”

Former Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) will also attend Chavez's funeral, the State Department said. Delahunt met with Chavez in 2005 to strike a deal for discounted winter home heating oil for low-income Massachusetts residents, earning him accusations that he was coddling up to an anti-American dictator.

Chavez died of cancer at a Cuban hospital on Tuesday. Vice President Nicolas Maduro said he had been poisoned and expelled two American officials for allegedly plotting to overthrow the government.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland denied those accusations on Thursday.

“This is part of a tired playbook of alleging foreign interference as a political football in internal Venezuelan politics,” Nuland said. “And if we're going to get to a place that we can do better together, this kind of stuff has to stop.”

James Derham, the charge d'affaires at the U.S. embassy in Caracas, will represent the State Department at the funeral. Maduro said Thursday that Chavez's body will be permanently displayed in a special tomb.

Read more: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=34

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