The true aim of some liars victims who say they are here to help

Good News! With Stanford's appeal overturned the Swiss bank can finally return the money in Stanford's account to the liquidators

You are a damn and selfish person who only think about you and seek to fill your pockets with the money the liquidators are stealing. The liquidators are suing the innocent victims who withdrew money before the collapse. We did not know about the collapse, otherwise we would have closed the accounts. The liquidators are making a business behind the suffering of the victims and you stopped being a victim to become a corrupt miserable person that support the liquidators in exchange for benefits and money.

CRT Offer to Buy Stanford International Bank Investor Claims

(Caracas, November 26 - Noticias24) -. CRT Special Investments announced Tuesday through a press release that it would buy claims from Stanford International Bank (SIB) to investors, who can "receive their money within weeks instead of having to wait years and face the uncertainty of recovery, "said Joe Sarachek, General Director of the CRT.

 Following is the full text of the statement: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=165

Participante líder en la venta y compra de reclamos de Stanford Proporcionando a Vendedores(Inversionistas) Liquidez Garantizada

Nueva York, Nueva York, noviembre de 2013 – CRT Special Investments LLC (” CRT Special Investments “) ha anunciado hoy que está enfocado en proporcionar liquidez a los ex depositantes de Stanford International Bank en América Latina con un staff dedicado de habla hispana y cuenta con sitio web.

Stanford International Bank (” SIB “) era un banco con sede en Antigua, que operó desde 1986 hasta el 2009, con sede en Houston, Texas. Los depositantes de SIB recibieron certificados de depósito. Aproximadamente $ 7 mil millones fueron depositados en SIB. En febrero del 2009, la Securities and Exchange Commission de los EE.UU. obtuvo una orden para congelar todos los activos personales y corporativos de Stanford en los EE.UU. y un receptor para Stanford. Hasta la fecha, aproximadamente $ 500 millones en activos líquidos han sido identificados por el Síndico y Liquidadores Conjuntos, dejando a los ahorradores con una pérdida substancial proyectada.

El Administrador Judicial ha comenzado recientemente a hacer una distribución del 1 % a los inversionistas, pero más distribuciones son inciertas.

Un procedimiento paralelo al procedimiento de EE.UU. se inició en febrero de 2009 en Antigua. Los depositantes también han presentado reclamos con Grant Thornton, que ha sido designado como Liquidador Conjunto en Antigua. Hasta la fecha, ninguna distribución se ha realizado en Antigua. Debido al hecho de que no se sabe cuándo se harán nuevas distribuciones o el momento de la distribución, los depositantes que buscan liquidez se enfrentan a la elección de la venta de los compradores en el mercado secundario.

El proceso de transferencia de reclamos es extremadamente lento, ya que requiere la presentación de documentos en dos jurisdicciones separadas, Dallas y Antigua. “Ninguna otra compañía tiene la experiencia y la dedicación para el mercado de América Latina en Stanford “, dijo Joe Sarachek , Director General de la CRT Special Investments. “Nuestro objetivo es proporcionar recuperación garantizada y liquidez para los clientes de Stanford lo más rápido posible. ” Sarachek añadió ” Si usted vende su reclamo a CRT, usted podrá recibir su dinero en cuestión de semanas en lugar de tener que esperar años y enfrentarse a la incertidumbre de la recuperación. ”

CRT Special Investments, ha sido un participante líder en el mercado de reclamos de Stanford , cuenta con la experiencia y conocimiento del mercado , no sólo para ofrecer liquidez a los clientes que buscan vender , sino también para estructurar préstamos y negociaciones para aquellos clientes que aún no están listos para vender sus reclamos. CRT Special Investments es una filial de CRT Capital Group LLC ( “CRT “), una sociedad de valores con sede en Stamford , Connecticut, EUA que ha mantenido a los clientes institucionales desde hace más de 20 años. CRT proporciona investigación a profundidad sobre el procedimiento de quiebra de MF Global y compra venta de reclamos.

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

Stanford Victims Coalition Update Regarding SIPC

Dear SVC Members,

 I apologize for the gap in time between updates, but I have some very exciting news today about a project I have been working on full-time all year—a legislative remedy that should get us SIPC if the bill is passed—regardless of the outcome of the SEC vs. SIPC appeal (which could still go our way). “The Restoring Main Street Investor Protection and Confidence Act,” is being introduced in the House today with a Senate companion bill to follow. A hearing of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises is set for Thursday, November 21 (victims are encouraged to attend and I will be testifying along with another Stanford victim). A Senate Banking Committee hearing will be held as well, but a date has not been set.............

Read more: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=156

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

U.S. lawmakers seek fix to help investors file claims against brokers

Nov 20 (Reuters) - A bipartisan group of U.S. House and Senate members is seeking to make it easier for investment fraud victims to seek compensation, after investors in Allen Stanford's Ponzi scheme were deemed ineligible under current law to file claims.

The bill, introduced by Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter, New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, New Jersey Republican Rep. Scott Garrett and New York Democratic Rep. Carolyn Maloney, would bestow U.S. securities regulators with greater powers to oversee the process of determining whether customers of failed brokerages qualify for compensation.

The legislative proposal comes as the Securities and Exchange Commission awaits a crucial decision from a U.S. appeals court over the fate of the Stanford victims.

The SEC is trying to get the court to force an industry-backed fund that protects investors to start court proceedings so Stanford victims can file claims to recover a least a portion of the millions they lost.

The Securities Investor Protection Corp., or SIPC, which administers the fund, has refused the SEC's request, saying Stanford investors do not meet the legal definition of "customer" under the federal law designed to protect investors if their brokerage collapses.

SIPC uses funds paid by the brokerage industry to compensate investors in the event of a bankruptcy, such as the one that occurred at Lehman Brothers in 2008.

 Allen Stanford was sentenced in 2012 to 110 years in prison for bilking investors with fraudulent certificates of deposit issued by Stanford International Bank, his bank in Antigua.

Many of the investors who purchased the products, however, did so through his Houston, Texas-based brokerage, Stanford Group Co.

SIPC argues that investors in the scheme entrusted their money to the offshore, unregulated Antiguan bank and not to the U.S. broker-dealer. Moreover, it says that Stanford's investors actually did receive their certificates of deposit, as promised, even though they turned out to be virtually worthless.

A federal district judge agreed with SIPC's legal position in July 2012, and tossed out the SEC's lawsuit.

The SEC appealed the ruling before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in October, and is awaiting a decision.

 SIPC's refusal to let Stanford victims file claims has frustrated many lawmakers on Capitol Hill, including Vitter, who has been among the most vocal in fighting for the Stanford victims.

"The Stanford Ponzi scheme devastated many Louisiana families who invested their hard-earned savings in good faith that it would be there for them when they retire," Vitter said in a statement issued on Wednesday.

"Our bill will fix a key problem we've seen with the system, which currently allows SIPC's Wall Street members to benefit economically from the SIPC guarantee while denying the claims of legitimate victims," he added.

The legislative proposal by the four lawmakers will be vetted in a hearing before a subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee on Thursday.

Among the witnesses scheduled to testify are Stephen Harbeck, the president of SIPC, a representative from Wall Street's leading brokerage trade group, and Angie Kogutt, a Stanford victim in charge of the Stanford Victims Coalition.

The 19-page bill would amend the definition of "customer" to ensure that investors who deposit cash to buy securities can still be covered by SIPC protection, even if the money is initially given to a firm that is not a SIPC member.

 It would also give the SEC more authority to force SIPC to act without the need for court approval.

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

LEGISLATIVE ALERT 11/12

LEGISLATION TO BE INTRODUCED IN HOUSE, HEARINGS SET  BILL ALSO BEING PREPARED IN SENATE!

    * Garrett & Maloney to introduce legislation in House. Senator Vitter current lead sponsor in Senate
    * House hearings set for 11/21
    * Selective grassroots to commence
    * 5th Anniversary media needs victims willing to be interviewed by media

Dear NIAP Member & Madoff Investor,

 Greetings.  I am excited to announce that SIPC legislation is to be introduced later this week or early next followed by Congressional hearings on Thursday, Nov 21. The legislation is to be jointly introduced by Congressman Garrett (NJ) and Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (NY).  Similar legislation is expected to be introduced shortly in the Senate as well, consistent with the strategy laid out by Congressman Garrett in the last Congress.

The intention is to have the legislation introduced by approximately 15 co-sponsors, and followed by an extensive outreach effort via Garrett’s and Maloney’s offices, our lobby team and our own grassroots efforts to ramp up sponsorship numbers.

 The specific bill language is still going through final stages, and a bill number and title will be finalized shortly. We will make the bill public as soon as we receive the final version.  As you probably know, it prevents clawback of the innocent, insures SIPC payments to $500,000 based on account statements, and gives the SEC authority over SIPC.

 After hearings, the bill will be moved to a mark-up session in the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets, voted on and moved to the Financial Services Committee.

  Next Steps on Grassroots. We will want to focus our House grassroots efforts on key Financial Services Committee members, as well as other influential House members, particularly those in districts or states with sizeable Madoff and Stanford victim constituents.  Our Senate strategy will focus on Senate members on the Senate Banking Committee and other key Senate members.

  The first wave of Grassroots letters and communications however will go out to those who are sponsoring the legislation at introduction, thanking them for their support and encouraging their reaching out to their colleagues to do the same.

 Stay Tuned!  In the coming days we will be providing more detailed information, as well as laying out the details for the grassroots outreach.  We will also undertake a rapid fundraising campaign to assist costs of Congressional hearings and grassroots support.

  We look forward to working with all previous and current leaders in this effort as well.

  Game on!
  Most sincerely,
 Ron Stein, CFP
 President, NIAP

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Victims Needed for Media interviews & Congressional testimony

Volunteers and Funds Needed. Please assist us in whatever way you can!

Email us at: djmionis@investoraction.org
              rstein@investoraction.org

Call us at: 800-323-9250

www.investoraction.org
www.fixsipcnow.com

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/

Madoff Trustee Asks Supreme Court to Let Him Sue Banks

By PETER LATTMAN

Updated, 7:27 p.m. | The trustee seeking to recover money for the victims of Bernard L. Madoff’s Ponzi scheme asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to review a ruling that prohibits him from suing several of the world’s largest banks that he contends aided the fraud.
In June, a federal appeals court in Manhattan decided that the trustee, Irving H. Picard, did not have standing to sue JPMorgan Chase, UBS, HSBC and UniCredit Bank Austria on claims that they abetted the multibillion-dollar fraud, which lasted decades. That opinion upheld a lower-court ruling by Judge Jed S. Rakoff of Federal District Court in Manhattan.
On Wednesday, lawyers for Mr. Picard filed a petition to the Supreme Court requesting that it hear an appeal of the case.
“Bernard L. Madoff did not act alone,” Mr. Picard’s lawyers said. The scheme “could not have persisted for so long, or defrauded so many of so much, without a network of financial institutions, feeder funds and individuals who participated in his fraud or acquiesced in it — just like any large-scale financial fraud.”
In a statement, the lawyers for the trustee said the ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit contradicted the decisions of other appeals courts across the country.
Such conflicts often provide an impetus for the Supreme Court to hear a case, though it accepts only a fraction of appeal requests. The court receives about 10,000 petitions for a so-called writ of certiorari each year, yet grants only about 75 to 80 of those cases, according to its Web site.
The legal issue in the Madoff case centers on whether the trustee has the right to pursue claims against a third party, like a bank, that collaborates with a broker — in this case Mr. Madoff — to defraud customers. The appeals court ruled that under the law, the trustee “stands in the shoes” of Mr. Madoff’s firm and thus cannot sue the banks for losses caused by Mr. Madoff’s fraud.
Mr. Picard’s lawyers said the appeals court ruling undermined the intent of the Securities Investor Protection Act.
“If this decision is allowed to stand, the law governing S.I.P.A. liquidations will be in turmoil, making collaboration with future Madoffs risk-free for big financial institutions,” wrote David B. Rivkin Jr., a lawyer for Mr. Picard at Baker Hostetler. “In other words, the bad guys win.”
Mr. Picard is trying to recover billions of dollars from the banks that he said turned blind eyes to clear warning signs of the Madoff fraud. He contends, for instance, that JPMorgan was “thoroughly complicit” in the fraud, having obtained many indications of misconduct and failed to report the suspicious activity.
The lawsuit filed against JPMorgan highlights several examples in which JPMorgan officials expressed concerns about Mr. Madoff’s business. On June 15, 2007, a senior risk-management officer at the bank e-mailed colleagues to report that another bank executive “just told me that there is a well-known cloud over the head of Madoff and that his returns are speculated to be part of a Ponzi scheme.”
In another e-mail, a top private wealth management executive at the bank was routinely urging clients to avoid investments with exposure to Mr. Madoff because his “Oz-like signals” were “too difficult to ignore.”
Federal prosecutors continue to investigate whether JPMorgan failed to properly alert regulators about Mr. Madoff’s business, said people briefed on the investigation. A JPMorgan spokesman declined to comment.
Cash losses from the fraud are estimated at about $17 billion, but the paper wealth that was wiped out totaled more than $64 billion. Mr. Picard has thus far recovered about $9.4 billion and continues to pursue lost money.
Mr. Madoff is serving a 150-year sentence in a federal prison in North Carolina after pleading guilty in March 2009.
While the trustee’s lawyers at Baker Hostetler try to pursue a case against JPMorgan, they have another legal connection to the banking giant. Mr. Rivkin and Oren J. Warshavsky are representing Bruno Iksil, the JPMorgan trader nicknamed the London Whale, who is cooperating with the government in its investigation into the bank’s record trading loss.

In addition, jury selection for the first criminal trial related to the Madoff case is under way in federal court in Manhattan. Five former employees of Mr. Madoff, including his longtime personal secretary and two computer programmers, are fighting charges that they helped their boss carry out his fraud. The trial is expected to take as long as five months.

Link: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/madoff-trustee-appeals-to-supreme-court-in-suit-against-banks/?_r=0

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

Stanford Art Collection Nets $2.9 Million for Ponzi Victims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Provisional Liquidators to Stanford Development Company (“SDC”) Explain Provisional Liquidation Process

Marcus Wide of Grant Thornton (British Virgin Islands) Limited and Hordley Forbes of Forbes and Associates (Antigua) were appointed as Provisional Liquidators of SDC. Within that role, they have taken over the company and are duty-bound to preserve its assets. Further, until further notice, SDC’s former directors’ powers are withdrawn and there is a stay of proceedings in place as to any actions that may be commenced against SDC without a court order.

The next step is likely the resolution of an application to wind up SDC. Though the result is not known, in most instances, the company will transition from provisional liquidation to liquidation at which point a liquidator(s) will be appointed. The role of the liquidators will be to wind up the company and settle all debts.

In the interim, the Provisional Liquidators continue to confer with creditors, the Antiguan government and other interested parties to bring a speedy resolution to SDC’s provisional liquidation by, among other things, paying creditors and getting SDC’s books and records in order. Notably, since a provisional liquidation does not involve a claims process, there is no need to submit a claim at this time.

For further information related to SDC, please see the SDC tab at www.sibliquidation.com for information posted by the Provisional Liquidators.

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/

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/

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 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/

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/

Stanford Investors Sue Antigua, Caribbean Central Bank

By Laurel Brubaker Calkins - Feb 18, 2013 8:39 PM GMT+0100
R. Allen Stanford’s receiver and investors’ committee sued Antigua, the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank and 23 former Stanford Financial Group Co. executives over allegations they aided the financier’s $7 billion fraud.

The Official Stanford Investors Committee seeks repayment of at least $90 million in documented loans Stanford made to the dual-island nation of Antigua and Barbuda and accuses its elected officials of having been “Stanford’s partners in crime.” The nation’s leaders shielded Stanford’s scheme and traded choice real estate for as much as $230 million in loans that haven’t been repaid, according to the lawsuit.

“Antigua knowingly provided necessary assistance to Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme and, in exchange, received millions of dollars in loans whose repayment terms Stanford did not enforce,’’ the committee said in a complaint filed in Dallas federal court on Feb. 15. “For well over a decade, Antigua was a prime participant in, and beneficiary of, the Stanford Ponzi scheme, and actively protected and shielded Stanford’s criminal enterprise from real regulatory scrutiny.’’

Stanford, 62, was convicted in March of masterminding a Ponzi scheme that defrauded investors through the sale of bogus certificates of deposit at his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd. He is serving a 110-year sentence in a Florida federal prison as he appeals his verdict and sentence.

Falsified Audits
Evidence at Stanford’s trial showed he bribed Antiguan banking regulator Leroy King to falsify audits certifying the bank’s investment returns and mislead U.S. securities regulators investigating the former Texas billionaire’s operations. Stanford was also allowed to underwrite and participate in banking reform legislation that Antigua claimed had cleaned up its corrupt offshore banking industry, according to trial evidence. Antigua has so far failed to extradite King to face criminal charges in the U.S.

The investors on Feb. 15 separately sued the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank, which nationalized Stanford’s other island financial institution, the Bank of Antigua, after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission seized Stanford’s enterprise on suspicion of fraud in February 2009.

The ECCB in turn parceled out ownership in the bank to the government of Antigua and to other Caribbean banks in what the investors called “a second act of brazen thievery.” The head of ECCB’s monetary council at the time was Antiguan Minister of Finance Errol Cort, who was both King’s supervisor and one of Stanford’s personal attorneys, according to court papers.


‘Rightful Owners’
“The considerable value of the Bank of Antigua, believed to be in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, should be distributed as compensation to its rightful owners, Stanford’s victims and creditors,’’ the committee said in court papers.

Recent comments by Antiguan elected officials indicate the country intends to repay the bank instead of the defrauded investors, Peter D. Morgenstern, a lawyer for the investors’ committee, wrote, meaning that “in essence, Antigua intends to use CD investors’ money to pay itself.’’

Tom Bayko, Antigua’s attorney, didn’t immediately respond to voice or e-mail messages seeking comment on the lawsuit. In an earlier suit, Bayko said Antigua was protected from such litigation by foreign sovereign immunity.

Officials at the ECCB didn’t immediately return telephone or e-mail messages seeking comment on the lawsuit.

Ralph Janvey, Stanford’s court-appointed receiver, filed another lawsuit on Feb. 15 claiming breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit by 23 former directors and officers of Stanford’s operations, including three executives convicted of furthering the fraud scheme. The suit seeks return of all compensation from these individuals, some of whom have been previously sued by the receiver on similar claims.

“Many directors and officers simply looked the other way, while others actively assisted Stanford in defrauding thousands of people out of billions of dollars,’’ Kevin Sadler, Janvey’s lead lawyer, said in the filing in Dallas federal court. They “put their continued employment and substantial compensation ahead of the best interests of the entities they were hired to serve,” he said.

The cases are The Official Stanford Investors Committee v. Antigua and Barbuda, 3:13-cv-0760; The Official Stanford Investors Committee v. Bank of Antigua, 3:13-cv-0762; Janvey v. Alvarado, 3:13-cv-0775. All are in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).

The main criminal case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09-cr-342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).


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

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

Ex-Stanford Executives Get 20-Year Sentences

February 14, 2013
By DEBBIE CAI

Two former Stanford Financial Group executives were each sentenced to 20 years in prison for aiding convicted financier Robert Allen Stanford in perpetuating a massive Ponzi scheme, the Department of Justice said.

Gilbert T. Lopez Jr., former chief accounting officer of Stanford Financial Group Co., and Mark J. Kuhrt, former global controller of Stanford Financial Group Global Management, were convicted by a Houston federal jury in November of last year.

The men, both from Houston, were convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and nine counts of wire fraud, the DOJ said.

Judge David Hittner of the Southern District of Texas, who presided over the trial, sentenced Mr. Lopez and Mr. Kuhrt to serve three years of supervised release and ordered Mr. Lopez to pay a $25,000 fine, along with the prison terms. He also found that both men committed perjury at trial.

Evidence presented at the trial showed that Mr. Lopez and Mr. Kuhrt were aware of and tracked Stanford's misuse of Stanford International Bank's assets, kept the misuse hidden from the public and from almost all of Stanford's other employees, and worked behind the scenes to prevent the misuse from being discovered, the DOJ said.

Jack Zimmermann, lead counsel for Mr. Lopez, told Dow Jones Newswires that he is "very disappointed." The sentence was expected to be closer to that of James Davis, former finance chief of Stanford Financial who last month was given five years in jail for his role in the scheme. Mr. Zimmermann described Mr. Davis as the architect of the fraud. He plans to appeal the conviction.

Lawyers for Mr. Kuhrt weren't immediately available for comment.

Former Texas businessman Mr. Stanford is serving a 110-year sentence for stealing billions of dollars in investors' money and investing much of it in unprofitable private businesses he controlled. Laura Pendergest-Holt, Stanford's former chief investment officer, is serving a three-year sentence.

Read more: http://sivg.org/article/2013_ExStanford_Executives_Get_20Year_Sentences.html

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