Stanford Victims’ Suit Over SEC Handling of Probe Tossed

Stanford Victims’ Suit Over SEC Handling of Probe Tossed
By Andrew Harris - Aug 13, 2013 3:30 PM CT

Two of R. Allen Stanford’s investors lost a bid to hold the federal government liable for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s alleged failure to tell another agency the financier’s business was in trouble.

The investors sued the U.S. two years ago claiming the SEC failed in its statutory duty to tell the Securities Investor Protection Corp. it suspected Stanford was running a fraud scheme before suing him in February 2009.

Stanford, 63, was later indicted. He was found guilty last year of running a $7 billion Ponzi scheme and is serving a 110-year prison sentence. Yesterday, a U.S. judge in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, ruled the federal government is immune from the investors’ suit.

“The plaintiffs claim is that they were induced into entering disadvantageous business transactions because of the SEC’s misrepresentation,” U.S. District Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. said in his ruling.

That type of claim isn’t allowed by the Federal Tort Claims Act, which sets forth under what circumstances the U.S. will let itself be sued, Scola said. Scola last year denied a defense bid for dismissal of the case, accepting as true at the time that the SEC had a duty to inform SIPC of its concerns.

SEC Probes
The SEC probed Houston-based Stanford Group Co. four times from 1997 and 2004, according to the investors’ revised complaint filed last year. While suspecting the business was a Ponzi scheme, with early investors paid from funds of those who followed, the agency took no action until 2009.

Plaintiff Carlos Zelaya invested $1 million with Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd., losing almost all of it, while co-plaintiff George Glantz Revocable Trust lost almost all of a $650,000 investment, according to the complaint.

Their lawyer, Gaytri Kachroo of Cambridge, Massachusetts, didn’t immediately reply to a voice-mail requesting comment on the court’s decision. Kevin Callahan, a spokesman for the SEC, declined to comment.

Stanford investors lost about $5.1 billion in the scheme.

The case is Zelaya v. U.S., 11-cv-62644, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami).

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

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

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

Allen Stanford thinks he is his best attorney

Allen Stanford thinks he is his best attorney

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

Craig Hartley | Bloomberg | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEC Escapes Stanford Victims' Suit Over $7B Ponzi Scheme

SEC Escapes Stanford Victims' Suit Over $7B Ponzi Scheme

Law360, New York (June 21, 2013, 9:54 PM ET) -- A Louisiana judge Friday threw out a putative class action alleging the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission facilitated Robert Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme, finding the agency was shielded by a law barring suits over federal officials' discretionary choices.

U.S. District Shelly D. Dick said the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act applied to the case brought by victims of Stanford in part because the alleged refusal of former official Spencer Barasch in the SEC's Fort Worth, Texas, office to investigate the Ponzi scheme was a matter of choice.

“While the Court sympathizes with the losses suffered by the plaintiffs in this matter, plaintiffs have failed to identify any mandatory obligations violated by SEC employees in the performance of their discretionary duties,” Judge Dick concluded in granting the government's motion to dismiss.

“Plaintiff[s] have also failed to allege facts demonstrating that the challenged actions are not grounded in public policy considerations,” she said.

The plaintiffs argued that Barasch's alleged conduct did not fall under the discretionary function exception because the SEC has a policy of making enforcement referrals to the National Association of Securities Dealers and the Texas State Securities Board. Therefore, if a decision was made to refer Stanford, and then not followed, that decision falls outside the discretionary function exception.

But Judge Dick rejected that argument, saying that while “the alleged conduct of Barasch is disturbing ... the FTCA clearly states that the discretionary function exception applies 'whether or not the discretion involved be abused.'”

The suit, which was filed in July under the FTCA, alleged that SEC employees in Fort Worth knew as early as 1997 — only two years after Stanford Group Co. registered with the agency — that the company was likely operating a Ponzi scheme and did nothing about it.

Former SEC regional enforcement director Barasch, now an attorney with Andrews Kurth LLP, was singled out in the complaint for failing in his duties.

"In 1998 [to NASD] and again in 2002 [to TSSB] the SEC — through enforcement director Barasch and others — reached the conclusion that referrals should be made. Barasch himself was designated to perform these tasks," the complaint said. "But, in fact, these referrals were not made, with the effect that Stanford escaped scrutiny by other agencies for years, thus facilitating Stanford's scheme to defraud."

In dismissing the case, Judge Dick cited a similar decision by a Texas federal judge in another case brought against the SEC over Stanford's scheme. The plaintiffs in Dartez v. U.S. had argued that Barasch's decisions and the negligent supervision of his superiors were not protected policy considerations.

“While the [Dartez] decision is not binding on this Court, the Court can find no flaw in [its] reasoning,” Judge Dick said.

The plaintiffs are represented by C. Frank Holthaus, Scott H. Fruge, Michael C. Palmintier and John W. DeGravelles of DeGravelles Palmintier Holthaus & Fruge and Edward J. Gonzales III.

The case is Anderson et al. v. United States of America, number 3:12-cv-00398, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.

Read more: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=80

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

Stanford Judge Approves Interim Distribution to Victims

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Stanford chandelier sells for $158,500 at auction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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/

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/

RECEIVER’S FIFTH INTERIM REPORT REGARDING STATUS OF RECEIVERSHIP, ASSET COLLECTION, AND ONGOING ACTIVITIES

The Receiver hereby submits for the Court’s consideration the following information regarding the status of the Receivership, asset collection efforts, and other ongoing activities. Unless otherwise stated herein, the information in this report is current as of January 31, 2013. The Receiver will supplement this report as circumstances develop or if the information herein materially changes.

I. CASH INFLOWS &MAJOR RECEIVERSHIP ASSETS

The total amount of cash collected by the Receiver — including, but not limited to, remaining operating income streams, asset liquidation, and recovery of assets and funds from third parties — was approximately $230.2 million as of January 31, 2013. The total of all cash on hand was $111 million, which is net of the cash outflows discussed in more detail below in Section II of this report. Of this amount, $8 million was restricted and $103 million was unrestricted.

Cash Balances & Trailing Revenue: The cash balances recovered by the Receiver shortly following his appointment on February 17, 2009 totaled approximately $63.1 million. In addition, the Receivership has collected roughly $5.3 million in cash associated with income earned prior to the inception of the Receivership.

Private Equity: The Receiver has recovered approximately $37.5 million in net cash proceeds from the liquidation of private equity investments and expects to receive approximately $300,000 more from closed or pending private equity liquidations. In addition, the Receiver’s financial advisor is continuing to market the remaining investments in Stanford’s private equity portfolio, which has an estimated value of up to $6.7 million.

Real Estate: The Receiver has recovered approximately $18.7 million in net cash proceeds from the liquidation of real estate, including the recent Holly Springs sale [see Doc.1695]. Although the Receiver’s real estate brokers are continuing to market other properties in Stanford’s real estate portfolio, the Receiver is unable to estimate the potential recovery from the liquidation of those properties at this time.

Watercraft and Airplanes: The Receiver has recovered approximately $8.0 million from the disposition of airplanes owned or leased by Stanford and from the sales of the Sea Eagle yacht, the Little Eagle yacht, and the Robust Eagle tugboat.

Latin American Assets: The Receiver has been able to liquidate assets in Panama, Ecuador, and Peru, resulting in a recovery of approximately $12.9 million. Moreover, the Receiver is pursuing the recovery of up to $10.2 million in additional Latin American assets.

Miscellaneous Asset Sales: The Receiver has recovered approximately $2.2 million from the sale of miscellaneous assets — including, but not limited to, furniture, coins, vehicles, and assorted equipment.

Litigation: The Receiver has fraudulent-transfer, unjust-enrichment, and other claims pending against numerous defendants, through which the Receiver seeks the recovery of approximately $700 million. The Receiver has identified at least an additional $1.1 million in international litigation claims. Asset recovery litigation is difficult, protracted, and expensive.

Nevertheless, such claims are the single largest potential source of funds which may be recovered for the benefit of Stanford’s victims. Although the Receiver has thus far received approximately $15.5 million from settlements and other litigation efforts (including over $2.2 million received from the political committee defendants in Case No. 3:10-CV-0346-N) and has secured an injunction to hold another approximately $25 million, the amount that the Receiver ultimately is able to collect from defendants is uncertain and may be less than the amounts claimed. The Receiver will continue to work towards appropriate and reasonable settlements, where possible, in order to maximize the net recovery to the Receivership Estate. A detailed report regarding the status of the Receiver’s many litigation claims is found in the Third Joint Report of the Receiver, the Examiner and the Investors Committee Concerning Pending Litigation (For the Quarter Ending September 30, 2012) [see Doc. 1716], and related litigation issues are discussed in the Report of the Examiner and Receiver Addressing Matters Assigned to Magistrate Judge Frost [see Doc. 1720].

Return of Political Contributions: The Receiver has identified approximately $1.9 million in political contributions made by Allen Stanford and related entities. The Receiver has requested the return of these contributions from over 90 politicians, political action committees, and congressional committees. Through January 31, 2013, $1,770,380 has been returned (including the principal amount of the contributions that were part of the over $2.2 million received from the political committee defendants discussed above).

Coins and Bullion Inventory: The Receiver has approximately $200,000 in remaining coins and bullion inventory relating to the coins and bullion operations.

Overseas Cash: The Receiver has identified approximately $310 million in cash, assets, and other investments in foreign accounts, including accounts in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. The Receiver cannot ascertain the exact current value of these assets, which are subject to forfeiture proceedings, because those funds are not currently subject to the Receiver’s control or direct monitoring. The Receiver is working with the Department of Justice and the Joint Liquidators in Antigua in an effort to reach agreement concerning the release and distribution of these assets.

Other Inflows & Assets: The Receivership has collected approximately $66.8 million through the liquidation of other investment accounts held on behalf of Stanford, including approximately $5.0 million held on behalf of Stanford Trust Company; $1.0 million from the liquidation of Bank of Antigua accounts; $46.7 million through the liquidation of Stanford accounts at Pershing and of various investment funds held on Stanford’s behalf; $8.4 million through the recovery of additional cash balances; and $5.7 million received via other inflows, including, but not limited to, rental and interest income, cash flows from other liquidated bank accounts, and restricted funds and interest thereon. The Receiver estimates that he may recover up to $2.5 million in additional assets held in U.S. banks and brokerages.

II. CASH OUTFLOWS

From February 17, 2009 through January 31, 2013, the total amount of Receivership cash outflows — comprising professional fees and expenses, as well as other types of expenses — was approximately $119.2 million.

Expenses Other than Professional Fees: The total amount of all payments made by the Receiver for expenses other than professional fees was approximately $53.3 million. This figure comprises the following approximate amounts: $26.7 million in personnel expenses and other employee expenses; $3.8 million in insurance expenses; $3.5 million in taxes; $1.6 million in general and administrative expenses; $2.4 million in telecommunications expenses; $5.2 million in occupancy expenses; $2.5 million in settled claims; and $7.7 million in other expenses. As previously explained in the Fourth Interim Report [see Doc. 1630 at 5-7], these expenses have decreased dramatically as the Receivership has progressed.

Professional Fees and Expenses: As of January 31, 2013, the professional fees and expenses paid to the Receiver and his professionals total approximately $63.3 million.

Approximately half of this amount was paid in the first year of the Receivership ($30.9 million from the first quarter of 2009 through the first quarter of 2010) to wind down operations and institute necessary legal actions to protect and benefit the Estate.

Furthermore, the Receivership Estate has paid (per Court approval) the Examiner’s expenses and legal fees totaling approximately $1.9 million through January 31, 2013. Also per Court direction, the Receivership Estate has paid a total of approximately $600,000 in attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and expenses incurred by the Official Stanford Investors Committee (the “OSIC”) through January 31, 2013.

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

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