This is a reminder that time is running out. If you are going to submit a claim please make sure you do it this week.
I spoke to Dr Kachroo this morning and she asked me to remind everyone who is going to sign with KLS, and all of you who who have requested a copy of their engagement letter, to please make sure you sign and return it THIS WEEK together with the amount of your claim, and a copy of your statement, to ensure there is time to process all of your claims before the deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Este es un recordatorio de que el tiempo se acaba. Si usted va a presentar una reclamación por favor asegúrese de hacerlo de esta semana.
Hablé con el Dr. Kachroo esta mañana y me pidió que recordar a todo el que va a firmar con KLS, y todos los que que han solicitado una copia de su carta de compromiso, que por favor asegúrese de firmar y regresar esta semana junto con el monto de su reclamo, y una copia de su declaración, asegurarse de que existe tiempo para procesar todas sus reclamaciones antes de la fecha límite.
Richard Watson
31st January 2011
Monday 31 January 2011
Damming Evidence from the Report into the SEC
From a report by the SEC’s Office of the Inspector General, into why the financial body didn’t expose the alleged $7bn Ponzi scheme operated by charismatic Texan, Sir Allen Stanford, earlier.
Of note is that the SEC was ‘on to’ Stanford as early as 1997:
The report says pressure on SEC officials to look into certain types of fraud — in particular one’s that could be settled quickly and without much legal fuss — may have led to the scuppering of early attempts. But there was one added ‘difficulty’ in prosecuting Stanford in the late 1990s.
Stanford simply refused to cooperate:
Of note is that the SEC was ‘on to’ Stanford as early as 1997:
The OIG investigation found that the SEC’s Fort Worth office was aware since 1997 that Robert Allen Stanford was likely operating a Ponzi scheme, having come to that conclusion a mere two years after Stanford Group Company (“SGC”), Stanford’s investment adviser, registered with the SEC in 1995. We found that over the next 8 years, the SEC’s Fort Worth Examination group conducted four examinations of Stanford’s operations, finding in each examination that the CDs could not have been “legitimate,” and that it was “highly unlikely” that the returns Stanford claimed to generate could have been achieved with the purported conservative investment approach. Fort Worth examiners dutifully conducted examinations of Stanford in 1997, 1998, 2002 and 2004, concluding in each case that Stanford’s CDs were likely a Ponzi scheme or a similar fraudulent scheme. The only significant difference in the Examination group’s findings over the years was that the potential fraud grew exponentially, from $250 million to $1.5 billion.
The report says pressure on SEC officials to look into certain types of fraud — in particular one’s that could be settled quickly and without much legal fuss — may have led to the scuppering of early attempts. But there was one added ‘difficulty’ in prosecuting Stanford in the late 1990s.
Stanford simply refused to cooperate:
Despite the examiners’ referral of their serious concern that SGC was part of a Ponzi scheme, the Enforcement staff did not open a matter under inquiry (“MUI”) into the Stanford case until eight months later, in May 1998, and did so only after learning that another federal agency suspected Stanford of money laundering. The OIG investigation further found the only evidence of any investigative action taken by Enforcement in connection with this MUI was a voluntary request for documents that the SEC sent SGC in May 1998. We found that after Stanford refused to voluntarily produce numerous documents relating to SGC’s referrals of investors to SIB, no further investigative steps were taken; after being opened for only three months, in August 1998, the MUI was closed.
Saturday 29 January 2011
ONLY TWO WEEKS NOW BEFORE THE DEADLINE FOR STANFORD FINANCIAL GROUP INVESTORS EXPIRES
The deadline for FTCA claims by investors of the failed Stanford Financial Group against the US Securities and Exchange Commission is now just 18 days.
Investors in the failed Stanford International Bank, a part of the Stanford Financial Group, in receivership since the arrest of Allen Stanford, who is currently in detention in Houston awaiting trial on 23 charges of fraud, have just two weeks left to submit administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the US Securities and Exchange Commission, for their negligence in not closing down Allen Stanford sooner, despite knowing for 13 years it was likely he was operating a Ponzi scheme. Had they done so earlier many thousands of investors would have been spared the loss of their life savings.
The deadline for claims is fast approaching. Unless claims are submitted correctly and timely, and delivery receipted by the SEC before the two year Statute of Limitations expires, on the 16th February 2011, Stanford investors will be denied any recovery from the US government, forever.
Stanford investors have engaged an attorney to submit FTCA claims against the SEC. This action against the SEC is a real chance for full recovery of losses from the failed Stanford Financial Group. It will not prejudice any SIPC recovery efforts, and is open to all the Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality, or place of residence.
CLAIMS TAKE SEVERAL DAYS TO PROCESS AND MUST BE SUBMITTED CORRECTLY AND TIMELY BEFORE THE 16th FEBRUARY OR THEY WILL BE REJECTED
Any Stanford investors who have not yet decided, should contact their attorney at their earliest opportunity, or the attorney the Stanford investors have hired: Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Mass, who already have considerable experience of submitting FTCA claims on behalf of the Madoff investors. Email: info@kachroolegal.com
Should any Stanford investors wish for more detail of the campaign and the various arguments, please register for our private investor’s forum, which is free of charge and available to all bona-fide investors in the failed Stanford Financial Group: http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
Investors in the failed Stanford International Bank, a part of the Stanford Financial Group, in receivership since the arrest of Allen Stanford, who is currently in detention in Houston awaiting trial on 23 charges of fraud, have just two weeks left to submit administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the US Securities and Exchange Commission, for their negligence in not closing down Allen Stanford sooner, despite knowing for 13 years it was likely he was operating a Ponzi scheme. Had they done so earlier many thousands of investors would have been spared the loss of their life savings.
The deadline for claims is fast approaching. Unless claims are submitted correctly and timely, and delivery receipted by the SEC before the two year Statute of Limitations expires, on the 16th February 2011, Stanford investors will be denied any recovery from the US government, forever.
Stanford investors have engaged an attorney to submit FTCA claims against the SEC. This action against the SEC is a real chance for full recovery of losses from the failed Stanford Financial Group. It will not prejudice any SIPC recovery efforts, and is open to all the Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality, or place of residence.
CLAIMS TAKE SEVERAL DAYS TO PROCESS AND MUST BE SUBMITTED CORRECTLY AND TIMELY BEFORE THE 16th FEBRUARY OR THEY WILL BE REJECTED
Any Stanford investors who have not yet decided, should contact their attorney at their earliest opportunity, or the attorney the Stanford investors have hired: Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Mass, who already have considerable experience of submitting FTCA claims on behalf of the Madoff investors. Email: info@kachroolegal.com
Should any Stanford investors wish for more detail of the campaign and the various arguments, please register for our private investor’s forum, which is free of charge and available to all bona-fide investors in the failed Stanford Financial Group: http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
RESPECTO A SU DERECHO A RECLAMARLE AL GOBIERNO DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS Y EL PORQUE SUS SUPUESTOS “LIDERES” SE OPONEN A QUE USTED LO HAGA.
Estimados Inversionistas y Victimas de Stanford:
En relación a su derecho legal a presentar su reclamo ante la SEC (Comisión de Banca y Valores del Gobierno de USA) sobre el cual hemos venido informándole a través de nuestros contactos con usted, ha habido una serie de acusaciones bastante difamatorias provenientes de algunos de los autodenominados “lideres” de coaliciones ficticias de victimas de Stanford.
Todos estos escritos injuriosos, calumniosos y difamatorios están destinados a desacreditar nuestro esfuerzo por tratar de informarle a usted sobre las alternativas y las consecuencias de ejercer o no su derecho en cuanto a presentar o no su reclamo administrativo en tiempo y forma ante la SEC.
Como uno de los promotores de este curso de acción, considero lamentable pero necesario el tener que referirme a estas falsas afirmaciones y sugiero que usted se pregunte sobre las verdaderas motivaciones de estos falsos líderes para oponerse a que usted haga uso del derecho que le corresponde.
Hace un poco más de dos meses, una miembro de los que ahora constituimos un grupo internacional de victimas de Stanford, le escribió una carta al comité “de inversionistas” autorizado por el Juez Godbey, preguntándoles si tenían alguna intención de tomar alguna acción en contra de la SEC, dado el informe condenatorio de la propia Oficina del Inspector General de la SEC contra la misma SEC y la inminente prescripción de nuestros derechos en ese sentido, conforme a la ley estadounidense llamada El Estatuto de Limitaciones.
Hasta este momento, la peticionaria aun continúa esperando la respuesta a dicha pregunta. Sin embargo, a raíz de una discusión posterior que ella tuvo con uno de los abogados miembro de dicho comité, según nos informo, se desprende que dicho comité “de inversionistas” no tenía, ni tiene, ninguna intención aparente de iniciar ningún tipo de acción que nos proteja a todos en ese sentido. Poco después, nos reunimos un grupo de inversionistas de ideas afines para buscar un abogado que nos representara, no solo en presentar un reclamo, sino también en una posible demanda futura contra la SEC.
El número de abogados con experiencia exitosa en hacer un reclamo contra la SEC o el gobierno de los Estados Unidos, es bien reducido y después de largas investigaciones y muchas entrevistas encontramos a la Dra. Gaytri Kachroo, quien ya había presentado reclamos ante la SEC a favor de muchas víctimas de Madoff. Todos quedamos verdaderamente impresionados, no sólo por sus logros académicos excelentes, sino por SU EXPERIENCIA y antecedentes intachables. Además, porque siempre ha demostrado una actitud humana y llena de compasión respecto a nuestra situación, asegurándonos que ella está dispuesta a llegar hasta el final con nosotros.
Unos días después, una muchacha que dice ser “líder” de una de varias ficticias “coaliciones de víctimas de Stanford” también contactó a la Dra. Kachroo, logrando que la Dra. Kachroo accediese a dirigirse al comité “de inversionistas” autorizado por el Juez Godbey en relación al éxito tenido por ella, en los reclamos que promovió a favor de las victimas de Madoff.
En dicha reunión, hemos sido informados, todos los abogados que integran dicho comité indicaron que no tenían ninguna intención de llevar este caso contra el gobierno porque todos estaban ocupados en otros litigios. Todos concordaron con que la Dra. Kachroo se encontraba en una posición óptima para promover esta acción legal, lo que genero la esperanza de que todas las victimas de Stanford lograran unirse en el proceso de reclamos ante la SEC.
Adicionalmente, es de nuestro conocimiento que se invito a través de varios canales, a otro así autodenominado “líder” de otra supuesta “coalición de victimas” residente en Sur América para que procediera, -ya que durante casi dos años inexplicablemente se abstuvo de hacerlo- a notificar de inmediato a todos sus supuestos contactos en América Latina sobre este derecho que les otorgan las leyes de Estados Unidos para presentar un reclamo administrativo ante la SEC.
No queremos insistir sobre toda el agua que ha pasado bajo el puente desde entonces, pero nuestras esperanzas de que esta acción pudiera unir a todas las victimas bajo un proceso común y unificado, aparentemente han entrado en conflicto con los intereses personales de estos autodenominados “lideres”, ya que consideran que esto NO solo les ocasiona pérdida de “protagonismo” SINO, LO QUE ES PEOR, la posible perdida de una fuente de ingresos monetarios permanente, a la que ya se habían venido acostumbrando…
En su lugar, lo que obtuvimos de estos individuos ha sido una andanada de ataques difamatorios, incluyendo acusaciones de irregularidades, entre muchas otras, todas destinadas a ocasionarnos descredito. Y algunas, de la enorme cantidad de víctimas que han ejercido su derecho a registrarse con la Dra. Kachroo, han sido amenazadas en muy diversas formas en un desesperado y fallido intento de mantener lo que han llegado a considerar como “su clientela”, bajo su total y absoluto control.
Desde que iniciamos este curso de acción, todo lo que hemos intentado es hacer que muchos inversionistas de Stanford tomen conciencia de cuáles son sus verdaderos derechos e informarles sobre una posibilidad importante en la búsqueda por recuperar su inversión. Es decir, hemos tratado de ayudar a que usted tome una decisión educada en cuanto a preservar su derecho de reclamo ante la SEC antes de que prescriba dicho derecho a ejecutar dicha acción este próximo 16 de febrero.
Sino lo hubiéramos hecho usted habría perdido lo que podría terminar siendo su última posibilidad realista de recuperar su dinero, ya que sus autodenominados “lideres” se lo estuvieron ocultando durante casi dos años y NO TENIAN LA MENOR INTENCION de permitir que usted se enterara. AHORA, al no poder detener el rio con una cubeta es que les quieren enseñar a llenar sus formularios… solo para seguir justificando su “existencia como lideres” suyos y para que usted les continúe enviando dinero para “las operaciones” de sus falsas “coaliciones”.
Si usted desea llenar su formulario por su cuenta, o lo que es peor, siguiendo los consejos de estos individuos, le deseamos mucha buena suerte pues con casi total seguridad que su reclamo terminara siendo rechazado. Esto no es un trabajo para personas que no son profesionales de las Leyes graduados en una Universidad de Leyes de los Estados Unidos.
Tampoco es un juego como para dejarse guiar por gente irresponsable que no siente su perdida por que ni siquiera son victimas verdaderas. Es decir, estos “guías” o “lideres” como se hacen llamar, NUNCA sudaron un dólar y NUNCA perdieron un centavo de su propiedad, en esta terrible tragedia. Para entender la conducta de ellos solo recuerde usted el dicho “en rio revuelto, ganancia de PESCADORES”.
Si usted seriamente desea adherirse a este reclamo entre en contacto ahora mismo con el escritorio legal (bufete) de la Dra. Gaytri Kachroo ubicado en la ciudad de Boston donde el Asistente de la Dra. Kachroo, Sr. William Lugo podrá atenderle en Español a través de los teléfonos (617) 864-5575 y (617) 864-0755, vía Fax número (617) 864-1125 o escribiéndole al correo electrónico wlugo@kachroolegal.com
Le deseamos mucha suerte y que no se deje usted mal orientar.
William J. Taylor.
En relación a su derecho legal a presentar su reclamo ante la SEC (Comisión de Banca y Valores del Gobierno de USA) sobre el cual hemos venido informándole a través de nuestros contactos con usted, ha habido una serie de acusaciones bastante difamatorias provenientes de algunos de los autodenominados “lideres” de coaliciones ficticias de victimas de Stanford.
Todos estos escritos injuriosos, calumniosos y difamatorios están destinados a desacreditar nuestro esfuerzo por tratar de informarle a usted sobre las alternativas y las consecuencias de ejercer o no su derecho en cuanto a presentar o no su reclamo administrativo en tiempo y forma ante la SEC.
Como uno de los promotores de este curso de acción, considero lamentable pero necesario el tener que referirme a estas falsas afirmaciones y sugiero que usted se pregunte sobre las verdaderas motivaciones de estos falsos líderes para oponerse a que usted haga uso del derecho que le corresponde.
Hace un poco más de dos meses, una miembro de los que ahora constituimos un grupo internacional de victimas de Stanford, le escribió una carta al comité “de inversionistas” autorizado por el Juez Godbey, preguntándoles si tenían alguna intención de tomar alguna acción en contra de la SEC, dado el informe condenatorio de la propia Oficina del Inspector General de la SEC contra la misma SEC y la inminente prescripción de nuestros derechos en ese sentido, conforme a la ley estadounidense llamada El Estatuto de Limitaciones.
Hasta este momento, la peticionaria aun continúa esperando la respuesta a dicha pregunta. Sin embargo, a raíz de una discusión posterior que ella tuvo con uno de los abogados miembro de dicho comité, según nos informo, se desprende que dicho comité “de inversionistas” no tenía, ni tiene, ninguna intención aparente de iniciar ningún tipo de acción que nos proteja a todos en ese sentido. Poco después, nos reunimos un grupo de inversionistas de ideas afines para buscar un abogado que nos representara, no solo en presentar un reclamo, sino también en una posible demanda futura contra la SEC.
El número de abogados con experiencia exitosa en hacer un reclamo contra la SEC o el gobierno de los Estados Unidos, es bien reducido y después de largas investigaciones y muchas entrevistas encontramos a la Dra. Gaytri Kachroo, quien ya había presentado reclamos ante la SEC a favor de muchas víctimas de Madoff. Todos quedamos verdaderamente impresionados, no sólo por sus logros académicos excelentes, sino por SU EXPERIENCIA y antecedentes intachables. Además, porque siempre ha demostrado una actitud humana y llena de compasión respecto a nuestra situación, asegurándonos que ella está dispuesta a llegar hasta el final con nosotros.
Unos días después, una muchacha que dice ser “líder” de una de varias ficticias “coaliciones de víctimas de Stanford” también contactó a la Dra. Kachroo, logrando que la Dra. Kachroo accediese a dirigirse al comité “de inversionistas” autorizado por el Juez Godbey en relación al éxito tenido por ella, en los reclamos que promovió a favor de las victimas de Madoff.
En dicha reunión, hemos sido informados, todos los abogados que integran dicho comité indicaron que no tenían ninguna intención de llevar este caso contra el gobierno porque todos estaban ocupados en otros litigios. Todos concordaron con que la Dra. Kachroo se encontraba en una posición óptima para promover esta acción legal, lo que genero la esperanza de que todas las victimas de Stanford lograran unirse en el proceso de reclamos ante la SEC.
Adicionalmente, es de nuestro conocimiento que se invito a través de varios canales, a otro así autodenominado “líder” de otra supuesta “coalición de victimas” residente en Sur América para que procediera, -ya que durante casi dos años inexplicablemente se abstuvo de hacerlo- a notificar de inmediato a todos sus supuestos contactos en América Latina sobre este derecho que les otorgan las leyes de Estados Unidos para presentar un reclamo administrativo ante la SEC.
No queremos insistir sobre toda el agua que ha pasado bajo el puente desde entonces, pero nuestras esperanzas de que esta acción pudiera unir a todas las victimas bajo un proceso común y unificado, aparentemente han entrado en conflicto con los intereses personales de estos autodenominados “lideres”, ya que consideran que esto NO solo les ocasiona pérdida de “protagonismo” SINO, LO QUE ES PEOR, la posible perdida de una fuente de ingresos monetarios permanente, a la que ya se habían venido acostumbrando…
En su lugar, lo que obtuvimos de estos individuos ha sido una andanada de ataques difamatorios, incluyendo acusaciones de irregularidades, entre muchas otras, todas destinadas a ocasionarnos descredito. Y algunas, de la enorme cantidad de víctimas que han ejercido su derecho a registrarse con la Dra. Kachroo, han sido amenazadas en muy diversas formas en un desesperado y fallido intento de mantener lo que han llegado a considerar como “su clientela”, bajo su total y absoluto control.
Desde que iniciamos este curso de acción, todo lo que hemos intentado es hacer que muchos inversionistas de Stanford tomen conciencia de cuáles son sus verdaderos derechos e informarles sobre una posibilidad importante en la búsqueda por recuperar su inversión. Es decir, hemos tratado de ayudar a que usted tome una decisión educada en cuanto a preservar su derecho de reclamo ante la SEC antes de que prescriba dicho derecho a ejecutar dicha acción este próximo 16 de febrero.
Sino lo hubiéramos hecho usted habría perdido lo que podría terminar siendo su última posibilidad realista de recuperar su dinero, ya que sus autodenominados “lideres” se lo estuvieron ocultando durante casi dos años y NO TENIAN LA MENOR INTENCION de permitir que usted se enterara. AHORA, al no poder detener el rio con una cubeta es que les quieren enseñar a llenar sus formularios… solo para seguir justificando su “existencia como lideres” suyos y para que usted les continúe enviando dinero para “las operaciones” de sus falsas “coaliciones”.
Si usted desea llenar su formulario por su cuenta, o lo que es peor, siguiendo los consejos de estos individuos, le deseamos mucha buena suerte pues con casi total seguridad que su reclamo terminara siendo rechazado. Esto no es un trabajo para personas que no son profesionales de las Leyes graduados en una Universidad de Leyes de los Estados Unidos.
Tampoco es un juego como para dejarse guiar por gente irresponsable que no siente su perdida por que ni siquiera son victimas verdaderas. Es decir, estos “guías” o “lideres” como se hacen llamar, NUNCA sudaron un dólar y NUNCA perdieron un centavo de su propiedad, en esta terrible tragedia. Para entender la conducta de ellos solo recuerde usted el dicho “en rio revuelto, ganancia de PESCADORES”.
Si usted seriamente desea adherirse a este reclamo entre en contacto ahora mismo con el escritorio legal (bufete) de la Dra. Gaytri Kachroo ubicado en la ciudad de Boston donde el Asistente de la Dra. Kachroo, Sr. William Lugo podrá atenderle en Español a través de los teléfonos (617) 864-5575 y (617) 864-0755, vía Fax número (617) 864-1125 o escribiéndole al correo electrónico wlugo@kachroolegal.com
Le deseamos mucha suerte y que no se deje usted mal orientar.
William J. Taylor.
Deadline for Stanford investors less than a month away
Antigua (Antigua Observer): The Stanford International Victims Group (SIVG) is reminding non-US investors of the approaching deadline to file their claims for compensation. February 16, 2011 is the date when the statute of limitations expires for claims to be filed under the US Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The SIVG represents investors from outside the US who were burned in Allen Stanford’s failed $7 billion Ponzi scheme, for which the businessman now languishes in a Texas prison awaiting trial.
The international victims have so far met with little success in their attempts to seek compensation via the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). This is partly because they are vigorously opposed by the Stanford Victims Coalition (SVC), which is looking after the interests of only the US investors. SVC holds the view that interventions on behalf of the international victims distracts attention from the primary US cause and is likely to delay settlement. The SIPC itself is also resistant to the idea of paying out compensation to the international victims, most of whom were not registered with the broker that is recognised as legitimate by US authorities in this matter, namely the Stanford Group Company (SCG).
Only 8,000 of the 13 to 20,000 Stanford investors are eligible for cover under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) – which governs the SIPC – and these are almost all in the US. The SIPC offers compensation only up to a limit of US $500,000, regardless of the amount that may have been lost in Stanford’s alleged fraud. On the other hand, a successful claim under the SIPA would guarantee full compensation. The International Investors Group is urging non-US victims (including those in Antigua & Barbuda) to contact their attorneys as soon as possible, or the attorney submitting claims on behalf of international investors, Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Massachusetts. (January 25, 2011)
Friday 28 January 2011
CARTA ABIERTA A LOS INVERSORES DE STANFORD CON RESPECTO A LAS RECLAMACIONES FTCA CONTRA LOS VALORES DE ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMERICA Y DE LA COMISIÓN DE CAMBIO
Estimados Inversionistas de Stanford,
Ha habido algunas acusaciones muy difamatorias de algunos de los grupos de inversionistas de Stanford, y algunos de sus abogados, e incluso de la Comisión de Inversionistas de Stanford en relacion con los reclamos contra los EE.UU – Todas estas difamaciones contra los reclamos que Ud debe de hacer propiamente están claramente destinados a desacreditar a los inversionistas detrás de este esfuerzo que les ha estado informando de las alternativas y de las consecuencias y de cuales son sus derechos para preservar sus derechos a reclamar contra la SEC, mediante la presentación de una reclamación administrativa.
Como uno de los instigadores de este curso de acción, creo que es hora de que algunas de las afirmaciones falsas y engañosas se ponen a descansar, y sugiero que Ud se pregunte cual es el verdadero motivo de estas personas que están detrás de estas falsas acusaciones.
El 15 de noviembre de 2010, hace poco más de dos meses, le escribió una carta preguntandoles al Comité de Inversionistas de Stanford (SIC) si tenían alguna intención de tomar cualquier acción en contra de la SEC, dado el informe de la OIG condenatorio y la próxima expiración de la ley del Estado de limitaciones. Hata este momento sigo esperandi la respuesta que nunca llego. Sin embargo, a raíz de una discusión posterior con uno de los abogados miembros de dicho Comité, se desprende la comisión no tenía ninguna intención de iniciar cualquier tipo de acción que nos proteja.
Poco después, me reuní con un pequeño grupo de inversores de ideas afines para buscar un nuevo abogado para que nos represente en una demanda contra la SEC. Primero fueron los intentos de que nos amordazaron, lo que tuvimos que superar. Desde entonces hemos trabajado día y noche, para reunir a una solución viable que pueda beneficiar a todos los inversionistas de Stanford.
El número de abogados con experiencia exitosa en hacer un reclamo contra los EE.UU y la SEC es muy limitado y despues de largas discusiones y entrevistas el Dr. Gaytri Kachroo de Servicios Legales (KLS), Firma que habia presentado reclamacionesde FTCA para mas de a 500 inversores de Madoff. Todod estamos verdaderamente impresionados, no sólo por sus logros académicos excelentes , pero por la forma en que ella ha había llegado a este nivel tan alto en su profesión,. Sin embargo, lmanisfesto siempre una actitud humana y llena de compassion y demostrando que esta dispuesta a llegar hasta el final con nosotros y lo más importante, es que ya había representado a los inversores en dos acciones en contra de los EE.UU y de la SEC exitosamente con argumentos muy plausibles para que podamos tener éxito en esta reclamacion contra EE.UU. y contra la ley federal de la SEC .
Alrededor del mismo tiempo, Angela Kogutt alias Angela Shaw, alias Angie West de la Coalición de Víctimas de Stanford (SVC) también se acercó al Dr. Kachroo, habiendo visto los comunicados de prensa relativos a las solicitudes a las víctimas de Madoff. El apoyo de la SVC se le ofrecía inicialmente, y el Dr. Kachroo fue invitado a dirigirse a la SIC, con vistas a la presentación de reclamaciones FTCA de protección para cada uno de los inversionistas de Stanford. En esta reunión, todos los abogados del SIC indicaron que no tenian ninguna intencion de perseguir este caso contra el Gobierno por que todos estaban ocupados en otros litigious contra terceras partes. A su juicio acordaron que el Dr. Kachroo se encontraba en una posicion optima para asumir esta acción contra el gobierno . Esto creó alguna esperanza de que todos los inversores de Stanford comúnmente podría unirse en el proceso contra la SEC.
Adicionalmente, se invitaron atraves de varios canals de comunicacion a participar en este proceso y accion a . Covisal, en América Latina, durante estas fechas para iniciar el proceso.
.
No quiero insistir en agua que ha pasado bajo el puente desde entonces, pero las esperanzas iniciales de que esta acción podria unir a todas las asociaciones diversas de inversionistas bajo un proceso comun y unido estaba fuera de lugar y era claro por los interteses particulars de estos groupos.
En su lugar, lo que se obtuvo han sido objeto de una andanada de ataques de Internet difamatorio, en su mayoría anónimos, incluyendo acusaciones de irregularidades, entre muchos otros, todos destinados para desacreditarnos. Y los inversores que han ejercido su derecho a unirse a nosotros han sido amenazados en muy diversas formas para evitar que este juicio contra EE.UU y contra la SEC siga adealante.
Podría habersde entendido que esta amenazas podrian haber venido de las mismas instituciones que se piensan enjuciar (SEC) ---- Sin embargo estos ataques han venido de personas que se suponen deben de estar ayudando a las victimas y no ha si mismo. Sim enbargo eso es lo que han demostrado.
Entendemos que esos intentos de desacreditarnos, y las amenazas de recurso legal, podrian venir solamente de parte de la EE.UU o de la SEC instituciones que son directamente responsible por todas nuestras perdidas -- Pero yo estoy completamente consternado que estas amenazas vienen solamente y en su totalidad de personas que pretenden trabajar en el mejor los intereses de los inversionistas de Stanford.
¿Cómo pueden afirmar que quieren ayudar a las victimas tratando de silenciarnos? ¿Cuál es la motivación detrás de estos ataques, y por qué son reacios contra los inversores de Stanford para preservar y respetar y guarder sus derechos de cualquier recuperación possible.?
Desde que se embarcó en este curso de acción, todo lo que se intenta es hacer que muchos inversionistas de Stanford tomen conciencia de cuales son sus verdaderas derechos y cuales son las posibilidades para la recuperación de sus inversions. De esta manera ayudando a todas la victimas del planeta en tomar una decisiones educadas y propia por la cual sea el major camino para que todos los inversionistas puedan preserver sus derechos de recuperación contra la SEC, antes de la ley de Limites expire.
En cuanto al Comite de Inversionistas de Stanford (SIC) nos gustaria saber por que no ayudaron en esta posibilidad de recuperacion desde un principio sino solamente alo final y ahora este grupo pretende ayudar al ultimo momento – Despues que nustro abogado a propuesto un camino y una alternativa para ayudar a todas las victimas del planeta
Si esta comision esta actuando en nuestro mejores beneficios… es muy dudoso --- por que se han negado ? con falsas accusaciones y caluncnias el ayudar al unico abogado que tiene la experinencia la educacion y el deseo de ayudar a todas las victimas del planeta ?
Por otra parte, si no se hubiera iniciado esta accion las victimas hubieran perdido gracias al comite esta oportunidad antes de la expiracion del estatuto de limitaciones – Es claro que este comite no los han querido ayudar manteniendo informacion extremadamente importante alejada de UD para que Ud no pudiese tomar decisions propias – El Comite deseaba que esta unica oportunidad pasade desapercibida y se les escapara silenciosamente y que Ud perdiera la oportunidad de establecer un reclamo contra los EE.UU y la SEC legalmente y con todo su derecho..Nos preguntamos por que cree Ud?
1.- Para aquellos inversores que han decidido hacer un "auto-archivo" de sus propios reclamos, te deseo la mejor, y espero que usted ha hecho su investigación. Si no es así, y a permitido que Ud haya sido manejado en algo que Ud no entiende y ha sido dirigido falsamente en una direccion que no le va ha ayudar - Aquien le va a hechar l Ud.. a culpa de su fracaso a Ud Mismo ? O a las personas que le sugirieron que era facil para Ud Mismo hacerlo?
2.- Para aquellos inversores que entienden los riesgos, sin embargo, han optado por presentar con un abogado diferente, te deseo lo mejor suerte también, pero no entiendo por qué un inversionista estaría dispuesto a elegir un abogado que no está dispuesto a litigar su solicitud. Ni ha pelear por Ud.
3.-Para los inversores que nos acompañan, y se han dado cuenta el sentido común de registro con KLS, les deseo la mejor de todas. Es su voluntad de participar que ha creado la masa critica que era necesaria para iniciar esta accion que ahora puede llegar hasta el final.
. Gracias a todos.
4.- Para aquellos de ustedes que todavía tienen que decidir qué es lo mejor para ustedes, por favor tome su decisión lo antes posible. Usted tiene menos de tres semanas antes de que esta oprtunidad pase para siempre – Despues de este plazo Ud nunca mas podra reclamar nada contra los EE.UU y la SEC. Si Ud decide unirse en un caso masivo en contra de los EE.UU y la SEC U des bienvenido … visite al unico abodago con las mayores qualificaciones en este pais que ha Ganado ya dos veces contra la SEC y ahora representa a los reclamantes de Madoff
Aquí es Kachroo Servicios Jurídicos su correo electronic última vez:
info@kachroolegal.com
Si usted desea leer más de los argumentos y las discusiones, por favor visite:
http://stanfordsforgottenvictims.blogspot.com
o regístrese para nuestro foro privado, que está libre de responsable y abierto a todos los inversores de Stanford de buena fe:
http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
Para que nadie más alegan que me estoy escondido detrás de cualquier fachadas, aquí está mi dirección de correo electrónico, y me esforzaré para devolver todos los que podría estar interesado lo suficiente como para colocar una línea, el tiempo lo permite:
stanfordvictim.richard@gmail.com
Richard Watson
27 de enero 2011
Ha habido algunas acusaciones muy difamatorias de algunos de los grupos de inversionistas de Stanford, y algunos de sus abogados, e incluso de la Comisión de Inversionistas de Stanford en relacion con los reclamos contra los EE.UU – Todas estas difamaciones contra los reclamos que Ud debe de hacer propiamente están claramente destinados a desacreditar a los inversionistas detrás de este esfuerzo que les ha estado informando de las alternativas y de las consecuencias y de cuales son sus derechos para preservar sus derechos a reclamar contra la SEC, mediante la presentación de una reclamación administrativa.
Como uno de los instigadores de este curso de acción, creo que es hora de que algunas de las afirmaciones falsas y engañosas se ponen a descansar, y sugiero que Ud se pregunte cual es el verdadero motivo de estas personas que están detrás de estas falsas acusaciones.
El 15 de noviembre de 2010, hace poco más de dos meses, le escribió una carta preguntandoles al Comité de Inversionistas de Stanford (SIC) si tenían alguna intención de tomar cualquier acción en contra de la SEC, dado el informe de la OIG condenatorio y la próxima expiración de la ley del Estado de limitaciones. Hata este momento sigo esperandi la respuesta que nunca llego. Sin embargo, a raíz de una discusión posterior con uno de los abogados miembros de dicho Comité, se desprende la comisión no tenía ninguna intención de iniciar cualquier tipo de acción que nos proteja.
Poco después, me reuní con un pequeño grupo de inversores de ideas afines para buscar un nuevo abogado para que nos represente en una demanda contra la SEC. Primero fueron los intentos de que nos amordazaron, lo que tuvimos que superar. Desde entonces hemos trabajado día y noche, para reunir a una solución viable que pueda beneficiar a todos los inversionistas de Stanford.
El número de abogados con experiencia exitosa en hacer un reclamo contra los EE.UU y la SEC es muy limitado y despues de largas discusiones y entrevistas el Dr. Gaytri Kachroo de Servicios Legales (KLS), Firma que habia presentado reclamacionesde FTCA para mas de a 500 inversores de Madoff. Todod estamos verdaderamente impresionados, no sólo por sus logros académicos excelentes , pero por la forma en que ella ha había llegado a este nivel tan alto en su profesión,. Sin embargo, lmanisfesto siempre una actitud humana y llena de compassion y demostrando que esta dispuesta a llegar hasta el final con nosotros y lo más importante, es que ya había representado a los inversores en dos acciones en contra de los EE.UU y de la SEC exitosamente con argumentos muy plausibles para que podamos tener éxito en esta reclamacion contra EE.UU. y contra la ley federal de la SEC .
Alrededor del mismo tiempo, Angela Kogutt alias Angela Shaw, alias Angie West de la Coalición de Víctimas de Stanford (SVC) también se acercó al Dr. Kachroo, habiendo visto los comunicados de prensa relativos a las solicitudes a las víctimas de Madoff. El apoyo de la SVC se le ofrecía inicialmente, y el Dr. Kachroo fue invitado a dirigirse a la SIC, con vistas a la presentación de reclamaciones FTCA de protección para cada uno de los inversionistas de Stanford. En esta reunión, todos los abogados del SIC indicaron que no tenian ninguna intencion de perseguir este caso contra el Gobierno por que todos estaban ocupados en otros litigious contra terceras partes. A su juicio acordaron que el Dr. Kachroo se encontraba en una posicion optima para asumir esta acción contra el gobierno . Esto creó alguna esperanza de que todos los inversores de Stanford comúnmente podría unirse en el proceso contra la SEC.
Adicionalmente, se invitaron atraves de varios canals de comunicacion a participar en este proceso y accion a . Covisal, en América Latina, durante estas fechas para iniciar el proceso.
.
No quiero insistir en agua que ha pasado bajo el puente desde entonces, pero las esperanzas iniciales de que esta acción podria unir a todas las asociaciones diversas de inversionistas bajo un proceso comun y unido estaba fuera de lugar y era claro por los interteses particulars de estos groupos.
En su lugar, lo que se obtuvo han sido objeto de una andanada de ataques de Internet difamatorio, en su mayoría anónimos, incluyendo acusaciones de irregularidades, entre muchos otros, todos destinados para desacreditarnos. Y los inversores que han ejercido su derecho a unirse a nosotros han sido amenazados en muy diversas formas para evitar que este juicio contra EE.UU y contra la SEC siga adealante.
Podría habersde entendido que esta amenazas podrian haber venido de las mismas instituciones que se piensan enjuciar (SEC) ---- Sin embargo estos ataques han venido de personas que se suponen deben de estar ayudando a las victimas y no ha si mismo. Sim enbargo eso es lo que han demostrado.
Entendemos que esos intentos de desacreditarnos, y las amenazas de recurso legal, podrian venir solamente de parte de la EE.UU o de la SEC instituciones que son directamente responsible por todas nuestras perdidas -- Pero yo estoy completamente consternado que estas amenazas vienen solamente y en su totalidad de personas que pretenden trabajar en el mejor los intereses de los inversionistas de Stanford.
¿Cómo pueden afirmar que quieren ayudar a las victimas tratando de silenciarnos? ¿Cuál es la motivación detrás de estos ataques, y por qué son reacios contra los inversores de Stanford para preservar y respetar y guarder sus derechos de cualquier recuperación possible.?
Desde que se embarcó en este curso de acción, todo lo que se intenta es hacer que muchos inversionistas de Stanford tomen conciencia de cuales son sus verdaderas derechos y cuales son las posibilidades para la recuperación de sus inversions. De esta manera ayudando a todas la victimas del planeta en tomar una decisiones educadas y propia por la cual sea el major camino para que todos los inversionistas puedan preserver sus derechos de recuperación contra la SEC, antes de la ley de Limites expire.
En cuanto al Comite de Inversionistas de Stanford (SIC) nos gustaria saber por que no ayudaron en esta posibilidad de recuperacion desde un principio sino solamente alo final y ahora este grupo pretende ayudar al ultimo momento – Despues que nustro abogado a propuesto un camino y una alternativa para ayudar a todas las victimas del planeta
Si esta comision esta actuando en nuestro mejores beneficios… es muy dudoso --- por que se han negado ? con falsas accusaciones y caluncnias el ayudar al unico abogado que tiene la experinencia la educacion y el deseo de ayudar a todas las victimas del planeta ?
Por otra parte, si no se hubiera iniciado esta accion las victimas hubieran perdido gracias al comite esta oportunidad antes de la expiracion del estatuto de limitaciones – Es claro que este comite no los han querido ayudar manteniendo informacion extremadamente importante alejada de UD para que Ud no pudiese tomar decisions propias – El Comite deseaba que esta unica oportunidad pasade desapercibida y se les escapara silenciosamente y que Ud perdiera la oportunidad de establecer un reclamo contra los EE.UU y la SEC legalmente y con todo su derecho..Nos preguntamos por que cree Ud?
1.- Para aquellos inversores que han decidido hacer un "auto-archivo" de sus propios reclamos, te deseo la mejor, y espero que usted ha hecho su investigación. Si no es así, y a permitido que Ud haya sido manejado en algo que Ud no entiende y ha sido dirigido falsamente en una direccion que no le va ha ayudar - Aquien le va a hechar l Ud.. a culpa de su fracaso a Ud Mismo ? O a las personas que le sugirieron que era facil para Ud Mismo hacerlo?
2.- Para aquellos inversores que entienden los riesgos, sin embargo, han optado por presentar con un abogado diferente, te deseo lo mejor suerte también, pero no entiendo por qué un inversionista estaría dispuesto a elegir un abogado que no está dispuesto a litigar su solicitud. Ni ha pelear por Ud.
3.-Para los inversores que nos acompañan, y se han dado cuenta el sentido común de registro con KLS, les deseo la mejor de todas. Es su voluntad de participar que ha creado la masa critica que era necesaria para iniciar esta accion que ahora puede llegar hasta el final.
. Gracias a todos.
4.- Para aquellos de ustedes que todavía tienen que decidir qué es lo mejor para ustedes, por favor tome su decisión lo antes posible. Usted tiene menos de tres semanas antes de que esta oprtunidad pase para siempre – Despues de este plazo Ud nunca mas podra reclamar nada contra los EE.UU y la SEC. Si Ud decide unirse en un caso masivo en contra de los EE.UU y la SEC U des bienvenido … visite al unico abodago con las mayores qualificaciones en este pais que ha Ganado ya dos veces contra la SEC y ahora representa a los reclamantes de Madoff
Aquí es Kachroo Servicios Jurídicos su correo electronic última vez:
info@kachroolegal.com
Si usted desea leer más de los argumentos y las discusiones, por favor visite:
http://stanfordsforgottenvictims.blogspot.com
o regístrese para nuestro foro privado, que está libre de responsable y abierto a todos los inversores de Stanford de buena fe:
http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
Para que nadie más alegan que me estoy escondido detrás de cualquier fachadas, aquí está mi dirección de correo electrónico, y me esforzaré para devolver todos los que podría estar interesado lo suficiente como para colocar una línea, el tiempo lo permite:
stanfordvictim.richard@gmail.com
Richard Watson
27 de enero 2011
Thursday 27 January 2011
OPEN LETTER TO STANFORD INVESTORS REGARDING FTCA CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMISSION
Dear Stanford Investors,
There have been some very critical accusations from some of the Stanford investor groups; some of their attorneys; and even the Stanford investors committee; relating to the Stanford FTCA claims, some of which are clearly intended to discredit the investors behind this effort to inform and encourage you to preserve your rights to claim against the SEC, by filing an administrative claim.
As one of the instigators of this course of action, I think it is time that some of the false and misleading claims are put to rest, and suggest that searching questions be raised of the motivation of some of the individuals who are behind these accusations.
On the 15th November 2010, little more than two months ago, I wrote to the Stanford Investors Committee (SIC) and enquired if they had any intention of taking any action against the SEC, given the damning OIG report and the pending expiration of the statute of limitations. I still await a reply to that letter; however, following a later discussion with one of the attorney members of that committee, it was apparent the committee had no intention of commencing any such action to protect us.
Shortly afterwards, I got together with a small group of like-minded investors to search for a new attorney to represent us in a claim against the SEC. First there were attempts to have us gagged, which we had to overcome. Since then we have worked night and day, to bring together a workable solution that may benefit all the Stanford investors.
The number of attorneys with relevant experience of successful claims against the SEC are few. Lengthy discussions followed with Dr Gaytri Kachroo of Kachroo Legal Services (KLS), following the FTCA claims KLS had submitted for 500 Madoff investors, and we were all impressed; not just by her excellent academic achievements, but by the way she had reached the higher echelons of her chosen profession, yet managed to maintain a caring attitude; was willing to go the distance for us, and most importantly, had already represented investors in two actions against the SEC and/or the US government to successful settlement, and had very plausible arguments that we may succeed with an FTCA claim against the SEC.
Around the same time Angela Kogutt aka Angela Shaw, of the Stanford Victims Coalition (SVC) also approached Dr Kachroo, having seen the press releases relating to the Madoff victims claims. The support of the SVC was initially proffered, and Dr Kachroo was invited to address the SIC, with a view to filing protective FTCA claims for each of the Stanford investors. At that meeting, SIC attorneys all indicated they had no intention of themselves pursuing an action against the SEC because they were all involved in litigating other actions for Stanford investors. They considered Dr. Kachroo to be optimally positioned to take on this action. This created some hope that all Stanford investors could commonly join in the SEC claims process through one channel and action. Covisal, in Latin America, was also invited around this time to participate in the process.
I have no wish to dwell over all the water that has passed under the bridge since then, but our initial hopes that this action may unite all the various investor associations in a common cause were clearly misplaced.
Instead, we have been subjected to a barrage of defamatory internet attacks, mostly anonymous; including accusations of impropriety, amongst many others, all intended to discredit us. Investors who have exercised their right to join us have been threatened, and apparently some of us are now to face legal action.
I could have understood if these attempts to discredit us, and threats of legal recourse, had been at the instigation of the institution we hold responsible for our losses, but I am dismayed they are almost entirely from individuals who purport to be working in the best interests of the Stanford investors. How can they claim to be doing so by trying to silence us? What is the motivation behind these attacks, and why are they reluctant for Stanford investors to preserve their rights to any recovery?
Since we embarked on this course of action, all we have ever wished, is to make as many Stanford investors as possible aware of this possibility for recovery, and enable your to make your own educated decisions how best you may preserve your rights of recovery against the SEC, before the statute of limitations expires.
As far as the Stanford Investors Committee is concerned, I really would like to know why the preservation of all Stanford investors' interests was not encouraged by them long before, and why exactly are SIC members only now purporting to do so now, at the last moment, and then only after our attorney has agreed to take the case? If that committee really is acting in our best interests, why do they refuse to support the one attorney who truly believes in our cause? Furthermore, if we had not instigated this action, would they have simply allowed the statute of limitations to slip quietly by, and all the investor’s rights along with it?
To those investors who have decided to ‘self-file’ their own claims, I wish you well, and hope you have done your research. If you have not, and have allowed yourselves to be railroaded into an action you do not fully understand, and it all goes wrong, who will you blame; yourself, or those who persuaded you it was easy to do it yourself?
To those investors who understand the risks, yet have chosen to file with a different attorney, I wish you well too, yet I do not understand why any investor would willingly choose an attorney who is not prepared to litigate their claim.
To the investors who have joined us, and have realized the common sense of registering with KLS, I wish you the best of all. It is your willingness to participate that has created the critical mass we needed to ensure this action can now go all the way. Thank you all.
To those of you who have yet to decide what is best for yourselves, please make your decision sooner rather than later. You have less than three weeks before the statute of limitations expires, after which you will be barred forever from claiming your losses against the SEC, and if you decide to join us you are all very welcome. Here is Kachroo Legal Services email one last time: info@kachroolegal.com and if you wish to read more of the arguments and discussions, please visit http://stanfordsforgottenvictims.blogspot.com or register for our private forum, which is free of charge and open to all bona-fide Stanford investors: http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
Lest anyone else allege I am hiding behind any facades, here is my email address, and I will strive to get back to everyone who may be interested enough to drop me a line, time permitting:
stanfordvictim.richard@gmail.com
Richard Watson
27th January 2011
There have been some very critical accusations from some of the Stanford investor groups; some of their attorneys; and even the Stanford investors committee; relating to the Stanford FTCA claims, some of which are clearly intended to discredit the investors behind this effort to inform and encourage you to preserve your rights to claim against the SEC, by filing an administrative claim.
As one of the instigators of this course of action, I think it is time that some of the false and misleading claims are put to rest, and suggest that searching questions be raised of the motivation of some of the individuals who are behind these accusations.
On the 15th November 2010, little more than two months ago, I wrote to the Stanford Investors Committee (SIC) and enquired if they had any intention of taking any action against the SEC, given the damning OIG report and the pending expiration of the statute of limitations. I still await a reply to that letter; however, following a later discussion with one of the attorney members of that committee, it was apparent the committee had no intention of commencing any such action to protect us.
Shortly afterwards, I got together with a small group of like-minded investors to search for a new attorney to represent us in a claim against the SEC. First there were attempts to have us gagged, which we had to overcome. Since then we have worked night and day, to bring together a workable solution that may benefit all the Stanford investors.
The number of attorneys with relevant experience of successful claims against the SEC are few. Lengthy discussions followed with Dr Gaytri Kachroo of Kachroo Legal Services (KLS), following the FTCA claims KLS had submitted for 500 Madoff investors, and we were all impressed; not just by her excellent academic achievements, but by the way she had reached the higher echelons of her chosen profession, yet managed to maintain a caring attitude; was willing to go the distance for us, and most importantly, had already represented investors in two actions against the SEC and/or the US government to successful settlement, and had very plausible arguments that we may succeed with an FTCA claim against the SEC.
Around the same time Angela Kogutt aka Angela Shaw, of the Stanford Victims Coalition (SVC) also approached Dr Kachroo, having seen the press releases relating to the Madoff victims claims. The support of the SVC was initially proffered, and Dr Kachroo was invited to address the SIC, with a view to filing protective FTCA claims for each of the Stanford investors. At that meeting, SIC attorneys all indicated they had no intention of themselves pursuing an action against the SEC because they were all involved in litigating other actions for Stanford investors. They considered Dr. Kachroo to be optimally positioned to take on this action. This created some hope that all Stanford investors could commonly join in the SEC claims process through one channel and action. Covisal, in Latin America, was also invited around this time to participate in the process.
I have no wish to dwell over all the water that has passed under the bridge since then, but our initial hopes that this action may unite all the various investor associations in a common cause were clearly misplaced.
Instead, we have been subjected to a barrage of defamatory internet attacks, mostly anonymous; including accusations of impropriety, amongst many others, all intended to discredit us. Investors who have exercised their right to join us have been threatened, and apparently some of us are now to face legal action.
I could have understood if these attempts to discredit us, and threats of legal recourse, had been at the instigation of the institution we hold responsible for our losses, but I am dismayed they are almost entirely from individuals who purport to be working in the best interests of the Stanford investors. How can they claim to be doing so by trying to silence us? What is the motivation behind these attacks, and why are they reluctant for Stanford investors to preserve their rights to any recovery?
Since we embarked on this course of action, all we have ever wished, is to make as many Stanford investors as possible aware of this possibility for recovery, and enable your to make your own educated decisions how best you may preserve your rights of recovery against the SEC, before the statute of limitations expires.
As far as the Stanford Investors Committee is concerned, I really would like to know why the preservation of all Stanford investors' interests was not encouraged by them long before, and why exactly are SIC members only now purporting to do so now, at the last moment, and then only after our attorney has agreed to take the case? If that committee really is acting in our best interests, why do they refuse to support the one attorney who truly believes in our cause? Furthermore, if we had not instigated this action, would they have simply allowed the statute of limitations to slip quietly by, and all the investor’s rights along with it?
To those investors who have decided to ‘self-file’ their own claims, I wish you well, and hope you have done your research. If you have not, and have allowed yourselves to be railroaded into an action you do not fully understand, and it all goes wrong, who will you blame; yourself, or those who persuaded you it was easy to do it yourself?
To those investors who understand the risks, yet have chosen to file with a different attorney, I wish you well too, yet I do not understand why any investor would willingly choose an attorney who is not prepared to litigate their claim.
To the investors who have joined us, and have realized the common sense of registering with KLS, I wish you the best of all. It is your willingness to participate that has created the critical mass we needed to ensure this action can now go all the way. Thank you all.
To those of you who have yet to decide what is best for yourselves, please make your decision sooner rather than later. You have less than three weeks before the statute of limitations expires, after which you will be barred forever from claiming your losses against the SEC, and if you decide to join us you are all very welcome. Here is Kachroo Legal Services email one last time: info@kachroolegal.com and if you wish to read more of the arguments and discussions, please visit http://stanfordsforgottenvictims.blogspot.com or register for our private forum, which is free of charge and open to all bona-fide Stanford investors: http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
Lest anyone else allege I am hiding behind any facades, here is my email address, and I will strive to get back to everyone who may be interested enough to drop me a line, time permitting:
stanfordvictim.richard@gmail.com
Richard Watson
27th January 2011
Stanford Ruled Incompetent to Stand Trial
Source: Dealbook nytimes
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the jailed Texas financier R. Allen Stanford was incompetent to stand trial at this time on charges that he ran a $7 billion Ponzi scheme.
Judge David Hittner in Federal District Court in Houston ordered Mr. Stanford to be treated for drug addiction at a federal prison hospital. The judge denied a defense request to place Mr. Stanford in a private hospital for treatment, saying he is considered a flight risk.
“The court finds Stanford is incompetent to stand trial at this time based on his apparent impaired ability to rationally assist his attorneys in preparing his defense,” Judge Hittner ruled.
But in ruling against the motion to place Mr. Stanford in a private hospital, the judge noted that the Texas financier had previously been denied requests to be released on bail ahead of his trial.
“It is not lost on the court that Stanford’s motion to be released to a local mental facility for treatment may be yet another attempt by Stanford to be released on bond,” Judge Hittner wrote. “The court’s finding that Stanford is incompetent, however, does not alter the court’s finding that Stanford is a flight risk and that no combination of conditions of pretrial release can reasonably assure his appearance at trial.”
Mr. Stanford was arrested in 2009 on charges including securities fraud and money-laundering. He is accused of selling billions of dollars in fraudulent certificates of deposit through the Antigua operations of the Stanford Financial Group.
That same year, while in jail, Mr. Stanford suffered a head injury after being attacked by another inmate. Since then, Mr. Stanford has been taking anti-anxiety drugs and antidepressants. Defense lawyers have argued that Mr. Stanford is mentally unfit to stand trial, although doctors disagree whether his mental state is a result of possible brain damage from the head injury or over-medication from the drugs.
Judge Hittner also ordered that Mr. Stanford’s head injury be evaluated for possible further treatment.
In an interesting twist, the judge suggested that one prison hospital that might be suitable for Mr. Stanford was the Federal Medical Center in Butner, N.C. Among the inmates at the Butner federal prison is the convicted swindler Bernard L. Madoff, who ran a far-larger Ponzi scheme than the one Mr. Stanford is accused of operating.
Ruling on Stanford's Competency
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the jailed Texas financier R. Allen Stanford was incompetent to stand trial at this time on charges that he ran a $7 billion Ponzi scheme.
Judge David Hittner in Federal District Court in Houston ordered Mr. Stanford to be treated for drug addiction at a federal prison hospital. The judge denied a defense request to place Mr. Stanford in a private hospital for treatment, saying he is considered a flight risk.
“The court finds Stanford is incompetent to stand trial at this time based on his apparent impaired ability to rationally assist his attorneys in preparing his defense,” Judge Hittner ruled.
But in ruling against the motion to place Mr. Stanford in a private hospital, the judge noted that the Texas financier had previously been denied requests to be released on bail ahead of his trial.
“It is not lost on the court that Stanford’s motion to be released to a local mental facility for treatment may be yet another attempt by Stanford to be released on bond,” Judge Hittner wrote. “The court’s finding that Stanford is incompetent, however, does not alter the court’s finding that Stanford is a flight risk and that no combination of conditions of pretrial release can reasonably assure his appearance at trial.”
Mr. Stanford was arrested in 2009 on charges including securities fraud and money-laundering. He is accused of selling billions of dollars in fraudulent certificates of deposit through the Antigua operations of the Stanford Financial Group.
That same year, while in jail, Mr. Stanford suffered a head injury after being attacked by another inmate. Since then, Mr. Stanford has been taking anti-anxiety drugs and antidepressants. Defense lawyers have argued that Mr. Stanford is mentally unfit to stand trial, although doctors disagree whether his mental state is a result of possible brain damage from the head injury or over-medication from the drugs.
Judge Hittner also ordered that Mr. Stanford’s head injury be evaluated for possible further treatment.
In an interesting twist, the judge suggested that one prison hospital that might be suitable for Mr. Stanford was the Federal Medical Center in Butner, N.C. Among the inmates at the Butner federal prison is the convicted swindler Bernard L. Madoff, who ran a far-larger Ponzi scheme than the one Mr. Stanford is accused of operating.
Ruling on Stanford's Competency
Allen Stanford incompetent for trial -US judge
Source: Dan Levine (Reuters)
* Stanford currently unable to assist in his defense-judge
* Indicted for alleged $7 billion fraud
* Stanford suffered 2009 head injury while in custody
* Doctors say anti-anxiety meds should stop-ruling (Adds defense comment)
SAN FRANCISCO, Jan 26 (Reuters) - Financier Allen Stanford is incompetent to stand trial at this time over accusations that he led a $7 billion fraud, a U.S. judge in Texas ruled on Wednesday.
Stanford, who had been accustomed to jetting around the globe in private aircraft, was indicted in 2009 on 21 counts including securities fraud and money laundering. U.S. prosecutors accuse him of creating false accounting records, lying to investors and bribing a regulatory official in Antigua.
Stanford has pleaded not guilty and was previously scheduled to begin trial this week. But that was postponed amid uncertainty about his condition.
In a written ruling, U.S. District Judge David Hittner found that Stanford did not have the present mental capacity to assist his lawyers in his defense.
While incarcerated, Stanford sustained a head injury during a 2009 confrontation with another inmate and underwent surgery for repair of facial fractures.
Psychiatrists for both the government and the defense who examined Stanford also recommended that his anti-anxiety medication be withdrawn. One doctor testified that it was unclear whether Stanford is incompetent for trial because of the injury, or due to over-medication.
The government contends that Stanford is legally competent, but nevertheless asked the court to move him to a suitable facility for psychiatric evaluation.
A representative for the U.S. Attorney's office in Houston was not immediately available to comment on Wednesday.
Hittner rejected defense arguments that the judge could commit Stanford to a private medical facility. Instead, Hittner recommended that Stanford be sent to a medical facility within the U.S. Bureau of Prisons for treatment.
Ali Fazel, an attorney for Stanford, said once Stanford is weaned off his medication, additional tests will determine how much damage was caused by the prison injury, and the drugs.
"We just have to take it a step at a time," Fazel said.
The judge did not specify a new trial date, though he admonished attorneys on both sides to diligently prepare despite Stanford's absence.
The case in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas is United States v. Robert Allen Stanford, 09-cr-342. (Reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Gary Hill, Tim Dobbyn and Bernard Orr)
* Stanford currently unable to assist in his defense-judge
* Indicted for alleged $7 billion fraud
* Stanford suffered 2009 head injury while in custody
* Doctors say anti-anxiety meds should stop-ruling (Adds defense comment)
SAN FRANCISCO, Jan 26 (Reuters) - Financier Allen Stanford is incompetent to stand trial at this time over accusations that he led a $7 billion fraud, a U.S. judge in Texas ruled on Wednesday.
Stanford, who had been accustomed to jetting around the globe in private aircraft, was indicted in 2009 on 21 counts including securities fraud and money laundering. U.S. prosecutors accuse him of creating false accounting records, lying to investors and bribing a regulatory official in Antigua.
Stanford has pleaded not guilty and was previously scheduled to begin trial this week. But that was postponed amid uncertainty about his condition.
In a written ruling, U.S. District Judge David Hittner found that Stanford did not have the present mental capacity to assist his lawyers in his defense.
While incarcerated, Stanford sustained a head injury during a 2009 confrontation with another inmate and underwent surgery for repair of facial fractures.
Psychiatrists for both the government and the defense who examined Stanford also recommended that his anti-anxiety medication be withdrawn. One doctor testified that it was unclear whether Stanford is incompetent for trial because of the injury, or due to over-medication.
The government contends that Stanford is legally competent, but nevertheless asked the court to move him to a suitable facility for psychiatric evaluation.
A representative for the U.S. Attorney's office in Houston was not immediately available to comment on Wednesday.
Hittner rejected defense arguments that the judge could commit Stanford to a private medical facility. Instead, Hittner recommended that Stanford be sent to a medical facility within the U.S. Bureau of Prisons for treatment.
Ali Fazel, an attorney for Stanford, said once Stanford is weaned off his medication, additional tests will determine how much damage was caused by the prison injury, and the drugs.
"We just have to take it a step at a time," Fazel said.
The judge did not specify a new trial date, though he admonished attorneys on both sides to diligently prepare despite Stanford's absence.
The case in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas is United States v. Robert Allen Stanford, 09-cr-342. (Reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Gary Hill, Tim Dobbyn and Bernard Orr)
Wednesday 26 January 2011
Angry Investors Threaten Suit
Plaintiffs Claim Regulators Ignored Warnings of Fraud
By BILL LODGE
Advocate Staff Writer
Some of the investors alleged to have been defrauded by Texas
promoter Robert Allen Stanford say they will use a
Massachusetts lawyer to sue the federal government for
alleged failure to take timely regulatory action against him.
I believe we’re going to join this lawsuit,” said Baton Rouge
real estate investor Jason S. Graham, 39.
Graham is one of more than 1,000 residents of the Baton
Rouge, Lafayette and Covington areas who lost an estimated
combined total of more than $1 billion to Stanford’s
operations. Those estimates are by state Rep. Bodi White, RCentral,
and Baton Rouge attorney Phillip W. Preis.
We’ve waited for the last two years for our Congress people
and senators to help us,” said Graham. “It’s an absolute joke.
”
Graham already is a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit against the
people who marketed Stanford’s worthless certificates of
deposit and other investment vehicles in Louisiana.
That lawsuit and similar actions across the country, however,
were suspended more than a year ago on orders from a Dallas
federal judge.
U.S. District Judge David Godbey ruled that those lawsuits
would interfere with a court-appointed receiver’s efforts to
track down the remnants of Stanford’s assets.
But attorney Gaytri Kachroo, of Cambridge, Mass., filed a
class-action suit against the federal government in November
for alleged failure by the Securities and Exchange Commission
to protect people’s savings from New Yorker Bernard Madoff’s
admitted Ponzi scheme.
A Ponzi is an illegal investment scheme that involves few, if
any, actual investments. Early investors are paid dividends
described by Ponzi operators as profits. The money actually
comes from later investors.
The scheme collapses when promoters can no longer coax
money from newly targeted victims.
Madoff is serving a 150-year term in federal prison for bilking
billions of dollars from pension funds, mutual funds and indidual investors.
The scheme collapses when promoters can no longer coax money from newly targeted victims.
Madoff is serving 150-year term in federal prison for bilking billions of dollars from pension funds, mutual funds and individual investors.
Kachroo said she now is filing administrative law claims with
the SEC in the Stanford case in order to preserve the rights of
people in Louisiana and other states to file a class-action suit
against the commission after the Feb. 16 filing deadline. That
date will mark the second anniversary of the SEC’s action to
shut down Stanford’s worldwide operations.
In such cases, plaintiffs cannot sue the federal government
until after a federal agency has denied investors’ claims,
Kachroo said.
Kachroo said last week that she has filed with the SEC claims
by 30 Stanford investors. Another 270 claims were being
processed by her staff, she said.
SEC lawyers in Dallas and federal prosecutors in Houston
allege in court filings that Stanford operated a Ponzi scheme
that harvested at least $7.2 billion from more than 25,000
people from Baton Rouge to Bogota, from Venezuela to
Europe.
Stanford, 60, remains in federal custody in Houston, where he
faces federal fraud charges.
James M. Davis, a Baldwyn, Miss., resident who served as
Stanford’s chief financial officer, has pleaded guilty to felony
charges and admitted that Stanford’s operations were a huge
Ponzi from the beginning.
Whistleblowers ignored?
For nearly nine years before Madoff admitted that his
investment empire was a giant Ponzi, financial analyst and
certified fraud examiner Harry Markopolos had warned the
SEC that the man was a criminal.
Kachroo represented Markopolos when he testified Feb. 4,
2009, before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on
Financial Services.
“Every tool, every resource, and every person (in the SEC) has
to be brought to bear in the fight against white-collar crime,”
Markopolos testified. “Government has coddled, accepted and
ignored white-collar crime for too long.
”
Markopolos added: “It is time the nation woke up and
recognized that it’s not the armed robbers or drug dealers who
cause us the most economic harm.
“It’s the white-collar criminals living in the most expensive
homes and who have the most impressive resumes who harm
us the most,” Markopolos told members of Congress. “They
steal our pensions, bankrupt our companies and destroy
thousands of jobs, ruining countless lives.
”
Last year, SEC Inspector General David Kotz reported that
commission officials repeatedly failed to pursue whistleblower
allegations between 1997 and 2005 that Stanford was
defrauding his investors. During that same time, Kotz
reported, examiners in the SEC’s Fort Worth office called for
investigation of Stanford at least three times.
In Baton Rouge, Preis continues to pursue a civil lawsuit on
behalf of Stanford investors against the state Office of
Financial Institutions. That suit alleges that OFI officials failed
investors by ignoring warning signs that Stanford’s operations
were fraudulent.
Preis said last week he believes that suit has a chance of
success, but he asserted that Kachroo has picked too big a rival
in the Stanford and Madoff litigation.
“We don’t think the idea of pursuing a suit against the SEC has
much merit to it,” Preis said. “The chances of ever collecting
from the United States government are slim to none.
”
Katchroo said she believes ordinary people can fight City Hall
and even collect damages from the federal government in the
Stanford and Madoff tragedies.
We believe we have a fairly good chance in both cases,”
Kachroo said.
The SEC won’t talk about Kachroo’s efforts in either case.
“
"Decline comment on both,"” e-mailed SEC spokesman John J.Nester.
Stanford was scheduled for trial on his criminal charges this
month. But a federal judge in Houston postponed that trial
indefinitely after being informed that Stanford has become
addicted to painkillers while in federal custody.
By BILL LODGE
Advocate Staff Writer
Some of the investors alleged to have been defrauded by Texas
promoter Robert Allen Stanford say they will use a
Massachusetts lawyer to sue the federal government for
alleged failure to take timely regulatory action against him.
I believe we’re going to join this lawsuit,” said Baton Rouge
real estate investor Jason S. Graham, 39.
Graham is one of more than 1,000 residents of the Baton
Rouge, Lafayette and Covington areas who lost an estimated
combined total of more than $1 billion to Stanford’s
operations. Those estimates are by state Rep. Bodi White, RCentral,
and Baton Rouge attorney Phillip W. Preis.
We’ve waited for the last two years for our Congress people
and senators to help us,” said Graham. “It’s an absolute joke.
”
Graham already is a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit against the
people who marketed Stanford’s worthless certificates of
deposit and other investment vehicles in Louisiana.
That lawsuit and similar actions across the country, however,
were suspended more than a year ago on orders from a Dallas
federal judge.
U.S. District Judge David Godbey ruled that those lawsuits
would interfere with a court-appointed receiver’s efforts to
track down the remnants of Stanford’s assets.
But attorney Gaytri Kachroo, of Cambridge, Mass., filed a
class-action suit against the federal government in November
for alleged failure by the Securities and Exchange Commission
to protect people’s savings from New Yorker Bernard Madoff’s
admitted Ponzi scheme.
A Ponzi is an illegal investment scheme that involves few, if
any, actual investments. Early investors are paid dividends
described by Ponzi operators as profits. The money actually
comes from later investors.
The scheme collapses when promoters can no longer coax
money from newly targeted victims.
Madoff is serving a 150-year term in federal prison for bilking
billions of dollars from pension funds, mutual funds and indidual investors.
The scheme collapses when promoters can no longer coax money from newly targeted victims.
Madoff is serving 150-year term in federal prison for bilking billions of dollars from pension funds, mutual funds and individual investors.
Kachroo said she now is filing administrative law claims with
the SEC in the Stanford case in order to preserve the rights of
people in Louisiana and other states to file a class-action suit
against the commission after the Feb. 16 filing deadline. That
date will mark the second anniversary of the SEC’s action to
shut down Stanford’s worldwide operations.
In such cases, plaintiffs cannot sue the federal government
until after a federal agency has denied investors’ claims,
Kachroo said.
Kachroo said last week that she has filed with the SEC claims
by 30 Stanford investors. Another 270 claims were being
processed by her staff, she said.
SEC lawyers in Dallas and federal prosecutors in Houston
allege in court filings that Stanford operated a Ponzi scheme
that harvested at least $7.2 billion from more than 25,000
people from Baton Rouge to Bogota, from Venezuela to
Europe.
Stanford, 60, remains in federal custody in Houston, where he
faces federal fraud charges.
James M. Davis, a Baldwyn, Miss., resident who served as
Stanford’s chief financial officer, has pleaded guilty to felony
charges and admitted that Stanford’s operations were a huge
Ponzi from the beginning.
Whistleblowers ignored?
For nearly nine years before Madoff admitted that his
investment empire was a giant Ponzi, financial analyst and
certified fraud examiner Harry Markopolos had warned the
SEC that the man was a criminal.
Kachroo represented Markopolos when he testified Feb. 4,
2009, before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on
Financial Services.
“Every tool, every resource, and every person (in the SEC) has
to be brought to bear in the fight against white-collar crime,”
Markopolos testified. “Government has coddled, accepted and
ignored white-collar crime for too long.
”
Markopolos added: “It is time the nation woke up and
recognized that it’s not the armed robbers or drug dealers who
cause us the most economic harm.
“It’s the white-collar criminals living in the most expensive
homes and who have the most impressive resumes who harm
us the most,” Markopolos told members of Congress. “They
steal our pensions, bankrupt our companies and destroy
thousands of jobs, ruining countless lives.
”
Last year, SEC Inspector General David Kotz reported that
commission officials repeatedly failed to pursue whistleblower
allegations between 1997 and 2005 that Stanford was
defrauding his investors. During that same time, Kotz
reported, examiners in the SEC’s Fort Worth office called for
investigation of Stanford at least three times.
In Baton Rouge, Preis continues to pursue a civil lawsuit on
behalf of Stanford investors against the state Office of
Financial Institutions. That suit alleges that OFI officials failed
investors by ignoring warning signs that Stanford’s operations
were fraudulent.
Preis said last week he believes that suit has a chance of
success, but he asserted that Kachroo has picked too big a rival
in the Stanford and Madoff litigation.
“We don’t think the idea of pursuing a suit against the SEC has
much merit to it,” Preis said. “The chances of ever collecting
from the United States government are slim to none.
”
Katchroo said she believes ordinary people can fight City Hall
and even collect damages from the federal government in the
Stanford and Madoff tragedies.
We believe we have a fairly good chance in both cases,”
Kachroo said.
The SEC won’t talk about Kachroo’s efforts in either case.
“
"Decline comment on both,"” e-mailed SEC spokesman John J.Nester.
Stanford was scheduled for trial on his criminal charges this
month. But a federal judge in Houston postponed that trial
indefinitely after being informed that Stanford has become
addicted to painkillers while in federal custody.
Supreme Court Nixes Allen Stanford Request To Review Case
Source: TPMMuckraker
The Supreme Court has denied the alleged Ponzi-schemer Allen Stanford's request for writ of certiorari, according to a letter filed by a court clerk last week. Stanford's previous legal team had requested the high court direct the lower court send the record in the case for review.
Lawyers for Stanford are awaiting a judge's decision on their request for Stanford to be released from federal custody and admitted to a rehabilitation program to treat his addicted to an anti-anxiety medication.
Meanwhile, several of those allegedly defrauded by Stanford say they plan to have a Massachusetts lawyer to sue the federal government for failing to take timely regulatory action against Stanford.
The Supreme Court has denied the alleged Ponzi-schemer Allen Stanford's request for writ of certiorari, according to a letter filed by a court clerk last week. Stanford's previous legal team had requested the high court direct the lower court send the record in the case for review.
Lawyers for Stanford are awaiting a judge's decision on their request for Stanford to be released from federal custody and admitted to a rehabilitation program to treat his addicted to an anti-anxiety medication.
Meanwhile, several of those allegedly defrauded by Stanford say they plan to have a Massachusetts lawyer to sue the federal government for failing to take timely regulatory action against Stanford.
LESS THAN THREE WEEKS BEFORE THE DEADLINE FOR STANFORD FINANCIAL GROUP INVESTORS TO SUBMIT CLAIMS
The deadline for FTCA claims by investors of the failed Stanford Financial Group against the US Securities and Exchange Commission is now just 20 days.
Investors in the failed Stanford International Bank, a part of the Stanford Financial Group, in receivership since the arrest of Allen Stanford, who is currently in detention in Houston awaiting trial on 23 charges of fraud, have just 17 days left to submit administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the US Securities and Exchange Commission, for their negligence in not closing down Allen Stanford sooner, despite knowing for 13 years it was likely he was operating a Ponzi scheme. Had they done so earlier many thousands of investors would have been spared the loss of their life savings.
The deadline for claims is fast approaching. Unless claims are submitted correctly and timely before the two year Statute of Limitations expires, on the 16th February 2011, Stanford investors will be denied any recovery from the US government, forever.
Stanford investors have engaged an attorney to submit FTCA claims against the SEC. This action against the SEC is a real chance for full recovery of losses from the failed Stanford Financial Group. It will not prejudice any SIPC recovery efforts, and is open to all the Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality, or place of residence.
CLAIMS TAKE SEVERAL DAYS TO PROCESS AND MUST BE SUBMITTED CORRECTLY AND TIMELY BEFORE THE 16th FEBRUARY OR THEY WILL BE REJECTED
Any Stanford investors who have not yet decided, should contact their attorney at their earliest opportunity, or the attorney the Stanford investors have hired: Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Mass, who already have considerable experience of submitting FTCA claims on behalf of the Madoff investors. Email: info@kachroolegal.com
Should any Stanford investors wish for more detail of the campaign and the various arguments, please register for our private investor’s forum, which is free of charge and available to all bona-fide investors in the failed Stanford Financial Group: http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
Written by David Brent
For Stanford International Victims Group
Investors in the failed Stanford International Bank, a part of the Stanford Financial Group, in receivership since the arrest of Allen Stanford, who is currently in detention in Houston awaiting trial on 23 charges of fraud, have just 17 days left to submit administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the US Securities and Exchange Commission, for their negligence in not closing down Allen Stanford sooner, despite knowing for 13 years it was likely he was operating a Ponzi scheme. Had they done so earlier many thousands of investors would have been spared the loss of their life savings.
The deadline for claims is fast approaching. Unless claims are submitted correctly and timely before the two year Statute of Limitations expires, on the 16th February 2011, Stanford investors will be denied any recovery from the US government, forever.
Stanford investors have engaged an attorney to submit FTCA claims against the SEC. This action against the SEC is a real chance for full recovery of losses from the failed Stanford Financial Group. It will not prejudice any SIPC recovery efforts, and is open to all the Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality, or place of residence.
CLAIMS TAKE SEVERAL DAYS TO PROCESS AND MUST BE SUBMITTED CORRECTLY AND TIMELY BEFORE THE 16th FEBRUARY OR THEY WILL BE REJECTED
Any Stanford investors who have not yet decided, should contact their attorney at their earliest opportunity, or the attorney the Stanford investors have hired: Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Mass, who already have considerable experience of submitting FTCA claims on behalf of the Madoff investors. Email: info@kachroolegal.com
Should any Stanford investors wish for more detail of the campaign and the various arguments, please register for our private investor’s forum, which is free of charge and available to all bona-fide investors in the failed Stanford Financial Group: http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
Written by David Brent
For Stanford International Victims Group
Deadline for Stanford investors less than a month away
Source:NorthAmerica.World247.net
The Stanford International Victims Group (SIVG) is reminding non-US investors of the approaching deadline to file their claims for compensation.
February 16, 2011 is the date when the statute of limitations expires for claims to be filed under the US Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
The SIVG represents investors from outside the US who were burned in Allen Stanford’s failed $ 7 billion Ponzi scheme, for which the businessman now languishes in a Texas prison awaiting trial.
The international victims have so far met with little success in their attempts to seek compensation via the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC).
This is partly because they are vigorously opposed by the Stanford Victims Coalition (SVC), which is looking after the interests of only the US investors.
SVC holds the view that interventions on behalf of the international victims distracts attention from the primary US cause and is likely to delay settlement.
The SIPC itself is also resistant to the idea of paying out compensation to the international victims, most of whom were not registered with the broker that is recognised as legitimate by US authorities in this matter, namely the Stanford Group Company (SCG).
Only 8,000 of the 13 to 20,000 Stanford investors are eligible for cover under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) – which governs the SIPC – and these are almost all in the US.
The SIPC offers compensation only up to a limit of US $ 500,000, regardless of the amount that may have been lost in Stanford’s alleged fraud. On the other hand, a successful claim under the SIPA would guarantee full compensation.
The International Investors Group is urging non-US victims (including those in Antigua & Barbuda) to contact their attorneys as soon as possible, or the attorney submitting claims on behalf of international investors, Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Massachusetts.
The Stanford International Victims Group (SIVG) is reminding non-US investors of the approaching deadline to file their claims for compensation.
February 16, 2011 is the date when the statute of limitations expires for claims to be filed under the US Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
The SIVG represents investors from outside the US who were burned in Allen Stanford’s failed $ 7 billion Ponzi scheme, for which the businessman now languishes in a Texas prison awaiting trial.
The international victims have so far met with little success in their attempts to seek compensation via the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC).
This is partly because they are vigorously opposed by the Stanford Victims Coalition (SVC), which is looking after the interests of only the US investors.
SVC holds the view that interventions on behalf of the international victims distracts attention from the primary US cause and is likely to delay settlement.
The SIPC itself is also resistant to the idea of paying out compensation to the international victims, most of whom were not registered with the broker that is recognised as legitimate by US authorities in this matter, namely the Stanford Group Company (SCG).
Only 8,000 of the 13 to 20,000 Stanford investors are eligible for cover under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) – which governs the SIPC – and these are almost all in the US.
The SIPC offers compensation only up to a limit of US $ 500,000, regardless of the amount that may have been lost in Stanford’s alleged fraud. On the other hand, a successful claim under the SIPA would guarantee full compensation.
The International Investors Group is urging non-US victims (including those in Antigua & Barbuda) to contact their attorneys as soon as possible, or the attorney submitting claims on behalf of international investors, Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Tuesday 25 January 2011
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS FROM STANFORD LATIN AMERICAN INVESTORS ABOUT FTCA CLAIMS
There still appears to be some confusion in Latin and South America about the FTCA claims process, due to misleading statements from some of the ‘leaders’ who are not giving advice that is in the best interests of the investors. They continue to advise investors to fill-out their own FTCA claim forms, without acknowledging the risks of such claims being incomplete; being submitted too late; or being otherwise ineligible. Please refer to some of our other posts for more detail of the risks involved in ‘self-filing.’ Although the form SF-95 appears simple enough, it has been tested in court cases many times. There is a massive amount of case-law, and other legal obstacles, investors must understand in order to complete the form correctly. Please understand that few of the English speaking investors are filing their own claims as they realize just how easy it is to get it wrong.
I have seen the advice that has been given by Covisal for investors to file their own claims. Some of this advice has been given by OFFICERS OF THE SEC, who we will be suing. Does anyone really imagine they are impartial, and it is good advice to follow?
We understand one of the ‘Leaders’ has also advised their followers that there is no urgency to submit claims, as this is will be a class-action that all investors can join-in later. Anyone spouting such blatant misinformation should not be trusted further. Should there be litigation, which will most likely become a class-action, ONLY those investors who have registered valid claims before the statute of limitations expires can be included. This is an action against the US Government under the FTCA, where the rules for eligibility are very different to other class-actions. NOBODY can join-in later. Also please be aware your claim MUST be received by the SEC, by registered mail and receipted delivery, BEFORE the Statute of Limitations expires, which is the 16th February 2011, OR IT WILL BE REJECTED.
There was a statement from one Latin American investor, who recently returned from the USA and stated he would file his own claim, as in his opinion, if a class action lawsuit is brought against the SEC in the future. “No attorney will reject a potential client with his/her SF-95 filed correctly.” Please be aware there is the distinct possibility that individual investors who ‘self-file’ could be excluded from any future class action, even if they manage to successfully file their own claims, simply because their explanation why the SEC is responsible differs significantly from the explanation given by the rest of the class. In that case, they may have to argue their claim in court, on their own, and at their own expense.
Also, even if this investor properly constructs his own claim, and he manages to get it filed timely and correctly with the SEC just to avoid paying any initial attorney fees, in six months time, when it is declined, he will still to hire an attorney to litigate his claim, and when an award is eventually made by the court, the judge may well award up to 25% to the ‘lead attorney’ as contingency fees. He may not have a contract for a 15% contingency fee, such as that negotiated with Kachroo Legal Services, and there is no guarantee that investors will be offered the same terms in six months time. Please do not be under any false illusions. The SEC are not simply going to agree all the claims and pay-out $7bn. THERE WILL HAVE TO BE A LAW SUIT, and the least expensive way for any investor to be included is with a contract from an attorney who will litigate the case as a class-action. So far we only know one such attorney, and we have hired her.
For investors in Latin and South America, who can see the sense that this needs to be handled by an experienced and indemnified attorney, to protect themselves, please also ensure that the attorney you consult has graduated from a US School of Law. The US legal system follows the law of precedent, as does that in Britain, NOT the Napoleonic Code you may be more familiar with in Latin and South America. Please also make sure your attorney is willing to litigate your claim, should it be rejected or otherwise ineligible, and has previous experience of submitting FTCA claims.
It is unlikely your neighborhood attorney in Caracas, Lima, Bogota, or Mexico will be conversant with FTCA claims.
Finally, we understand the ‘Leader’ of Covisal continues to claim our attorney only has only been practicing for 6 years, when she actually has 22 years of experience , some of it highly relevant; has never lost a case; and is the most highly rated for her qualifications and experience. Anyone wishing to compare the rating of our attorney with any of the other Stanford attorneys should refer to the following link and draw their own conclusions:
http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/02142-ma-gaytri-kachroo-1356107.html and her CV can be found here: http://www.kachroolegal.com/docs/dr_kachroo_cv.pdf
Any Stanford investors, who have not yet decided whether to join this action, should contact their own attorney at their earliest opportunity, or the attorney submitting the FTCA claims on behalf the Stanford International Victims Group: Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Mass. who already have experience of submitting over 500 claims on behalf of the Madoff investors.
Email: info@kachroolegal.com
Should any Stanford investors wish for more detail of the campaign and the various arguments, please register for our private investor’s forum, which is free of charge and available only to bona-fide investors in the failed Stanford Financial Group: http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
Written by David Brent
For Stanford International Victims Group
I have seen the advice that has been given by Covisal for investors to file their own claims. Some of this advice has been given by OFFICERS OF THE SEC, who we will be suing. Does anyone really imagine they are impartial, and it is good advice to follow?
We understand one of the ‘Leaders’ has also advised their followers that there is no urgency to submit claims, as this is will be a class-action that all investors can join-in later. Anyone spouting such blatant misinformation should not be trusted further. Should there be litigation, which will most likely become a class-action, ONLY those investors who have registered valid claims before the statute of limitations expires can be included. This is an action against the US Government under the FTCA, where the rules for eligibility are very different to other class-actions. NOBODY can join-in later. Also please be aware your claim MUST be received by the SEC, by registered mail and receipted delivery, BEFORE the Statute of Limitations expires, which is the 16th February 2011, OR IT WILL BE REJECTED.
There was a statement from one Latin American investor, who recently returned from the USA and stated he would file his own claim, as in his opinion, if a class action lawsuit is brought against the SEC in the future. “No attorney will reject a potential client with his/her SF-95 filed correctly.” Please be aware there is the distinct possibility that individual investors who ‘self-file’ could be excluded from any future class action, even if they manage to successfully file their own claims, simply because their explanation why the SEC is responsible differs significantly from the explanation given by the rest of the class. In that case, they may have to argue their claim in court, on their own, and at their own expense.
Also, even if this investor properly constructs his own claim, and he manages to get it filed timely and correctly with the SEC just to avoid paying any initial attorney fees, in six months time, when it is declined, he will still to hire an attorney to litigate his claim, and when an award is eventually made by the court, the judge may well award up to 25% to the ‘lead attorney’ as contingency fees. He may not have a contract for a 15% contingency fee, such as that negotiated with Kachroo Legal Services, and there is no guarantee that investors will be offered the same terms in six months time. Please do not be under any false illusions. The SEC are not simply going to agree all the claims and pay-out $7bn. THERE WILL HAVE TO BE A LAW SUIT, and the least expensive way for any investor to be included is with a contract from an attorney who will litigate the case as a class-action. So far we only know one such attorney, and we have hired her.
For investors in Latin and South America, who can see the sense that this needs to be handled by an experienced and indemnified attorney, to protect themselves, please also ensure that the attorney you consult has graduated from a US School of Law. The US legal system follows the law of precedent, as does that in Britain, NOT the Napoleonic Code you may be more familiar with in Latin and South America. Please also make sure your attorney is willing to litigate your claim, should it be rejected or otherwise ineligible, and has previous experience of submitting FTCA claims.
It is unlikely your neighborhood attorney in Caracas, Lima, Bogota, or Mexico will be conversant with FTCA claims.
Finally, we understand the ‘Leader’ of Covisal continues to claim our attorney only has only been practicing for 6 years, when she actually has 22 years of experience , some of it highly relevant; has never lost a case; and is the most highly rated for her qualifications and experience. Anyone wishing to compare the rating of our attorney with any of the other Stanford attorneys should refer to the following link and draw their own conclusions:
http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/02142-ma-gaytri-kachroo-1356107.html and her CV can be found here: http://www.kachroolegal.com/docs/dr_kachroo_cv.pdf
Any Stanford investors, who have not yet decided whether to join this action, should contact their own attorney at their earliest opportunity, or the attorney submitting the FTCA claims on behalf the Stanford International Victims Group: Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Mass. who already have experience of submitting over 500 claims on behalf of the Madoff investors.
Email: info@kachroolegal.com
Should any Stanford investors wish for more detail of the campaign and the various arguments, please register for our private investor’s forum, which is free of charge and available only to bona-fide investors in the failed Stanford Financial Group: http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
Written by David Brent
For Stanford International Victims Group
Monday 24 January 2011
Investors sue government
Breaking News Alerts
Plaintiffs claim regulators ignored warnings of fraud
By BILL LODGE
Advocate Staff Writer
Some of the investors alleged to have been defrauded by Texas promoter Robert Allen Stanford say they will use a Massachusetts lawyer to sue the federal government for alleged failure to take timely regulatory action against him.
“I believe we’re going to join this lawsuit,” said Baton Rouge real estate investor Jason S. Graham, 39.
Graham is one of more than 1,000 residents of the Baton Rouge, Lafayette and Covington areas who lost an estimated combined total of more than $1 billion to Stanford’s operations. Those estimates are by state Rep. Bodi White, R-Central, and Baton Rouge attorney Phillip W. Preis.
“We’ve waited for the last two years for our Congress people and senators to help us,” said Graham. “It’s an absolute joke.”
Graham already is a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit against the people who marketed Stanford’s worthless certificates of deposit and other investment vehicles in Louisiana.
That lawsuit and similar actions across the country, however, were suspended more than a year ago on orders from a Dallas federal judge.
U.S. District Judge David Godbey ruled that those lawsuits would interfere with a court-appointed receiver’s efforts to track down the remnants of Stanford’s assets.
But attorney Gaytri Kachroo, of Cambridge, Mass., filed a class-action suit against the federal government in November for alleged failure by the Securities and Exchange Commission to protect people’s savings from New Yorker Bernard Madoff’s admitted Ponzi scheme.
A Ponzi is an illegal investment scheme that involves few, if any, actual investments. Early investors are paid dividends described by Ponzi operators as profits. The money actually comes from later investors. The scheme collapses when promoters can no longer coax money from newly targeted victims.
Madoff is serving a 150-year term in federal prison for bilking billions of dollars from pension funds, mutual funds and individual investors.
Kachroo said she now is filing administrative law claims with the SEC in the Stanford case in order to preserve the rights of people in Louisiana and other states to file a class-action suit against the commission after the Feb. 16 filing deadline. That date will mark the second anniversary of the SEC’s action to shut down Stanford’s worldwide operations.
In such cases, plaintiffs cannot sue the federal government until after a federal agency has denied investors’ claims, Kachroo said.
Kachroo said last week that she has filed with the SEC claims by 30 Stanford investors. Another 270 claims were being processed by her staff, she said.
SEC lawyers in Dallas and federal prosecutors in Houston allege in court filings that Stanford operated a Ponzi scheme that harvested at least $7.2 billion from more than 25,000 people from Baton Rouge to Bogota, from Venezuela to Europe
Stanford, 60, remains in federal custody in Houston, where he faces federal fraud charges.
James M. Davis, a Baldwyn, Miss., resident who served as Stanford’s chief financial officer, has pleaded guilty to felony charges and admitted that Stanford’s operations were a huge Ponzi from the beginning.
Whistleblowers ignored?
For nearly nine years before Madoff admitted that his investment empire was a giant Ponzi, financial analyst and certified fraud examiner Harry Markopolos had warned the SEC that the man was a criminal.
Kachroo represented Markopolos when he testified Feb. 4, 2009, before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Financial Services.
“Every tool, every resource, and every person (in the SEC) has to be brought to bear in the fight against white-collar crime,” Markopolos testified. “Government has coddled, accepted and ignored white-collar crime for too long.”
Markopolos added: “It is time the nation woke up and recognized that it’s not the armed robbers or drug dealers who cause us the most economic harm.
“It’s the white-collar criminals living in the most expensive homes and who have the most impressive resumes who harm us the most,” Markopolos told members of Congress. “They steal our pensions, bankrupt our companies and destroy thousands of jobs, ruining countless lives.”
Last year, SEC Inspector General David Kotz reported that commission officials repeatedly failed to pursue whistleblower allegations between 1997 and 2005 that Stanford was defrauding his investors. During that same time, Kotz reported, examiners in the SEC’s Fort Worth office called for investigation of Stanford at least three times.
In Baton Rouge, Preis continues to pursue a civil lawsuit on behalf of Stanford investors against the state Office of Financial Institutions. That suit alleges that OFI officials failed investors by ignoring warning signs that Stanford’s operations were fraudulent.
Preis said last week he believes that suit has a chance of success, but he asserted that Kachroo has picked too big a rival in the Stanford and Madoff litigation.
“We don’t think the idea of pursuing a suit against the SEC has much merit to it,” Preis said. “The chances of ever collecting from the United States government are slim to none.”
Katchroo said she believes ordinary people can fight City Hall and even collect damages from the federal government in the Stanford and Madoff tragedies.
“We believe we have a fairly good chance in both cases,” Kachroo said.
The SEC won’t talk about Kachroo’s efforts in either case.
“Decline comment on both,” e-mailed SEC spokesman John J. Nester.
Stanford was scheduled for trial on his criminal charges this month. But a federal judge in Houston postponed that trial indefinitely after being informed that Stanford has become addicted to painkillers while in federal custody.
Plaintiffs claim regulators ignored warnings of fraud
By BILL LODGE
Advocate Staff Writer
Some of the investors alleged to have been defrauded by Texas promoter Robert Allen Stanford say they will use a Massachusetts lawyer to sue the federal government for alleged failure to take timely regulatory action against him.
“I believe we’re going to join this lawsuit,” said Baton Rouge real estate investor Jason S. Graham, 39.
Graham is one of more than 1,000 residents of the Baton Rouge, Lafayette and Covington areas who lost an estimated combined total of more than $1 billion to Stanford’s operations. Those estimates are by state Rep. Bodi White, R-Central, and Baton Rouge attorney Phillip W. Preis.
“We’ve waited for the last two years for our Congress people and senators to help us,” said Graham. “It’s an absolute joke.”
Graham already is a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit against the people who marketed Stanford’s worthless certificates of deposit and other investment vehicles in Louisiana.
That lawsuit and similar actions across the country, however, were suspended more than a year ago on orders from a Dallas federal judge.
U.S. District Judge David Godbey ruled that those lawsuits would interfere with a court-appointed receiver’s efforts to track down the remnants of Stanford’s assets.
But attorney Gaytri Kachroo, of Cambridge, Mass., filed a class-action suit against the federal government in November for alleged failure by the Securities and Exchange Commission to protect people’s savings from New Yorker Bernard Madoff’s admitted Ponzi scheme.
A Ponzi is an illegal investment scheme that involves few, if any, actual investments. Early investors are paid dividends described by Ponzi operators as profits. The money actually comes from later investors. The scheme collapses when promoters can no longer coax money from newly targeted victims.
Madoff is serving a 150-year term in federal prison for bilking billions of dollars from pension funds, mutual funds and individual investors.
Kachroo said she now is filing administrative law claims with the SEC in the Stanford case in order to preserve the rights of people in Louisiana and other states to file a class-action suit against the commission after the Feb. 16 filing deadline. That date will mark the second anniversary of the SEC’s action to shut down Stanford’s worldwide operations.
In such cases, plaintiffs cannot sue the federal government until after a federal agency has denied investors’ claims, Kachroo said.
Kachroo said last week that she has filed with the SEC claims by 30 Stanford investors. Another 270 claims were being processed by her staff, she said.
SEC lawyers in Dallas and federal prosecutors in Houston allege in court filings that Stanford operated a Ponzi scheme that harvested at least $7.2 billion from more than 25,000 people from Baton Rouge to Bogota, from Venezuela to Europe
Stanford, 60, remains in federal custody in Houston, where he faces federal fraud charges.
James M. Davis, a Baldwyn, Miss., resident who served as Stanford’s chief financial officer, has pleaded guilty to felony charges and admitted that Stanford’s operations were a huge Ponzi from the beginning.
Whistleblowers ignored?
For nearly nine years before Madoff admitted that his investment empire was a giant Ponzi, financial analyst and certified fraud examiner Harry Markopolos had warned the SEC that the man was a criminal.
Kachroo represented Markopolos when he testified Feb. 4, 2009, before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Financial Services.
“Every tool, every resource, and every person (in the SEC) has to be brought to bear in the fight against white-collar crime,” Markopolos testified. “Government has coddled, accepted and ignored white-collar crime for too long.”
Markopolos added: “It is time the nation woke up and recognized that it’s not the armed robbers or drug dealers who cause us the most economic harm.
“It’s the white-collar criminals living in the most expensive homes and who have the most impressive resumes who harm us the most,” Markopolos told members of Congress. “They steal our pensions, bankrupt our companies and destroy thousands of jobs, ruining countless lives.”
Last year, SEC Inspector General David Kotz reported that commission officials repeatedly failed to pursue whistleblower allegations between 1997 and 2005 that Stanford was defrauding his investors. During that same time, Kotz reported, examiners in the SEC’s Fort Worth office called for investigation of Stanford at least three times.
In Baton Rouge, Preis continues to pursue a civil lawsuit on behalf of Stanford investors against the state Office of Financial Institutions. That suit alleges that OFI officials failed investors by ignoring warning signs that Stanford’s operations were fraudulent.
Preis said last week he believes that suit has a chance of success, but he asserted that Kachroo has picked too big a rival in the Stanford and Madoff litigation.
“We don’t think the idea of pursuing a suit against the SEC has much merit to it,” Preis said. “The chances of ever collecting from the United States government are slim to none.”
Katchroo said she believes ordinary people can fight City Hall and even collect damages from the federal government in the Stanford and Madoff tragedies.
“We believe we have a fairly good chance in both cases,” Kachroo said.
The SEC won’t talk about Kachroo’s efforts in either case.
“Decline comment on both,” e-mailed SEC spokesman John J. Nester.
Stanford was scheduled for trial on his criminal charges this month. But a federal judge in Houston postponed that trial indefinitely after being informed that Stanford has become addicted to painkillers while in federal custody.
Sunday 23 January 2011
TO STANFORD BANK INVESTORS WAITING FOR SIPC COVERAGE
There have been past allegations made by the Stanford Victims Coalition (SVC) that submitting administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) may damage their political efforts for recovery under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA). They even went so far as to appeal to our attorney that SIPC cover will not only definitely be granted, but also widened to $4bn, to cover all the international investors too. We thought all these farcical arguments were in the past, but have become aware that SVC lobbying has been resurrected, following more recent comments from one group of investors.
So where does this actually leave the investors who consider they may be eligible for SIPC, and what are their chances?
Firstly, only the 8,000 Stanford investors who invested through the only SIPC registered broker-dealer, Stanford Group Company (SGC), may be eligible for cover under the SIPA, and the likelihood of widening the cover is non-existent, no matter who would have you believe otherwise. The remaining investors will be ineligible for SIPC (20,000 according to FRP, formerly Vantis, the Antiguan receiver; 13,500 according to Janvey the US receiver; they cannot even agree on how many of us were swindled).
The FTCA claims that we are campaigning for are against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), not against SIPC, so investors who may be eligible for SIPC are not prejudicing their chances by filing a claim against the SEC. To state that filing claims under the FTCA may be political suicide could not be further from the truth. There is in fact the very real possibility that should enough investors file FTCA claims, the heat will be turned up on the US Department of Justice to pressure the SEC to order SIPC coverage. It will ultimately be less expensive for the US taxpayer to foot the bill once SIPC have picked up the first $1.8 billion (or $4bn depending on who you believe). One could argue, with just as much authority, that filing a claim could actually assist Stanford investors get SIPC coverage, not hinder them.
As far as the likelihood of success of SIPC goes, please be aware the Chief Counsel of the SEC has previously stated he will not order SIPA coverage for Stanford investors as he considers his order may be challenged and defeated in court by the SIPC, which they are perfectly entitled to do. Hence the SVC campaign to lobby Congress to broaden the SIPA definition of ‘customer’. Will that happen before the statute of limitations runs out? Somewhat unlikely, since there are just 24 days left. We have seen little progress since the new Congress has re-convened, and remember, all the unsuccessful bills from last year, including the very welcome contribution from Senator Culberson, are now time expired.
And what did the Chairman of SIPC, Stephen Harbeck, tell Congress about the proposed change to SIPA to broaden the definition of ‘customer’? In his letter of August 25th 2010, to the Congressional sub-committee who proposed the amendment he stated:
"[W]e believe that the Amendment is inconsistent with SIPA's history, purpose, and provisions, and if passed, would have serious consequences for the investing public and securities broker-dealers."
"Under these facts, if a fictitious construct is applied such that investors in Stanford Bank CDs are deemed to be "customers" under SIPA with an account at Stanford Broker-Dealer, and are deemed to be eligible to recover their net investments in the Stanford Ponzi scheme in a SIPA liquidation of Stanford Broker-Dealer, it is virtually certain that satisfaction of their claims would exhaust the SIPC Fund."
In his words, even if the amendment to the Act was passed, SIPC would have insufficient funds to pay the Stanford victims (notwithstanding the Madoff victims who are also still waiting for SIPC to pay out, and they are eligible). As Mr Harbeck is still in his job, presumably he was not among the SEC staff caught with their pants down, watching porn on their laptops at work, instead of keeping their otherwise idle hands busy and investigating Stanford.
There have also been other requests from the SVC , both to our attorney, and directly to some of the investor groups, asking them to wait until the last minute to file, thus exposing investors to potential last minute problems of completeness, delivery delays, or other force majure. The Eastern seaboard is currently experiencing snow storms and blizzards disrupting business, and postal services, for example.
Perhaps this is a worthy attempt to give Congress and the SEC as much time as possible to do the right thing, but be aware these are two of the most notoriously slow bureaucracies in the US. Many investors who once trusted the SEC, and were swindled out of their hard earned life savings in return, may never trust them to come through again, in particular now the stakes are so high.
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled some time ago that an investor may not bring a suit against SIPC to compel them to initiate a liquidation. So, there is nothing any attorney can do to help Stanford investors gain SIPC.
'We have been reading about the quest for the holy grail of SIPC fortwo years now, and it still appears no nearer, whereas the opportunityto file a protective claim against the SEC under FTCA expires in just24 days.
It is a matter of fact that FTCA claims are currently being processed and will be submitted before the Statute of Limitation expires, regardless of whether SIPC coverage occurs or not. These claims are for full recovery, open to all Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality, or place of residence, and not limited to just $500k, as is SIPC. Ultimately, the decision whether or not to file a claim under the FTCA is in the hands of each investor, but not submitting a protective claim would be foolhardy in the least.
Finally we should all remember these inopportune and unforgettable words from Angela Kogutt, Founder and Director of the SVC, shortly before she inconscionably abandoned all the non-US investors, within days of being appointed to the Stanford Investors Committee:
“Just so it’s clear, I’m not giving up on the SVC but I am simply going to… represent just the US victims. I will now….limit my efforts to benefit only the 8,000 SGC customers…I haven't met one member of Congress who would go for giving even US citizens who have been severely damaged by the government’s negligence a tax-funded bailout…..The reality is US citizens have no obligation to pay for the private investment losses for investors from around the world…an ungrateful and delusional bunch…who are doing great damage to the recovery efforts of SVC…Just because the US has money and the SEC has admitted to its horrendous mistakes does not mean the US taxpayers should pay for the losses that resulted… I am a US citizen …and have a lot better feel for how things work….and don’t want anyone doing something that hurts what we have so carefully done this past year in Washington…..My hope is that the recent Gag Order prevents these radicals from going too far.
So now we all know where the SVC stands. Fortunately we were not gagged, and the Statute of Limitations has not been allowed to slip quietly by.
FTCA claims take several days to process and must be submitted correctly and timely before the deadline of 16th February 2011, when the Statute of Limitations expires or Stanford investors will be denied any recovery from the US government, forever.
Any Stanford investors who have not yet decided, should contact their attorney at their earliest opportunity, or the attorney submitting the FTCA claims on behalf the Stanford International investors: Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Mass, who already have considerable experience of submitting claims on behalf of the Madoff investors. Email: info@kachroolegal.com
Should any Stanford investors wish for more detail of this campaign and the various arguments, please register for our free and private investor’s forum, which is available to all bona-fide investors in the failed Stanford Financial Group: http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
or more information can be obtained on the Stanford Forgotten Victims blog at
http://stanfordsforgottenvictims.blogspot.com/
Written by David Brent
For Stanford International Victims Group
So where does this actually leave the investors who consider they may be eligible for SIPC, and what are their chances?
Firstly, only the 8,000 Stanford investors who invested through the only SIPC registered broker-dealer, Stanford Group Company (SGC), may be eligible for cover under the SIPA, and the likelihood of widening the cover is non-existent, no matter who would have you believe otherwise. The remaining investors will be ineligible for SIPC (20,000 according to FRP, formerly Vantis, the Antiguan receiver; 13,500 according to Janvey the US receiver; they cannot even agree on how many of us were swindled).
The FTCA claims that we are campaigning for are against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), not against SIPC, so investors who may be eligible for SIPC are not prejudicing their chances by filing a claim against the SEC. To state that filing claims under the FTCA may be political suicide could not be further from the truth. There is in fact the very real possibility that should enough investors file FTCA claims, the heat will be turned up on the US Department of Justice to pressure the SEC to order SIPC coverage. It will ultimately be less expensive for the US taxpayer to foot the bill once SIPC have picked up the first $1.8 billion (or $4bn depending on who you believe). One could argue, with just as much authority, that filing a claim could actually assist Stanford investors get SIPC coverage, not hinder them.
As far as the likelihood of success of SIPC goes, please be aware the Chief Counsel of the SEC has previously stated he will not order SIPA coverage for Stanford investors as he considers his order may be challenged and defeated in court by the SIPC, which they are perfectly entitled to do. Hence the SVC campaign to lobby Congress to broaden the SIPA definition of ‘customer’. Will that happen before the statute of limitations runs out? Somewhat unlikely, since there are just 24 days left. We have seen little progress since the new Congress has re-convened, and remember, all the unsuccessful bills from last year, including the very welcome contribution from Senator Culberson, are now time expired.
And what did the Chairman of SIPC, Stephen Harbeck, tell Congress about the proposed change to SIPA to broaden the definition of ‘customer’? In his letter of August 25th 2010, to the Congressional sub-committee who proposed the amendment he stated:
"[W]e believe that the Amendment is inconsistent with SIPA's history, purpose, and provisions, and if passed, would have serious consequences for the investing public and securities broker-dealers."
"Under these facts, if a fictitious construct is applied such that investors in Stanford Bank CDs are deemed to be "customers" under SIPA with an account at Stanford Broker-Dealer, and are deemed to be eligible to recover their net investments in the Stanford Ponzi scheme in a SIPA liquidation of Stanford Broker-Dealer, it is virtually certain that satisfaction of their claims would exhaust the SIPC Fund."
In his words, even if the amendment to the Act was passed, SIPC would have insufficient funds to pay the Stanford victims (notwithstanding the Madoff victims who are also still waiting for SIPC to pay out, and they are eligible). As Mr Harbeck is still in his job, presumably he was not among the SEC staff caught with their pants down, watching porn on their laptops at work, instead of keeping their otherwise idle hands busy and investigating Stanford.
There have also been other requests from the SVC , both to our attorney, and directly to some of the investor groups, asking them to wait until the last minute to file, thus exposing investors to potential last minute problems of completeness, delivery delays, or other force majure. The Eastern seaboard is currently experiencing snow storms and blizzards disrupting business, and postal services, for example.
Perhaps this is a worthy attempt to give Congress and the SEC as much time as possible to do the right thing, but be aware these are two of the most notoriously slow bureaucracies in the US. Many investors who once trusted the SEC, and were swindled out of their hard earned life savings in return, may never trust them to come through again, in particular now the stakes are so high.
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled some time ago that an investor may not bring a suit against SIPC to compel them to initiate a liquidation. So, there is nothing any attorney can do to help Stanford investors gain SIPC.
'We have been reading about the quest for the holy grail of SIPC fortwo years now, and it still appears no nearer, whereas the opportunityto file a protective claim against the SEC under FTCA expires in just24 days.
It is a matter of fact that FTCA claims are currently being processed and will be submitted before the Statute of Limitation expires, regardless of whether SIPC coverage occurs or not. These claims are for full recovery, open to all Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality, or place of residence, and not limited to just $500k, as is SIPC. Ultimately, the decision whether or not to file a claim under the FTCA is in the hands of each investor, but not submitting a protective claim would be foolhardy in the least.
Finally we should all remember these inopportune and unforgettable words from Angela Kogutt, Founder and Director of the SVC, shortly before she inconscionably abandoned all the non-US investors, within days of being appointed to the Stanford Investors Committee:
“Just so it’s clear, I’m not giving up on the SVC but I am simply going to… represent just the US victims. I will now….limit my efforts to benefit only the 8,000 SGC customers…I haven't met one member of Congress who would go for giving even US citizens who have been severely damaged by the government’s negligence a tax-funded bailout…..The reality is US citizens have no obligation to pay for the private investment losses for investors from around the world…an ungrateful and delusional bunch…who are doing great damage to the recovery efforts of SVC…Just because the US has money and the SEC has admitted to its horrendous mistakes does not mean the US taxpayers should pay for the losses that resulted… I am a US citizen …and have a lot better feel for how things work….and don’t want anyone doing something that hurts what we have so carefully done this past year in Washington…..My hope is that the recent Gag Order prevents these radicals from going too far.
So now we all know where the SVC stands. Fortunately we were not gagged, and the Statute of Limitations has not been allowed to slip quietly by.
FTCA claims take several days to process and must be submitted correctly and timely before the deadline of 16th February 2011, when the Statute of Limitations expires or Stanford investors will be denied any recovery from the US government, forever.
Any Stanford investors who have not yet decided, should contact their attorney at their earliest opportunity, or the attorney submitting the FTCA claims on behalf the Stanford International investors: Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Mass, who already have considerable experience of submitting claims on behalf of the Madoff investors. Email: info@kachroolegal.com
Should any Stanford investors wish for more detail of this campaign and the various arguments, please register for our free and private investor’s forum, which is available to all bona-fide investors in the failed Stanford Financial Group: http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
or more information can be obtained on the Stanford Forgotten Victims blog at
http://stanfordsforgottenvictims.blogspot.com/
Written by David Brent
For Stanford International Victims Group
Saturday 22 January 2011
STANFORD FINANCIAL GROUP INVESTORS FROM LOUISIANA TEXAS AND FLORIDA HAVE HEARD THE CALL
The campaign is finally gaining momentum among the domestic US investors, with a substantial number of investors from Louisiana, Texas, and now Florida, having now having signed-up and submitting FTCA claims against the US Government Securities and Exchange Commission, for their negligence in failing to close down Allen Stanford sooner, knowing for 13 years he was likely operating a Ponzi scheme. Had they done so, many investors of the failed Stanford International Bank, a part of the Stanford Financial Group, now in receivership, may have been spared the loss of their life savings.
Allen Stanford is currently in detention in Houston, Texas, awaiting trial on 23 counts of fraud.
The deadline for FTCA claims against the US Securities and Exchange Commission is approaching fast. This is a real possibility for full recovery of losses sustained by all the Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality or place of residence. All valid claims must be submitted correctly and timely before the 16th February 2011 deadline when the Statute of Limitations expires.
Any investors who have not consulted an attorney to submit their claims should do so without delay. Although the forms look straightforward enough, there is a plethora of case-law awaiting the unwary.
Please ensure that the attorney you engage is willing to litigate your claim forward, should it be rejected or otherwise ineligible, and already has experience of submitting FTCA claims.
Please contact your attorney without delay, or the attorney hired by the Stanford International Victims Group: Kachroo Legal Services, Cambridge, Mass., who already have extensive experience of submitting FTCA claims for the Madoff investors. Email:info@kachroolegal.com
Should any Stanford investors wish for more detail of the campaign and the various arguments, please register for our free investors forum, which is available only to bona-fide investors in the failed Stanford Financial Group: http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
Allen Stanford is currently in detention in Houston, Texas, awaiting trial on 23 counts of fraud.
The deadline for FTCA claims against the US Securities and Exchange Commission is approaching fast. This is a real possibility for full recovery of losses sustained by all the Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality or place of residence. All valid claims must be submitted correctly and timely before the 16th February 2011 deadline when the Statute of Limitations expires.
Any investors who have not consulted an attorney to submit their claims should do so without delay. Although the forms look straightforward enough, there is a plethora of case-law awaiting the unwary.
Please ensure that the attorney you engage is willing to litigate your claim forward, should it be rejected or otherwise ineligible, and already has experience of submitting FTCA claims.
Please contact your attorney without delay, or the attorney hired by the Stanford International Victims Group: Kachroo Legal Services, Cambridge, Mass., who already have extensive experience of submitting FTCA claims for the Madoff investors. Email:info@kachroolegal.com
Should any Stanford investors wish for more detail of the campaign and the various arguments, please register for our free investors forum, which is available only to bona-fide investors in the failed Stanford Financial Group: http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
SNOW STORMS IN NEW ENGLAND HAMPER STANFORD FTCA CLAIMS REGISTRATION PROCESS
Our attorney’s office has been affected by the snow storms and blizzards that have been blowing across the Eastern Seaboard of the USA for the last few days. Despite this, they have managed to respond to the majority of investors within 24 hours. For those investors who have experienced difficulty in speaking to Kachroo Legal Services recently, please contact them by email: info@kachroolegal.com so you can receive the information package the same day, no matter what the weather. As we go into next week KLS are hiring additional legal assistants to process the volume of claims that are now flooding in. Please be aware there are only three weeks left before the Statute of Limitations expires, so if you are still undecided, it will be better not to leave it until the last minute.
Friday 21 January 2011
MORE QUESTIONABLE ADVICE - FROM COVISAL TO LATIN AMERICAN INVESTORS
The self-proclaimed ‘Leader’ of COVISAL, Jaime R. Escalona, continues to issue very questionable advice to Latin American Stanford investors.
Not only has he been requesting further ‘donations,’ now a questionnaire to register with Covisal has been issued to Latin American investors. This questionnaire requests extensive private and confidential information from Stanford victims, including; the amount of their investment; the objective of their investment, whether it was a retirement fund, family life savings, education fund, or to guarantee business loans, etc; bank details; credit card details; account statements; and even certain PIN numbers are requested.
I leave you to draw your own conclusions whether all this information is absolutely necessary to join a victim’s support group, and consider carefully what risks investors may face from the trust placed in Covisal if this information is misused, or otherwise falls into the wrong hands.
Furthermore, Covisal continues to advise investors to fill-out their own FTCA claim forms, without acknowledging the risks of such claims being incomplete; being submitted too late; or being otherwise ineligible. Please refer to some of the earlier posts for more detail of the risks involved in ‘self-filing.’ The amount of case-law and precedents that need to be understood is immense, and easy to confuse; you can easily imagine the potential for filing an incomplete or ineligible claim if your first language is not English.
We understand the ‘Leader’ of Covisal has even advised his followers that there is no urgency, to submit FTCA claims, as this is will be a class-action that all investors can join-in later. Anyone spouting such blatant misinformation should not be trusted further.
Should there be litigation, which will most likely become a class-action, ONLY those investors who have registered valid claims will be included. This is an action against the US Government under the FTCA, where the rules for eligibility are very different to other class-actions, and if the reason you give for the negligence of the SEC is significantly different to the rest of the class, your claim may not even be admissible into the class action. In which case you may have to go to court separately and litigate your claim on your own, at your own expense. Furthermore if you do not already have a contract with an attorney, such as the one we have negotiated with Kachroo Legal services for a 15% contingency, you may have to pay whatever the judge awards to the lead attorney, which could be as high as 25% contingency fees. In the past some attorneys have demanded as high as 32% contingency fees from Stanford investors who chose not to pay a retainer. Please be reminded our attorney has already offered to accept clients who are experiencing extreme hardship and can not afford to pay a retainer.
Finally, we understand the ‘Leader’ of Covisal continues to claim our attorney only has only been practicing for 6 years, when she actually has 22 years of experience , some of it highly relevant; has never lost a case; and is the most highly rated for her qualifications and experience. Anyone wishing to compare the rating of our attorney with any of the other Stanford attorneys should refer to the following link and draw their own conclusions:
http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/02142-ma-gaytri-kachroo-1356107.html and her CV can be found here: http://www.kachroolegal.com/docs/dr_kachroo_cv.pdf
Investors in the failed Stanford International Bank, a part of the Stanford Financial Group, in receivership since the arrest of Allen Stanford, who is currently in detention in Houston awaiting trial on 23 counts of fraud, have only a few days left to submit administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the US Securities and Exchange Commission; for their negligence in not acting against Allen Stanford sooner, despite knowing for 13 years it was likely he was operating a Ponzi scheme.
The deadline for claims is fast approaching. Unless claims are submitted correctly and timely before the two year Statute of Limitations expires next month on the 16th February 2011, Stanford investors will be denied any recovery from the US government, forever.
The Stanford International Victims Group have engaged an attorney to submit FTCA claims against the SEC. This action against the SEC will not prejudice any SIPC recovery efforts, and is open to all the Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality, place of residence, or the Stanford entity in which they made their investments.
Any Stanford investors, who have not yet decided whether to join this action, should contact their own attorney at their earliest opportunity, or the attorney submitting the FTCA claims on behalf the Stanford International Victims Group: Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Mass. who already have experience of submitting claims on behalf of the Madoff investors.
Email: info@kachroolegal.com
Not only has he been requesting further ‘donations,’ now a questionnaire to register with Covisal has been issued to Latin American investors. This questionnaire requests extensive private and confidential information from Stanford victims, including; the amount of their investment; the objective of their investment, whether it was a retirement fund, family life savings, education fund, or to guarantee business loans, etc; bank details; credit card details; account statements; and even certain PIN numbers are requested.
I leave you to draw your own conclusions whether all this information is absolutely necessary to join a victim’s support group, and consider carefully what risks investors may face from the trust placed in Covisal if this information is misused, or otherwise falls into the wrong hands.
Furthermore, Covisal continues to advise investors to fill-out their own FTCA claim forms, without acknowledging the risks of such claims being incomplete; being submitted too late; or being otherwise ineligible. Please refer to some of the earlier posts for more detail of the risks involved in ‘self-filing.’ The amount of case-law and precedents that need to be understood is immense, and easy to confuse; you can easily imagine the potential for filing an incomplete or ineligible claim if your first language is not English.
We understand the ‘Leader’ of Covisal has even advised his followers that there is no urgency, to submit FTCA claims, as this is will be a class-action that all investors can join-in later. Anyone spouting such blatant misinformation should not be trusted further.
Should there be litigation, which will most likely become a class-action, ONLY those investors who have registered valid claims will be included. This is an action against the US Government under the FTCA, where the rules for eligibility are very different to other class-actions, and if the reason you give for the negligence of the SEC is significantly different to the rest of the class, your claim may not even be admissible into the class action. In which case you may have to go to court separately and litigate your claim on your own, at your own expense. Furthermore if you do not already have a contract with an attorney, such as the one we have negotiated with Kachroo Legal services for a 15% contingency, you may have to pay whatever the judge awards to the lead attorney, which could be as high as 25% contingency fees. In the past some attorneys have demanded as high as 32% contingency fees from Stanford investors who chose not to pay a retainer. Please be reminded our attorney has already offered to accept clients who are experiencing extreme hardship and can not afford to pay a retainer.
Finally, we understand the ‘Leader’ of Covisal continues to claim our attorney only has only been practicing for 6 years, when she actually has 22 years of experience , some of it highly relevant; has never lost a case; and is the most highly rated for her qualifications and experience. Anyone wishing to compare the rating of our attorney with any of the other Stanford attorneys should refer to the following link and draw their own conclusions:
http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/02142-ma-gaytri-kachroo-1356107.html and her CV can be found here: http://www.kachroolegal.com/docs/dr_kachroo_cv.pdf
Investors in the failed Stanford International Bank, a part of the Stanford Financial Group, in receivership since the arrest of Allen Stanford, who is currently in detention in Houston awaiting trial on 23 counts of fraud, have only a few days left to submit administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the US Securities and Exchange Commission; for their negligence in not acting against Allen Stanford sooner, despite knowing for 13 years it was likely he was operating a Ponzi scheme.
The deadline for claims is fast approaching. Unless claims are submitted correctly and timely before the two year Statute of Limitations expires next month on the 16th February 2011, Stanford investors will be denied any recovery from the US government, forever.
The Stanford International Victims Group have engaged an attorney to submit FTCA claims against the SEC. This action against the SEC will not prejudice any SIPC recovery efforts, and is open to all the Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality, place of residence, or the Stanford entity in which they made their investments.
Any Stanford investors, who have not yet decided whether to join this action, should contact their own attorney at their earliest opportunity, or the attorney submitting the FTCA claims on behalf the Stanford International Victims Group: Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Mass. who already have experience of submitting claims on behalf of the Madoff investors.
Email: info@kachroolegal.com
Thursday 20 January 2011
QUESTIONABLE ADVICE FROM THE STANFORD VICTIMS COALITION - ADVISING INVESTORS TO SELF-FILE FTCA CLAIMS ?
There has been correspondence from certain individuals, in particular Angela Kogutt, Founder and Director of the Stanford Victims Coalition, suggesting that FTCA claims are straightforward and that the forms are easy to fill-out. She has even suggested using hers as a template for other investors, presuming that ‘what caused her damages also caused theirs.’ This is a precarious presumption, and may not be such smart advice for those investors who have not fully researched FTCA claims.
Before using Mrs Kogutt’s SF-95 as a template for your claim, you may consider asking yourself some questions: Is the nature of your losses the same as hers? For instance, have you had other losses such as medical expenses? Have you lost your home or other properties as a result of losing your investment? May you be facing either of those possibilities in the future? Are you comfortable accepting her explanation as to why the SEC is responsible for your loss? If your copy of her claim should be rejected by the SEC as invalid, could you accept this? Would you be so upset that you consider her liable for influencing you to copy her claim? If you answer yes to any of these questions, then perhaps you should consult with your attorney or an experienced attorney who is both qualified and indemnified to give such advice.
As an aside, it is interesting to see that the Stanford Victims Coalition still somewhat disingenuously claim to be ‘an International Advocacy Group representing the best interests of 28,000 Stanford victims in 118 countries.’ Rather inappropriate after the SVC unilaterally abandoned all their overseas supporters to their fate, within days of Angela Kogutt being appointed to the Stanford Investors Committee last year. It is also interesting to note that it is now seemingly acceptable for SVC to state they ‘do not recommend’ any specific attorney, when in the past, as we all know, they endorsed an attorney who is now unwilling to litigate this case. With a new, experienced, and very highly qualified attorney willing to go the distance for us, one would think the SVC may be a little more proactive than to suggest that we file our own claims, simply because the attorney is not to their liking!
Enough of the SVC. So what can ‘self-filers’ expect to happen with their claims? If their administrative claims are properly constructed, then they may be able to get them filed with the SEC without paying any initial attorney fees; but if an award is ultimately made by the court; be aware, the judge may well award up to 25% to the ‘lead attorney’ as contingency fees. The ‘self-filers’ who do not have a contract for a 15% contingency fee, such as that negotiated by the Stanford International Victims Group with Kachroo Legal Services, may find they pay more in the end. If their claims have not already been rejected as ineligible that is; and remember, there are other attorneys out there who have retained many Stanford investors, some at whopping 32% contingency fees, who may also be considering a shot at the ‘lead attorney’ role.
Please bear in mind there is also the distinct possibility that individual investors who ‘self-file’ could be excluded from any future class action, even if they manage to successfully file their own claims, simply because their explanation why the SEC is responsible differs significantly from the explanation given by the rest of the class. In that case, they may have to argue their claim in court, on their own, and at their own expense.
Then there are the plethora of precedents, case-law, and other legal obstacles to be overcome in a trial, and remember there is also a correct and timely submission process just to be eligible, the details of which have been highlighted in previous posts. This is not for the faint hearted.
The deadline for claims is fast approaching. Unless claims are submitted correctly and timely before the two year Statute of Limitations expires next month on the 16th February 2011, Stanford investors will be denied any recovery from the US government, forever.
Please consult an attorney to submit your claim. Ensure that the attorney you hire is also willing to litigate your claim, should it be rejected or otherwise be ineligible, and choose one who already has experience of submitting FTCA claims.
Please contact your attorney without delay, or the attorney hired by the Stanford International Victims Group: Kachroo Legal Services, Cambridge, Mass., who already have extensive experience of submitting FTCA claims on behalf of the Madoff investors. Email: info@kachroolegal.com
Allen Stanford, former sole shareholder of the Stanford International Bank, a part of the Stanford Financial Group, now in receivership, is currently being detained awaiting trial in Houston, Texas, charged with 23 counts of fraud. The mastermind of an $8bn Ponzi scheme which caused 28,000 investors worldwide the loss of their life savings, many of whom could have been spared if the US Securities and Exchange Commission had acted when they first became aware Allen Stanford’s activities were likely a Ponzi scheme, 13 years ago.
Source: David Brent (Stanford International Victims Group)
Before using Mrs Kogutt’s SF-95 as a template for your claim, you may consider asking yourself some questions: Is the nature of your losses the same as hers? For instance, have you had other losses such as medical expenses? Have you lost your home or other properties as a result of losing your investment? May you be facing either of those possibilities in the future? Are you comfortable accepting her explanation as to why the SEC is responsible for your loss? If your copy of her claim should be rejected by the SEC as invalid, could you accept this? Would you be so upset that you consider her liable for influencing you to copy her claim? If you answer yes to any of these questions, then perhaps you should consult with your attorney or an experienced attorney who is both qualified and indemnified to give such advice.
As an aside, it is interesting to see that the Stanford Victims Coalition still somewhat disingenuously claim to be ‘an International Advocacy Group representing the best interests of 28,000 Stanford victims in 118 countries.’ Rather inappropriate after the SVC unilaterally abandoned all their overseas supporters to their fate, within days of Angela Kogutt being appointed to the Stanford Investors Committee last year. It is also interesting to note that it is now seemingly acceptable for SVC to state they ‘do not recommend’ any specific attorney, when in the past, as we all know, they endorsed an attorney who is now unwilling to litigate this case. With a new, experienced, and very highly qualified attorney willing to go the distance for us, one would think the SVC may be a little more proactive than to suggest that we file our own claims, simply because the attorney is not to their liking!
Enough of the SVC. So what can ‘self-filers’ expect to happen with their claims? If their administrative claims are properly constructed, then they may be able to get them filed with the SEC without paying any initial attorney fees; but if an award is ultimately made by the court; be aware, the judge may well award up to 25% to the ‘lead attorney’ as contingency fees. The ‘self-filers’ who do not have a contract for a 15% contingency fee, such as that negotiated by the Stanford International Victims Group with Kachroo Legal Services, may find they pay more in the end. If their claims have not already been rejected as ineligible that is; and remember, there are other attorneys out there who have retained many Stanford investors, some at whopping 32% contingency fees, who may also be considering a shot at the ‘lead attorney’ role.
Please bear in mind there is also the distinct possibility that individual investors who ‘self-file’ could be excluded from any future class action, even if they manage to successfully file their own claims, simply because their explanation why the SEC is responsible differs significantly from the explanation given by the rest of the class. In that case, they may have to argue their claim in court, on their own, and at their own expense.
Then there are the plethora of precedents, case-law, and other legal obstacles to be overcome in a trial, and remember there is also a correct and timely submission process just to be eligible, the details of which have been highlighted in previous posts. This is not for the faint hearted.
The deadline for claims is fast approaching. Unless claims are submitted correctly and timely before the two year Statute of Limitations expires next month on the 16th February 2011, Stanford investors will be denied any recovery from the US government, forever.
Please consult an attorney to submit your claim. Ensure that the attorney you hire is also willing to litigate your claim, should it be rejected or otherwise be ineligible, and choose one who already has experience of submitting FTCA claims.
Please contact your attorney without delay, or the attorney hired by the Stanford International Victims Group: Kachroo Legal Services, Cambridge, Mass., who already have extensive experience of submitting FTCA claims on behalf of the Madoff investors. Email: info@kachroolegal.com
Allen Stanford, former sole shareholder of the Stanford International Bank, a part of the Stanford Financial Group, now in receivership, is currently being detained awaiting trial in Houston, Texas, charged with 23 counts of fraud. The mastermind of an $8bn Ponzi scheme which caused 28,000 investors worldwide the loss of their life savings, many of whom could have been spared if the US Securities and Exchange Commission had acted when they first became aware Allen Stanford’s activities were likely a Ponzi scheme, 13 years ago.
Source: David Brent (Stanford International Victims Group)
Vijay Singh's Management Firm Sued by Stanford Receiver Over Sponsor Fees
IMG Worldwide Inc., the management company for pro golfer Vijay Singh, was sued for $10.5 million by alleged swindler R. Allen Stanford’s court-appointed receiver, who seeks to recoup sponsorship fees and expenses.
Receiver Ralph Janvey sued the firm yesterday in federal court in Dallas, claiming IMG shouldn’t be allowed to keep the money paid to promote the Houston-based Stanford Financial Group of companies. Singh isn’t named as a defendant.
The financier is alleged to have led a $7 billion fraud scheme centered on the sale of certificates of deposit by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd. He has denied the civil and criminal allegations.
“The Stanford parties were running a Ponzi scheme and paid IMG with funds taken from unwitting SIB CD investors,” attorneys for Janvey and a committee representing investors’ interests said in the complaint.
Jim Gallagher, an IMG Worldwide’s spokesman, said the company has no comment until it has had a chance to review the lawsuit.
Singh, who often played in attire emblazoned with Stanford business logos, offered to pay half of Stanford’s $100,000 bail after the financier was arrested in June 2009, according to court records. The offer was declined after Stanford was deemed a flight risk and ordered jailed until he can be tried.
The sponsorship fees and funds sought in the lawsuit were used to promote the Stanford International Pro-Am tournament and Singh, according to the complaint.
Payment Dates
Janvey claims IMG’s payments, which began in 2006, included $7.3 million in 2008 and $113,929 in the six weeks before the seizure of Stanford’s companies by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in February 2009.
“IMG did not provide reasonably equivalent value for the transfers of CD proceeds to it and cannot establish that it is a good-faith transferee,” the receiver and investors alleged.
Singh, 47, has the second-highest career earnings on the PGA Tour, with $63 million, according to the tour’s website. He is ranked 73rd on the tour, down from his No. 7 PGA Tour ranking in 2008 and No. 2 ranking in 2007, according to the tour’s site.
PGA Tour golfer David Toms was also sued earlier this month by Janvey, for $905,087 in sponsorship fees he received from Stanford’s companies in 2007 and 2008.
Adam Young, Toms’s manager, said Stanford sponsored “a half-dozen other players” on the pro circuit in the two years before the SEC’s seizure of the Stanford businesses.
No Antiguan CDs
Young said Toms’s sponsorship fees were placed by the company in a Stanford Group Co. brokerage account, where they were invested in regularly traded securities. The golfer never owned any of Stanford’s Antiguan CDs, his manager said.
The case is Janvey v. IMG Worldwide Inc., 11-cv-117, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).
The criminal case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09-cr-342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston). The SEC case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank Ltd., 09-cv-298, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).
-- With assistance from Tom Korosec in Dallas. Editors: Charles Carter, Peter Blumberg
To contact the reporters on this story: Laurel Brubaker Calkins in Houston at laurel@calkins.us.com; Andrew M. Harris in Chicago at aharris16@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: David E. Rovella at drovella@bloomberg.net.
Allen Stanford's Lawyers Say Alleged Ponzi Schemer Needs Luxury Rehab
Lawyers for Allen Stanford say the billionaire allegedly Ponzi schemer is addicted to an anti-anxiety medication and needs to be released from prison and sent to an upscale rehabilitation facility in Houston, Texas.
Stanford, a psychiatrist working for his legal team said in court filings, has a traumatic brain injury; is overmedicated on and addicted to Klonopin; has dementia caused by an assault that caused traumatic brain injury; and has major depressive disorder.
The psychiatrist wants him to stay at the Memorial Hermann Hospital Prevention and Recovery Center. A website for that center notes that the center is "equipped with a greenhouse and basketball pavilion" and a virtual tour shows patients playing billiards in a recreation room.
In a Jan. 11 filing, a lawyer for Stanford said that the defense agrees that the accused needs to be inpatient for the first 30 days, but then may complete treatment on an outpatient basis.
"Such placement will comply with the mandates of due process, provide the appropriate medical treatment necessary for rehabilitation, and allow access to his attorneys and family members," Ali R. Fazel argued. "As discussed in cases cited above placement in a Federal Medical Center, prison, will undermine the rehabilitative process and lengthen the recovery period."
The lawyer argued that the federal prison never should have given Stanford the medication he's become addicted to and that it was not a suitable facility for Stanford's recovery.
"The Federal Detention Center should never have prescribed Klonopin to Mr. Stanford, as he does not suffer from an anxiety or panic disorder, nor does he suffer from epileptic seizures," Fazel argued.
"Prescription of this medication created medical and mental problems that Mr. Stanford did not have prior to being incarcerated," Fazel said. "The side effects of Klonopin are well known and available to anyone with internet capability."
Earlier this month, a federal judge indefinitely delayed Stanford's trial, which had been set to begin on Jan. 24.
Now Stanford's lawyers and the federal prosecutors working on the case are awaiting a judge's decision on whether he should be allowed to recover from his additions so he is fully capable of defending himself in court.
Three psychiatrists, including one hired by the government, said that Stanford "suffers from a mental disease or defect that presently deprives him of the ability to effectively assist his attorneys in preparing for trial, or to testify on his own behalf at trial," Fazel said.
Justice Department lawyers had earlier argued that Stanford's lawyers were simply trying to get a "lengthy continuance to further what appears to be his only goal in this case: obtaining pretrial release."
Stanford, a psychiatrist working for his legal team said in court filings, has a traumatic brain injury; is overmedicated on and addicted to Klonopin; has dementia caused by an assault that caused traumatic brain injury; and has major depressive disorder.
The psychiatrist wants him to stay at the Memorial Hermann Hospital Prevention and Recovery Center. A website for that center notes that the center is "equipped with a greenhouse and basketball pavilion" and a virtual tour shows patients playing billiards in a recreation room.
In a Jan. 11 filing, a lawyer for Stanford said that the defense agrees that the accused needs to be inpatient for the first 30 days, but then may complete treatment on an outpatient basis.
"Such placement will comply with the mandates of due process, provide the appropriate medical treatment necessary for rehabilitation, and allow access to his attorneys and family members," Ali R. Fazel argued. "As discussed in cases cited above placement in a Federal Medical Center, prison, will undermine the rehabilitative process and lengthen the recovery period."
The lawyer argued that the federal prison never should have given Stanford the medication he's become addicted to and that it was not a suitable facility for Stanford's recovery.
"The Federal Detention Center should never have prescribed Klonopin to Mr. Stanford, as he does not suffer from an anxiety or panic disorder, nor does he suffer from epileptic seizures," Fazel argued.
"Prescription of this medication created medical and mental problems that Mr. Stanford did not have prior to being incarcerated," Fazel said. "The side effects of Klonopin are well known and available to anyone with internet capability."
Earlier this month, a federal judge indefinitely delayed Stanford's trial, which had been set to begin on Jan. 24.
Now Stanford's lawyers and the federal prosecutors working on the case are awaiting a judge's decision on whether he should be allowed to recover from his additions so he is fully capable of defending himself in court.
Three psychiatrists, including one hired by the government, said that Stanford "suffers from a mental disease or defect that presently deprives him of the ability to effectively assist his attorneys in preparing for trial, or to testify on his own behalf at trial," Fazel said.
Justice Department lawyers had earlier argued that Stanford's lawyers were simply trying to get a "lengthy continuance to further what appears to be his only goal in this case: obtaining pretrial release."
Wednesday 19 January 2011
UNFAIR COMPETITION BETWEEN ATTORNEYS IN THE STANFORD BANK SCANDAL?
Over the last few weeks there have been quite a number of unfounded rumors spread by some less than scrupulous investors, and it appears, at least one of their attorneys too, against our team members and our attorney. Amongst the unfounded rumors are that some members of the team were accused of accepting illegal referral fees and other commissions. So offended was our attorney, Dr Kachroo, she had the good grace to issue a denial and denouncement of the practice, and invited the other Stanford attorneys to do the same. So far none have accepted. There has also been unwarranted criticism of our attorney’s qualifications and experience, which amounts no less than five law degrees, a Harvard doctorate, and never having lost a case in her 23 year career. Could any of the other Stanford attorneys with comparable qualifications and experience please stand up and be counted?
One comment we saw this week, from one of the other Stanford attorneys, went like this:
“..Carefully consider any proposal, especially if a lawyer is asking for money upfront….and also carefully consider that lawyer's professional experience….there is a big difference between FILING a lawsuit and winning one…. I hope you are considering these issues”
A very valid comment, very worthy of consideration, in particular with regard to how it may equally apply to some of the other Stanford attorneys, who have collected considerable upfront fees, to have thus far only filed lawsuits that appear to be going nowhere fast, and managed to duck ‘the big one.’
The Stanford Examiner, who chairs the Investors Committee, on which four such attorneys sit, last week put in his two cents and finally issued one of his rare statements. He painted an unnecessarily dull picture of the likelihood of success of FTCA claims against the SEC; but then he is appointed by the same Judge who appointed the Stanford Receiver, at the request of the SEC, so there’s no surprise then.
The same Examiner also referred to the fact he knew of only one attorney bringing such claims (ours), but stopped short of naming her, and has still not added her firm’s details to his Counsel Roster. The Investors Committee that he chairs has waited until the very last possible opportunity to advise investors they have this option, and what if we had not taken this initiative? Would the Statute of Limitations have been allowed to slip quietly by?
Some of the investors and their attorneys who sit on the Investors Committee, insisted our attorney attend a grilling by the Committee, in Dallas not so long ago, and initially offered to pass on our attorneys details and proposal as being in the best interests of their own clients, but have since desperately sought to understand our attorneys arguments, have become very protective, and are now offering their own services to their clients, but are apparently not willing to subsequently litigate if any of their claims are rejected, or ineligible.
The deadline for FTCA claims against the US Securities and Exchange Commission is approaching fast. This is a real possibility for a full recovery of losses due to the negligence of the SEC in not spotting the fraud perpetuated by Allen Stanford from his Stanford International Bank, a part of the former Stanford Financial Group, and is open to all Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality or place of residence. The SEC were aware for 13 years that Stanford was likely operating a Ponzi scheme, and had they acted sooner instead of watching porn all day, many thousands of investors would have been spared the loss of their life savings.
Please contact your attorney without delay, or the attorney hired by the Stanford International investors: Kachroo Legal Services, Cambridge, Mass., who already has considerable experience of submitting FTCA claims for the Madoff investors, and is also willing to litigate against the SEC should it become necessary.
Email:info@kachroolegal.com
One comment we saw this week, from one of the other Stanford attorneys, went like this:
“..Carefully consider any proposal, especially if a lawyer is asking for money upfront….and also carefully consider that lawyer's professional experience….there is a big difference between FILING a lawsuit and winning one…. I hope you are considering these issues”
A very valid comment, very worthy of consideration, in particular with regard to how it may equally apply to some of the other Stanford attorneys, who have collected considerable upfront fees, to have thus far only filed lawsuits that appear to be going nowhere fast, and managed to duck ‘the big one.’
The Stanford Examiner, who chairs the Investors Committee, on which four such attorneys sit, last week put in his two cents and finally issued one of his rare statements. He painted an unnecessarily dull picture of the likelihood of success of FTCA claims against the SEC; but then he is appointed by the same Judge who appointed the Stanford Receiver, at the request of the SEC, so there’s no surprise then.
The same Examiner also referred to the fact he knew of only one attorney bringing such claims (ours), but stopped short of naming her, and has still not added her firm’s details to his Counsel Roster. The Investors Committee that he chairs has waited until the very last possible opportunity to advise investors they have this option, and what if we had not taken this initiative? Would the Statute of Limitations have been allowed to slip quietly by?
Some of the investors and their attorneys who sit on the Investors Committee, insisted our attorney attend a grilling by the Committee, in Dallas not so long ago, and initially offered to pass on our attorneys details and proposal as being in the best interests of their own clients, but have since desperately sought to understand our attorneys arguments, have become very protective, and are now offering their own services to their clients, but are apparently not willing to subsequently litigate if any of their claims are rejected, or ineligible.
The deadline for FTCA claims against the US Securities and Exchange Commission is approaching fast. This is a real possibility for a full recovery of losses due to the negligence of the SEC in not spotting the fraud perpetuated by Allen Stanford from his Stanford International Bank, a part of the former Stanford Financial Group, and is open to all Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality or place of residence. The SEC were aware for 13 years that Stanford was likely operating a Ponzi scheme, and had they acted sooner instead of watching porn all day, many thousands of investors would have been spared the loss of their life savings.
Please contact your attorney without delay, or the attorney hired by the Stanford International investors: Kachroo Legal Services, Cambridge, Mass., who already has considerable experience of submitting FTCA claims for the Madoff investors, and is also willing to litigate against the SEC should it become necessary.
Email:info@kachroolegal.com
Tuesday 18 January 2011
STANFORD INVESTORS FROM MEXICO COLOMBIA AND ECUADOR JOIN FORCES
The campaign in Latin America is gaining momentum, with a substantial number of investors from Mexico, Colombia, and Ecuador having now having joined the campaign and submitting FTCA claims against the US Government Securities and Exchange Commission, for their negligence in failing to act sooner, knowing for 13 years Allen Stanford was likely operating a Ponzi scheme. Had they done so, many investors of the failed Stanford International Bank, a part of the Stanford Financial Group, now in receivership, may have been spared the loss of their life savings.
Allen Stanford is currently in detention in Houston, Texas, awaiting trial on 23 counts of fraud.
The deadline for FTCA claims against the US Securities and Exchange Commission is approaching fast. This is a real possibility for full recovery of losses sustained by all the Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality, or place of residence. All valid claims must be submitted correctly and timely before the 16th February 2011 deadline when the Statute of Limitations expires.
Any investors who have not consulted an attorney to submit their claims should do so without delay. Although the forms look straightforward enough, there is a plethora of case-law awaiting the unwary.
Please ensure that the attorney you engage is willing to take your claim forward, should it be rejected or otherwise ineligible, and has experience of submitting FTCA claims.
Please contact your attorney without delay, or the attorney hired by the Stanford International Victims Group: Kachroo Legal Services, Cambridge, Mass., who already have extensive experience of submitting FTCA claims for the Madoff investors.
Email:info@kachroolegal.com
Allen Stanford is currently in detention in Houston, Texas, awaiting trial on 23 counts of fraud.
The deadline for FTCA claims against the US Securities and Exchange Commission is approaching fast. This is a real possibility for full recovery of losses sustained by all the Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality, or place of residence. All valid claims must be submitted correctly and timely before the 16th February 2011 deadline when the Statute of Limitations expires.
Any investors who have not consulted an attorney to submit their claims should do so without delay. Although the forms look straightforward enough, there is a plethora of case-law awaiting the unwary.
Please ensure that the attorney you engage is willing to take your claim forward, should it be rejected or otherwise ineligible, and has experience of submitting FTCA claims.
Please contact your attorney without delay, or the attorney hired by the Stanford International Victims Group: Kachroo Legal Services, Cambridge, Mass., who already have extensive experience of submitting FTCA claims for the Madoff investors.
Email:info@kachroolegal.com