Monday, 30 March 2015

U.S. not liable for alleged SEC negligence in Stanford fraud: court

Allen Stanford (C) leaves the Federal Courthouse where the jury found him guilty, in Houston March 6, 2012
A federal appeals court said on Monday the United States is not liable to victims of Allen Stanford's fraud who claimed that the Securities and Exchange Commission was incompetent for having taken too long to uncover the swindler's $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme.

A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Miami said the government is entitled to sovereign immunity.

Stanford's victims accused the SEC of negligence for having waited until 2009 to uncover the Ponzi scheme, despite having had evidence of it as early as 1997.

But the court said the SEC had discretion to decide how to enforce securities laws, and could not be liable for certain misrepresentations. It said this justified shielding it from claims raised by the victims under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

"We reach no conclusions as to the SEC's conduct, or whether the latter's actions deserve plaintiffs' condemnation," Circuit Judge Julie Carnes wrote for a three-judge panel. "We do, however, conclude that the United States is shielded from liability for the SEC's alleged negligence."

Victims claimed that the SEC thought Stanford's business was a fraud after each of four examinations between 1997 and 2004, but failed to advise the Securities Investor Protection Corp, which compensates victims of failed brokerages.

The plaintiffs were led by Carlos Zelaya and George Glantz, who claimed to lose a combined $1.65 million, and sought class-action status. Monday's decision upheld rulings in 2013 by U.S. District Judge Robert Scola in Miami.

Gaytri Kachroo, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 

The U.S. Department of Justice, which represented the SEC in the appeal, did not immediately respond to similar requests.

In 2013, federal appeals courts in New York, Philadelphia and Pasadena, California, dismissed lawsuits accusing the SEC of incompetence in investigating Bernard Madoff.

Stanford, 65, is appealing his March 2012 conviction and 110-year prison term for what prosecutors called a scam centered on his sale of fraudulent high-yielding certificates of deposit through his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank.

The SEC's inspector general in 2010 criticized the regulator for being too slow to uncover Stanford's fraud.

The case is Zelaya et al. v. U.S., 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 13-14780.

Read more Here:

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


Allen Stanford receiver’s case against former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes delayed; settlement talks likely underway

Former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes was expected to testify later this week at a federal trial in Dallas. That trial has been taken off the calendar as the parties are reportedly deep into settlement talks. Photo of Barnes in his Washington office by Michael A. Lindenberger

The civil case against former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes was slated to begin today in federal court in Dallas, but it’s been put on hold as attorneys for him and the court-appointed receiver in the Allen Stanford case discuss a settlement.

No settlement papers have been filed with the court, but an attorney for the receiver said this morning the case has been postponed. A clerk in U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey confirmed this morning that the case has been taken off the trial calendar, something she said only happens if settlement talks are very serious. She said the parties called last week to have the case taken off the calendar.

Barnes, 76, was Speaker of the Texas House by the time he was 26, and was lieutenant governor — and arguably the most powerful leader in Texas — before he was 30. LBJ thought he’d be president someday, though those expectations ended after a 1972 bid for governor collapsed. Since then, he’s made millions in real estate, survived an early bankruptcy, and emerged in the past 25 years as one of the state’s leading peddlers of counsel, influence and access. A former director of American Airlines and other large companies, he’s also been a prolific donor to political campaigns. He maintains offices in Austin and in Washington.

But 50 years after fist winning the Speaker’s gavel in 1965, he has for the past year been facing the prospect of a trial in Dallas over more than $5 million in fees paid to his firm by disgraced ex-billionaire Allen Stanford...................

Read the entire article Here:

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


Saturday, 28 March 2015

Golf Channel Wants Mulligan On $6M Stanford Suit

TGC LLC, doing business as Golf Channel, asked the Fifth Circuit on Wednesday to rehear its decision that the receiver for R. Allen Stanford’s Ponzi scheme could sue the sports channel for about $6 million, arguing that a previous ruling by the appeals court is at odds with the decision.

Golf Channel challenged a March 11 opinion finding that the Stanford receiver could attempt to claw back $5.9 million paid by a Stanford International Bank Ltd. unit as part of a two-year media contract because the...

Read the entire article Here:

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


Thursday, 26 March 2015

Stanford-Related Fraud Class Sees Some Claims Trimmed

A Texas federal judge on Monday trimmed back class claims stemming from Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme against attorneys and directors accused of aiding and abetting in a breach of fiduciary duty and a fraudulent scheme, among other allegations, saying that some of the claims were time-barred.

The class plaintiffs allege that numerous attorneys and former Stanford executives contributed to the sale of more than $7.2 billion in sham certificates of deposit from the mid 1980s until 2009, but Judge David C. Godbey ruled that...

Read the entire article Here:

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


Wednesday, 25 March 2015

Chadbourne, Proskauer Renew Bid For Class Info In Ponzi Suit

Chadbourne & Parke LLP and Proskauer Rose LLP are redoubling their fight for documents in the possession of the receiver for Allen Stanford's Ponzi scheme that they say will reveal important information about a proposed class of plaintiffs suing the law firms for malpractice.

 The two law firms, defendants in a suit brought by victims of Robert Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme, say receiver Ralph Janvey should have to give them information about who is in the class.

 “To date, defendants have received no discovery...


Read the Full Article here


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


Thursday, 12 March 2015

Client Update March 2015 Zelaya v United States



Read Read more Here:

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


5th Circ. Says Golf Channel Can't Dodge $6M Stanford Suit

The Fifth Circuit on Wednesday said Golf Channel Inc. can be sued for about $6 million by the receiver for R. Allen Stanford's Ponzi scheme because the channel did not provide reasonably equivalent value for ads that Stanford bought, potentially paving the way for dozens of similar clawback suits.

 Golf Channel contends the $5.9 million it received from Stanford's businesses was payment for media services the network performed under contracts that had nothing to do with the Ponzi scheme and therefore was not a fraudulent transfer...


Read the Full Article here including Janvey's lawsuit against the Golf Channel


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


Wednesday, 11 March 2015

Grant Thornton to Issue Claims Cheques Directly

For future reference all payments will be issued by cheque direct from Grant Thornton and sent to the registered address of the claim victim.

 Marcus has been made aware of all the problems that victims have had in receiving payments from ItalBank and in light of all the complaints has decided to sever Grant Thornton’s original arrangement to have payments sent through ItalBank.

 The initial concept was because of the problems experienced mainly by the Latin American victims who were not receiving payments coming from Gilardi on behalf of the payment schedules from Ralf Janvey.

 It was thought that working with ItalBank (a Latin American Based Bank) and allowing the Latin American victims to be able to open accounts for their payments would help address and solve the problem. Unfortunately this was not the case and ItalBank seemed to have created more problems than they solved.

 Marcus Wide has asked that any victim that has experienced difficulty in receiving their payments should make Grant Thorton aware of their problems and Grant Thornton will check the claims and where payment has not been received, they will remedy this oversight.

 Please do not waste time and money by making spurious claims that have already been paid, but genuine oversights by ItalBank will be addressed and oversights rectified.

 Marcus Wide has made his personal email address available so that he can monitor and have knowledge of the problems.

 All outstanding – unpaid – claims should be sent to either

 marcus.wide@uk.gt.com or Stanford.enquiries@uk.gt.com


Read Read more Here:

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


Tuesday, 10 March 2015

Chadbourne Loses Discovery Bid In Stanford Ponzi Suit

A Texas magistrate judge on Monday denied a bid by Chadbourne & Parke LLP to force the receiver in a suit brought by victims of Robert Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme to turn over the identities, residences and citizenship of the proposed class members, among other information. Proskauer Rose LLP and Chadbourne had filed the motion after Chadbourne subpoenaed the receiver in November, requesting him to produce documents they claim are critical to its analysis of the proposed class certification. But U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy...


Read The Full Article Here:

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


Ex-Stanford Workers Can't Force Arbitration, SEC Tells Court

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday asked the Fifth Circuit to find that former employees of convicted Ponzi schemer Robert Allen Stanford cannot arbitrate $215 million in claims brought by the receiver for the fraudster’s various entities, saying arbitration would undermine the reasoning behind receivership.

 In an amicus curiae brief, the SEC said that while there is a strong public policy in favor of arbitration, the Supreme Court has found that when mandatory arbitration conflicts with the fundamental purposes of another statutory scheme, courts...


Read The Full Article Here:

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


Thursday, 5 March 2015

Stanford Receiver Wins First Fraudulent Transfer Jury Trial

In the Northern District of Texas, in mid-February, a jury handed down the first verdict in a fraudulent transfer case arising from the Robert Allen Stanford Ponzi scheme. Second only to Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme in sheer scope and alleged losses, Stanford’s scheme purportedly cost defrauded investors over $7 billion before it finally unraveled in 2009. Stanford had offered investors high rates of return on supposedly secure certificates of deposit through Stanford International Bank and a Byzantine web of other, related international financial institutions. The litigation overseen by Ralph Janvey, the Receiver appointed to unwind Stanford’s illegitimate empire and recover funds for defrauded investors, has resulted in a Supreme Court decision (Chadbourne & Park LLP v. Troice), dozens of reported cases, and scandalous allegations about the SEC’s diligence in investigating Stanford; however, until now, there have been no jury verdicts requiring those who purportedly received ill-gotten investor funds to return those funds to the Receiver.


Read The Full Article Here:

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


DOJ to 5th Circuit: Allen Stanford belongs in prison, says his Ponzi scheme lasted 20 years

Allen Stanford once ruled a global banking empire with reported
assets of more than $8 billion. In fact, it was a massive Ponzi
scheme from the beginning. Here, he poses in his Houston
attorney’s office in 2009. He was convicted three years later.

WASHINGTON–The Department of Justice’s reply brief contesting Allen Stanford’s last-ditch effort to get out of prison makes for tough reading, especially for the more than 20,000 victims who lost their investments to Stanford’s widespread and enormous Ponzi scheme.

 After months spent wading through Stanford’s nearly 300-page appeal, the U.S. Department of Justice has finally responded with a tome of its own. In nearly 200 pages filed Tuesday, the DOJ confronts each of Stanford’s many, many arguments for why he was wrongly convicted in 2012. He’s serving a 110-year sentence in a federal prison in Central Florida.

 Stanford’s October appeal, which he wrote himself, raised many legal issues, but I’ll leave it to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to sift through his arguments–and their counterpoints made by the Justice Department. In short, though, he claims that the CDs issued by Stanford International Bank in Antigua weren’t really securities under the law, and therefore not subject to SEC jurisdiction or the reach of the U.S. securities laws in general. He claims that the federal judge in Houston who heard his case was biased, that he made many errors and that Stanford was left without adequate funds or time to properly defend himself.

Read the Full Article here including the USA Response to the Stanford Appeal


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