Stanford Financial Group Receivership Update

The four schedules filed by the Receiver address total distributions of approximately $12.59 million of the $55 million that has been authorized for distribution by the Court. For Stanford Investors who have not yet received an initial distribution, there are a number of reasons why that may have occurred, including the following:

 •Investor may not have filed a claim with the Receiver’s claim process before the Bar Date fixed by the Court.
•The Investor may not have responded to a request for additional information from the Receiver’s claim processing agent, Gilardi & Co.
 •The Investor may have objected to the Receiver’s Notice of Determination with respect to the Investor’s claim.
•The Investor may not have completed and returned the Receiver’s Certification Form.*
•The Investor’s distribution check may simply be in process, such that it will be listed on subsequent schedules to be filed by the Receiver.

 The Receiver is continuing to process Notices of Determination, objections to Notices of Determination, and Claim Certifications. Additional payment schedules will be prepared and filed on a rolling basis. It is the Receiver’s expectation that additional payment schedules will be prepared and filed every few weeks (provided that there are sufficient claims being processed to justify that pace).

 *The Receiver advises that a significant number of Investors who filed claims and received Notices of Determination have not yet returned completed Certification Forms. Completed Certification Forms must be received before distribution checks are issued.

 Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic227.html 

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

Stanford Financial Claims 5th Distribution October 25th 2013

Receiver files 5th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim Distribution Plan - On October 25, 2013, the Receiver filed his 5th Schedule of distribution payments with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 5th Schedule will be followed by others, each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis as additional responses to Certification Notices are received and processed.

To view a copy of the 5th Schedule, please click here:

http://sivg.org.ag/topic225.html

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

Kachroo Legal Services Stanford Update October 23rd 2013

STANFORD UPDATE OCTOBER 23rd 2013

TO ALL SEC CLIENTS
TO ALL SFA CLIENTS


Dear Stanford Clients:

We write to update you with important information regarding the claim against the SEC and


ZELAYA V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

As you may be aware, United States District Court Judge Robert N. Scola recently issued an order granting the Government’s second motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ complaint. This ruling comes despite the historic victory previously achieved in surviving the Government’s first motion to dismiss. The result of the order is that the lower court has made a final determination on the entire case and as such KLS is now in a position to appeal the entire case to the United States Court of Appeals for authoritative resolution of all issues.

To that end, KLS has filed a notice of appeal earlier this month, and will submit its full appeal brief in November. KLS will of course keep all clients up to date with developments in the case as they arise, including the approximate timeline of the appeal.


STANFORD FURTHER ACTIONS

In accordance with our previous updates, we would like to make sure that all clients are aware of progress with the Dallas receiver. By now, clients should have received:

1) A notice of Determination
2) A Certification Notice.


If You Have Already Received A Certification Notice

For those of you who have already received a notice directly, it is important to let us know as soon as possible so that we can assist you in processing your claim. Please forward any and all paperwork you have received from the Receiver. Please also sign the attached confirmation in order for us to be able to deal with the Receiver on your behalf directly.


If You Have Not Yet Received A Certification Notice

If you have not yet received a notice, we can check on the current status of your case on your behalf. To enable us to do this, please sign the attached confirmation. Please also be vigilant for any notifications sent to you directly by email as there are strict deadlines to respond.


If You Are Not Yet a Stanford Further Actions (SFA)

Client If you have not yet signed a retainer agreement with KLS, time is running out to submit and process these claims. If you would like us to deal with these claims to the receiver on your behalf, please sign the enclosed authorization form and or contact us with any queries you may have. We can then forward you our standard retainer letter.


SALE OF STANFORD INVESTORS’ CLAIMS

KLS is being solicited by a number of funds that appear to have increased their initial offers to acquire claims from Stanford investors to between 10 and 20 cents on the dollar (i.e. 10-20% of their claimed value). If any of our clients have an interest in pursuing such an offer, please advise us directly so we can facilitate discussions with these funds.

Very truly yours,

Gaytri D. Kachroo
Kachroo Legal Services, P.C.


Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic224.html 


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

Receiver files 4th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim Distribution Plan

On October 17th, 2013, the Receiver filed his 4th Schedule of distribution payments with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 4th Schedule will be followed by others, each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis as additional responses to Certification Notices are received and processed.

To view a copy of the 4th Schedule, please click here:

http://sivg.org.ag/topic217.html


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

SEC battles with industry fund over Stanford victims' claims

The SEC, as SIPC's regulatory supervisor, has argued that it has the legal authority and discretion to force the fund to take action.

 "Is there anything stopping the SEC from issuing a rule defining 'customer' the way that you want to define it here?" Garland asked.

 "I don't believe so," replied John Avery, the attorney arguing the SEC's case. But if it were challenged, he added, the SEC would land right back in court again.

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

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

 At the heart of the case is the question of whether the victims of Allen Stanford's Ponzi scheme meet the legal definition of "customer."

 SIPC argues that the investors in the scheme entrusted their money to the offshore, unregulated Antiguan bank and not to the U.S. broker-dealer.

 Moreover, they say that Stanford's investors actually did receive their certificates of deposit as promised, even though they turned out to be virtually worthless.

 The law, they said, is not designed to combat fraud or guarantee an investment's value.

 The SEC, however, says the location of the Stanford bank is irrelevant because the entire business organization was operating one massive fraud, and that in fact no actual certificates of deposit truly existed. 

"It's very difficult to draw a meaningful distinction between any of these Stanford entities, which were all part of the scheme, they were all in on the scheme, they didn't follow corporate formalities and the money was commingled," SEC attorney John Avery argued. "We believe the money, at least constructively, stayed with SGC."

 SIPC's attorney Michael McConnell urged the court not to allow the SEC to simply lump the Stanford business entities together so the investors can file claims.

 He added that the investors received disclosures explicitly telling them the Antiguan bank was not SIPC-protected or U.S.-regulated.

 "You have people who in the face of disclosure statements clearly to the contrary, go off to an offshore bank seeking ... outlandishly high rates of return knowing that it is not covered by the securities laws," he said. 

"Effectively, what the SEC is telling us is that SIPC should implicitly give free insurance coverage to a fly-by-night organization."

 Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic215.html 

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