Christine Hall
Houston Business Journal
Stanley, Frank and Rose LLP has filed a response disputing the Stanford Financial Group receivership’s claim that the company was running a Ponzi scheme.
The Houston law firm’s response to the motion for summary judgment was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division on behalf of eight defendants who were investors with Stanford.
The Stanford receiver, Dallas attorney Ralph Janvey, has asked the court to make a determination that the Stanford companies were running a Ponzi scheme before any criminal or civil trials have been conducted, the response said.
Janvey has sued a number of investors seeking return of certain proceeds they received from their investment in certificates of deposit that he has claimed were part of the Ponzi.
According to the Houston firm’s filing, Janvey bases his claim on analysis of company assets by forensic accountant, Karyl Van Tassel. Van Tassel claims the Stanford companies “were insolvent” because the assets were less than the liabilities, concluding Stanford operated a Ponzi scheme, the filing said. The Houston defendants are disputing her claims.
The response alleges that Van Tassel did not provide evidence as to how she came to her conclusion. and claims she ignored evidence that Stanford had always been a legitimate business.
“Indeed, she admits that she has not reviewed any balance sheets for the Stanford companies nor interviewed any employees relating to the period of 1986-1999,” the filing states. “As a result, there is a fact issue as to when (if ever) the Ponzi scheme began.”
The defendants claim that timing of the Ponzi “is important as there is no basis for returning interest if a Ponzi scheme arose after the funds were paid,” the filing said.
R. Allen Stanford is awaiting trial, scheduled for next year, for his part in the alleged scheme.
No comments:
Post a Comment