A former top lieutenant to imprisoned financier R. Allen Stanford pleaded guilty Thursday in Houston to obstructing the Securities and Exchange Commission inquiry that led to the downfall of his global empire. Laura Pendergest-Holt, 38, spoke in a soft, tremulous voice as she answered a federal judge’s pointed questions about her role in the multibillion-dollar fraud. She was chief investment officer of Stanford Financial Group, an international financial services company based in Houston. “I knew I was delaying the SEC,” she told U.S. District Judge David Hittner, providing the only real drama in the half-hour court hearing. hlt stanf In return for her guilty plea, and her agreement to forgo any appeal, the government said it would drop the remaining 20 criminal charges against Pendergest-Holt. Prosecutor Jason Varnado recommended a three-year prison sentence. The obstruction charge carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Hittner accepted the guilty plea and announced a Sept. 13 sentencing hearing. In the meantime, federal probation officials will prepare a pre-sentence report for the judge. Pendergest-Holt, attired in a black pantsuit, white jacket and flats, was allowed to remain free on bond. She left the courtroom in the company of her husband and attorney.

Ex-Stanford executive pleads guilty to obstruction

Associated Press

HOUSTON – Disgraced Texas financier R. Allen Stanford's former chief investment officer for his now defunct financial empire pleaded guilty Thursday for her role in helping the once jet-setting businessman bilk investors out of more than $7 billion.

A tearful Laura Pendergest-Holt changed her original not guilty plea a week after Stanford was sentenced to 110 years in prison following his conviction on fraud-related charges for orchestrating one of the biggest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history.

As part of an agreement with federal prosecutors, Pendergest-Holt, 38, pleaded guilty to one count of obstruction of a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission proceeding in exchange for a three-year prison sentence. The obstruction count carries a maximum prison term of five years. As part of the plea deal, prosecutors will drop 20 other counts, including conspiracy, wire and mail fraud.

U.S. District Judge David Hittner said he will consider the deal, including the sentencing recommendation, when he sentences her on Sept. 13.

Pendergest-Holt, a native of Baldwyn, Miss., her attorney, Chris Flood, and prosecutors all declined to comment after the hearing.

Prosecutors said Stanford, 62, used the money from investors who bought certificates of deposit, or CDs, from his bank on the Caribbean island nation of Antigua to fund a string of failed businesses, bribe regulators and pay for a lavish lifestyle that included yachts, a fleet of private jets and sponsorship of cricket tournaments. The one-time billionaire was convicted in March on 13 of 14 fraud-related counts

Prosecutors said Stanford lied to investors from more than 100 countries, telling them their funds were being safely invested in stocks, bonds and other securities.

During Thursday's court hearing, Pendergest-Holt admitted she gave the impression to investors and employees that she knew what assets made up the bank's investment portfolio, which was divided into three tiers. According to authorities, Pendergest-Holt didn't know most of the bank's assets were tied up in Tier 3, which was made up of real estate purchases whose value had been overinflated by billions and by up to $2 billion in personal loans to Stanford.

"Her management of (the bank's) investments was confined to Tier 2, which made up only about 12 percent of the bank's assets," said prosecutor Jason Varnado.

When the SEC began investigating, officials say Stanford, Pendergest-Holt and other company executives conspired to hide the bank's true financial health and provide misleading testimony to the federal agency in 2009.

During the court hearing, Hittner prodded Pendergest-Holt to offer details of her actions, asking her to "tell me what you did."

Pendergest-Holt, who was the first person indicted in the case, told Hittner she was not completely truthful with the SEC when she testified before the agency in Fort Worth, Texas, in February 2009, a week before authorities shut down Stanford's companies.

"I knew I was delaying" the SEC's investigation, she said.

Varnado told Hittner that at least $350,000 that had been held by Pendergest-Holt was frozen by a U.S. receiver who took over Stanford's companies and those funds will be given to victims.

During Stanford's trial, the financier's defense attorneys had tried to use an affair Pendergest-Holt had with James M. Davis, the former chief financial officer for Stanford's companies and the prosecution's star witness, to discredit Davis, who has pleaded guilty and faces up to 30 years in prison.

Pendergest-Holt had been set to go to trial in September with two other indicted ex-executives — Gilbert Lopez, the ex-chief accounting officer, and Mark Kuhrt, the ex-global controller. Lopez and Kuhrt are still set for trial. A former Antiguan financial regulator was also indicted and awaits extradition to the U.S.

URGENT! Submit your Comments to Prosecutors on Pendergest-Holt proposed Lenient Sentence

Below are the court papers for the Plea Bargain of Prendergast Holt. The court is asking for our comments about this. PLEASE, we don't have much time but it is imperative that we send emails expressing our disgust at this light sentencing. REMEMBER....we have already served 3 1/2 years and we still have many years to go before we can see any sign of freedom from our forced poverty. WE need to make clear to Judge Godbey that it is grossly unfair for PH to walk away with such a lenient sentence and we also need to request that she forfeit all her property, and money...after all it was the victims who paid for her lifestyle!! 

PLEASE NOTE THIS HAS TO DONE TODAY!!!!!!!!!

On June 18, 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas issued a Notice of Setting indicating that on June 21, 2012, at 11:00 a.m., the defendant Laura Pendergest-Holt is expected to plead guilty to resolve the pending charges against her in the above-referenced case. At that time, Holt will enter into a plea agreement with the government pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under that rule, the government agrees that a specific sentence or sentencing range is the appropriate disposition of the case, or that a particular provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, or policy statement, or sentencing factor does or does not apply. Such a recommendation or request binds only the court once the court accepts the plea agreement at sentencing. To resolve the pending charges against her, the defendant Laura Pendergest-Holt is expected to plead guilty to Count Twenty of the Indictment, charging Obstruction of Justice, and the government has agreed that a sentence of 36 months of imprisonment, followed by a three-year term of supervised release, is the appropriate disposition of the case. She will also be subject to a fine, to be determined by the Court.

In light of this recent development, and in order for us to learn if you have any views in regard to any such plea, please submit your views to the prosecutors handling this investigation, by providing comments to Pam Washington at  1-888-549-3945  or via email at victimassistance.fraud@usdoj.gov, no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on June 20, 2012. Also, in accordance with the Order Authorizing Compliance with the Justice for All Act issued in this case on June 16, 2010, any victim wishing to appear and to be heard by the Court at the plea hearing must notify Pam Washington at victimassistance.fraud@usdoj.gov by the same June 20 deadline. However, as the defendant Laura Pendergest-Holt is pleading guilty under Rule 11 (c)(1)(C), and her plea agreement will not be accepted until the time of sentencing, the government will continue to accept comments concerning the plea after the June 20 deadline and up until 30 days before sentencing. The Court will later rule on whether, and the manner in which, victims may be heard at the sentencing proceeding. Lastly, because this plea agreement was reached recently, and because the precise language of the plea agreement is still being finalized, the executed plea agreement will be filed publicly following the June 21, 2012 hearing.

Kate

Stanford Officer Pendergest Holt Said to Have Plea Deal

By Laurel Brubaker Calkins and Andrew Harris
 
Laura Pendergest Holt, the former chief investment officer for R. Allen Stanford, has agreed to plead guilty and serve three years in prison for her role in a $7 billion fraud, three people familiar with the matter said.

Pendergest Holt, 38, will plead guilty to a single obstruction charge, said one of the people, all of whom asked not to be identified because the plea agreement isn’t public.

She faces a September trial on charges related to those that resulted in Stanford being sentenced on June 14 to 110 years in prison. Prosecutors had requested a maximum sentence of 230 years against Stanford, based on investors’ losses on bogus certificates of deposit sold by Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd.

Pendergest Holt has denied wrongdoing. Dan Cogdell, her lead attorney, didn’t return phone and e-mail messages yesterday seeking comment on a plea agreement. Pendergest Holt is scheduled for re-arraignment on July 21 in federal court in Houston, according to court records.

Pendergest Holt had told Stanford Financial Group Co. investors and the firm’s financial advisers that she oversaw a stable of international money managers who were responsible for the bulk of the bank’s assets, according to court papers. She may have had authority over as little as 20 percent of the bank’s assets, according to testimony during Stanford’s trial.

Three-Year Affair

Prosecutors charged her in June 2009 with conspiring to mislead investors in conjunction with Stanford and Chief Financial Officer James M. Davis, her boss and former lover. During Stanford’s trial, Davis told jurors he had a three-year affair with Pendergest Holt that ended in 2003, and that Stanford approved of the romance between his two top deputies.

Alisa Finelli, a Justice Department spokeswoman, declined to comment on the reported plea agreement.

Stanford, 62, was convicted in March by a federal court jury in Houston of leading a massive fraud in which later investors’ funds were used to pay above-market returns to earlier investors. He was accused of secretly borrowing more than $2 billion in depositors’ funds to finance a lavish lifestyle and several money-losing businesses.

Stanford is appealing his March 6 conviction and his sentence.

Joan Stack, former global human resources manager at Stanford Financial Group, testified during Stanford’s trial that Davis and Pendergest Holt routinely hired unqualified relatives and fellow church members to staff most positions in the Memphis, Tennessee, research division that oversaw the bank’s multibillion-dollar investment portfolio.

“They were family members who had no experience in doing what we’d hired them to do,” Stack said.

Holt invested about $2 million of the bank’s portfolio in a hedge fund run by her husband, a former personal trainer, according to testimony.

The case is U.S. v. Stanford, 4:09-cr-0342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).

Statement from Grant Thornton

Dear SIB Depositor:

We noted with great interest the 110 year sentence given to Robert Allen Stanford yesterday. While this sentence does not begin to make up for the pain and suffering that you have experienced, we are confident that justice has been served at least in that regard. We remain committed, as the Joint Liquidators of the Stanford International Bank, to run the Estate as efficiently and effectively as possible. We are working hard to marshal and liquidate assets and pursue claims on your behalf. Our goal is to make a prompt and fair interim distribution to you as soon as possible and hopefully by as early as September 30 of this year if we can convince the US Department of Justice to drop their freeze on the funds in Europe and Canada.
As always, please direct your questions to us at: stanford.claims.support@uk.gt.com.

Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson, SIB Joint Liquidators

Allen Stanford Sentenced to 110 Years in Prison

By Walter Pavlo,
 
 Dressed in green prison fatigues, R. Allen Stanford entered a federal courthouse in Houston today to hear U.S. District Judge David Hitner pronounce his prison sentence. The decision: 110 years.

 Prosecutors had asked that the one-time billionaire financier get 230 years in prison. (note: Bernard Madoff is serving 150 years). The prosecutor told Judge Hitner, “230 years will not get anyone their money back but on sleepless nights they will know that he got the maximum.” I think 110 years will give them just as much comfort.

 During the proceeding, Stanford’s attorney, Ali Fazel, objected to the use of the term “Ponzi scheme,” but Hittner said the evidence at trial justified the use of the term. It’s not like Stanford could be any more insulted. The prosecutors also compared him to Bernie Madoff. That too caused Fazel to speak up on behalf of Stanford by saying of Madoff, “he didn’t invest time in anything.” Not sure what he was going for with that comment but I took it that Stanford worked harder at his fraud than did Madoff.

Speaking on his own behalf, Stanford recounted his last three years, including his beating in September 2009. The best that he could say as a compliment for those who prosecuted him was, “I wouldn’t wish this on them.” While he acknowledge that he felt sorry for depositors, employees and his own family for the failure of Stanford Financial, he managed to slip in, “I’m not a thief,” and, “I never defrauded anyone.” Victims in the courtroom, all dressed in black, begged to differ.

The prison sentence represents a long fall from the once knighted Antiguan, who has been in prison since his arrest in June 2009. Declared indigent by the court, all of Stanford’s assets were frozen and he was represented by a public defender. In March, Stanford was found guilty of running a $7 billion Ponzi scheme. However, his road to the courthouse was not without controversy. First, there was that strange interview on CNBC in which Stanford proclaimed his innocence. Then Stanford sued Lloyd’s of London, the underwriter of Stanford Financial Group’s Directors and Officers insurance, to pay for his legal fees. In the end, Lloyd’s won and Stanford got the legal help of public defenders Ali Fazel and Robert Scardino.

Stanford learned that prison can be a difficult place to live. Long before being tried in court, Stanford was severely beaten by another inmate. He was hospitalized and later transferred to a federal prison medical facility in Butner, NC, as result of an addiction to anti-depressants, which he developed after the beating. The trauma, his lawyers claimed, left their client unable to remember anything. After a year’s delay in heading to trial, government psychologists determined he was faking it and set a court date.

 In January, just 12 days before Stanford’s trial was to begin, Fazel and Scardino wanted out of the case on the grounds that budget restrictions were hurting their ability to defend him. Prior to that, a number of supporting groups and expert witnesses for the defense said that they too wanted to quit because they were not being paid by the government. Eventually, some money was released and Stanford was off to trial.

With all of this drama, there still has been no distribution of the funds that have been seized by the government to victims who had invested their savings with Stanford in the hopes of incredible returns on safe (certificates of deposit) investments. The trial and the prison sentence will bring some closure, but the restitution to investors will come up a little short. With regard to the losses for U.S. taxpayers? We will be paying for Stanford’s prison stay and his future legal fees. Stanford is planning to appeal and the court will be giving him a new public defender.

Stanford’s most memorable statement was, “If I live the rest of my life in prison …. I will always be at peace with the way I conducted myself in business.” He can think about that one for a while.

 My thanks to Twitterers Ronnie Crocker and CNBC’s Scott Cohn, who gave us all updates during the sentencing.

Stanford Receiver Loses Court Bid for Libyan Fund Freeze

By Laurel Brubaker Calkins 

R. Allen Stanford’s court-appointed receiver can’t have a preliminary injunction freezing at least $50 million a Libyan sovereign wealth fund recovered during the final days of the Ponzi scheme, an appeals court ruled.
“The funds sought by the receiver are property of a foreign state and are not subject to attachment,” a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans said today. The order sought would be “functionally equivalent to an attachment,” the court said.

The receiver, Ralph Janvey, sought the freeze to prevent the Libyans from repatriating the funds from a New York bank account while he sues to recover the money for the benefit of defrauded Stanford investors.
The Libyans are the largest so-called net losers in the Ponzi scheme, which bilked more than 20,000 investors worldwide of as much as $7 billion through the sale of bogus certificates of deposit at Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd. Net losers are investors who lost more money than they recovered from the scheme.

During late 2008 and early 2009, the Libyans withdrew about $51.6 million of the $139.6 million they invested with Stanford during the previous two years, according to the filing. U.S. securities regulators seized the Texas financier’s operations in February 2009, claiming Stanford was running a Ponzi scheme, paying older investors with money from new ones.

Kevin Sadler, Janvey’s lawyer, said the receiver won’t keep appealing for an injunction to prevent the Libyans from repatriating the money. He said the receiver will focus on the lower-court lawsuit seeking to recover the funds.

“The Libyan defendants received tens of millions of dollars in fraudulent transfers in the weeks prior to the collapse of the Stanford Ponzi scheme,” Sadler said in an e-mail. “The receiver will continue to pursue the recovery of those improper payments for the benefit of the victims of the Stanford fraud.”
Stanford, 62, was convicted of spearheading the fraud in March. He faces as much as 230 years in prison when he is sentenced tomorrow in Houston federal court.

The appeal is Janvey v. Libyan Investment Authority, 12- 10240, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (New Orleans). The underlying criminal case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09cr342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston). The SEC case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank, 09cv298, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).

To contact the reporter on this story: Laurel Brubaker Calkins in Houston at laurel@calkins.us.com.

Control over ex-tycoon Stanford's assets at issue

By JUAN A. LOZANO, Associated Press 

HOUSTON (AP) — As former Texas tycoon R. Allen Stanford's criminal case gets ready to wind down with his sentencing Thursday for a $7 billion Ponzi scheme, the battle for control of his remaining assets around the globe still hasn't been settled.

Investors are hoping to get back some of the money that was taken from them, but those leading the efforts are at odds over who should control Stanford's frozen bank accounts and properties. They've even duplicated efforts to go after certain assets.

The legal battle over the assets has frustrated investors, who are still waiting for a payout more than three years after Stanford's businesses were shut down.

"There are people who have died while waiting for a distribution of the assets, people whose families have been left with nothing, people basically living on donations," said Luis Lopez Duran, a Venezuelan attorney who lost money in the scheme.

Prosecutors say Stanford used the money from investors who bought certificates of deposit, or CDs, from his bank on the Caribbean island nation of Antigua to fund a string of failed businesses, bribe regulators and pay for his lavish lifestyle. Stanford was convicted in March on 13 of 14 fraud-related counts and could spend the rest of his life behind bars.

Stanford's financial empire once spanned from the U.S. to Latin America and the Caribbean. An Antiguan court and a U.S. judge in Dallas have both appointed people to try to recover assets. The U.S. Justice Department is also undertaking its own effort.

Ralph Janvey is the receiver appointed by a federal judge in Dallas. Since 2009, he has worked to close Stanford's various companies and sell his assets, having so far collected more than $220 million.
But Janvey has also racked up more than $108 million in fees and expenses, leaving just $112 million for investors.

Kevin Sadler, an attorney for Janvey, defended these costs, saying Stanford's empire "collapsed, it left a huge mess that has required a huge (and expensive) clean up."

Meanwhile, an Antiguan court appointed liquidators who say they have recovered or could potentially recover more than $323 million in assets for investors. But about $212 million is tied up in land once owned by Stanford that has yet to be sold.

Edward Davis Jr., one of the attorneys for the liquidators, said their process is cheaper, faster and better than the Janvey-run receivership, which he said is inefficient and too expensive.

"We are trying our very utmost to gather up assets and make claims to put money in (investors') pockets," Davis said.

The liquidators are also battling the U.S. Justice Department for control of about $330 million in frozen Stanford bank accounts in Canada, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

In a May 3 letter, the liquidators asked the Justice Department to withdraw its claim. Davis said the liquidators are worried a large portion of these funds would not go to investors but instead be used to pay for U.S. receivership costs and claims by the Internal Revenue Service against Stanford.

In a June 4 response, Frederick Reynolds, a deputy chief with the Justice Department, suggested U.S. officials as well as Janvey and the liquidators meet to try to settle their differences.

"Continued litigation among the parties will only ensure that the total amount of money available for distribution to Stanford victims will be depleted by costs and fees incurred by the Receiver and the Joint Liquidators," he wrote.

The liquidators have said such a meeting would do no good. The Justice Department has since said if it gets control of the $330 million, it will use the Janvey-run receivership to distribute those funds to victims.

Investors, meanwhile, are divided over who should be in charge.

Richard Watson, a British citizen who lives in Antigua and lost much of his life savings, believes the liquidators should handle everything.

"Our worry is that those funds will find their way to the DOJ, from the DOJ they will go to the U.S. receiver and they will be squandered in attorney's fees. And the creditors won't see one cent," he said.

Regardless, whatever is ultimately recovered will be only a fraction of what investors lost. More could be recouped through lawsuits, but that could take years.
Investors have until Sept. 1 to make a claim with the U.S. receivership. The liquidators do not have a deadline.

Sentencing Stanford

 Source: Caribarena News

Antigua St john's - Prosecutors in the US are pushing for a 230-year sentence for former Antiguan Knight R. Allen Stanford who was convicted on March 6 by a US federal jury for running a US $7 billion Ponzi scheme.

 Labelling Stanford as a "ruthless predator" on Wednesday, the prosecutors presented their case to the judge that reflects the maximum recommended under federal sentencing guidelines.

If the judge agrees, Stanford would stand to serve some 80 years more than Bernard Madoff who was convicted in 2009 for his Ponzi scheme.

Defense lawyers are pushing for some 200 years less than their prosecuting counterparts, which could result in Stanford’s immediate release since he has been in custody for three years already, according to US laws.

"We feel like our recommendations are every bit as appropriate as I'm sure they think theirs are," said Robert Scardino, a lawyer for Stanford, in a Reuters interview.

The former businessman was convicted on 13 criminal counts of fraud, conspiracy and obstruction. U.S. District Judge David Hittner, who presided over Stanford's six-week trial, is scheduled to sentence Stanford on June 14.

Stanford also faces civil charges by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Prosecutors say Stanford places "among the greediest, most selfish, and utterly remorseless criminals, and note that he ran a two-decade scheme centered on the sale of bogus certificates of deposit from his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd.

 "Robert Allen Stanford is a ruthless predator responsible for one of the most egregious frauds in history… The sheer magnitude of the money stolen, the duration of the crime, and the extent to which Stanford lived a life steeped in deceit are almost unrivaled," prosecutors said on Wednesday in a filing in U.S. District Court in Houston.

 Prosecutors also contended in their summation that the nature and circumstances of Stanford’s crimes, coupled with his role and personal history and the need for forceful deterrence, undoubtedly calls for the most severe punishment by law.

Further to his conviction, it was also found that federal authorities should try to seize some $330 million of frozen funds that Stanford stashed in 29 foreign bank accounts.

US: Restitution impractical for Stanford victims

(Reuters) - The U.S. government said it would be "impracticable" to enforce an order of restitution against financier Allen Stanford to victims of his estimated $7 billion Ponzi scheme and that it should be permitted to compensate fraud victims with forfeited assets.

In a Monday filing with the federal court in Houston, the Department of Justice said the large number of victims, the difficulty of calculating their losses and the freezing of Stanford's assets in various jurisdictions would make restitution difficult.

A federal jury on March 6 convicted Stanford, 62, on fraud, conspiracy and obstruction charges over what prosecutors called the sale of bogus certificates of deposit from his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd.

Stanford is scheduled to be sentenced on June 14 and could spend the rest of his life in prison. The jury also found that federal authorities should try to seize $330 million of frozen funds that Stanford stashed in 29 foreign bank accounts.

Once considered a billionaire, Stanford later claimed to be indigent.

The Justice Department said restitution would be complicated because customer accounts were credited with $1.3 billion of interest that was not paid and some customers but not others withdrew "fictitious" interest or principal from their accounts.

It said it has agreed in principle with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission on a joint distribution process.

The Justice Department also said a receiver winding down parts of Stanford's business will to ensure fairness try to calculate "net" amounts lost by each investor. Such an approach is also being used in the winding down of Bernard Madoff's firm.

The case is U.S. v. Stanford, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, No. 09-cr-00342.

 (Reporting By Jonathan Stempel in New York; editing by Andre Grenon)

Stanford home sells, Davis awaits auction

by Patsy R. Brumfield/NEMS Daily Journal

Former homes of disgraced financiers R. Allen Stanford and James Davis will belong to someone else soon.

Trustmark Bank holds the $1.7 million note on Davis’ abandoned home in the Dry Creek community of Union County and recently got the go-ahead to auction it off.

Davis, once chief financial officer for Stanford’s international financial empire, faces prison time for his guilty plea in their $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme on investors of certificates of deposit through the now-defunct Stanford International Bank Ltd.

He and his wife, Lori, borrowed $1.443 million in 2007 to build the lavish, four-story home situated beside a small lake west of Baldwyn.

 Until the empire fell apart in early 2009, Davis often worked out of Stanford offices in Tupelo and Memphis. Trustmark attorney Joseph Hummel in Dallas, Texas, said details about the foreclosure are still being worked out.

As for Stanford, who faces sentencing June 14 in Houston, his former residence on Holly Springs Drive was auctioned off recently for $1.97 million.

The winning bid on the Spanish-style home was Houston Holly Springs Drive LLC, which records show was formed March 14 in Houston.

Initial bidders for the house were Gary and Catherine Brock, who offered $1.702 million.

Then Houston Holly Springs offered $1.853 million followed by Houston real estate attorney Vincent Bustamante’s equal bid. At the May 14 public auction, the Brocks did not increase their bid, and the others pushed their offers up by $10,000 increments until Bustamante declined to bid any more, court documents show.

The Stanford court-appointed receiver’s attorneys say they plan to close the sale Aug. 13 for net proceeds of $1,812,573.95 after closing costs and a break-up fee of $1,190 to the Brocks.

In the event the Houston Holly Springs deal does not come through, the sale goes to Bustamante. Read more: djournal.com - Stanford home sells Davis awaits auction