Dear Members,
The Joint Liquidators have posted responses to communications from Ms Shaw and Mr. Escalona on their website at sibliquidation.com. These are quite lengthy and we thought it might be useful to summarise a couple of the key points, and add some comments of our own before we go to Washington DC to represent Stanford International Victims Group at the "summit" meeting between DoJ, the victims groups, the Receiver parties, and the Joint Liquidators and their Creditor Committee.
From where we sit it appears that Ms. Shaw and Mr. Escalona have joined forces to encourage the DoJ and Receiver parties to block the JL's actions to get an early release of the SIB frozen funds - preferring the "all American" solution, no matter what the cost or delay. The DoJ intervention to freeze funds, took place at a time when the funds were not at risk as they were going to go to one of the Court appointees. In so doing they have only caused several years delay in these funds becoming available to support recovery actions and distributions to depositors without adding any value or certainty. The JL's have been trying to get these funds released since their appointment over a year ago as they were in a position to flow the bulk of them through to depositors promptly, and use some part of them to generate further recoveries which could also have been distributed by now. (The JL's did not press forward with their claims process as early as they might have had there been the prospect of distribution to save money in the early going.)
There is no doubt that DoJ was continually aware of Ms. Shaw and Mr. Escalona, and hearing from no other victims were able to assume these were the only victim voices. Were it not for the JL's we would not have been included in this summit, as DoJ say they were not aware of the Stanford International Victims Group, nor its site which we believe properly posts all victims views in an effort to be genuinely representative. In that context we note Ms Shaw did not post the JL's response to her open letter, and as best we can tell neither has Mr. Escalona posted the multiple responses by the JL's to his open communications. We are concerned that he has mostly served to "re-victimise" the victims by asking for more money on a continuing basis.
Mr. Escalona also continues to make legal pronouncements on the JL's procedures and policies. He is not a lawyer licensed to practice any where that we can determine, and certainly not in Antigua. We are told he has not answered the JL's on this point when they asked him directly if he was a lawyer. He demonstrates a continuing lack of knowledge of the laws of Antigua, and binding rules implemented under those laws, and the simply has no experience with, or understanding of, the intricacies of international insolvency proceedings. Unfortunately it appears he is simply wrong on many of his pronouncements, yet to depositors who rely on him for information, his is only voice heard, which creates problems and costs for the JL's as they go about their business.
We invite you to look at the backgrounds of the JL's team who are all specialists in fraud and international insolvency with many years experience. The US team of lawyers, including the Receiver, the lead lawyer from Baker Botts, the Examiner and the tort lawyers on OSIC, have virtually none collectively, never mind individually, nor does the US Court running the US case, which has declined to refer the matter to the US Bankruptcy Court, where that expertise resides. Bluntly it seems to us that this is one of the biggest reasons why the JL's have not been able to come up with a cooperative protocol, as fear by the Receiver parties for their positions prevails rather than an understanding as to how to make the tools available work for both of the Receiver and the JLs,which was the JL's aim.
We note the JLs have pledged to continue the fight to recover funds for the earliest distribution possible and ultimately in the largest amounts possible. If any of our members have concerns or questions with respect to what the JLs are doing, it is our experience that they are very responsive to direct communication.
The Joint Liquidators have posted responses to communications from Ms Shaw and Mr. Escalona on their website at sibliquidation.com. These are quite lengthy and we thought it might be useful to summarise a couple of the key points, and add some comments of our own before we go to Washington DC to represent Stanford International Victims Group at the "summit" meeting between DoJ, the victims groups, the Receiver parties, and the Joint Liquidators and their Creditor Committee.
From where we sit it appears that Ms. Shaw and Mr. Escalona have joined forces to encourage the DoJ and Receiver parties to block the JL's actions to get an early release of the SIB frozen funds - preferring the "all American" solution, no matter what the cost or delay. The DoJ intervention to freeze funds, took place at a time when the funds were not at risk as they were going to go to one of the Court appointees. In so doing they have only caused several years delay in these funds becoming available to support recovery actions and distributions to depositors without adding any value or certainty. The JL's have been trying to get these funds released since their appointment over a year ago as they were in a position to flow the bulk of them through to depositors promptly, and use some part of them to generate further recoveries which could also have been distributed by now. (The JL's did not press forward with their claims process as early as they might have had there been the prospect of distribution to save money in the early going.)
There is no doubt that DoJ was continually aware of Ms. Shaw and Mr. Escalona, and hearing from no other victims were able to assume these were the only victim voices. Were it not for the JL's we would not have been included in this summit, as DoJ say they were not aware of the Stanford International Victims Group, nor its site which we believe properly posts all victims views in an effort to be genuinely representative. In that context we note Ms Shaw did not post the JL's response to her open letter, and as best we can tell neither has Mr. Escalona posted the multiple responses by the JL's to his open communications. We are concerned that he has mostly served to "re-victimise" the victims by asking for more money on a continuing basis.
Mr. Escalona also continues to make legal pronouncements on the JL's procedures and policies. He is not a lawyer licensed to practice any where that we can determine, and certainly not in Antigua. We are told he has not answered the JL's on this point when they asked him directly if he was a lawyer. He demonstrates a continuing lack of knowledge of the laws of Antigua, and binding rules implemented under those laws, and the simply has no experience with, or understanding of, the intricacies of international insolvency proceedings. Unfortunately it appears he is simply wrong on many of his pronouncements, yet to depositors who rely on him for information, his is only voice heard, which creates problems and costs for the JL's as they go about their business.
We invite you to look at the backgrounds of the JL's team who are all specialists in fraud and international insolvency with many years experience. The US team of lawyers, including the Receiver, the lead lawyer from Baker Botts, the Examiner and the tort lawyers on OSIC, have virtually none collectively, never mind individually, nor does the US Court running the US case, which has declined to refer the matter to the US Bankruptcy Court, where that expertise resides. Bluntly it seems to us that this is one of the biggest reasons why the JL's have not been able to come up with a cooperative protocol, as fear by the Receiver parties for their positions prevails rather than an understanding as to how to make the tools available work for both of the Receiver and the JLs,which was the JL's aim.
We note the JLs have pledged to continue the fight to recover funds for the earliest distribution possible and ultimately in the largest amounts possible. If any of our members have concerns or questions with respect to what the JLs are doing, it is our experience that they are very responsive to direct communication.
Thank you for the update, it confirms my ought on the case.
ReplyDelete