Stanford Victims Will Benefit From $300M Settlement

In a huge step forward for R. Allen Stanford’s cheated investors and creditors, a settlement aims to break the logjam over who is entitled to $300 million worth of frozen assets around the world.

When Stanford’s Ponzi scheme was exposed in 2009 and his business went under, it spawned a global hunt for his many assets to repay his investors and creditors. But those involved in the search—U.S. government agencies, a U.S.-court appointed receiver and the liquidators of Stanford’s Antiguan bank—fought in courts across the world over who controlled the various assets.

The settlement, announced last week and subject to the approval of several courts in the coming weeks, will resolve the years-long battle. It will also speed efforts to return money to those who invested in certificates of deposit issued by Stanford International Bank, a scheme through which Stanford ultimately cheated investors out of $7 billion. Stanford used investors’ cash to further the fraud and fund a lavish lifestyle in which he accumulated real estate, yachts and other assets around the world.

The U.S. receiver warned in court papers that if the settlement isn’t approved, “millions of dollars in assets that could otherwise be distributed to the victims of the Stanford Ponzi scheme will remain tied up in the courts.”

Some of the specific deal terms include handing over $44 million of assets frozen in the U.K. to the Antiguan liquidators, which they’ll distribute to victims in that court proceeding. The liquidators will get another $36 million from the U.K. to fund their continued search for more assets.

More than $132.5 million that was found in Switzerland and $23 million in Canada will be forfeited to the U.S. Department of Justice, which will allow that to be distributed through the U.S. receivership. Antiguan victims will get another $60.5 million from Switzerland.

The settlement doesn’t allow the distribution of any of the $300 million in frozen assets to be paid to two government creditors, the Internal Revenue Service and Antiguan government.

The settlement is subject to the approval of the U.S. District Court in Dallas, the Antiguan court and London’s Central Criminal Court.

Convicted last year of fraud, conspiracy and other criminal charges, Stanford is now serving a 110-year prison sentence. He has insisted he did nothing wrong and has appealed his conviction and sentence.

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:

http://sivg.org.ag/

The Stanford International Victims Group Forum

Proskauer, Hunton, Chadbourne Attack Antiguan Stanford Deal

By Maria Chutchian

Proskauer Rose LLP, Hunton & Williams LLP and Chadbourne & Parke LLP on Thursday challenged a settlement between the U.S. and Antiguan receivers in charge of compensating victims of Robert Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme, saying the deal exposes them to duplicative litigation.

The three firms join Greenberg Traurig LLP in urging a Texas court to reject the settlement, which will resolve disputes about jurisdiction over $300 million that Stanford had in the U.K., Switzerland and Canada.

Proceedings are already underway in the U.S. that are looking to hold the law firms liable with respect to their legal work for Houston-based Stanford Financial Group, alleging that they did not do enough to stop Stanford’s fraud.

Furthermore, the deal ignores earlier court-ordered prohibitions to the U.S. and Antiguan receivers pursuing independent lawsuits against lawyers and duplicating their efforts in the two nations' court systems, as well as terms that would allow the Antiguan receivers to conduct U.S. discovery without being subject to the personal jurisdiction of U.S. courts, the firms argue.

The settlement agreement includes a provision that allows the receivers and government agencies to pursue the same claims in different jurisdictions, the firms contend. This could force them to defend themselves against the same allegations both in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and again in Antigua.

“This result creates the possibility of inconsistent judgments, and in any event would entail a waste of judicial resources and the resources of the parties,” Proskauer said in its objection to the deal.

The firms are asking the court to either deny the settlement should or remove the provision that allows for the duplicate claims.

Stanford rose to prominence as the head of the multinational financial services group that bore his name, whose banking arm was the Stanford International Bank in Antigua. The four firms that have objected served as outside law firms to some of Stanford's companies for a time, but all have denied any knowledge or culpability in his massive scheme.

After investigators in February 2009 alleged that the consistently above-average returns Stanford promised were possible only because of fraud, regulators in both Antigua and the U.S. appointed receivers to handle the claims. They had been at odds until the settlement was reached.

The settlement, announced March 12, would allow distributions to victims to go forward without litigation between the U.S. receiver and his counterparts in Antigua — joint liquidators Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson of the accounting firm Grant Thornton — threatening to disrupt the process as it had in the past.

A hearing in Antigua on the proposed settlement, which requires U.S., U.K. and Antiguan approval, is scheduled for April 8.

Stanford was convicted of securities fraud in March 2012 and sentenced to 110 years in prison.

Proskauer is represented by Bruce W. Collins and Neil R. Burger of Carrington Coleman Sloman & Blumenthal LLP and by James P. Rouhandeh, Daniel J. Schwartz and Richard A. Cooper of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.

Chadbourne is represented by Harry M. Reasoner and William D. Sims Jr. of Vinson & Elkins LLP and by Daniel J. Beller, Daniel J. Leffell and William B. Michael of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Hunton is represented by Richard A. Sayles and Shawn Long of Sayles Werbner and by Jeffrey D. Colman, David Jiménez-Ekman, April A. Otterberg Kaija K. Hupila of Jenner & Block LLP.

U.S. receiver Ralph Janvey is represented by Kevin M. Sadler, Scott D. Powers and David T. Arlington of Baker Botts LLP.

The case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank Ltd. et al., case number 3:09-cv-00298, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:

http://sivg.org.ag/

The Stanford International Victims Group Forum

Stanford fighting SEC fines

Convicted Ponzi-scheme operator R. Allen Stanford, who continues to protest what he says was an unfair criminal trial, is now fighting the government’s quest to squeeze billions of dollars in penalties out of him in a related civil lawsuit.

Stanford, currently serving a 110-year prison sentence, this week filed an objection to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s bid to impose billions of dollars in monetary penalties against him and several other defendants in a civil securities fraud lawsuit. He was convicted last year of criminal charges that he defrauded investors out of about $7 billion.

In court papers, the SEC argues that Stanford’s criminal conviction validates the similar claims it makes in its civil suit. The agency says Stanford, two of his businesses and one of his former associates should, at a minimum, face a penalty of $5.9 billion — the amount that federal prosecutors have ordered Stanford to forfeit in the criminal proceeding.

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:

http://sivg.org.ag/

The Stanford International Victims Group Forum

Antiguan Court Hearing Scheduled for April 8th on the Approval of the Joint Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol for Stanford International Bank

A Potential Distribution of Assets in Close Proximity

Antigua, March 22, 2013 – Earlier this week, the Antiguan Court scheduled the hearing of an Application of the Joint Liquidators to Approve the Settlement Agreement with the Receiver, the US Department of Justice, and others. The hearing will be held before Madam Justice Henry of the Antiguan Court at 11:30am, local time on April 8, 2013. Creditor-victims may file responses to the application with the Antiguan court and may attend the hearing to voice their opinions on the Agreement. The Joint Liquidators advise creditor-victims to file their responses by 4:00 p.m., Wednesday April 3, 2013 Eastern Standard Time to ensure that their opinions are considered, effectively, and to also e-mail their response to stanford.claims@uk.gt.com.

The appropriate method to lodge responses with the Court is by filing an affidavit setting out the issues which form the basis of the relevant response.

This hearing, along with that scheduled by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas for April 11, 2013, on the same matter, brings creditor-victims of the Stanford fraud closer to an expeditious distribution of assets as a result of the unified plan among the Joint Liquidators, the Receiver, and the DOJ. Among the benefits, the Settlement Agreement, which will only become effective after it has been approved by courts in the US, Antigua and the United Kingdom, resolves litigation over approximately $300 million in assets frozen in Canada, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, provides for coordinated claims processes, and cooperation and an exchange of information with respect to litigation recoveries.

Further information on the procedure for filing responses, and a copy of the Agreement, are posted on the Joint Liquidators’ official website at www.sibliquidation.com. Persons who believe they were victims of this fraud scheme should visit this sites for additional information.

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:

http://sivg.org.ag/

The Stanford International Victims Group Forum

Important Announcement Concerning Stanford Receivership

The Joint Liquidators (JLs) Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson of the Stanford International Bank, Ltd. (SIB) and the U.S. Receiver for Stanford Financial Group and all related entities (Receiver), have entered into a Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol (Settlement Agreement) with one another, the U.S. Examiner, John Little, the Official Stanford Investors Committee (OSIC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  The Advisory Creditors Committee of the Liquidation of SIB has also voted to give its approval to the Settlement Agreement. 

Among many other benefits, the Settlement Agreement resolves litigation over approximately $300 million in assets frozen in Canada, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, and creates a unified plan among the JLs, the Receiver, and the DOJ to expedite the handling and distribution of those assets to creditor-victims. 

The Settlement Agreement will only become effective after it has been approved by courts in the US, Antigua, and the U.K.  On March 12, 2013, the Receiver, SEC, Examiner, and Official Stanford Investors Committee filed a Joint Motion to Approve the Settlement Agreement in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Responses to the Joint Motion must be filed no later than  March 28, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. central and the Court will hold a hearing on the Joint Motion on Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. central    The text of the Court's Order setting the response deadline and hearing is set forth  below.   Anyone considering filing a response to the Joint Motion or appearing in the U.S. District Court in relation to the motion should consult with their own legal counsel.

After all three courts have approved the Settlement Agreement, it will become effective and pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement the parties will pursue the release of funds via appropriate legal processes in the respective countries, including Canada and Switzerland.  The Settlement Agreement has several benefits, including that it:

• creates a plan for the distribution of almost 90% of the frozen assets from the U.K., Canada, and Switzerland pursuant to which distributions will be made as soon as the necessary approvals are obtained from the pertinent authorities in those countries;
• allocates $36 million of the funds in the U.K. to the JLs’ estate in order to pursue additional funds for the estate, to be released over time under the supervision of the Central Criminal Court in London, which the JLs expect to significantly enhance amounts available for distribution because those funds will be used to further additional asset recovery efforts.  The remaining $44 million of the funds in the U.K. will be distributed to creditor-victims by the JLs;
• allocates in Canada all $23 million to the DOJ to be transferred to the Receiver to be distributed to creditor-victims;
• allocates in Switzerland $132.5 million to be forfeited to the DOJ and transferred to the Receiver to be distributed to creditor-victims and $60.5 million to be transferred to the JLs for distribution to victims;
•   provides that distribution of the frozen funds shall be made to creditor-victims of SIB and not to other claimants such as the Internal Revenue Service or the Antiguan government;

• provides a framework for the sharing of information among the JLs, the Receiver, and OSIC to achieve efficiencies, minimize burdens, and maximize recoveries in Stanford-related litigation;
• facilitates cooperation and coordination of efforts with respect to litigation and recovery and monetization of Stanford assets;
• provides for coordination of claims and distribution processes between the JLs and the Receiver; and
• terminates the substantial expense of competing legal claims to, and proceedings relating to, the frozen assets in Canada, the U.K., Switzerland, and the US.

The Settlement Agreement is a product of the parties’ common goal of optimizing and enlarging the overall recovery for creditor-victims as quickly and cost-effectively as possible.  The parties to the Agreement all believe that the Agreement is in the best interests of the victims of the Stanford fraud.   

Further information, including a copy of the Agreement, the Joint Motion to Approve the Agreement, and a Q&A about the Agreement, are available on the U.S. Receiver’s website at http://stanfordfinancialreceivership.com.  Further information is also available on the JLs’ official website at http://www.sibliquidation.com, and on the Examiner’s website http://www.lpf-law.com/.   

Text of March 18, 2013 Order of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas:

The Court will hold a hearing on the Receiver's motion for approval of interim distribution plan [1766] and the SEC, Receiver, Examiner, and Official Stanford Investors Committee's joint motion to approve settlement agreement and cross-border protocol (the "Joint Motion") [Doc. 1793 in  SEC v. Stanford, 09-CV-298, Doc. 189 in In re Stanford International Bank, 09-CV-721] on Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1505. The time for parties to these actions to respond to the Receiver's motion for approval of interim distribution plan has lapsed, see N.D. TEX. R. CIV. P. 7.1(e), and the Court will not entertain any further responses or objections from those parties. Parties who wish to file a response to the Joint Motion must do so no later than March 28, 2013 at 5:00.  Nonparties, including but not limited to investors or other potential claimants, may file written comments or objections to either motion, also no later than March 28, 2013 at 5:00 p.m.  The Receiver may file a reply to those responses, comments, or objections no later than April 5, 2013 at 5:00 PM. During the hearing, the Court will not entertain comments, objections, or argument from parties or nonparties that failed to file written responses, comments, or objections. 

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:

http://sivg.org.ag/

The Stanford International Victims Group Forum

Agreement between the US Receiver Ralph Janvey and Grant Thornton

Here is the long awaited agreement between the US receiver Ralph Janvey and Grant Thornton. Below is page 9 of the document which will be of particular interest and will dispel a lot of the myths being perpetrated regarding this agreement.  

The Settlement Agreement creates a plan for the distribution of almost 90% of the frozen assets from the UK, Canada, and Switzerland, from which distributions will be made as soon as the necessary approvals are obtained from the pertinent authorities in those countries.

The Settlement Agreement sets forth a plan to expeditiously and fairly distribute a substantial majority of the assets frozen in the UK, Canada, and Switzerland. Once the pending litigation in these countries has been terminated, the Receiver, the JLs and the DOJ will work together to encourage the foreign authorities to release the assets as quickly as possible. These assets will only be distributed to the creditor-victims of the Stanford Ponzi scheme, and not to other parties such as the Antiguan government or the Internal Revenue Service. (See Appendix, Arts. V-VII at 22-25.)

 Under the Settlement Agreement, the Receiver will receive for distribution all of the proceeds from the monetization of the Canada assets, while the JLs will receive all of the proceeds from the UK assets. The Swiss assets will be allocated between the Receiver and the JLs according to a 2.2 to 1 ratio. (Appendix, Art. VIII at 26-29.) The proceeds from these assets will then be distributed to eligible creditor-victims, in accordance with the Receiver’s and JLs’ claims distribution processes. Furthermore, the Settlement Agreement allocates $18 million of the remaining UK Assets to the JLs to fund litigation that the parties believe will produce a substantial positive return for that estate. If necessary, an additional $18 million of the remaining UK Assets may be allocated for this purpose, subject to supervision by the Central Criminal Court in London. (Appendix, Art. V at 23; Art. VIII at 26-27.) Every effort will be made to minimize the amount actually used for working capital, and any funds not actually used for working capital will be released for distribution.

   Amnd Mtn for Approval of Settlement Agreement

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:

http://sivg.org.ag/

The Stanford International Victims Group Forum

Investors in $7B swindle by ex-tycoon R. Allen Stanford may finally get back some losses

HOUSTON — Investors in a $7 billion Ponzi scheme orchestrated by former Texas tycoon R. Allen Stanford could finally begin getting back some of what they lost in the next few months, after a recovery process that has dragged on for more than four years.

 Investors — some of whom lost their life savings — will see only a pittance of what they put into the scheme. But the process got a boost this week as parties that had been battling each other for control of about $300 million in frozen foreign bank accounts and other assets once owned by Stanford reached an agreement to work together.

 “The freeing up of funds ... is a good thing,” Angela Shaw, a Dallas-area woman who founded the Stanford Victims Coalition after three generations of her family lost $4.5 million in the fraud, said Friday.

 In a Ponzi scheme, money from new investors is used to pay old ones. Prosecutors said Stanford persuaded investors to buy certificates of deposit, or CDs, from his bank on the Caribbean island nation of Antigua then used the money to fund a string of failed businesses, bribe regulators and pay for his lavish lifestyle. Stanford, 62, was convicted last year on 13 fraud-related counts and sentenced to 110 years in prison.

 Stanford’s financial empire once spanned from the U.S. to Latin America and the Caribbean. In the wake of its collapse, a U.S. judge in Dallas and an Antiguan court both appointed people to try to recover assets. The U.S. Justice Department also undertook its own effort.

 This week’s agreement consolidates the efforts to take control of assets frozen in Canada, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

 “Without the ... agreement, the (parties) will be forced to expend substantial time, energy and money fighting over the Stanford assets,” attorneys for Ralph Janvey, the receiver appointed by a judge in Dallas to oversee the recovery efforts, wrote in a court motion filed this week.

 Edward Davis Jr., one of the attorneys for the Antiguan liquidators, said the agreement is the “beginning of relationship that allows for everyone to be rolling in the same direction.”

 British retiree Kate Freeman, who lost $820,000 in Stanford’s scheme, said she believes the agreement is a positive step.

 “This will help all of the victims,” Freeman said in a telephone interview from her home in Antigua. “This will put a little bit of money in everyone’s pocket.”

 Freeman said the agreement will provide the liquidators in Antigua needed funds to pursue lawsuits against individuals and organizations who aided Stanford’s fraud.

 The first distribution to investors will probably come from the U.S. receiver, who in January announced a plan to make an initial distribution of $55 million. That plan is still waiting for approval by a federal judge, but that could happen within the next month or two, officials say.

 As of the end of January, Janvey had collected more than $230 million. But he had also racked up more than $119 million in fees and expenses, leaving about $111 million for investors.

 Investors have criticized the amount of fees and expenses that have been tallied by the recovery process. Attorneys for Janvey have defended the expenses, saying the collapse of Stanford’s business empire required an expensive clean up.

 The Antiguan liquidators have retained control of about $227 million in assets, mostly in land once owned by Stanford, Davis said. That money won’t be available for distribution until the land is sold.

 The initial distribution from the liquidators will likely come by this summer from funds recovered from the United Kingdom, he said.

 The amount investors will ultimately get back is expected to be small — probably about 1 percent of what they put in.

 “If you’ve saved your whole life and invested $300,000, you are only getting back $3,000,” Shaw said. 

Andrew Stoltmann, a Chicago-based attorney who specializes in investment fraud, said such small recoveries are the norm.

 “Unfortunately these sorts of recoveries are kind of the nature of the beast when it comes to Ponzi schemes,” he said.

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:

http://sivg.org.ag/

The Stanford International Victims Group Forum

KLS Stanford Update March 2013

Stanford Update March 2013 

 Dear Stanford Clients: This update will summarize recent events in the Stanford matters over the past several weeks.

 SEC Litigation 

 In our last update, we notified you that the magistrate judge in our SEC class action denied the Government's request to stay all discovery. We are summarizing here the outcome of the discovery hearing which was held in Miami on February 14, 2013. One of the key hurdles to overcome in an action against the Government is the discretionary function exception. The magistrate made clear that this hurdle has been overcome and the court had already ruled on the sovereign immunity issue. The magistrate also held that "it is not obvious that [the Government's second motion to dismiss] will succeed." A copy of this ruling is attached for your review. Following this ruling, we have moved forward with discovery and we continue to wait for the district court to rule on the Government's second motion to dismiss.

 In view of the delays caused by the Government's motion to stay discovery, we requested that the Court push back certain pre-trial and trial deadlines to allow us adequate time to pursue the discovery required to prove our case. We are happy to report that the Court granted our request and pushed back discovery deadlines to afford us this opportunity, which also resulted in a new trial date set for April 7, 2014.

 Potential NAFTA Action

 We have also recently become aware of a potential new action being pursued by Peter Morgenstern on behalf of Mexican investors. Apparently, Mr. Morgenstern intends on filing a private arbitration against the United States under the arbitration provisions of NAFTA. It appears that participation in this arbitration by Mexican investors may result in your inability to participate in our SEC class action. Please note that there are three key issues to keep in mind as you consider joining this litigation: (1) the timeline and pressure being imposed on investors to make this decision appears unfair; (2) as far as we know, such an action has never previously been taken and therefore no precedent exists for it; and (3) as far as your SEC action is concerned, you may be precluded from participating in the class action and may be considered an opting out of the class action in which you have already invested time, money and resources.

 First, we do not know of any successful action against the United States for failure to provide fair and equitable treatment to foreign investors under circumstances similar to the Stanford Ponzi scheme. This is an untested and speculative theory for recovery which could disqualify you from participating in our action. Our action has already overcome the key initial hurdle and has a defined path towards a successful verdict. Moreover, discovery in arbitration is far more limited than discovery in our pending action. We know from our case that, in order to overcome the Government's position on these claims, extensive discovery is necessary. We do not believe that the procedural intricacies of a NAFTA international arbitration, including the limited means of discovery, provide the best avenue for recovery against the Government. We believe the risk of being disqualified from participating in our SEC action outweighs the potential for obtaining a successful judgment against the Government in the NAFTA international arbitration.

 Claims 

 In the meantime, we have been working with many of our clients who have received determination notices from the Stanford Receiver regarding the claim amount. We have assisted our clients in objecting to those determinations if they were less than the total claimed amount, and we will continue to assist any and all clients who would like us to review their claims determination and provide advice. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:

http://sivg.org.ag/

The Stanford International Victims Group Forum

Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol Q and A

When will money be distributed?

The date when distributions will be made is presently unknown. Although the Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, and the Department of Justice have reached agreement regarding the disposition of the international Stanford assets, the assets remain in control of authorities in the U.K., Switzerland, and Canada. The parties will work together to encourage these authorities to release the assets quickly upon approval of the agreement so that money may be distributed to creditor-victims as soon as possible.

What was the cause for the delay in reaching a final agreement after the agreement in principle was announced?

The settlement agreement is a six-party agreement that deals with assets and related litigation in five different jurisdictions. As a result, the drafting of the agreement was a lengthy process, requiring consultation with attorneys and authorities in numerous jurisdictions. Once the agreement was drafted, all parties to the agreement carefully evaluated the agreement, considering all possible implications of finally approving its terms. Because of the importance of the issues covered by the settlement agreement, the final deliberative phase of the process was necessarily lengthy. The length of time needed to complete the settlement agreement is ultimately a reflection of the degree of care all parties exercised in preparing and finalizing the agreement.

Why is $36 million being reserved for working capital?

The settlement agreement allocates $18 million to the Antiguan liquidation estate primarily to fund litigation that the parties believe will have a substantially positive return for the Antiguan liquidation estate. An additional $18 million may also be allocated for working capital, including litigation funding, if necessary. This working capital cannot be used to fund any litigation adverse to any other party to the definitive agreement. Further, every effort will be made to minimize the amount actually used for working capital, and any funds not actually used for working capital will be released for distribution to creditor-victims.

What is the status of the $20 million that was previously loaned to the Antiguan liquidation estate from the U.K. Central Criminal Court?

The $20 million, which came from Stanford assets in the U.K., was advanced to the Antiguan liquidation estate during the pendency of the dispute over control of those assets. The funds have been spent to cover expenses of the Antiguan liquidation estate, which was the purpose for which they were advanced by the Central Criminal Court. Because the Settlement Agreement places control of the U.K. assets with the Antiguan Joint Liquidators, the Settlement Agreement extinguishes the obligation to repay the loan.

Who will receive money from the distribution?

The international assets covered by the settlement agreement will be released only to creditor-victims of the Stanford fraud scheme. No other claimant will receive a distribution from the pool of international assets. Therefore, claimants such as the United States Internal Revenue Service and the Government of Antigua and Barbuda will be excluded from the distribution of the international Stanford assets.

What do claimants need to do to become eligible for a distribution by the Receiver from the international assets covered by the settlement agreement?

The Receiver will distribute funds from the international assets to eligible claimants who submitted claims to the Receiver on or before September 1, 2012, which was the deadline set by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas for submitting claims to the Receiver. Claimants do not need to take any further action at this time to become eligible for a distribution of funds from the international assets.

Why aren't the Joint Liquidators and the Receiver making a single, joint distribution?

The Receiver and the Joint Liquidators are each charged by their appointing courts with making a distribution of assets from their respective estates. The laws applicable to their respective distributions are similar but not identical. Therefore, it is impractical to have a single, joint distribution. However, the Joint Liquidators and the Receiver have agreed to coordinate their efforts to the maximum extent possible to minimize duplication.

Will this agreement end all litigation between the Receiver and the Joint Liquidators?

The agreement will resolve all current disputes between and among the Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, and the Department of Justice concerning the international Stanford assets. It is anticipated that further court proceedings may be required before all international assets are released for distribution. However, the Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, and the Department of Justice have agreed to work in concert in any such proceedings to ensure that assets are released for distribution as quickly and expeditiously as possible.

What has to happen before the settlement agreement is fully and finally approved?

The settlement agreement will be presented to the US federal court in Dallas, the court in Antigua and Barbuda, and to the Central Criminal Court in London. Once all of those courts have approved the settlement agreement, the agreement will become effective.

Will creditors be permitted to state their views concerning the settlement agreement prior to review of the agreement by the courts?

Yes. The Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, the Examiner, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee each invite Stanford creditors to contact them and express their views, whether favorable or unfavorable, concerning the settlement agreement. Creditors are also encouraged to file any objections to the settlement agreement with the courts in the United States and Antigua and to attend the hearings regarding approval of the settlement agreement. The Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, and the Examiner will post notice on their respective websites regarding the date and locations of those hearings, as well as the deadlines for filing objections to settlement approval. Creditors considering filing an objection or appearing in court should consult with their own legal counsel.

How will the Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee handle asset recovery litigation in the future?

In general, the Receiver, the Official Stanford Investors Committee, and the Joint Liquidators will continue to handle litigation in the jurisdictions where they have already been recognized. The Receiver, the Official Stanford Investors Committee, and the Joint Liquidators will share information and coordinate their efforts when possible in an effort to maximize recoveries for victims of the Stanford fraud.


For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:

http://sivg.org.ag/

The Stanford International Victims Group Forum

 

 

Allen Stanford Investors May Get Some Money Back

Investors in Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme, who have recovered nothing in the four years since it blew up, could finally get some money back under a $300 million multi-national settlement in the case.

For years, investors, attorneys and regulators have been wrangling over Stanford assets frozen in Canada, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The complex settlement, still subject to court approval in five countries, would clear the way for most of the $300 million to be distributed to investors later this year.

The agreement was announced Tuesday by the court-appointed receiver in the U.S. and by liquidators appointed by the court in Antigua, where Stanford's offshore bank was based. The U.S. Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission are also part of the settlement.

(Read More: Allen Stanford: Descent from Billionaire to Inmate # 35017-183)

"The Settlement Agreement is a product of the parties' common goal of optimizing and enlarging the overall recovery for creditor-victims as quickly and cost-effectively as possible. The parties to the Agreement all believe that the Agreement is in the best interests of the victims of the Stanford fraud," the receiver and liquidators said in a joint statement.

(Read More: Allen Stanford Investors Face Long Haul to Recover Money.)

According to the statement, the agreement ensures the money will go to victims—not to the IRS or the Antiguan government.
 

The agreement, while significant, would still leave Stanford's 28,000 investors with devastating losses. Since the Securities and Exchange Commission shut down Stanford's financial empire in February, 2009, none of the $7 billion in Stanford assets has been returned to investors.

Last year, the U.S. receiver asked for court approval to distribute some $55 million, and is still awaiting court approval. The new settlement would be on top of that. Another $700 million is still tied up in litigation.

(Read More: Allen Stanford Investors Could Get (Tiny) Payout)

Authorities said Allen Stanford skimmed most of the investors' money to fund his lavish lifestyle. Stanford, who is serving a 110-year sentence at a federal penitentiary in Florida, is appealing his conviction last year on 13 criminal counts.
 
-By CNBC's Scott Cohn; Follow him on Twitter @ScottCohnCNBC


For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:

http://sivg.org.ag/

The Stanford International Victims Group Forum

 

 

Stanford International Bank Joint Liquidators, U.S. Stanford Receiver, Examiner, Official Stanford Investors Committee, DOJ, and SEC Sign Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol

Stanford International Bank Joint Liquidators, U.S. Stanford Receiver, Examiner, Official Stanford Investors Committee, DOJ, and SEC Sign Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol

DALLAS, TX, March 12, 2013 The Joint Liquidators (JLs) Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson of the Stanford International Bank, Ltd. (SIB) and the U.S. Receiver for Stanford Financial Group and all related entities (Receiver), announced today that they have entered into a Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol (Settlement Agreement) with one another, the U.S_ Examiner, John Little, the Official Stanford Investors Committee (OSIC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Advisory Creditors Committee of the Liquidation of SIB has also voted to give its approval to the Settlement Agreement.

Among many other benefits, the Settlement Agreement resolves litigation over approximately $300 million in assets frozen in Canada, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, and creates a unified plan among the JLs, the Receiver, and the DOJ to expedite the handling and distribution of those assets to creditor-victims.

The Settlement Agreement will only become effective after it has been approved by courts in the US, Antigua, and the U.K. When the Agreement is presented to the US court and the Antiguan court for approval, victims will have the opportunity to appear and express their views concerning the Settlement Agreement. After all three courts have approved the Settlement Agreement, it will become effective and pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement the parties will pursue the release of funds via appropriate legal processes in the respective countries, including Canada and Switzerland.

The Settlement Agreement has several benefits, including that it:

  • creates a plan for the distribution of almost 90% of the frozen assets from the U.K., Canada, and Switzerland pursuant to which distributions will be made as soon as the necessary approvals are obtained from the pertinent authorities in those countries;

  • allocates $36 million of the funds in the U.K. to the JLs' estate in order to pursue additional funds for the estate, to be released over time under the supervision of the U.K. Central Criminal Court, which the JLs expect to significantly enhance amounts available for distribution because those funds will be used to further additional asset recovery efforts. The remaining $44 million of the funds in the U.K. will be distributed to creditor-victims by the JLs;

• allocates in Canada all $23 million to the DOJ to be transferred to the Receiver to be distributed to creditor-victims;

• allocates in Switzerland $132.5 million to be forfeited to the DOJ and transferred to the Receiver to be distributed to creditor-victims and $60.5 million to be transferred to the JLs for distribution to victims;

• provides that distribution of the frozen funds shall be made to creditor-victims of SIB and not to other claimants such as the Internal Revenue Service or the Antiguan government;

• provides a framework for the sharing of information among the JLs, the Receiver, and OSIC to achieve efficiencies, minimize burdens, and maximize recoveries in Stanford-related litigation;

  • facilitates cooperation and coordination of efforts with respect to litigation and recovery and monetization of Stanford assets;

• provides for coordination of claims and distribution processes between the JLs and the Receiver; and • terminates the substantial expense of competing legal claims to, and proceedings relating to, the frozen assets in Canada, the U.K., Switzerland, and the US.

The Settlement Agreement is a product of the parties' common goal of optimizing and enlarging the overall recovery for creditor-victims as quickly and cost-effectively as possible. The parties to the Agreement all believe that the Agreement is in the best interests of the victims of the Stanford fraud.

Further information, including a copy of the Agreement, will be posted on the U.S. Receiver's website at http://stanfordfinancialreceivership.com, on the JLs official website at http://www.sibliquidation.com, and on the Examiner's website http://www.lpf-law.com/. Persons who believe they were victims of this fraud scheme should visit those sites for additional information. sivgadmin Posts: 21 Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:58 pm


For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:

http://sivg.org.ag/

The Stanford International Victims Group Forum