Kachroo Legal Services Update on SEC Lawsuit

TO ALL SEC CLIENTS
February 26, 2014

 Zelaya et al v. United States of America

 Dear Stanford/SEC Clients: We write to update you with respect to important information regarding the claim against the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 To read the complete update from Kachroo Legal Services Click Here:  

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 Update on Stanford Further Actions

TO ALL SFA CLIENTS

STANFORD FURTHER ACTIONS 

 Dear Stanford Clients:

 We write to update you with respect to important information regarding customer claims with the Stanford Liquidator in Antigua and Receiver in Dallas.

To read the complete update from Kachroo Legal Services Click Here:  

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

Justices Throw a Rope to Stanford Ponzi Victims

WASHINGTON (CN) - Federal law does not preclude investors allegedly defrauded by R. Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme from attempting recovery via state class actions, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

 For nearly 15 years, Stanford Group Co. and related entities sold certificates of deposit issued by its Antigua-based Stanford International Bank, and then used investor funds to cover its liabilities.

 Its eponymous leader was sentenced in 2012 to 110 years in federal prison after a federal jury in Houston, Texas, convicted him on 13 of 14 counts of conspiracy, wire fraud and mail fraud.

Read the full transcript from the Courthouse News Service here. 

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

SLUSA - The full Court Ruling

Great news for ALL victims! With the SLUSA ruling going in favour of the victims all the FROZEN court cases can now proceed.

To view the full court ruling on SLUSA click Here

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

U.S. Justices say Allen Stanford Victim Lawsuits can go Forward

(Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that lawyers, insurance brokers and others who worked with convicted swindler Allen Stanford cannot avoid lawsuits by investors seeking to recoup losses incurred in his $7 billion Ponzi scheme.

On a 7-2 vote the court held that lawsuits filed in state court can go forward. New York-based law firms Chadbourne & Parke and Proskauer Rose and insurance brokerage Willis Group Holdings Plc were all sued by former Stanford investors. The investors also sued financial services firm SEI Investments and insurance company Bowen, Miclette & Britt.

Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act did not prevent the state lawsuits from proceeding. The law says that state lawsuits are barred when the alleged misrepresentations are "in connection with" the purchase or sale of a covered security.

As the defendants in the case were not selling securities traded on U.S. exchanges, "it is difficult to see why the federal securities laws would be - or should be - concerned with shielding such entities from lawsuits," he wrote.

The defendants sought Supreme Court review after the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2012 said the lawsuits brought under state laws by the former Stanford clients could go ahead.

The former Stanford clients are keen to pursue state law claims because the Supreme Court has previously held that similar so-called "aiding and abetting" claims cannot be made under federal law.
The class action lawsuits filed by the former investors accused Thomas Sjoblom, a lawyer who worked at both law firms, of obstructing a Securities and Exchange Commission probe into Stanford, and sought to hold the other defendants responsible as well.

The Obama administration, representing the SEC, sided with the defendants over the interpretation of the state law in an avowed effort to protect the agency's own authority to pursue wide-ranging investigations.

The administration pointed out that the "in connection with" language in SLUSA that limits state court lawsuits mirrors language in federal law that gives broad authority of the SEC to pursue such misrepresentations. Therefore, the administration urged the court to give the phrase a broad interpretation.

Stanford's fraud involved the sale of certificates of deposit by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank. Much of the litigation centers on whether these qualified as securities under applicable laws.

The cases are Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice et al, U.S. Supreme Court. No. 12-79; Willis of Colorado Inc et al v. Troice et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-86; and Proskauer Rose LLP v. Troice et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-88.

To join the debate click here. 

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

Joint Comments by the U.S. Receiver, the Examiner and the Official Stanford Investors Committee Concerning the Liquidators' Efforts to Recover Preference Payments

Joint Comments by the U.S. Receiver, the Examiner and the Official Stanford Investors Committee Concerning the Liquidators' Efforts to Recover Preference Payments - The U.S. Receiver, the Examiner, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee understand that certain SIBL CD investors have received letters or emails from Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson, the Joint Liquidators appointed by the Antiguan courts to oversee the Antiguan liquidation of SIBL, through which the Joint Liquidators seek to recover from the investors certain amounts (referred to as "preference payments") that the investors had withdrawn or otherwise received from SIBL during the 6 months' prior to the failure of SIBL. We also understand that these letters and/or emails are causing considerable distress and concern among SIBL CD investors. We wish to clarify the following matters:

1.The U.S. Receiver, the Examiner, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee have no involvement in the Joint Liquidators' effort to recover these "preference payments." The Joint Liquidators are proceeding pursuant to Antiguan law and with the approval of the Antiguan courts. Similarly, the U.S. District Court overseeing the Stanford Receivership has no role in or jurisdiction over the Joint Liquidators' efforts to recover these "preference payments."

2.The Antiguan Joint Liquidators have posted a set of Frequently Asked Questions concerning their effort to recover "preference payments" on their website. You can review those Frequently Asked Questions at http://www.sibliquidation.com

3.We understand that the Antiguan court has established a process for objecting to the Joint Liquidators' effort to recover these "preference payments." In the first instance, any objections must be directed to the Joint Liquidators at Stanford.enquiries@uk.gt.com. Objections must be filed within 120 days after the investor receives the letter or email asserting the Joint Liquidators' claim for these "preference payments."

4.At present, the Joint Liquidators are not permitted to bring lawsuits in the United States to recover these "preference payments," nor for any other purpose.

To join the debate click here. 

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

Politicians yet to return big money from Stanford’s Ponzi Scam

Five years after R. Allen Stanford’s investment companies collapsed in an infamous multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme, records show that the receiver charged with recouping money for victims still is chasing a long list of politicians.

Stanford was a generous and bipartisan donor to political campaigns. After his conviction, Ralph Janvey was appointed by the court as receiver and given the task of tracking down and recovering Stanford’s fraudulent expenditures so the money could be returned to the Ponzi scheme victims.

Some of the big donors have returned money, even if they had to be sued: The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has returned $950,000, and the National Republican Congressional Committee gave back nearly $250,000.

But a number of other campaigns have not. By Mr. Janvey’s calculation, nearly $120,000 in tainted donations should go to creditors.

The Obama campaign has not returned $4,600, and Rep. Pete Sessions, Texas Republican, and the New Jersey Democratic State Committee each owes $10,000, according to the receiver’s most recent list.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Sessions said he has already gotten rid of money from Stanford, who is serving a 110-year prison sentence on fraud charges.

“Congressman Sessions donated to charity the dollar amount of all contributions from individuals charged in the case,” Sessions spokeswoman Torrie Miller wrote in an email.

Federal Election Commission rules allow politicians to disgorge unwanted or illegal donations by donating to charity, but that won’t get Mr. Sessions or any other lawmaker off of Mr. Janvey’s list.

Scott Powers, an attorney for Mr. Janey, said contributions to charity that are equal to the amount of campaign donations from Stanford don’t make any difference.

“The money at issue did not rightfully belong to Mr. Stanford,” he said.

“It was not rightfully transferred to the political committees. And so the political committees are not entitled to decide that the money should be given to charity rather than given to the receiver for distribution to the victims from whom the money was taken in the first place.”

The DSCC and the NRCC, which have returned their money, did so only after losing arguments in court. In perhaps a rare example of Capitol Hill bipartisanship, the fundraising committees said Mr. Janvey’s demand wasn’t timely.

But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Mr. Janvey’s favor in October 2012.

The problem for Mr. Janvey now is that the donations that still haven’t been collected aren’t worth the expense of filing lawsuits. Most of the outstanding contributions are for a few thousand dollars each.

Other top recipients on the receiver’s list include Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, who received $6,000 from Stanford, and congressional Delegate Donna M. Christensen, a Democrat who represents the Virgin Islands and accepted $5,000 from him.

Also listed are Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, at $2,500, and former Rep. Rahm Emanuel, Illinois Democratic and current Chicago mayor, for $3,000.

Cornyn spokeswoman Megan Mitchell said the senator gave the money he received from Stanford to the Big Brothers Big Sisters of America and sent letters to federal agencies to ensure money caught up in the Stanford scheme was returned to investors.

Ms. Mitchell also said Mr. Cornyn co-sponsored a resolution calling on the Treasury secretary to “use the voice and the vote” of the U.S. to oppose World Bank or International Monetary Assistance to Antigua until its government cooperates with U.S. efforts to compensate Stanford victims.

Stanford’s fraud centered at his offshore bank in Antigua.

Still, Mr. Powers said, charitable contributions don’t do Stanford victims much good.

“For economic reasons, the receiver is not in a position to pursue litigation with every politician who received contributions from Stanford,” Mr. Powers said. “The receiver nevertheless calls on the remaining holdouts to do the right thing and to return the contributions for the benefit of the victims of the Stanford fraud.”

To join the debate click here. 

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

Five years since swindle, some Stanford victims now threatened with lawsuit

By Stephanie Riegel Published Feb 17, 2014 at 2:38

This month marks five years since investors with the now-defunct Stanford Group—which had a large presence in Baton Rouge—first learned they were victims of a $7 billion Ponzi scheme. And, though R. Allen Stanford has since been convicted and sent to prison for the massive fraud, most of the 28,000 investors who thought they were buying certificates of deposit from Stanford International Bank in Antigua have yet to recoup more than 1% of their lost savings. 

Now, adding insult to injury, some local victims are getting emails from a receiver in the case threatening to sue them in connection with claims they filed to recover their funds. "We're being terrorized again after five years," says Blaine Smith, a local Stanford victim, who lost more than $1 million through Stanford and is among those who have received the emails. "It's really kind of sick."

 Smith says the emails are coming from Grant Thornton, an Antiguan-based receiver that is supposed to be helping victims recoup lost funds. There is also a U.S. receiver in the case. Smith has filed claims with both. 

In his letter, Grant Thornton tells Smith that because he withdrew nearly $22,000 in interest payments from his account with Stanford back in 2008—before the Ponzi scheme had been uncovered by the Securities and Exchange Commission—he must return the money before his claim is processed. "Failure to repay may result in the estate seeking judgment against you," the letter reads.

 Smith has been in contact with Angela Kogutt, the head of the Stanford Victims Coalition, which advocates in Washington, D.C., for Stanford victims. In an email to Smith, Kogutt says other victims have also received the email and that she is trying to get to the bottom of the matter.

 Smith has also contacted the offices of U.S. Sens. Mary Landrieu and David Vitter, as well as U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy, who he says have been very supportive and helpful.

 Stanford is serving a 110-year prison sentence in Florida, while multiple lawsuits rage on over victim compensation. Kogutt was recently quoted in the national media as saying it could be years before victims recoup any of their lost investments.

To join the debate click here.

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

Letter from COVISAL Regarding Clawbacks from Grant Thornton

February 17, 2014

Stanford’s victims feel defrauded again by the Joint Liquidators Marcus Wide & Hugh Dickson of Grant Thornton.

 Innocent Stanford victims are in a panic - many suffering emotional distress.

 Today marks the five year anniversary of the Stanford debacle and the Joint Liquidators Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson, of Grant Thornton, decided to give Stanford’s defrauded depositors an anniversary present - a letter asking for the return of money that they withdrew during the six months prior to the collapse of the Stanford International Bank Limited (“SIBL”).

 The Letter from Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson of Grant Thornton reads as follows:

 I write further to my previous notification to you regarding your claim, which was allowed in the amount of (x dollars) under the above Primary Express Account. 

 A significant amount of funds was withdrawn in the six-month period preceding SIB ceasing to trade of 23 February 2009. We consider that these payments were unfairly prejudicial to the other creditors of the Company under sections 204 of the Antigua and Barbuda International Business Corporations Act and thus preferential (the Preference Payments). In order to re-balance the creditors’ position, we are initiating a claw back process through the Courts against creditors who have received Preference Payments. 

 According to the Company records, you have received Preference Payments of US$ x which we require be repaid to the Estate. Please see the attached breakdown showing how your Preference Payment was calculated. 

 On repayment of the Preference Payment, your claim will be increased by the amount repaid resulting in a revised claim of US$ x, which will be used to calculate distributions as they are paid from time to time. 

Failure to repay the Preference Payment will result in the estate withholding dividends until sufficient funds are held back to offset the full amount of the Preference Payment you received; at point, you will be eligible to receive future dividends. Failure to repay may also result in the estate seeking judgment against you and to collect the Preference amount. 

 The Court has approved this decision to adjust your entitlement to any distribution in the future. You do however have the right to challenge this decision. If you with to challenge this decision, the Court has directed that in the first instance, you must apply directly to the Joint Liquidators at Stanford.enquiries@uk.gt.com or the address above within 120 days of the date of this correspondence. All future communication regarding this claim should include the Primary Express Account Number. This will serve as your claim number. 

Yours sincerely 

For and on behalf of the Stanford International Bank Limited (in Liquidation) 

Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson 

 Joint Liquidators

The letter sent by the Joint Liquidators to investors challenging the above decision: 

 “Dear Sir/Madam, 

 Thank you for your email. 

 Your objection has been received and added to our system. You are not required to do anything more at this point. 

 All objections raised are being collated by the Joint Liquidators. Once the 120-day period expires, the objecting parties will be contacted and advised of the next steps. 

 Please note that the Joint Liquidators reserve the right to pursue the investor if they do not repay the preference payments. 

 If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Yours faithfully 
 For and on behalf of 
 Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson”

 Victims’ reactions: 

Many Stanford’s victims have contacted COViSAL to express their anger and disbelief. They are in shock after receiving this sinister claw back letter from the Joint Liquidators. Innocent families have been waiting for any meaningful distribution of their stolen savings; the majority of them have been enduring five years of hardship, unable to pay for living expenses or medical treatments. Mr. Wide and Mr. Dickson's shotgun approach to claw back investors who withdrew money from their principal invested at SIBL is cruel and horrific. The Joint Liquidators did not consider the consequences to the well being of many victims in poor health and emotional fragility before sending this blunt and damaging letter.

 “I am doing my best to contain the actual kind of foul language that I truly wish to use after reading this embarrassing letter sent by your company. I could not sleep when I read it last night at 2:00 a.m. in the morning wondering HOW, JUST HOW can I explain this NONSENSE to my parents when I translate the letter for them? It is an absolute disgrace and you, your company, and/or whichever court might have come up with this ruling should be ashamed before God, family, and life itself,” one victim wrote to Mr. Wide and Mr. Dickson, objecting to the letter.

 “The letter that I just received from Grant Thornton is affecting me emotionally… I never received the amount of my allowed claim; I wrote to them many times and I am still waiting for an answer,” another victim said.

 “What I understand from the letter is that according to them, I received ‘preferential payments’ that were prejudicial to other investors!!! So, what was I?... That I have to return an amount of money so they would consider returning something that was already mine?…”, a victim commented.

 “This act is an aberration, and a total injustice. Now the Joint Liquidators have found a way to keep getting a paycheck for themselves and their comrades for a long time. They are keeping the money they were supposed to distribute to victims; they found an easy target - the innocent families that knew nothing of this fraud.”

 “The Joint Liquidators should go after the net winners who took all of their money out, such as the Antiguan government that confiscated properties and received millions of dollars in loans from our savings." “The Joint Liquidators have not recovered any assets and are desperate to maintain most of the money assigned by the Department of Justice from the repatriation of funds from England."

 The facts: 

 The innocent families, who had their life savings deposited at SIBL in Antigua, did not know and had no previous knowledge of the bank’s problems. It is a fact that the majority of the depositors only became aware that SIBL was in trouble when the SEC intervened the Stanford Financial Group on February 17, 2009.

 In reference to the withdrawals made by the majority of depositors during the six months prior to the closing of SIBL’s operations, they were not “Preferential Payments,” they were Legitimate Withdrawals of part of their principal by the rightful owners of the money, which they deposited and withdrew at the bank during the ordinary course of business of SIBL. These withdrawals were made rightfully and in good faith. Families withdrew part of their invested principal to pay for living expenses, medical treatments, to help a relative in financial need, for a down payment to buy a home or to buy a car, to pay for a vacation, or to start a business.

 These families lost all of their life savings in Stanford’s fraud; many sold their homes and other assets they had left to be able to survive. The majority of investors in the SIBL were common people, families that worked very hard for 30-40 years to save money for their retirement, for a college fund for their children or grandchildren, and to have savings available for a medical emergency, among other things.

During the past five years, victims of the fraud have been living in dire straits; many died because they could not bear the news of losing their savings or because they could not pay for a life saving operation. The Stanford fiasco destroyed their lives. Recently, the Joint Liquidators announced a 1% distribution of the victims' approved net remaining principal after the interests and withdrawals were deducted. Families saw a light of hope with the announcement. However, Mr. Wide & Mr. Dickson decided to drop a bombshell at the last minute by sending these cold and calculated letters to innocent depositors, asking them to return their own money to the Estate.

 Show me the money! 

 Mr. Wide, Mr. Dickson and their colleagues have received millions of dollars from our stolen savings in fees and expenses, and so far they have not recovered any significant assets. Now, they want to exclude honest victims from a rightful distribution, including the money that was confiscated in England, and that according to the U.S. Department of Justice was to be distributed to the innocent families.

Why don't they go after the “Net Winners” and the insiders who took all of their money out; such as financial advisors and directors, major clients, large institutions, wealthy individuals and the government of Antigua that confiscated Stanford’s properties and owes Stanford’s Estate millions of dollars in loans that were taken from our savings?

It seems that the money available from our stolen savings is simply petty cash for the attorneys and professionals managing the Liquidation of SIBL. They are getting rich quick, while the victims are unable to pay for their living expenses and medical bills, many continuing to live in poverty.

 Where are the morals and the good conscience of the people responsible for the Stanford case? 

COViSAL’s requests

• We ask the Joint Liquidators to stop the claw backs on innocent families, victims of this horrendous fraud who are “Net Losers.” You signed a joint agreement with the U.S. Receiver, and other parties, to go after the "Net Winners.” 
• We ask that all innocent victims be included in the upcoming 1% distribution that you recently announced, and any other future distribution, without being held prisoner through a 120-day holding period with an unclear and uncertain outcome. 
• We ask the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Receiver, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Stanford Examiner, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee, who jointly signed an agreement with the Joint Liquidators, to voice their opinion on the matter and demand that the Joint Liquidators stop these cruel actions that are hurting innocent families. 
• We ask the Courts in Antigua not to allow the Joint Liquidators, who were named to prevent the waste and squandering of the creditors' patrimony, to continue consuming what’s left of our stolen savings, and now, go after innocent investors. 

The actions in pursuing claw backs against innocent investors are supported by neither logic nor law. The Estate stands to expend a substantial amount of resources with little prospect for a meaningful recovery - money that could be use to help victims in need.

 Why prolong the suffering of innocent victims who do not have any means to defend themselves before the Courts of Antigua?

 What honest and transparent legal entity is providing oversight of the liquidation process?

 Where are the checks and balances?

 COViSAL hopes that the authorities responsible for the Stanford Case and the courts in Antigua make their principles coincide with their actions and show the world, with actions, its commitment to honesty, equality and justice.

 May God bless the hearts of the thousands of innocent families - victims of a fraud that still continues!

 To join the debate click here. 

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

Five years after Stanford scandal, many victims penniless

By: Scott Cohn

Five years after learning they were victims of a $7 billion Ponzi scheme, investors in the Stanford Financial Group say they feel abandoned, even though their losses rival those in the Madoff scam that was revealed two months earlier.

Unlike the Madoff case, in which a court-appointed trustee has said he is well on his way to recovering all of the investors' principal—estimated at $17.5 billion—Stanford victims have recovered less than one penny on the dollar since the Securities and Exchange Commission sued the firm and a court placed it in receivership on Feb. 17, 2009.

"I do have to say the Stanford victims do feel like the stepchildren in the Ponzi world," said Angela Shaw Kogutt, who estimates her family lost $4.5 million in the scam. Shaw heads the Stanford Victims Coalition, which has been trying for years to drum up support in Washington.

Some 28,000 investors—10 times the number of direct investors in the Madoff case—bought certificates of deposit from Stanford International Bank in Antigua, which was owned by Texas financier R. Allen Stanford. Stanford's U.S. sales force had promised the investors—many of them retired oil workers—that the CDs were at least as safe as instruments from a U.S. bank. But a jury later found most of the clients' money financed Stanford's lavish lifestyle instead of the high-grade securities and real estate it was supposed to. 

Stanford, who portrayed himself as a self-made billionaire, exuded the American Dream. He claimed to have built his global financial empire from a family insurance business in his rural hometown of Mexia, Texas. A generous contributor to politicians of all stripes, Stanford effectively took over the financial sector in Antigua while nurturing rumors of his unique connections.

But asked directly by CNBC in 2009 about suggestions he was a government informant, Stanford demurred.

"You talkin' about the CIA?" he asked. "I'm not gonna talk about that."

On the eve of the fifth anniversary of the scandal, Dallas attorney Ralph Janvey, appointed by a federal judge to head the receivership and round up assets for the victims, said he feels the victims' pain.

"Even though my team and I have worked hard and made much progress over the last five years, the process of unwinding the fraud and the pace of recovering money have been frustratingly slow," Janvey wrote in an open letter to "all those affected by the Stanford fraud."

In the Stanford case, progress is relative.

Last April, Janvey won court approval to begin distributing $55 million to some investors. In the letter, he said $25 million has already been distributed, another $5.5 million could be paid this month and another $18 million in Stanford assets from Canada could be distributed this year as well. 

But the rest of the investors' money was either spent by Stanford or is tied up in litigation. Janvey said some $200 million in assets is in Swiss banks and tied up in the criminal forfeiture process. He has sued dozens of people and institutions that allegedly profited from the Ponzi scheme, seeking more than $680 million. The prospects for recovering anything close to that amount, however, are unclear.

"Asset recovery litigation is difficult, lengthy and expensive," Janvey wrote. "The defendants, many of whom have significant resources, are defending the cases aggressively, and many of the favorable rulings in these cases have already been appealed."

Further complicating matters, victims allege: the Justice Department has not been as aggressive in the Stanford case as it has been in the Madoff case.

Even the federal judge overseeing the Stanford receivership, David Godbey in Dallas, made note of the apparent contrast during a status hearing Jan. 16, a week after authorities announced a $2 billion settlement with JPMorgan Chase for its role in the Madoff scandal.

"I read with interest in the media that JPMorgan Chase is paying the Madoff folks a whole bunch of money. I assume our check will follow shortly," Godbey said, according to a transcript of the hearing.

No fewer than five banks—though not JPMorgan Chase—have been sued in the Stanford case for allegedly facilitating the fraud, but there have been no signs of interest from criminal authorities. A spokesman for the Justice Department did not respond to a request for a comment.

The government did prosecute Allen Stanford and several of his top executives. Stanford, 63, is serving a 110-year sentence at a federal penitentiary in Florida. He has appealed his 2012 conviction on 13 criminal counts, but with his assets frozen and having fired his court-appointed attorney, Stanford is representing himself and filing handwritten legal motions from prison. One was filed March 4, 2013 and another on March 12, 2013.

"I or any other American citizen deserve better than this," he wrote in a filing last March. "The presumed innocent part of our constitution is only a myth in America today."

The pending appeal is yet another complication for Stanford's victims, since approximately $300 million he was ordered to forfeit as a result of his conviction cannot be released until the appeals process is complete.

But one of the biggest sources of frustration for the victims is another stark contrast to the Madoff case. 

The Securities Investor Protection Corp. (SIPC), which insures U.S. brokerage accounts, has refused to pay Stanford victims, while qualified Madoff victims are eligible for SIPC's maximum coverage of $500,000 per account.

The SEC sued SIPC in 2012 on behalf of the Stanford investors, arguing they also were entitled to coverage, as Stanford's U.S. brokerage was an SIPC member. But SIPC says its insurance covers only securities, and even if the Stanford CDs are considered securities, they are worthless.

The judge in the case sided with SIPC. A federal appeals panel is considering the SEC's appeal, and victims are anxiously waiting for a ruling.

"I really think the only chance the victims really have to recover something is either years down the road or through SIPC," said Kogutt of the victims' coalition.

Because many of the victims are elderly, there is no time to waste. Since the scandal broke in 2009, 176 of Stanford's investors have died. 

To join the debate click here. 

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

Stanford Lodges another appeal March 12th 2013

Allen Stanford lodged a second appeal on March 12th 2013, this is particularly relevant to victims since approximately $300 million he was ordered to forfeit as a result of his conviction cannot be released until the appeals process is complete.

 Allen Stanford intends to represent himself in the appeal, below is the hand written letter Stanford sent to the 5th circuit court of appeals, it makes interesting reading and shows Stanford's state of mind.

Stanford Appeals Letter Mar12 2013 by Stanfords Forgotten Victims

To join the debate click here.


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

Stanford Lodges Appeal March 4th 2013

Allen Stanford lodged an appeal on March 4th 2013, this is particularly relevant to victims since approximately $300 million he was ordered to forfeit as a result of his conviction cannot be released until the appeals process is complete.

 Allen Stanford intends to represent himself in the appeal, below is the hand written letter Stanford sent to the 5th circuit court of appeals, it makes interesting reading and shows Stanford's state of mind.

Stanford Appeal Mar 4 2013 by Stanfords Forgotten Victims

To join the debate click here.


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

Open Letter From Stanford Receiver Dated February 14, 2014

Stanford Financial Group Receivership 

 1029 State Highway 6 North I Suite 650-272 1 Houston, TX 77079 

 Phone 866.964.6301 

 February 14, 2014

 To All Those Affected by the Stanford Fraud:

 It has been five years since the Court appointed me as Receiver to unwind the world-wide Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Allen Stanford and those who aided, abetted and enabled him. I know that these continue to be very difficult times for the thousands of you whose lives were impacted, and in many cases devastated, by the Stanford fraud. Even though my team and I have worked hard and made much progress over the last 5 years, the process of unwinding the fraud and the pace of recovering money have been frustratingly slow. Unfortunately, the costs associated with this process have been substantial. Although many challenges still lie ahead, the entire Receivership team and I are committed to working as hard as we can to recover as much money as we can for the eligible claimants.

To read the full transcript click here.


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

Preference Payments Frequently Asked Questions

Below is a list of frequently asked questions regarding Grant Thornton's approach to preference payments.


1. What is a Preference payment?
2. How is this relevant in the Stanford International Bank matter?
3. Why have I received a Preference letter?
4. What shall I do if I have received a Preference letter?
5. Why has my claim increased?
6. What happens once I repay the Preference payment to the Estate?
7. What happens if I do not repay the Preference payment to the Estate?
8. What do I do if I disagree with this approach?


To find the answer to these questions and more click here:


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