Showing posts with label Angela Kogutt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Angela Kogutt. Show all posts
Tuesday, 29 May 2012
Wednesday, 17 August 2011
CONSOLIDATED REPLY TO RESPONSES BY SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, RECEIVER, EXAMINER AND OFFICIAL STANFORD INVESTORS COMMITTEE
CONSOLIDATED REPLY TO RESPONSES BY SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, RECEIVER, EXAMINER AND OFFICIAL STANFORD INVESTORS COMMITTEE TO KLS STANFORD VICTIMS’ MOTION TO INTERVENE AND FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE OFFICIAL STANFORD INVESTOR COMMITTEE
Intervention Reply (Filed Ver. With Exhibits)
Intervention Reply (Filed Ver. With Exhibits)
Friday, 18 February 2011
DISMAY AS OFFICIAL STANFORD INVESTORS COMMITTEE FILE LAWSUIT AGAINST ST JUDE’S CHILDREN’S CANCER HOSPITAL CHARITY
On this day today, the second anniversary of the civil action by the SEC against the Stanford Financial Group, wholly owned by Allen Stanford awaiting trial on 23 counts of fraud in Texas, allegedly too incompetent to stand trial after being beaten-up in prison and fed a cocktail of anti-depressants. What have we learned?
Firstly Allen Stanford is apparently competent enough today to file a lawsuit against the US prosecutors, the FBI and SEC, accusing them of ‘abusive law enforcement’ and seeking $7.2bn in damages. Since he was declared indigenous after Lloyds of London contested their officer’s insurance policy, following the hiring and firing of a carousel of well tailored attorneys, he is now represented by two public defenders. It begs the question who is paying for his lawsuit, and how did he miraculously recover well enough to instruct them.
Now he has recovered, please let the criminal trial begin, and that $7.2bn would also be the same amount the innocent victims of the alleged Stanford fraud have lost. If he’s so innocent, where‘s the money?
On this day today, the Statute of Limitations for any lawsuits in connection with the Stanford case also expired.
Three months ago we woke up to the fact the so-called (SIC) Stanford Investors Committee was going to do nothing very much to help us, so we found a new attorney and launched our own campaign to file FTCA claims against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), for their negligence in not closing down Stanford sooner. They knew he was a fraud 13 years ago. Some of the SEC were merely asleep on the job, while others were caught with their pants down watching porn on their computers. The campaign has been a resounding success, and several thousand Stanford investors have now filed claims.
On this day today, we also anticipated a flood of claims from the receiver and the (SIC) Stanford Investors Committee, who have reportedly been toiling away tirelessly for several months in total secrecy, all in our best interests.
We anticipated a plethora of lawsuits against, amongst others;
BDO Seidman, one of the worlds largest accounting firms, who audited Stanford Group Company, and who fudged their accounts four years running to hide from SIPC it was insolvent and only being supported by tainted funds from SIB in Antigua.
FINRA, who twice fined Stanford for misleading investors, a mere slap on the wrist, but despite all the red flags, could see no further..
The State of Florida, who through their Dept of Banking and Finance granted the newly formed (in 1998) Stanford Fiduciary Investor Services, the illegal right to move vast amounts of money offshore without the reporting a penny to regulators. Yes, Jeb Bush the brother of former President George W Bush became Governor of Florida earlier that same year, and both were recipients of generous campaign donations from Allen Stanford.
Greenburg Traurig, the deep pocketed Miami lawfirm who lobbied endlessly to set up Stanfords Florida deal, and who have been implicated in numerous other murky transactions.
Forbes, and who could forget their endorsement of Stanford as one of Americas richest 40 billionaires with $50bn under management. They gave Stanford his greatest aura of credibility.
One would have anticipated, with four experienced attorneys on the (SIC) Stanford Investors Committee; together with the examiner, the receiver, and Angela Shaw Kogutt, the director and founder of the SVC; these would all be rich pickings; but did they choose to file any suits against any of these? No, not one.
On this day today, sadly, we learned they chose instead to file a suit against St Jude’s, the children’s cancer research hospital charity who give hope to sick children and their families. Allen Stanford donated $7m towards St Jude’s, quite possibly the only truly good deed the ‘Knight’ ever did. No matter where those funds came from, there is one indisputable fact; St Jude’s received and spent them in good faith to keep a lot of sick kids alive, and who can begrudge them that?
On this day today, it should have been the day we were all celebrating having made the first step towards recovery from the US Government, who knew for 13 years that Allen Sanford was a fraud, but did nothing. Instead I am sickened that the Stanford Investors Committee, who supposedly act in our best interests, could have instigated such a callous and insensitive action against such a deserving institution as St Jude’s without our knowledge, and without our consent.
To all the Stanford investors reading this, I urge you to write or email the Stanford Investors Committee members to withdraw this suit against St Jude’s. In the eyes of the world we are all as equally guilty as those undeserving members of the committee who are behind it. Please let us do one good thing and make this right.
Thank you
Richard
Firstly Allen Stanford is apparently competent enough today to file a lawsuit against the US prosecutors, the FBI and SEC, accusing them of ‘abusive law enforcement’ and seeking $7.2bn in damages. Since he was declared indigenous after Lloyds of London contested their officer’s insurance policy, following the hiring and firing of a carousel of well tailored attorneys, he is now represented by two public defenders. It begs the question who is paying for his lawsuit, and how did he miraculously recover well enough to instruct them.
Now he has recovered, please let the criminal trial begin, and that $7.2bn would also be the same amount the innocent victims of the alleged Stanford fraud have lost. If he’s so innocent, where‘s the money?
On this day today, the Statute of Limitations for any lawsuits in connection with the Stanford case also expired.
Three months ago we woke up to the fact the so-called (SIC) Stanford Investors Committee was going to do nothing very much to help us, so we found a new attorney and launched our own campaign to file FTCA claims against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), for their negligence in not closing down Stanford sooner. They knew he was a fraud 13 years ago. Some of the SEC were merely asleep on the job, while others were caught with their pants down watching porn on their computers. The campaign has been a resounding success, and several thousand Stanford investors have now filed claims.
On this day today, we also anticipated a flood of claims from the receiver and the (SIC) Stanford Investors Committee, who have reportedly been toiling away tirelessly for several months in total secrecy, all in our best interests.
We anticipated a plethora of lawsuits against, amongst others;
BDO Seidman, one of the worlds largest accounting firms, who audited Stanford Group Company, and who fudged their accounts four years running to hide from SIPC it was insolvent and only being supported by tainted funds from SIB in Antigua.
FINRA, who twice fined Stanford for misleading investors, a mere slap on the wrist, but despite all the red flags, could see no further..
The State of Florida, who through their Dept of Banking and Finance granted the newly formed (in 1998) Stanford Fiduciary Investor Services, the illegal right to move vast amounts of money offshore without the reporting a penny to regulators. Yes, Jeb Bush the brother of former President George W Bush became Governor of Florida earlier that same year, and both were recipients of generous campaign donations from Allen Stanford.
Greenburg Traurig, the deep pocketed Miami lawfirm who lobbied endlessly to set up Stanfords Florida deal, and who have been implicated in numerous other murky transactions.
Forbes, and who could forget their endorsement of Stanford as one of Americas richest 40 billionaires with $50bn under management. They gave Stanford his greatest aura of credibility.
One would have anticipated, with four experienced attorneys on the (SIC) Stanford Investors Committee; together with the examiner, the receiver, and Angela Shaw Kogutt, the director and founder of the SVC; these would all be rich pickings; but did they choose to file any suits against any of these? No, not one.
On this day today, sadly, we learned they chose instead to file a suit against St Jude’s, the children’s cancer research hospital charity who give hope to sick children and their families. Allen Stanford donated $7m towards St Jude’s, quite possibly the only truly good deed the ‘Knight’ ever did. No matter where those funds came from, there is one indisputable fact; St Jude’s received and spent them in good faith to keep a lot of sick kids alive, and who can begrudge them that?
On this day today, it should have been the day we were all celebrating having made the first step towards recovery from the US Government, who knew for 13 years that Allen Sanford was a fraud, but did nothing. Instead I am sickened that the Stanford Investors Committee, who supposedly act in our best interests, could have instigated such a callous and insensitive action against such a deserving institution as St Jude’s without our knowledge, and without our consent.
To all the Stanford investors reading this, I urge you to write or email the Stanford Investors Committee members to withdraw this suit against St Jude’s. In the eyes of the world we are all as equally guilty as those undeserving members of the committee who are behind it. Please let us do one good thing and make this right.
Thank you
Richard
Saturday, 29 January 2011
ONLY TWO WEEKS NOW BEFORE THE DEADLINE FOR STANFORD FINANCIAL GROUP INVESTORS EXPIRES
The deadline for FTCA claims by investors of the failed Stanford Financial Group against the US Securities and Exchange Commission is now just 18 days.
Investors in the failed Stanford International Bank, a part of the Stanford Financial Group, in receivership since the arrest of Allen Stanford, who is currently in detention in Houston awaiting trial on 23 charges of fraud, have just two weeks left to submit administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the US Securities and Exchange Commission, for their negligence in not closing down Allen Stanford sooner, despite knowing for 13 years it was likely he was operating a Ponzi scheme. Had they done so earlier many thousands of investors would have been spared the loss of their life savings.
The deadline for claims is fast approaching. Unless claims are submitted correctly and timely, and delivery receipted by the SEC before the two year Statute of Limitations expires, on the 16th February 2011, Stanford investors will be denied any recovery from the US government, forever.
Stanford investors have engaged an attorney to submit FTCA claims against the SEC. This action against the SEC is a real chance for full recovery of losses from the failed Stanford Financial Group. It will not prejudice any SIPC recovery efforts, and is open to all the Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality, or place of residence.
CLAIMS TAKE SEVERAL DAYS TO PROCESS AND MUST BE SUBMITTED CORRECTLY AND TIMELY BEFORE THE 16th FEBRUARY OR THEY WILL BE REJECTED
Any Stanford investors who have not yet decided, should contact their attorney at their earliest opportunity, or the attorney the Stanford investors have hired: Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Mass, who already have considerable experience of submitting FTCA claims on behalf of the Madoff investors. Email: info@kachroolegal.com
Should any Stanford investors wish for more detail of the campaign and the various arguments, please register for our private investor’s forum, which is free of charge and available to all bona-fide investors in the failed Stanford Financial Group: http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
Investors in the failed Stanford International Bank, a part of the Stanford Financial Group, in receivership since the arrest of Allen Stanford, who is currently in detention in Houston awaiting trial on 23 charges of fraud, have just two weeks left to submit administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the US Securities and Exchange Commission, for their negligence in not closing down Allen Stanford sooner, despite knowing for 13 years it was likely he was operating a Ponzi scheme. Had they done so earlier many thousands of investors would have been spared the loss of their life savings.
The deadline for claims is fast approaching. Unless claims are submitted correctly and timely, and delivery receipted by the SEC before the two year Statute of Limitations expires, on the 16th February 2011, Stanford investors will be denied any recovery from the US government, forever.
Stanford investors have engaged an attorney to submit FTCA claims against the SEC. This action against the SEC is a real chance for full recovery of losses from the failed Stanford Financial Group. It will not prejudice any SIPC recovery efforts, and is open to all the Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality, or place of residence.
CLAIMS TAKE SEVERAL DAYS TO PROCESS AND MUST BE SUBMITTED CORRECTLY AND TIMELY BEFORE THE 16th FEBRUARY OR THEY WILL BE REJECTED
Any Stanford investors who have not yet decided, should contact their attorney at their earliest opportunity, or the attorney the Stanford investors have hired: Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Mass, who already have considerable experience of submitting FTCA claims on behalf of the Madoff investors. Email: info@kachroolegal.com
Should any Stanford investors wish for more detail of the campaign and the various arguments, please register for our private investor’s forum, which is free of charge and available to all bona-fide investors in the failed Stanford Financial Group: http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
RESPECTO A SU DERECHO A RECLAMARLE AL GOBIERNO DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS Y EL PORQUE SUS SUPUESTOS “LIDERES” SE OPONEN A QUE USTED LO HAGA.
Estimados Inversionistas y Victimas de Stanford:
En relación a su derecho legal a presentar su reclamo ante la SEC (Comisión de Banca y Valores del Gobierno de USA) sobre el cual hemos venido informándole a través de nuestros contactos con usted, ha habido una serie de acusaciones bastante difamatorias provenientes de algunos de los autodenominados “lideres” de coaliciones ficticias de victimas de Stanford.
Todos estos escritos injuriosos, calumniosos y difamatorios están destinados a desacreditar nuestro esfuerzo por tratar de informarle a usted sobre las alternativas y las consecuencias de ejercer o no su derecho en cuanto a presentar o no su reclamo administrativo en tiempo y forma ante la SEC.
Como uno de los promotores de este curso de acción, considero lamentable pero necesario el tener que referirme a estas falsas afirmaciones y sugiero que usted se pregunte sobre las verdaderas motivaciones de estos falsos líderes para oponerse a que usted haga uso del derecho que le corresponde.
Hace un poco más de dos meses, una miembro de los que ahora constituimos un grupo internacional de victimas de Stanford, le escribió una carta al comité “de inversionistas” autorizado por el Juez Godbey, preguntándoles si tenían alguna intención de tomar alguna acción en contra de la SEC, dado el informe condenatorio de la propia Oficina del Inspector General de la SEC contra la misma SEC y la inminente prescripción de nuestros derechos en ese sentido, conforme a la ley estadounidense llamada El Estatuto de Limitaciones.
Hasta este momento, la peticionaria aun continúa esperando la respuesta a dicha pregunta. Sin embargo, a raíz de una discusión posterior que ella tuvo con uno de los abogados miembro de dicho comité, según nos informo, se desprende que dicho comité “de inversionistas” no tenía, ni tiene, ninguna intención aparente de iniciar ningún tipo de acción que nos proteja a todos en ese sentido. Poco después, nos reunimos un grupo de inversionistas de ideas afines para buscar un abogado que nos representara, no solo en presentar un reclamo, sino también en una posible demanda futura contra la SEC.
El número de abogados con experiencia exitosa en hacer un reclamo contra la SEC o el gobierno de los Estados Unidos, es bien reducido y después de largas investigaciones y muchas entrevistas encontramos a la Dra. Gaytri Kachroo, quien ya había presentado reclamos ante la SEC a favor de muchas víctimas de Madoff. Todos quedamos verdaderamente impresionados, no sólo por sus logros académicos excelentes, sino por SU EXPERIENCIA y antecedentes intachables. Además, porque siempre ha demostrado una actitud humana y llena de compasión respecto a nuestra situación, asegurándonos que ella está dispuesta a llegar hasta el final con nosotros.
Unos días después, una muchacha que dice ser “líder” de una de varias ficticias “coaliciones de víctimas de Stanford” también contactó a la Dra. Kachroo, logrando que la Dra. Kachroo accediese a dirigirse al comité “de inversionistas” autorizado por el Juez Godbey en relación al éxito tenido por ella, en los reclamos que promovió a favor de las victimas de Madoff.
En dicha reunión, hemos sido informados, todos los abogados que integran dicho comité indicaron que no tenían ninguna intención de llevar este caso contra el gobierno porque todos estaban ocupados en otros litigios. Todos concordaron con que la Dra. Kachroo se encontraba en una posición óptima para promover esta acción legal, lo que genero la esperanza de que todas las victimas de Stanford lograran unirse en el proceso de reclamos ante la SEC.
Adicionalmente, es de nuestro conocimiento que se invito a través de varios canales, a otro así autodenominado “líder” de otra supuesta “coalición de victimas” residente en Sur América para que procediera, -ya que durante casi dos años inexplicablemente se abstuvo de hacerlo- a notificar de inmediato a todos sus supuestos contactos en América Latina sobre este derecho que les otorgan las leyes de Estados Unidos para presentar un reclamo administrativo ante la SEC.
No queremos insistir sobre toda el agua que ha pasado bajo el puente desde entonces, pero nuestras esperanzas de que esta acción pudiera unir a todas las victimas bajo un proceso común y unificado, aparentemente han entrado en conflicto con los intereses personales de estos autodenominados “lideres”, ya que consideran que esto NO solo les ocasiona pérdida de “protagonismo” SINO, LO QUE ES PEOR, la posible perdida de una fuente de ingresos monetarios permanente, a la que ya se habían venido acostumbrando…
En su lugar, lo que obtuvimos de estos individuos ha sido una andanada de ataques difamatorios, incluyendo acusaciones de irregularidades, entre muchas otras, todas destinadas a ocasionarnos descredito. Y algunas, de la enorme cantidad de víctimas que han ejercido su derecho a registrarse con la Dra. Kachroo, han sido amenazadas en muy diversas formas en un desesperado y fallido intento de mantener lo que han llegado a considerar como “su clientela”, bajo su total y absoluto control.
Desde que iniciamos este curso de acción, todo lo que hemos intentado es hacer que muchos inversionistas de Stanford tomen conciencia de cuáles son sus verdaderos derechos e informarles sobre una posibilidad importante en la búsqueda por recuperar su inversión. Es decir, hemos tratado de ayudar a que usted tome una decisión educada en cuanto a preservar su derecho de reclamo ante la SEC antes de que prescriba dicho derecho a ejecutar dicha acción este próximo 16 de febrero.
Sino lo hubiéramos hecho usted habría perdido lo que podría terminar siendo su última posibilidad realista de recuperar su dinero, ya que sus autodenominados “lideres” se lo estuvieron ocultando durante casi dos años y NO TENIAN LA MENOR INTENCION de permitir que usted se enterara. AHORA, al no poder detener el rio con una cubeta es que les quieren enseñar a llenar sus formularios… solo para seguir justificando su “existencia como lideres” suyos y para que usted les continúe enviando dinero para “las operaciones” de sus falsas “coaliciones”.
Si usted desea llenar su formulario por su cuenta, o lo que es peor, siguiendo los consejos de estos individuos, le deseamos mucha buena suerte pues con casi total seguridad que su reclamo terminara siendo rechazado. Esto no es un trabajo para personas que no son profesionales de las Leyes graduados en una Universidad de Leyes de los Estados Unidos.
Tampoco es un juego como para dejarse guiar por gente irresponsable que no siente su perdida por que ni siquiera son victimas verdaderas. Es decir, estos “guías” o “lideres” como se hacen llamar, NUNCA sudaron un dólar y NUNCA perdieron un centavo de su propiedad, en esta terrible tragedia. Para entender la conducta de ellos solo recuerde usted el dicho “en rio revuelto, ganancia de PESCADORES”.
Si usted seriamente desea adherirse a este reclamo entre en contacto ahora mismo con el escritorio legal (bufete) de la Dra. Gaytri Kachroo ubicado en la ciudad de Boston donde el Asistente de la Dra. Kachroo, Sr. William Lugo podrá atenderle en Español a través de los teléfonos (617) 864-5575 y (617) 864-0755, vía Fax número (617) 864-1125 o escribiéndole al correo electrónico wlugo@kachroolegal.com
Le deseamos mucha suerte y que no se deje usted mal orientar.
William J. Taylor.
En relación a su derecho legal a presentar su reclamo ante la SEC (Comisión de Banca y Valores del Gobierno de USA) sobre el cual hemos venido informándole a través de nuestros contactos con usted, ha habido una serie de acusaciones bastante difamatorias provenientes de algunos de los autodenominados “lideres” de coaliciones ficticias de victimas de Stanford.
Todos estos escritos injuriosos, calumniosos y difamatorios están destinados a desacreditar nuestro esfuerzo por tratar de informarle a usted sobre las alternativas y las consecuencias de ejercer o no su derecho en cuanto a presentar o no su reclamo administrativo en tiempo y forma ante la SEC.
Como uno de los promotores de este curso de acción, considero lamentable pero necesario el tener que referirme a estas falsas afirmaciones y sugiero que usted se pregunte sobre las verdaderas motivaciones de estos falsos líderes para oponerse a que usted haga uso del derecho que le corresponde.
Hace un poco más de dos meses, una miembro de los que ahora constituimos un grupo internacional de victimas de Stanford, le escribió una carta al comité “de inversionistas” autorizado por el Juez Godbey, preguntándoles si tenían alguna intención de tomar alguna acción en contra de la SEC, dado el informe condenatorio de la propia Oficina del Inspector General de la SEC contra la misma SEC y la inminente prescripción de nuestros derechos en ese sentido, conforme a la ley estadounidense llamada El Estatuto de Limitaciones.
Hasta este momento, la peticionaria aun continúa esperando la respuesta a dicha pregunta. Sin embargo, a raíz de una discusión posterior que ella tuvo con uno de los abogados miembro de dicho comité, según nos informo, se desprende que dicho comité “de inversionistas” no tenía, ni tiene, ninguna intención aparente de iniciar ningún tipo de acción que nos proteja a todos en ese sentido. Poco después, nos reunimos un grupo de inversionistas de ideas afines para buscar un abogado que nos representara, no solo en presentar un reclamo, sino también en una posible demanda futura contra la SEC.
El número de abogados con experiencia exitosa en hacer un reclamo contra la SEC o el gobierno de los Estados Unidos, es bien reducido y después de largas investigaciones y muchas entrevistas encontramos a la Dra. Gaytri Kachroo, quien ya había presentado reclamos ante la SEC a favor de muchas víctimas de Madoff. Todos quedamos verdaderamente impresionados, no sólo por sus logros académicos excelentes, sino por SU EXPERIENCIA y antecedentes intachables. Además, porque siempre ha demostrado una actitud humana y llena de compasión respecto a nuestra situación, asegurándonos que ella está dispuesta a llegar hasta el final con nosotros.
Unos días después, una muchacha que dice ser “líder” de una de varias ficticias “coaliciones de víctimas de Stanford” también contactó a la Dra. Kachroo, logrando que la Dra. Kachroo accediese a dirigirse al comité “de inversionistas” autorizado por el Juez Godbey en relación al éxito tenido por ella, en los reclamos que promovió a favor de las victimas de Madoff.
En dicha reunión, hemos sido informados, todos los abogados que integran dicho comité indicaron que no tenían ninguna intención de llevar este caso contra el gobierno porque todos estaban ocupados en otros litigios. Todos concordaron con que la Dra. Kachroo se encontraba en una posición óptima para promover esta acción legal, lo que genero la esperanza de que todas las victimas de Stanford lograran unirse en el proceso de reclamos ante la SEC.
Adicionalmente, es de nuestro conocimiento que se invito a través de varios canales, a otro así autodenominado “líder” de otra supuesta “coalición de victimas” residente en Sur América para que procediera, -ya que durante casi dos años inexplicablemente se abstuvo de hacerlo- a notificar de inmediato a todos sus supuestos contactos en América Latina sobre este derecho que les otorgan las leyes de Estados Unidos para presentar un reclamo administrativo ante la SEC.
No queremos insistir sobre toda el agua que ha pasado bajo el puente desde entonces, pero nuestras esperanzas de que esta acción pudiera unir a todas las victimas bajo un proceso común y unificado, aparentemente han entrado en conflicto con los intereses personales de estos autodenominados “lideres”, ya que consideran que esto NO solo les ocasiona pérdida de “protagonismo” SINO, LO QUE ES PEOR, la posible perdida de una fuente de ingresos monetarios permanente, a la que ya se habían venido acostumbrando…
En su lugar, lo que obtuvimos de estos individuos ha sido una andanada de ataques difamatorios, incluyendo acusaciones de irregularidades, entre muchas otras, todas destinadas a ocasionarnos descredito. Y algunas, de la enorme cantidad de víctimas que han ejercido su derecho a registrarse con la Dra. Kachroo, han sido amenazadas en muy diversas formas en un desesperado y fallido intento de mantener lo que han llegado a considerar como “su clientela”, bajo su total y absoluto control.
Desde que iniciamos este curso de acción, todo lo que hemos intentado es hacer que muchos inversionistas de Stanford tomen conciencia de cuáles son sus verdaderos derechos e informarles sobre una posibilidad importante en la búsqueda por recuperar su inversión. Es decir, hemos tratado de ayudar a que usted tome una decisión educada en cuanto a preservar su derecho de reclamo ante la SEC antes de que prescriba dicho derecho a ejecutar dicha acción este próximo 16 de febrero.
Sino lo hubiéramos hecho usted habría perdido lo que podría terminar siendo su última posibilidad realista de recuperar su dinero, ya que sus autodenominados “lideres” se lo estuvieron ocultando durante casi dos años y NO TENIAN LA MENOR INTENCION de permitir que usted se enterara. AHORA, al no poder detener el rio con una cubeta es que les quieren enseñar a llenar sus formularios… solo para seguir justificando su “existencia como lideres” suyos y para que usted les continúe enviando dinero para “las operaciones” de sus falsas “coaliciones”.
Si usted desea llenar su formulario por su cuenta, o lo que es peor, siguiendo los consejos de estos individuos, le deseamos mucha buena suerte pues con casi total seguridad que su reclamo terminara siendo rechazado. Esto no es un trabajo para personas que no son profesionales de las Leyes graduados en una Universidad de Leyes de los Estados Unidos.
Tampoco es un juego como para dejarse guiar por gente irresponsable que no siente su perdida por que ni siquiera son victimas verdaderas. Es decir, estos “guías” o “lideres” como se hacen llamar, NUNCA sudaron un dólar y NUNCA perdieron un centavo de su propiedad, en esta terrible tragedia. Para entender la conducta de ellos solo recuerde usted el dicho “en rio revuelto, ganancia de PESCADORES”.
Si usted seriamente desea adherirse a este reclamo entre en contacto ahora mismo con el escritorio legal (bufete) de la Dra. Gaytri Kachroo ubicado en la ciudad de Boston donde el Asistente de la Dra. Kachroo, Sr. William Lugo podrá atenderle en Español a través de los teléfonos (617) 864-5575 y (617) 864-0755, vía Fax número (617) 864-1125 o escribiéndole al correo electrónico wlugo@kachroolegal.com
Le deseamos mucha suerte y que no se deje usted mal orientar.
William J. Taylor.
Friday, 28 January 2011
CARTA ABIERTA A LOS INVERSORES DE STANFORD CON RESPECTO A LAS RECLAMACIONES FTCA CONTRA LOS VALORES DE ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMERICA Y DE LA COMISIÓN DE CAMBIO
Estimados Inversionistas de Stanford,
Ha habido algunas acusaciones muy difamatorias de algunos de los grupos de inversionistas de Stanford, y algunos de sus abogados, e incluso de la Comisión de Inversionistas de Stanford en relacion con los reclamos contra los EE.UU – Todas estas difamaciones contra los reclamos que Ud debe de hacer propiamente están claramente destinados a desacreditar a los inversionistas detrás de este esfuerzo que les ha estado informando de las alternativas y de las consecuencias y de cuales son sus derechos para preservar sus derechos a reclamar contra la SEC, mediante la presentación de una reclamación administrativa.
Como uno de los instigadores de este curso de acción, creo que es hora de que algunas de las afirmaciones falsas y engañosas se ponen a descansar, y sugiero que Ud se pregunte cual es el verdadero motivo de estas personas que están detrás de estas falsas acusaciones.
El 15 de noviembre de 2010, hace poco más de dos meses, le escribió una carta preguntandoles al Comité de Inversionistas de Stanford (SIC) si tenían alguna intención de tomar cualquier acción en contra de la SEC, dado el informe de la OIG condenatorio y la próxima expiración de la ley del Estado de limitaciones. Hata este momento sigo esperandi la respuesta que nunca llego. Sin embargo, a raíz de una discusión posterior con uno de los abogados miembros de dicho Comité, se desprende la comisión no tenía ninguna intención de iniciar cualquier tipo de acción que nos proteja.
Poco después, me reuní con un pequeño grupo de inversores de ideas afines para buscar un nuevo abogado para que nos represente en una demanda contra la SEC. Primero fueron los intentos de que nos amordazaron, lo que tuvimos que superar. Desde entonces hemos trabajado día y noche, para reunir a una solución viable que pueda beneficiar a todos los inversionistas de Stanford.
El número de abogados con experiencia exitosa en hacer un reclamo contra los EE.UU y la SEC es muy limitado y despues de largas discusiones y entrevistas el Dr. Gaytri Kachroo de Servicios Legales (KLS), Firma que habia presentado reclamacionesde FTCA para mas de a 500 inversores de Madoff. Todod estamos verdaderamente impresionados, no sólo por sus logros académicos excelentes , pero por la forma en que ella ha había llegado a este nivel tan alto en su profesión,. Sin embargo, lmanisfesto siempre una actitud humana y llena de compassion y demostrando que esta dispuesta a llegar hasta el final con nosotros y lo más importante, es que ya había representado a los inversores en dos acciones en contra de los EE.UU y de la SEC exitosamente con argumentos muy plausibles para que podamos tener éxito en esta reclamacion contra EE.UU. y contra la ley federal de la SEC .
Alrededor del mismo tiempo, Angela Kogutt alias Angela Shaw, alias Angie West de la Coalición de Víctimas de Stanford (SVC) también se acercó al Dr. Kachroo, habiendo visto los comunicados de prensa relativos a las solicitudes a las víctimas de Madoff. El apoyo de la SVC se le ofrecía inicialmente, y el Dr. Kachroo fue invitado a dirigirse a la SIC, con vistas a la presentación de reclamaciones FTCA de protección para cada uno de los inversionistas de Stanford. En esta reunión, todos los abogados del SIC indicaron que no tenian ninguna intencion de perseguir este caso contra el Gobierno por que todos estaban ocupados en otros litigious contra terceras partes. A su juicio acordaron que el Dr. Kachroo se encontraba en una posicion optima para asumir esta acción contra el gobierno . Esto creó alguna esperanza de que todos los inversores de Stanford comúnmente podría unirse en el proceso contra la SEC.
Adicionalmente, se invitaron atraves de varios canals de comunicacion a participar en este proceso y accion a . Covisal, en América Latina, durante estas fechas para iniciar el proceso.
.
No quiero insistir en agua que ha pasado bajo el puente desde entonces, pero las esperanzas iniciales de que esta acción podria unir a todas las asociaciones diversas de inversionistas bajo un proceso comun y unido estaba fuera de lugar y era claro por los interteses particulars de estos groupos.
En su lugar, lo que se obtuvo han sido objeto de una andanada de ataques de Internet difamatorio, en su mayoría anónimos, incluyendo acusaciones de irregularidades, entre muchos otros, todos destinados para desacreditarnos. Y los inversores que han ejercido su derecho a unirse a nosotros han sido amenazados en muy diversas formas para evitar que este juicio contra EE.UU y contra la SEC siga adealante.
Podría habersde entendido que esta amenazas podrian haber venido de las mismas instituciones que se piensan enjuciar (SEC) ---- Sin embargo estos ataques han venido de personas que se suponen deben de estar ayudando a las victimas y no ha si mismo. Sim enbargo eso es lo que han demostrado.
Entendemos que esos intentos de desacreditarnos, y las amenazas de recurso legal, podrian venir solamente de parte de la EE.UU o de la SEC instituciones que son directamente responsible por todas nuestras perdidas -- Pero yo estoy completamente consternado que estas amenazas vienen solamente y en su totalidad de personas que pretenden trabajar en el mejor los intereses de los inversionistas de Stanford.
¿Cómo pueden afirmar que quieren ayudar a las victimas tratando de silenciarnos? ¿Cuál es la motivación detrás de estos ataques, y por qué son reacios contra los inversores de Stanford para preservar y respetar y guarder sus derechos de cualquier recuperación possible.?
Desde que se embarcó en este curso de acción, todo lo que se intenta es hacer que muchos inversionistas de Stanford tomen conciencia de cuales son sus verdaderas derechos y cuales son las posibilidades para la recuperación de sus inversions. De esta manera ayudando a todas la victimas del planeta en tomar una decisiones educadas y propia por la cual sea el major camino para que todos los inversionistas puedan preserver sus derechos de recuperación contra la SEC, antes de la ley de Limites expire.
En cuanto al Comite de Inversionistas de Stanford (SIC) nos gustaria saber por que no ayudaron en esta posibilidad de recuperacion desde un principio sino solamente alo final y ahora este grupo pretende ayudar al ultimo momento – Despues que nustro abogado a propuesto un camino y una alternativa para ayudar a todas las victimas del planeta
Si esta comision esta actuando en nuestro mejores beneficios… es muy dudoso --- por que se han negado ? con falsas accusaciones y caluncnias el ayudar al unico abogado que tiene la experinencia la educacion y el deseo de ayudar a todas las victimas del planeta ?
Por otra parte, si no se hubiera iniciado esta accion las victimas hubieran perdido gracias al comite esta oportunidad antes de la expiracion del estatuto de limitaciones – Es claro que este comite no los han querido ayudar manteniendo informacion extremadamente importante alejada de UD para que Ud no pudiese tomar decisions propias – El Comite deseaba que esta unica oportunidad pasade desapercibida y se les escapara silenciosamente y que Ud perdiera la oportunidad de establecer un reclamo contra los EE.UU y la SEC legalmente y con todo su derecho..Nos preguntamos por que cree Ud?
1.- Para aquellos inversores que han decidido hacer un "auto-archivo" de sus propios reclamos, te deseo la mejor, y espero que usted ha hecho su investigación. Si no es así, y a permitido que Ud haya sido manejado en algo que Ud no entiende y ha sido dirigido falsamente en una direccion que no le va ha ayudar - Aquien le va a hechar l Ud.. a culpa de su fracaso a Ud Mismo ? O a las personas que le sugirieron que era facil para Ud Mismo hacerlo?
2.- Para aquellos inversores que entienden los riesgos, sin embargo, han optado por presentar con un abogado diferente, te deseo lo mejor suerte también, pero no entiendo por qué un inversionista estaría dispuesto a elegir un abogado que no está dispuesto a litigar su solicitud. Ni ha pelear por Ud.
3.-Para los inversores que nos acompañan, y se han dado cuenta el sentido común de registro con KLS, les deseo la mejor de todas. Es su voluntad de participar que ha creado la masa critica que era necesaria para iniciar esta accion que ahora puede llegar hasta el final.
. Gracias a todos.
4.- Para aquellos de ustedes que todavía tienen que decidir qué es lo mejor para ustedes, por favor tome su decisión lo antes posible. Usted tiene menos de tres semanas antes de que esta oprtunidad pase para siempre – Despues de este plazo Ud nunca mas podra reclamar nada contra los EE.UU y la SEC. Si Ud decide unirse en un caso masivo en contra de los EE.UU y la SEC U des bienvenido … visite al unico abodago con las mayores qualificaciones en este pais que ha Ganado ya dos veces contra la SEC y ahora representa a los reclamantes de Madoff
Aquí es Kachroo Servicios Jurídicos su correo electronic última vez:
info@kachroolegal.com
Si usted desea leer más de los argumentos y las discusiones, por favor visite:
http://stanfordsforgottenvictims.blogspot.com
o regístrese para nuestro foro privado, que está libre de responsable y abierto a todos los inversores de Stanford de buena fe:
http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
Para que nadie más alegan que me estoy escondido detrás de cualquier fachadas, aquí está mi dirección de correo electrónico, y me esforzaré para devolver todos los que podría estar interesado lo suficiente como para colocar una línea, el tiempo lo permite:
stanfordvictim.richard@gmail.com
Richard Watson
27 de enero 2011
Ha habido algunas acusaciones muy difamatorias de algunos de los grupos de inversionistas de Stanford, y algunos de sus abogados, e incluso de la Comisión de Inversionistas de Stanford en relacion con los reclamos contra los EE.UU – Todas estas difamaciones contra los reclamos que Ud debe de hacer propiamente están claramente destinados a desacreditar a los inversionistas detrás de este esfuerzo que les ha estado informando de las alternativas y de las consecuencias y de cuales son sus derechos para preservar sus derechos a reclamar contra la SEC, mediante la presentación de una reclamación administrativa.
Como uno de los instigadores de este curso de acción, creo que es hora de que algunas de las afirmaciones falsas y engañosas se ponen a descansar, y sugiero que Ud se pregunte cual es el verdadero motivo de estas personas que están detrás de estas falsas acusaciones.
El 15 de noviembre de 2010, hace poco más de dos meses, le escribió una carta preguntandoles al Comité de Inversionistas de Stanford (SIC) si tenían alguna intención de tomar cualquier acción en contra de la SEC, dado el informe de la OIG condenatorio y la próxima expiración de la ley del Estado de limitaciones. Hata este momento sigo esperandi la respuesta que nunca llego. Sin embargo, a raíz de una discusión posterior con uno de los abogados miembros de dicho Comité, se desprende la comisión no tenía ninguna intención de iniciar cualquier tipo de acción que nos proteja.
Poco después, me reuní con un pequeño grupo de inversores de ideas afines para buscar un nuevo abogado para que nos represente en una demanda contra la SEC. Primero fueron los intentos de que nos amordazaron, lo que tuvimos que superar. Desde entonces hemos trabajado día y noche, para reunir a una solución viable que pueda beneficiar a todos los inversionistas de Stanford.
El número de abogados con experiencia exitosa en hacer un reclamo contra los EE.UU y la SEC es muy limitado y despues de largas discusiones y entrevistas el Dr. Gaytri Kachroo de Servicios Legales (KLS), Firma que habia presentado reclamacionesde FTCA para mas de a 500 inversores de Madoff. Todod estamos verdaderamente impresionados, no sólo por sus logros académicos excelentes , pero por la forma en que ella ha había llegado a este nivel tan alto en su profesión,. Sin embargo, lmanisfesto siempre una actitud humana y llena de compassion y demostrando que esta dispuesta a llegar hasta el final con nosotros y lo más importante, es que ya había representado a los inversores en dos acciones en contra de los EE.UU y de la SEC exitosamente con argumentos muy plausibles para que podamos tener éxito en esta reclamacion contra EE.UU. y contra la ley federal de la SEC .
Alrededor del mismo tiempo, Angela Kogutt alias Angela Shaw, alias Angie West de la Coalición de Víctimas de Stanford (SVC) también se acercó al Dr. Kachroo, habiendo visto los comunicados de prensa relativos a las solicitudes a las víctimas de Madoff. El apoyo de la SVC se le ofrecía inicialmente, y el Dr. Kachroo fue invitado a dirigirse a la SIC, con vistas a la presentación de reclamaciones FTCA de protección para cada uno de los inversionistas de Stanford. En esta reunión, todos los abogados del SIC indicaron que no tenian ninguna intencion de perseguir este caso contra el Gobierno por que todos estaban ocupados en otros litigious contra terceras partes. A su juicio acordaron que el Dr. Kachroo se encontraba en una posicion optima para asumir esta acción contra el gobierno . Esto creó alguna esperanza de que todos los inversores de Stanford comúnmente podría unirse en el proceso contra la SEC.
Adicionalmente, se invitaron atraves de varios canals de comunicacion a participar en este proceso y accion a . Covisal, en América Latina, durante estas fechas para iniciar el proceso.
.
No quiero insistir en agua que ha pasado bajo el puente desde entonces, pero las esperanzas iniciales de que esta acción podria unir a todas las asociaciones diversas de inversionistas bajo un proceso comun y unido estaba fuera de lugar y era claro por los interteses particulars de estos groupos.
En su lugar, lo que se obtuvo han sido objeto de una andanada de ataques de Internet difamatorio, en su mayoría anónimos, incluyendo acusaciones de irregularidades, entre muchos otros, todos destinados para desacreditarnos. Y los inversores que han ejercido su derecho a unirse a nosotros han sido amenazados en muy diversas formas para evitar que este juicio contra EE.UU y contra la SEC siga adealante.
Podría habersde entendido que esta amenazas podrian haber venido de las mismas instituciones que se piensan enjuciar (SEC) ---- Sin embargo estos ataques han venido de personas que se suponen deben de estar ayudando a las victimas y no ha si mismo. Sim enbargo eso es lo que han demostrado.
Entendemos que esos intentos de desacreditarnos, y las amenazas de recurso legal, podrian venir solamente de parte de la EE.UU o de la SEC instituciones que son directamente responsible por todas nuestras perdidas -- Pero yo estoy completamente consternado que estas amenazas vienen solamente y en su totalidad de personas que pretenden trabajar en el mejor los intereses de los inversionistas de Stanford.
¿Cómo pueden afirmar que quieren ayudar a las victimas tratando de silenciarnos? ¿Cuál es la motivación detrás de estos ataques, y por qué son reacios contra los inversores de Stanford para preservar y respetar y guarder sus derechos de cualquier recuperación possible.?
Desde que se embarcó en este curso de acción, todo lo que se intenta es hacer que muchos inversionistas de Stanford tomen conciencia de cuales son sus verdaderas derechos y cuales son las posibilidades para la recuperación de sus inversions. De esta manera ayudando a todas la victimas del planeta en tomar una decisiones educadas y propia por la cual sea el major camino para que todos los inversionistas puedan preserver sus derechos de recuperación contra la SEC, antes de la ley de Limites expire.
En cuanto al Comite de Inversionistas de Stanford (SIC) nos gustaria saber por que no ayudaron en esta posibilidad de recuperacion desde un principio sino solamente alo final y ahora este grupo pretende ayudar al ultimo momento – Despues que nustro abogado a propuesto un camino y una alternativa para ayudar a todas las victimas del planeta
Si esta comision esta actuando en nuestro mejores beneficios… es muy dudoso --- por que se han negado ? con falsas accusaciones y caluncnias el ayudar al unico abogado que tiene la experinencia la educacion y el deseo de ayudar a todas las victimas del planeta ?
Por otra parte, si no se hubiera iniciado esta accion las victimas hubieran perdido gracias al comite esta oportunidad antes de la expiracion del estatuto de limitaciones – Es claro que este comite no los han querido ayudar manteniendo informacion extremadamente importante alejada de UD para que Ud no pudiese tomar decisions propias – El Comite deseaba que esta unica oportunidad pasade desapercibida y se les escapara silenciosamente y que Ud perdiera la oportunidad de establecer un reclamo contra los EE.UU y la SEC legalmente y con todo su derecho..Nos preguntamos por que cree Ud?
1.- Para aquellos inversores que han decidido hacer un "auto-archivo" de sus propios reclamos, te deseo la mejor, y espero que usted ha hecho su investigación. Si no es así, y a permitido que Ud haya sido manejado en algo que Ud no entiende y ha sido dirigido falsamente en una direccion que no le va ha ayudar - Aquien le va a hechar l Ud.. a culpa de su fracaso a Ud Mismo ? O a las personas que le sugirieron que era facil para Ud Mismo hacerlo?
2.- Para aquellos inversores que entienden los riesgos, sin embargo, han optado por presentar con un abogado diferente, te deseo lo mejor suerte también, pero no entiendo por qué un inversionista estaría dispuesto a elegir un abogado que no está dispuesto a litigar su solicitud. Ni ha pelear por Ud.
3.-Para los inversores que nos acompañan, y se han dado cuenta el sentido común de registro con KLS, les deseo la mejor de todas. Es su voluntad de participar que ha creado la masa critica que era necesaria para iniciar esta accion que ahora puede llegar hasta el final.
. Gracias a todos.
4.- Para aquellos de ustedes que todavía tienen que decidir qué es lo mejor para ustedes, por favor tome su decisión lo antes posible. Usted tiene menos de tres semanas antes de que esta oprtunidad pase para siempre – Despues de este plazo Ud nunca mas podra reclamar nada contra los EE.UU y la SEC. Si Ud decide unirse en un caso masivo en contra de los EE.UU y la SEC U des bienvenido … visite al unico abodago con las mayores qualificaciones en este pais que ha Ganado ya dos veces contra la SEC y ahora representa a los reclamantes de Madoff
Aquí es Kachroo Servicios Jurídicos su correo electronic última vez:
info@kachroolegal.com
Si usted desea leer más de los argumentos y las discusiones, por favor visite:
http://stanfordsforgottenvictims.blogspot.com
o regístrese para nuestro foro privado, que está libre de responsable y abierto a todos los inversores de Stanford de buena fe:
http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
Para que nadie más alegan que me estoy escondido detrás de cualquier fachadas, aquí está mi dirección de correo electrónico, y me esforzaré para devolver todos los que podría estar interesado lo suficiente como para colocar una línea, el tiempo lo permite:
stanfordvictim.richard@gmail.com
Richard Watson
27 de enero 2011
Thursday, 27 January 2011
OPEN LETTER TO STANFORD INVESTORS REGARDING FTCA CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMISSION
Dear Stanford Investors,
There have been some very critical accusations from some of the Stanford investor groups; some of their attorneys; and even the Stanford investors committee; relating to the Stanford FTCA claims, some of which are clearly intended to discredit the investors behind this effort to inform and encourage you to preserve your rights to claim against the SEC, by filing an administrative claim.
As one of the instigators of this course of action, I think it is time that some of the false and misleading claims are put to rest, and suggest that searching questions be raised of the motivation of some of the individuals who are behind these accusations.
On the 15th November 2010, little more than two months ago, I wrote to the Stanford Investors Committee (SIC) and enquired if they had any intention of taking any action against the SEC, given the damning OIG report and the pending expiration of the statute of limitations. I still await a reply to that letter; however, following a later discussion with one of the attorney members of that committee, it was apparent the committee had no intention of commencing any such action to protect us.
Shortly afterwards, I got together with a small group of like-minded investors to search for a new attorney to represent us in a claim against the SEC. First there were attempts to have us gagged, which we had to overcome. Since then we have worked night and day, to bring together a workable solution that may benefit all the Stanford investors.
The number of attorneys with relevant experience of successful claims against the SEC are few. Lengthy discussions followed with Dr Gaytri Kachroo of Kachroo Legal Services (KLS), following the FTCA claims KLS had submitted for 500 Madoff investors, and we were all impressed; not just by her excellent academic achievements, but by the way she had reached the higher echelons of her chosen profession, yet managed to maintain a caring attitude; was willing to go the distance for us, and most importantly, had already represented investors in two actions against the SEC and/or the US government to successful settlement, and had very plausible arguments that we may succeed with an FTCA claim against the SEC.
Around the same time Angela Kogutt aka Angela Shaw, of the Stanford Victims Coalition (SVC) also approached Dr Kachroo, having seen the press releases relating to the Madoff victims claims. The support of the SVC was initially proffered, and Dr Kachroo was invited to address the SIC, with a view to filing protective FTCA claims for each of the Stanford investors. At that meeting, SIC attorneys all indicated they had no intention of themselves pursuing an action against the SEC because they were all involved in litigating other actions for Stanford investors. They considered Dr. Kachroo to be optimally positioned to take on this action. This created some hope that all Stanford investors could commonly join in the SEC claims process through one channel and action. Covisal, in Latin America, was also invited around this time to participate in the process.
I have no wish to dwell over all the water that has passed under the bridge since then, but our initial hopes that this action may unite all the various investor associations in a common cause were clearly misplaced.
Instead, we have been subjected to a barrage of defamatory internet attacks, mostly anonymous; including accusations of impropriety, amongst many others, all intended to discredit us. Investors who have exercised their right to join us have been threatened, and apparently some of us are now to face legal action.
I could have understood if these attempts to discredit us, and threats of legal recourse, had been at the instigation of the institution we hold responsible for our losses, but I am dismayed they are almost entirely from individuals who purport to be working in the best interests of the Stanford investors. How can they claim to be doing so by trying to silence us? What is the motivation behind these attacks, and why are they reluctant for Stanford investors to preserve their rights to any recovery?
Since we embarked on this course of action, all we have ever wished, is to make as many Stanford investors as possible aware of this possibility for recovery, and enable your to make your own educated decisions how best you may preserve your rights of recovery against the SEC, before the statute of limitations expires.
As far as the Stanford Investors Committee is concerned, I really would like to know why the preservation of all Stanford investors' interests was not encouraged by them long before, and why exactly are SIC members only now purporting to do so now, at the last moment, and then only after our attorney has agreed to take the case? If that committee really is acting in our best interests, why do they refuse to support the one attorney who truly believes in our cause? Furthermore, if we had not instigated this action, would they have simply allowed the statute of limitations to slip quietly by, and all the investor’s rights along with it?
To those investors who have decided to ‘self-file’ their own claims, I wish you well, and hope you have done your research. If you have not, and have allowed yourselves to be railroaded into an action you do not fully understand, and it all goes wrong, who will you blame; yourself, or those who persuaded you it was easy to do it yourself?
To those investors who understand the risks, yet have chosen to file with a different attorney, I wish you well too, yet I do not understand why any investor would willingly choose an attorney who is not prepared to litigate their claim.
To the investors who have joined us, and have realized the common sense of registering with KLS, I wish you the best of all. It is your willingness to participate that has created the critical mass we needed to ensure this action can now go all the way. Thank you all.
To those of you who have yet to decide what is best for yourselves, please make your decision sooner rather than later. You have less than three weeks before the statute of limitations expires, after which you will be barred forever from claiming your losses against the SEC, and if you decide to join us you are all very welcome. Here is Kachroo Legal Services email one last time: info@kachroolegal.com and if you wish to read more of the arguments and discussions, please visit http://stanfordsforgottenvictims.blogspot.com or register for our private forum, which is free of charge and open to all bona-fide Stanford investors: http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
Lest anyone else allege I am hiding behind any facades, here is my email address, and I will strive to get back to everyone who may be interested enough to drop me a line, time permitting:
stanfordvictim.richard@gmail.com
Richard Watson
27th January 2011
There have been some very critical accusations from some of the Stanford investor groups; some of their attorneys; and even the Stanford investors committee; relating to the Stanford FTCA claims, some of which are clearly intended to discredit the investors behind this effort to inform and encourage you to preserve your rights to claim against the SEC, by filing an administrative claim.
As one of the instigators of this course of action, I think it is time that some of the false and misleading claims are put to rest, and suggest that searching questions be raised of the motivation of some of the individuals who are behind these accusations.
On the 15th November 2010, little more than two months ago, I wrote to the Stanford Investors Committee (SIC) and enquired if they had any intention of taking any action against the SEC, given the damning OIG report and the pending expiration of the statute of limitations. I still await a reply to that letter; however, following a later discussion with one of the attorney members of that committee, it was apparent the committee had no intention of commencing any such action to protect us.
Shortly afterwards, I got together with a small group of like-minded investors to search for a new attorney to represent us in a claim against the SEC. First there were attempts to have us gagged, which we had to overcome. Since then we have worked night and day, to bring together a workable solution that may benefit all the Stanford investors.
The number of attorneys with relevant experience of successful claims against the SEC are few. Lengthy discussions followed with Dr Gaytri Kachroo of Kachroo Legal Services (KLS), following the FTCA claims KLS had submitted for 500 Madoff investors, and we were all impressed; not just by her excellent academic achievements, but by the way she had reached the higher echelons of her chosen profession, yet managed to maintain a caring attitude; was willing to go the distance for us, and most importantly, had already represented investors in two actions against the SEC and/or the US government to successful settlement, and had very plausible arguments that we may succeed with an FTCA claim against the SEC.
Around the same time Angela Kogutt aka Angela Shaw, of the Stanford Victims Coalition (SVC) also approached Dr Kachroo, having seen the press releases relating to the Madoff victims claims. The support of the SVC was initially proffered, and Dr Kachroo was invited to address the SIC, with a view to filing protective FTCA claims for each of the Stanford investors. At that meeting, SIC attorneys all indicated they had no intention of themselves pursuing an action against the SEC because they were all involved in litigating other actions for Stanford investors. They considered Dr. Kachroo to be optimally positioned to take on this action. This created some hope that all Stanford investors could commonly join in the SEC claims process through one channel and action. Covisal, in Latin America, was also invited around this time to participate in the process.
I have no wish to dwell over all the water that has passed under the bridge since then, but our initial hopes that this action may unite all the various investor associations in a common cause were clearly misplaced.
Instead, we have been subjected to a barrage of defamatory internet attacks, mostly anonymous; including accusations of impropriety, amongst many others, all intended to discredit us. Investors who have exercised their right to join us have been threatened, and apparently some of us are now to face legal action.
I could have understood if these attempts to discredit us, and threats of legal recourse, had been at the instigation of the institution we hold responsible for our losses, but I am dismayed they are almost entirely from individuals who purport to be working in the best interests of the Stanford investors. How can they claim to be doing so by trying to silence us? What is the motivation behind these attacks, and why are they reluctant for Stanford investors to preserve their rights to any recovery?
Since we embarked on this course of action, all we have ever wished, is to make as many Stanford investors as possible aware of this possibility for recovery, and enable your to make your own educated decisions how best you may preserve your rights of recovery against the SEC, before the statute of limitations expires.
As far as the Stanford Investors Committee is concerned, I really would like to know why the preservation of all Stanford investors' interests was not encouraged by them long before, and why exactly are SIC members only now purporting to do so now, at the last moment, and then only after our attorney has agreed to take the case? If that committee really is acting in our best interests, why do they refuse to support the one attorney who truly believes in our cause? Furthermore, if we had not instigated this action, would they have simply allowed the statute of limitations to slip quietly by, and all the investor’s rights along with it?
To those investors who have decided to ‘self-file’ their own claims, I wish you well, and hope you have done your research. If you have not, and have allowed yourselves to be railroaded into an action you do not fully understand, and it all goes wrong, who will you blame; yourself, or those who persuaded you it was easy to do it yourself?
To those investors who understand the risks, yet have chosen to file with a different attorney, I wish you well too, yet I do not understand why any investor would willingly choose an attorney who is not prepared to litigate their claim.
To the investors who have joined us, and have realized the common sense of registering with KLS, I wish you the best of all. It is your willingness to participate that has created the critical mass we needed to ensure this action can now go all the way. Thank you all.
To those of you who have yet to decide what is best for yourselves, please make your decision sooner rather than later. You have less than three weeks before the statute of limitations expires, after which you will be barred forever from claiming your losses against the SEC, and if you decide to join us you are all very welcome. Here is Kachroo Legal Services email one last time: info@kachroolegal.com and if you wish to read more of the arguments and discussions, please visit http://stanfordsforgottenvictims.blogspot.com or register for our private forum, which is free of charge and open to all bona-fide Stanford investors: http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
Lest anyone else allege I am hiding behind any facades, here is my email address, and I will strive to get back to everyone who may be interested enough to drop me a line, time permitting:
stanfordvictim.richard@gmail.com
Richard Watson
27th January 2011
Sunday, 23 January 2011
TO STANFORD BANK INVESTORS WAITING FOR SIPC COVERAGE
There have been past allegations made by the Stanford Victims Coalition (SVC) that submitting administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) may damage their political efforts for recovery under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA). They even went so far as to appeal to our attorney that SIPC cover will not only definitely be granted, but also widened to $4bn, to cover all the international investors too. We thought all these farcical arguments were in the past, but have become aware that SVC lobbying has been resurrected, following more recent comments from one group of investors.
So where does this actually leave the investors who consider they may be eligible for SIPC, and what are their chances?
Firstly, only the 8,000 Stanford investors who invested through the only SIPC registered broker-dealer, Stanford Group Company (SGC), may be eligible for cover under the SIPA, and the likelihood of widening the cover is non-existent, no matter who would have you believe otherwise. The remaining investors will be ineligible for SIPC (20,000 according to FRP, formerly Vantis, the Antiguan receiver; 13,500 according to Janvey the US receiver; they cannot even agree on how many of us were swindled).
The FTCA claims that we are campaigning for are against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), not against SIPC, so investors who may be eligible for SIPC are not prejudicing their chances by filing a claim against the SEC. To state that filing claims under the FTCA may be political suicide could not be further from the truth. There is in fact the very real possibility that should enough investors file FTCA claims, the heat will be turned up on the US Department of Justice to pressure the SEC to order SIPC coverage. It will ultimately be less expensive for the US taxpayer to foot the bill once SIPC have picked up the first $1.8 billion (or $4bn depending on who you believe). One could argue, with just as much authority, that filing a claim could actually assist Stanford investors get SIPC coverage, not hinder them.
As far as the likelihood of success of SIPC goes, please be aware the Chief Counsel of the SEC has previously stated he will not order SIPA coverage for Stanford investors as he considers his order may be challenged and defeated in court by the SIPC, which they are perfectly entitled to do. Hence the SVC campaign to lobby Congress to broaden the SIPA definition of ‘customer’. Will that happen before the statute of limitations runs out? Somewhat unlikely, since there are just 24 days left. We have seen little progress since the new Congress has re-convened, and remember, all the unsuccessful bills from last year, including the very welcome contribution from Senator Culberson, are now time expired.
And what did the Chairman of SIPC, Stephen Harbeck, tell Congress about the proposed change to SIPA to broaden the definition of ‘customer’? In his letter of August 25th 2010, to the Congressional sub-committee who proposed the amendment he stated:
"[W]e believe that the Amendment is inconsistent with SIPA's history, purpose, and provisions, and if passed, would have serious consequences for the investing public and securities broker-dealers."
"Under these facts, if a fictitious construct is applied such that investors in Stanford Bank CDs are deemed to be "customers" under SIPA with an account at Stanford Broker-Dealer, and are deemed to be eligible to recover their net investments in the Stanford Ponzi scheme in a SIPA liquidation of Stanford Broker-Dealer, it is virtually certain that satisfaction of their claims would exhaust the SIPC Fund."
In his words, even if the amendment to the Act was passed, SIPC would have insufficient funds to pay the Stanford victims (notwithstanding the Madoff victims who are also still waiting for SIPC to pay out, and they are eligible). As Mr Harbeck is still in his job, presumably he was not among the SEC staff caught with their pants down, watching porn on their laptops at work, instead of keeping their otherwise idle hands busy and investigating Stanford.
There have also been other requests from the SVC , both to our attorney, and directly to some of the investor groups, asking them to wait until the last minute to file, thus exposing investors to potential last minute problems of completeness, delivery delays, or other force majure. The Eastern seaboard is currently experiencing snow storms and blizzards disrupting business, and postal services, for example.
Perhaps this is a worthy attempt to give Congress and the SEC as much time as possible to do the right thing, but be aware these are two of the most notoriously slow bureaucracies in the US. Many investors who once trusted the SEC, and were swindled out of their hard earned life savings in return, may never trust them to come through again, in particular now the stakes are so high.
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled some time ago that an investor may not bring a suit against SIPC to compel them to initiate a liquidation. So, there is nothing any attorney can do to help Stanford investors gain SIPC.
'We have been reading about the quest for the holy grail of SIPC fortwo years now, and it still appears no nearer, whereas the opportunityto file a protective claim against the SEC under FTCA expires in just24 days.
It is a matter of fact that FTCA claims are currently being processed and will be submitted before the Statute of Limitation expires, regardless of whether SIPC coverage occurs or not. These claims are for full recovery, open to all Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality, or place of residence, and not limited to just $500k, as is SIPC. Ultimately, the decision whether or not to file a claim under the FTCA is in the hands of each investor, but not submitting a protective claim would be foolhardy in the least.
Finally we should all remember these inopportune and unforgettable words from Angela Kogutt, Founder and Director of the SVC, shortly before she inconscionably abandoned all the non-US investors, within days of being appointed to the Stanford Investors Committee:
“Just so it’s clear, I’m not giving up on the SVC but I am simply going to… represent just the US victims. I will now….limit my efforts to benefit only the 8,000 SGC customers…I haven't met one member of Congress who would go for giving even US citizens who have been severely damaged by the government’s negligence a tax-funded bailout…..The reality is US citizens have no obligation to pay for the private investment losses for investors from around the world…an ungrateful and delusional bunch…who are doing great damage to the recovery efforts of SVC…Just because the US has money and the SEC has admitted to its horrendous mistakes does not mean the US taxpayers should pay for the losses that resulted… I am a US citizen …and have a lot better feel for how things work….and don’t want anyone doing something that hurts what we have so carefully done this past year in Washington…..My hope is that the recent Gag Order prevents these radicals from going too far.
So now we all know where the SVC stands. Fortunately we were not gagged, and the Statute of Limitations has not been allowed to slip quietly by.
FTCA claims take several days to process and must be submitted correctly and timely before the deadline of 16th February 2011, when the Statute of Limitations expires or Stanford investors will be denied any recovery from the US government, forever.
Any Stanford investors who have not yet decided, should contact their attorney at their earliest opportunity, or the attorney submitting the FTCA claims on behalf the Stanford International investors: Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Mass, who already have considerable experience of submitting claims on behalf of the Madoff investors. Email: info@kachroolegal.com
Should any Stanford investors wish for more detail of this campaign and the various arguments, please register for our free and private investor’s forum, which is available to all bona-fide investors in the failed Stanford Financial Group: http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
or more information can be obtained on the Stanford Forgotten Victims blog at
http://stanfordsforgottenvictims.blogspot.com/
Written by David Brent
For Stanford International Victims Group
So where does this actually leave the investors who consider they may be eligible for SIPC, and what are their chances?
Firstly, only the 8,000 Stanford investors who invested through the only SIPC registered broker-dealer, Stanford Group Company (SGC), may be eligible for cover under the SIPA, and the likelihood of widening the cover is non-existent, no matter who would have you believe otherwise. The remaining investors will be ineligible for SIPC (20,000 according to FRP, formerly Vantis, the Antiguan receiver; 13,500 according to Janvey the US receiver; they cannot even agree on how many of us were swindled).
The FTCA claims that we are campaigning for are against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), not against SIPC, so investors who may be eligible for SIPC are not prejudicing their chances by filing a claim against the SEC. To state that filing claims under the FTCA may be political suicide could not be further from the truth. There is in fact the very real possibility that should enough investors file FTCA claims, the heat will be turned up on the US Department of Justice to pressure the SEC to order SIPC coverage. It will ultimately be less expensive for the US taxpayer to foot the bill once SIPC have picked up the first $1.8 billion (or $4bn depending on who you believe). One could argue, with just as much authority, that filing a claim could actually assist Stanford investors get SIPC coverage, not hinder them.
As far as the likelihood of success of SIPC goes, please be aware the Chief Counsel of the SEC has previously stated he will not order SIPA coverage for Stanford investors as he considers his order may be challenged and defeated in court by the SIPC, which they are perfectly entitled to do. Hence the SVC campaign to lobby Congress to broaden the SIPA definition of ‘customer’. Will that happen before the statute of limitations runs out? Somewhat unlikely, since there are just 24 days left. We have seen little progress since the new Congress has re-convened, and remember, all the unsuccessful bills from last year, including the very welcome contribution from Senator Culberson, are now time expired.
And what did the Chairman of SIPC, Stephen Harbeck, tell Congress about the proposed change to SIPA to broaden the definition of ‘customer’? In his letter of August 25th 2010, to the Congressional sub-committee who proposed the amendment he stated:
"[W]e believe that the Amendment is inconsistent with SIPA's history, purpose, and provisions, and if passed, would have serious consequences for the investing public and securities broker-dealers."
"Under these facts, if a fictitious construct is applied such that investors in Stanford Bank CDs are deemed to be "customers" under SIPA with an account at Stanford Broker-Dealer, and are deemed to be eligible to recover their net investments in the Stanford Ponzi scheme in a SIPA liquidation of Stanford Broker-Dealer, it is virtually certain that satisfaction of their claims would exhaust the SIPC Fund."
In his words, even if the amendment to the Act was passed, SIPC would have insufficient funds to pay the Stanford victims (notwithstanding the Madoff victims who are also still waiting for SIPC to pay out, and they are eligible). As Mr Harbeck is still in his job, presumably he was not among the SEC staff caught with their pants down, watching porn on their laptops at work, instead of keeping their otherwise idle hands busy and investigating Stanford.
There have also been other requests from the SVC , both to our attorney, and directly to some of the investor groups, asking them to wait until the last minute to file, thus exposing investors to potential last minute problems of completeness, delivery delays, or other force majure. The Eastern seaboard is currently experiencing snow storms and blizzards disrupting business, and postal services, for example.
Perhaps this is a worthy attempt to give Congress and the SEC as much time as possible to do the right thing, but be aware these are two of the most notoriously slow bureaucracies in the US. Many investors who once trusted the SEC, and were swindled out of their hard earned life savings in return, may never trust them to come through again, in particular now the stakes are so high.
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled some time ago that an investor may not bring a suit against SIPC to compel them to initiate a liquidation. So, there is nothing any attorney can do to help Stanford investors gain SIPC.
'We have been reading about the quest for the holy grail of SIPC fortwo years now, and it still appears no nearer, whereas the opportunityto file a protective claim against the SEC under FTCA expires in just24 days.
It is a matter of fact that FTCA claims are currently being processed and will be submitted before the Statute of Limitation expires, regardless of whether SIPC coverage occurs or not. These claims are for full recovery, open to all Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality, or place of residence, and not limited to just $500k, as is SIPC. Ultimately, the decision whether or not to file a claim under the FTCA is in the hands of each investor, but not submitting a protective claim would be foolhardy in the least.
Finally we should all remember these inopportune and unforgettable words from Angela Kogutt, Founder and Director of the SVC, shortly before she inconscionably abandoned all the non-US investors, within days of being appointed to the Stanford Investors Committee:
“Just so it’s clear, I’m not giving up on the SVC but I am simply going to… represent just the US victims. I will now….limit my efforts to benefit only the 8,000 SGC customers…I haven't met one member of Congress who would go for giving even US citizens who have been severely damaged by the government’s negligence a tax-funded bailout…..The reality is US citizens have no obligation to pay for the private investment losses for investors from around the world…an ungrateful and delusional bunch…who are doing great damage to the recovery efforts of SVC…Just because the US has money and the SEC has admitted to its horrendous mistakes does not mean the US taxpayers should pay for the losses that resulted… I am a US citizen …and have a lot better feel for how things work….and don’t want anyone doing something that hurts what we have so carefully done this past year in Washington…..My hope is that the recent Gag Order prevents these radicals from going too far.
So now we all know where the SVC stands. Fortunately we were not gagged, and the Statute of Limitations has not been allowed to slip quietly by.
FTCA claims take several days to process and must be submitted correctly and timely before the deadline of 16th February 2011, when the Statute of Limitations expires or Stanford investors will be denied any recovery from the US government, forever.
Any Stanford investors who have not yet decided, should contact their attorney at their earliest opportunity, or the attorney submitting the FTCA claims on behalf the Stanford International investors: Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Mass, who already have considerable experience of submitting claims on behalf of the Madoff investors. Email: info@kachroolegal.com
Should any Stanford investors wish for more detail of this campaign and the various arguments, please register for our free and private investor’s forum, which is available to all bona-fide investors in the failed Stanford Financial Group: http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
or more information can be obtained on the Stanford Forgotten Victims blog at
http://stanfordsforgottenvictims.blogspot.com/
Written by David Brent
For Stanford International Victims Group
Thursday, 20 January 2011
QUESTIONABLE ADVICE FROM THE STANFORD VICTIMS COALITION - ADVISING INVESTORS TO SELF-FILE FTCA CLAIMS ?
There has been correspondence from certain individuals, in particular Angela Kogutt, Founder and Director of the Stanford Victims Coalition, suggesting that FTCA claims are straightforward and that the forms are easy to fill-out. She has even suggested using hers as a template for other investors, presuming that ‘what caused her damages also caused theirs.’ This is a precarious presumption, and may not be such smart advice for those investors who have not fully researched FTCA claims.
Before using Mrs Kogutt’s SF-95 as a template for your claim, you may consider asking yourself some questions: Is the nature of your losses the same as hers? For instance, have you had other losses such as medical expenses? Have you lost your home or other properties as a result of losing your investment? May you be facing either of those possibilities in the future? Are you comfortable accepting her explanation as to why the SEC is responsible for your loss? If your copy of her claim should be rejected by the SEC as invalid, could you accept this? Would you be so upset that you consider her liable for influencing you to copy her claim? If you answer yes to any of these questions, then perhaps you should consult with your attorney or an experienced attorney who is both qualified and indemnified to give such advice.
As an aside, it is interesting to see that the Stanford Victims Coalition still somewhat disingenuously claim to be ‘an International Advocacy Group representing the best interests of 28,000 Stanford victims in 118 countries.’ Rather inappropriate after the SVC unilaterally abandoned all their overseas supporters to their fate, within days of Angela Kogutt being appointed to the Stanford Investors Committee last year. It is also interesting to note that it is now seemingly acceptable for SVC to state they ‘do not recommend’ any specific attorney, when in the past, as we all know, they endorsed an attorney who is now unwilling to litigate this case. With a new, experienced, and very highly qualified attorney willing to go the distance for us, one would think the SVC may be a little more proactive than to suggest that we file our own claims, simply because the attorney is not to their liking!
Enough of the SVC. So what can ‘self-filers’ expect to happen with their claims? If their administrative claims are properly constructed, then they may be able to get them filed with the SEC without paying any initial attorney fees; but if an award is ultimately made by the court; be aware, the judge may well award up to 25% to the ‘lead attorney’ as contingency fees. The ‘self-filers’ who do not have a contract for a 15% contingency fee, such as that negotiated by the Stanford International Victims Group with Kachroo Legal Services, may find they pay more in the end. If their claims have not already been rejected as ineligible that is; and remember, there are other attorneys out there who have retained many Stanford investors, some at whopping 32% contingency fees, who may also be considering a shot at the ‘lead attorney’ role.
Please bear in mind there is also the distinct possibility that individual investors who ‘self-file’ could be excluded from any future class action, even if they manage to successfully file their own claims, simply because their explanation why the SEC is responsible differs significantly from the explanation given by the rest of the class. In that case, they may have to argue their claim in court, on their own, and at their own expense.
Then there are the plethora of precedents, case-law, and other legal obstacles to be overcome in a trial, and remember there is also a correct and timely submission process just to be eligible, the details of which have been highlighted in previous posts. This is not for the faint hearted.
The deadline for claims is fast approaching. Unless claims are submitted correctly and timely before the two year Statute of Limitations expires next month on the 16th February 2011, Stanford investors will be denied any recovery from the US government, forever.
Please consult an attorney to submit your claim. Ensure that the attorney you hire is also willing to litigate your claim, should it be rejected or otherwise be ineligible, and choose one who already has experience of submitting FTCA claims.
Please contact your attorney without delay, or the attorney hired by the Stanford International Victims Group: Kachroo Legal Services, Cambridge, Mass., who already have extensive experience of submitting FTCA claims on behalf of the Madoff investors. Email: info@kachroolegal.com
Allen Stanford, former sole shareholder of the Stanford International Bank, a part of the Stanford Financial Group, now in receivership, is currently being detained awaiting trial in Houston, Texas, charged with 23 counts of fraud. The mastermind of an $8bn Ponzi scheme which caused 28,000 investors worldwide the loss of their life savings, many of whom could have been spared if the US Securities and Exchange Commission had acted when they first became aware Allen Stanford’s activities were likely a Ponzi scheme, 13 years ago.
Source: David Brent (Stanford International Victims Group)
Before using Mrs Kogutt’s SF-95 as a template for your claim, you may consider asking yourself some questions: Is the nature of your losses the same as hers? For instance, have you had other losses such as medical expenses? Have you lost your home or other properties as a result of losing your investment? May you be facing either of those possibilities in the future? Are you comfortable accepting her explanation as to why the SEC is responsible for your loss? If your copy of her claim should be rejected by the SEC as invalid, could you accept this? Would you be so upset that you consider her liable for influencing you to copy her claim? If you answer yes to any of these questions, then perhaps you should consult with your attorney or an experienced attorney who is both qualified and indemnified to give such advice.
As an aside, it is interesting to see that the Stanford Victims Coalition still somewhat disingenuously claim to be ‘an International Advocacy Group representing the best interests of 28,000 Stanford victims in 118 countries.’ Rather inappropriate after the SVC unilaterally abandoned all their overseas supporters to their fate, within days of Angela Kogutt being appointed to the Stanford Investors Committee last year. It is also interesting to note that it is now seemingly acceptable for SVC to state they ‘do not recommend’ any specific attorney, when in the past, as we all know, they endorsed an attorney who is now unwilling to litigate this case. With a new, experienced, and very highly qualified attorney willing to go the distance for us, one would think the SVC may be a little more proactive than to suggest that we file our own claims, simply because the attorney is not to their liking!
Enough of the SVC. So what can ‘self-filers’ expect to happen with their claims? If their administrative claims are properly constructed, then they may be able to get them filed with the SEC without paying any initial attorney fees; but if an award is ultimately made by the court; be aware, the judge may well award up to 25% to the ‘lead attorney’ as contingency fees. The ‘self-filers’ who do not have a contract for a 15% contingency fee, such as that negotiated by the Stanford International Victims Group with Kachroo Legal Services, may find they pay more in the end. If their claims have not already been rejected as ineligible that is; and remember, there are other attorneys out there who have retained many Stanford investors, some at whopping 32% contingency fees, who may also be considering a shot at the ‘lead attorney’ role.
Please bear in mind there is also the distinct possibility that individual investors who ‘self-file’ could be excluded from any future class action, even if they manage to successfully file their own claims, simply because their explanation why the SEC is responsible differs significantly from the explanation given by the rest of the class. In that case, they may have to argue their claim in court, on their own, and at their own expense.
Then there are the plethora of precedents, case-law, and other legal obstacles to be overcome in a trial, and remember there is also a correct and timely submission process just to be eligible, the details of which have been highlighted in previous posts. This is not for the faint hearted.
The deadline for claims is fast approaching. Unless claims are submitted correctly and timely before the two year Statute of Limitations expires next month on the 16th February 2011, Stanford investors will be denied any recovery from the US government, forever.
Please consult an attorney to submit your claim. Ensure that the attorney you hire is also willing to litigate your claim, should it be rejected or otherwise be ineligible, and choose one who already has experience of submitting FTCA claims.
Please contact your attorney without delay, or the attorney hired by the Stanford International Victims Group: Kachroo Legal Services, Cambridge, Mass., who already have extensive experience of submitting FTCA claims on behalf of the Madoff investors. Email: info@kachroolegal.com
Allen Stanford, former sole shareholder of the Stanford International Bank, a part of the Stanford Financial Group, now in receivership, is currently being detained awaiting trial in Houston, Texas, charged with 23 counts of fraud. The mastermind of an $8bn Ponzi scheme which caused 28,000 investors worldwide the loss of their life savings, many of whom could have been spared if the US Securities and Exchange Commission had acted when they first became aware Allen Stanford’s activities were likely a Ponzi scheme, 13 years ago.
Source: David Brent (Stanford International Victims Group)
Friday, 7 January 2011
Statement from Dr Kachroo
January 6, 2010
Dear Stanford Investors:
I was contacted in early December by several different Stanford investor group leaders interested in hiring me and my firm’s services in support of a class action law suit against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) based upon media publicity generated by Kachroo Legal Services’ (KLS) initiation of a lawsuit against the SEC in the Madoff case.
One of these group leaders is Ms. Angela Kogutt (Aka Angela Shaw). I was called by Ms. Kogutt on my time and at my expense to visit and inform the Investors Committee of my background and the Madoff litigation due to their ostensible interest in using KLS to launch a lawsuit against the SEC.
I flew to Dallas, met with the Investors Committee and provided my background and extensive litigation experience (of myself and my litigation team) to take on this challenge and to file administrative claims on behalf of eligible Stanford investors in this matter. I have also furnished the examiner with a short bio for the general perusal of Stanford investors to add to his list of attorneys representing and interested in the Stanford case and related potential litigation.
Thereafter, I learned of the interest of attorneys on the Investors Committee to research and potentially file such an action themselves. I have never solicited any attention, recommendation or endorsement from the Investors Committee or from any of the investor group leaders. I have been inundated, as has my office, with interest, inquiries and solicitations to hire KLS from Stanford investors, based on my credentials, qualifications and experience in the Madoff case.
With regard to the Stanford case against the SEC, I have repeatedly indicated that my law firm is in the process of researching an optimal theory for such a lawsuit, and I have taken appropriate steps to protect client investors’ rights by filing SEC claims before the upcoming deadline of February 16, 2011.
I strongly recommend that Stanford investors receive legal advice to complete the appropriate claim forms and do not complete these forms themselves. If forms are not validly completed, investor claimants may be ineligible to participate in any class or other litigation against the SEC. KLS is in the process of completing these forms for all investors who engage our services for such purpose explicitly.
I have also indicated to Ms. Shaw/Kogutt and others that I support SIPC recovery efforts on behalf of Stanford investors.
Dr. Gaytri Kachroo, Principal, Kachroo Legal Services, P.C.
Info@kachroolegal.com for further information
Dear Stanford Investors:
I was contacted in early December by several different Stanford investor group leaders interested in hiring me and my firm’s services in support of a class action law suit against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) based upon media publicity generated by Kachroo Legal Services’ (KLS) initiation of a lawsuit against the SEC in the Madoff case.
One of these group leaders is Ms. Angela Kogutt (Aka Angela Shaw). I was called by Ms. Kogutt on my time and at my expense to visit and inform the Investors Committee of my background and the Madoff litigation due to their ostensible interest in using KLS to launch a lawsuit against the SEC.
I flew to Dallas, met with the Investors Committee and provided my background and extensive litigation experience (of myself and my litigation team) to take on this challenge and to file administrative claims on behalf of eligible Stanford investors in this matter. I have also furnished the examiner with a short bio for the general perusal of Stanford investors to add to his list of attorneys representing and interested in the Stanford case and related potential litigation.
Thereafter, I learned of the interest of attorneys on the Investors Committee to research and potentially file such an action themselves. I have never solicited any attention, recommendation or endorsement from the Investors Committee or from any of the investor group leaders. I have been inundated, as has my office, with interest, inquiries and solicitations to hire KLS from Stanford investors, based on my credentials, qualifications and experience in the Madoff case.
With regard to the Stanford case against the SEC, I have repeatedly indicated that my law firm is in the process of researching an optimal theory for such a lawsuit, and I have taken appropriate steps to protect client investors’ rights by filing SEC claims before the upcoming deadline of February 16, 2011.
I strongly recommend that Stanford investors receive legal advice to complete the appropriate claim forms and do not complete these forms themselves. If forms are not validly completed, investor claimants may be ineligible to participate in any class or other litigation against the SEC. KLS is in the process of completing these forms for all investors who engage our services for such purpose explicitly.
I have also indicated to Ms. Shaw/Kogutt and others that I support SIPC recovery efforts on behalf of Stanford investors.
Dr. Gaytri Kachroo, Principal, Kachroo Legal Services, P.C.
Info@kachroolegal.com for further information