IRS Hit Stanford Estate for $432 million

The Internal Revenue Service filed a "notice of claim" yesterday with the US District Court advising the Court that it is IRS's view that Allen Stanford is indebted to the United States for approximately $432 million in personal tax liability. The IRS intervened in the SEC's lawsuit against Allen Stanford three years ago and asserted the existence of a claim against Allen and Susan Stanford, which at that time was for approximately $226 million in personal tax liability. The U.S. District Court permitted the intervention and retained the authority to adjudicate all aspects of the IRS claim.

 

SIVG has been warning victims for years about the IRS having a claim against the Stanford estate, now we see our claims are all true.

 

Time is running out we have only two days before the JL's Grant-Thornton neet with the DoJ in Washington. Please write to the DOJ and tell them you want the money to go to Grant Thornton now before its to late!.

 

I want to see some sort of interim payout before the end of this year......if you want the same it is your duty to make the DOJ aware of how you feel.

 

 Addresses to send emails:

kondi.kleinman@usdoj.gov
reeceD@sec.gov

 

Statement Regarding DoJ Meeting Next Week

Dear Members,

The Joint Liquidators have posted responses to communications from Ms Shaw and Mr. Escalona on their website at sibliquidation.com.   These are quite lengthy and we thought it might be useful to summarise a couple of the key points, and add some comments of our own before we go to Washington DC to represent Stanford International Victims Group at the "summit" meeting between DoJ, the victims groups, the Receiver parties, and the Joint Liquidators and their Creditor Committee.

From where we sit it appears that Ms. Shaw and Mr. Escalona have joined forces to encourage the DoJ and Receiver parties to block the JL's actions to get an early release of the SIB frozen funds - preferring the "all American" solution, no matter what the cost or delay.  The DoJ intervention to freeze funds, took place at a time when the funds were not at risk as they were going to go to one of the Court appointees. In so doing they have only caused several years delay in these funds becoming available to support recovery actions and distributions to depositors without adding any value or certainty.  The JL's have been trying to get these funds released since their appointment over a year ago as they were in a position to flow the bulk of them through to depositors promptly, and use some part of them to generate further recoveries which could also have been distributed by now.  (The JL's did not press forward with their claims process as early as they might have had there been the prospect of distribution to save money in the early going.)

There is no doubt that DoJ was continually aware of Ms. Shaw and Mr. Escalona, and hearing from no other victims were able to assume these were the only victim voices. Were it not for the JL's we would not have been included in this summit, as DoJ say they were not aware of the Stanford International Victims Group, nor its site which we believe properly posts all victims views in an effort to be genuinely representative. In that context we note Ms Shaw did not post the JL's response to her open letter, and as best we can tell neither has Mr.  Escalona posted the multiple responses by the JL's to his open communications.  We are concerned that he has mostly served to "re-victimise" the victims by asking for more money on a continuing basis.

Mr. Escalona also continues to make legal pronouncements on the JL's procedures and policies.  He is not a lawyer licensed to practice any where that we can determine, and certainly not in Antigua.  We are told he has not answered the JL's on this point when they asked him directly if he was a lawyer.  He demonstrates a continuing lack of knowledge of the laws of Antigua, and binding rules implemented under those laws, and the simply has no experience with, or understanding of, the intricacies of international insolvency proceedings. Unfortunately it appears he is simply wrong on many of his pronouncements, yet to depositors who rely on him for information, his is only voice heard, which creates problems and costs for the JL's as they go about their business.  

We invite you to look at the backgrounds of the JL's team who are all specialists in fraud and international insolvency with many years experience.  The US team of lawyers, including the Receiver, the lead lawyer from Baker Botts, the Examiner and the tort lawyers on OSIC, have virtually none collectively, never mind individually, nor does the US Court running the US case, which has declined to refer the matter to the US Bankruptcy Court, where that expertise resides. Bluntly it seems to us that this is one of the biggest reasons why the JL's have not been able to come up with a cooperative protocol, as fear by the Receiver parties for their positions  prevails rather than an understanding as to how to make the tools available work for both of the Receiver and the JLs,which was the JL's aim.

We note the JLs have pledged to continue the fight to recover funds for the earliest distribution possible and ultimately in the largest amounts possible.  If any of our members have concerns or questions with respect to what the JLs are doing, it is our experience that they are very responsive to direct communication.  

Liquidators Challenge Antigua Sun Building Lease

Source: Caribarena

Antigua St. John's - R. Allen Stanford might have been sentenced to 110 years in prison for running a Ponzi scheme through his Antigua based Stanford International Bank, but the legal battles surrounding his assets continue to rage on with some closer to home than most would like.

Caribarena spoke with Liquidator Marcus Wide on Monday and according to him, there are at least two properties belonging to Stanford that were either leased or sold by the Stanford Development Company without prior consent from his office, and these matters remain in disputation.

Wide revealed that one of those properties include the freshly re-commissioned Antigua Sun Building for which the liquidators have sought a court injunction to halt its lease until an independent valuation is done to determine whether the cost agreed upon between the SDC and the building’s new occupants are in keeping with current and fair market value.

He said the ethical thing to do in instances like these is to wait until the legal proceedings have concluded before occupying the building since the likelihood exists that the occupants could be asked to vacate the premises should a challenge be successful in the event that the new valuation warrants one.

The liquidators have already filed an objection to the court challenging the building’s tenancy while the legal aspects of the agreement are still being ironed out.

“I don't believe they can (legally occupy the premises) while court proceedings are ongoing,” Wide said. 

“What SDC allows them to do is one thing. Our freeze order is merely that we have a right to first get a valuation, then to either consent to the transaction or decide whether it is fair or not. That is our right. If SDC allow something to happen while there is still a matter before the court, I feel the court will have to deal with the issue of possession,” Wide said.

That valuation is said to be either completed or nearing completion and the findings of this report could mean another court battle between the liquidators and the SDC.

“If our valuation is that the SDC failed to get fair market value then we would go (back) to the court and say this is an improper transaction – an incompetent transaction – and we wish to decline our approval,” Wide explained.

Should this occur, then the SDC would then have the right to challenge the objection and legal battle would continue back and forth until a settlement is reached in the courts. But during this time the occupancy of the building would be considered depraved, according to Wide.

“The court would have to unravel whether their (SDC and the new tenants) view of the world is right. We have no management authority within SDC so if SDC chooses to put a buyer or tenant in possession, that's a choice that they can make. But the consequence of them doing that, if it is challenged successfully and the court revokes the transaction, they (the court) would also insist that the tenant moves out. The court will do what it has to do, and if the court revokes the transaction then it (the lease agreement) becomes invalid and the tenant would have no continuing right,” Wide said.

When the liquidator’s valuation is received and properly analyzed, a formal response of either approval or rejection will be made and the relevant proceedings will follow.

“It would not take us long (to respond) if we have the appraisal, which I believe we should by this point

Control over ex-tycoon Stanford's assets at issue

By JUAN A. LOZANO, Associated Press 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK JOINT LIQUIDATORS INTRODUCE NEW ON LINE CLAIMS FORM

Based on creditors/victims feedback, the Joint Liquidators of Stanford
International Bank released a new interactive claims form today in efforts to make the process for filing a claim more user friendly and efficient. While this form does not change the information that is required to complete the proof of debt form, it does allow for the information to be entered in a more logical manner with the ability to add multiple accounts within the form. Upon entering the data a pdf version of the form is created that must then be printed and signed by all account holders before submitting. To access the forms, please go to:
http://www.sibliquidation.com/claims-administration/


We have started processing claims in the order in which they have been
received. Claims which require more information or which are clearly incorrect will take longer to process. We recognise that not all creditors/victims have full information to submit a claim based on the net cash method that is being used to calculate claims. If you require copies of any account statements, please send a request signed by all account holders to stanford.claims.support@uk.gt.com or by fax to +1 268 480 3725 and we will provide copies of the statements.

As an aside, we note that you may be able to receive immediate cash for your claim from one of a number of fund managers who have expressed interest in buying claims. We will post pertinent contact information on
www.sibliquidation.com for your consideration. The decision to sell your claim is yours alone. We cannot endorse any of the prospective buyers, nor advise you with respect to the value of your claim, nor advise as to the form, legal, tax or other ramifications of the sale or assignment of your claim.

For more information on the liquidation and the claims process we direct you to
www.sibliquidation.com.

Stanford International Bank, Ltd. (In Liquidation) - Invitation to Online Presentation for the creditors/victims on October 11 at 11:00 a.m. EDT‏

Grant Thornton held their first Webinar on 11th October, taking and answering questions from the investors who joined them.
The Webinar was very interesting and my only criticism is that 1 hour was not long enough.
For those of you who – for whatever reason – failed to link up and listen to what they had to say, the following announcement and link was released by Grant Thornton.
What a pity we could not have had this kind of open disclosure with Vantis and Janvey. You have to ask yourself if Grant Thornton can manage to do so much in such a short period of time, why can’t Janvey and the Gang of 6??? If we had had Grant Thornton acting for us from the beginning I am sure we would all be in a much better financial position than we are now, and I am also sure that the underhand deals that are going on between the US receiver and the committee without any consideration for the investors, would not have been allowed had Grant Thornton been watching.

Here is the release from Grant Thornton:

ENGLISH VERSION
Thank you to those who attended today’s webinar of the Joint Liquidators for Stanford International Bank. We had over 2,000 registrants. In case you missed the live presentation, here is the link for the presentation.
The above link for the webinar can also be found on the Stanford International Bank Liquidation site (www.sibliquidation.com).
http://event.onlineseminarsolutions.com/r.htm?e=365630&s=1&k=7B9889A4B0010413216182FC970B085C.

We look forward to continuing to address your questions and concerns. As always, visit http://www.sibliquidation.com/for the latest news from the joint liquidators.

SPANISH VERSION
Gracias a todos los que hoy asistieron el webinar de los Liquidadores Conjuntos de Stanford International Bank. Hemos tenido más de 2.000 inscritos. En caso de que se haya perdido la transmisión en vivo, aquí está el enlace para ver la presentación: http://event.onlineseminarsolutions.com/r.htm?e=365630&s=1&k=7B9889A4B0010413216182FC970B085C

Esperamos poder continuar respondiendo sus preguntas y preocupaciones. Como siempre, visite http://www.es.sibliquidation.com/ para ver las últimas noticias de los Liquidadores Conjuntos.

Grant Thornton First Report Of The Joint Liquidators

SIB First Report of the JLs 120811

Appendix B to JLs First Report

AIB - Appendix B to JLs First Report

Appendix C to JLs First Report

SIB - Appendix C to JLs First Report

Questions from International Investors to Grant-Thornton

Now that Grant Thornton have had the opportunity to settle into their new position as Joint Liquidators in Antigua, I have sent them the following questions regarding matters that have been asked before but have received no answers. I am sure that Grant Thornton intend to keep us informed and will be interested to see if they address that matters I have outlined for their attention. Here are the questions I have sent them:


Dear Mr Wide, Mr Dickson and Committee members,

Now that you have had time to assess the situation regarding SIB and now have access to some money to start taking long needed action to try and sort out the mess that has been left in Antigua, I have a few questions that I would like to put before you on behalf of the Investors. These are points that have been raised by many investors over the past two and a half years but to date we have not had anyone we could find that was willing or able to answer.

In view of the openness with which you want to conduct your dealings with SIB I am hoping that you can throw some light on these matters.

1) How much money is in Switzerland, there have been rumours that it is as much as $1Billion US, can you give us some idea if this is true
2) What are you going to do about SDC?
3) Are you going to file against Andria Stolker to try and regain control of the properties in Antigua which I understand she is trying to quietly market, and will you
be able to claw back the money she has made so far with the deals and rental of properties she has engaged in since SIB was closed?
4) How do you propose to market the assets in Antigua, including Maiden Island and Guiana Island?
5) Do you intend challenging the Caribbean banks over BOA? No money has been paid to the receivership for the bank which clearly had a market value, will you be looking at making the “new owners” accountable for BOA’s value?
6) Do you have access to the last set of accounts and valuation of BOA?
7) Are there any plans to take action against HSBC for their role as a correspondent bank?
8) There are Treaties between Antigua and the UK and Antigua and Germany regarding the protection of investors. Do you have any plans to speak to the Antigua/UK/German governments to try get them honoured/enforced?
9) We know that in the months prior to SIB being closed down by the SEC there was a run on the bank (according to reports) to the tune of $2billionUS. Do you have any plans to try and claw back that money for the benefit of all investors?
10) Finally, can you let the Investors know what your position (thoughts) is regarding the US receiver and the US committee. While we all appreciate that you have to have some cooperation with Janvey and the committee, the general consensus is that Janvey is any deals that would allow Janvey to get his hands on any money you are seeking would be equivalent to throwing money away.


I would appreciate these matters being brought up and discussed at the next committee meeting and giving the Investors some clear light as to the direction you are looking at taking.

I would like to wish you and the committee good luck in this very difficult and complicated matter and offer my full support in any way I can be of assistance. The Investors are watching carefully to see how matters are being dealt with, I trust you will listen to our concerns and be as open as possible with us and keep us informed about what is happening on a regular basis.

Yours sincerely