NOTICE TO CREDITORS
25 February 2014
Dear Creditor:
Stanford International Bank Limited - in Liquidation ("the Company")
Re: Notice of Declaration
The Joint Liquidators are now in a position to make a first interim distribution in the amount of $0.01 on the dollar. CD holders with claims allowed below EC$20,000 (US$7,407.40) will be paid out in full in accordance with section 289 of the International Business Corporations Act.
If you received a preference payment, for which you will have been notified separately, your distribution will be held back until the Court makes a final determination.
Please see the below summary of the receipts and payments covering the period of the liquidation to 31
December 2013 from which you will see that the total amount to be immediately distributed is
US$33,262,396 with a further US$16,989,510 being held back pending resolution by the Court of the
preference issue.
The balance in hand of US$15,344,780 is retained for future costs, fees and expenses of the liquidation, including employee and vendor claims. We expect to pay a further dividend in the future. However, the quantum and timing at this stage is unknown due to the uncertainty of future realisations.
Yours sincerely
For and on behalf of Stanford International Bank Limited
Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson
Joint Liquidators
STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
Receipts and payments statement account
As of 31 Dec 2013
Receipts (USD)
Balance received from former Liquidators NIL
UK recoveries 95,111,096
3rd Party Funding (Hamilton) 5,001,000
ECAB building sale process 4,537,037
HSBC , Panama 3,275,228
Rental receipt (ECAB building) 255,556
Settled legal claims 249,930
Settlement on pricing error 230,710
Other receipts 167,225
----------------
108,827,782
Less: Cost Awarded for removal of former liquidators (3,185,338)
---------------
Total Receipts 105,642,444
Payments
Liquidators fees & expenses 7,446,658
Co-lead legal advisors fees and expenses 10,745,246
Other legal advisors fees and expenses 12,687,197
Other advisors fees 1,722,896
Other operational expenses 7,443,761
----------------
Total Payments 40,045,758
----------------
----------------
Balance on Hand 65,596,686
==========
Represented by:
Preference Payment holdback 16,989,510
1st Distribution to Investors 33,262,396
Balance carried forward 15,344,780
----------------
65,596,686
=========
To join the debate click here.
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group – SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
Showing posts with label Marcus Wide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marcus Wide. Show all posts
Saturday, 1 March 2014
Monday, 24 February 2014
Joint Comments by the U.S. Receiver, the Examiner and the Official Stanford Investors Committee Concerning the Liquidators' Efforts to Recover Preference Payments
Joint Comments by the U.S. Receiver, the Examiner and the Official Stanford Investors Committee Concerning the Liquidators' Efforts to Recover Preference Payments - The U.S. Receiver, the Examiner, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee understand that certain SIBL CD investors have received letters or emails from Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson, the Joint Liquidators appointed by the Antiguan courts to oversee the Antiguan liquidation of SIBL, through which the Joint Liquidators seek to recover from the investors certain amounts (referred to as "preference payments") that the investors had withdrawn or otherwise received from SIBL during the 6 months' prior to the failure of SIBL. We also understand that these letters and/or emails are causing considerable distress and concern among SIBL CD investors. We wish to clarify the following matters:
1.The U.S. Receiver, the Examiner, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee have no involvement in the Joint Liquidators' effort to recover these "preference payments." The Joint Liquidators are proceeding pursuant to Antiguan law and with the approval of the Antiguan courts. Similarly, the U.S. District Court overseeing the Stanford Receivership has no role in or jurisdiction over the Joint Liquidators' efforts to recover these "preference payments."
2.The Antiguan Joint Liquidators have posted a set of Frequently Asked Questions concerning their effort to recover "preference payments" on their website. You can review those Frequently Asked Questions at http://www.sibliquidation.com
3.We understand that the Antiguan court has established a process for objecting to the Joint Liquidators' effort to recover these "preference payments." In the first instance, any objections must be directed to the Joint Liquidators at Stanford.enquiries@uk.gt.com. Objections must be filed within 120 days after the investor receives the letter or email asserting the Joint Liquidators' claim for these "preference payments."
4.At present, the Joint Liquidators are not permitted to bring lawsuits in the United States to recover these "preference payments," nor for any other purpose.
To join the debate click here.
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group – SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
1.The U.S. Receiver, the Examiner, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee have no involvement in the Joint Liquidators' effort to recover these "preference payments." The Joint Liquidators are proceeding pursuant to Antiguan law and with the approval of the Antiguan courts. Similarly, the U.S. District Court overseeing the Stanford Receivership has no role in or jurisdiction over the Joint Liquidators' efforts to recover these "preference payments."
2.The Antiguan Joint Liquidators have posted a set of Frequently Asked Questions concerning their effort to recover "preference payments" on their website. You can review those Frequently Asked Questions at http://www.sibliquidation.com
3.We understand that the Antiguan court has established a process for objecting to the Joint Liquidators' effort to recover these "preference payments." In the first instance, any objections must be directed to the Joint Liquidators at Stanford.enquiries@uk.gt.com. Objections must be filed within 120 days after the investor receives the letter or email asserting the Joint Liquidators' claim for these "preference payments."
4.At present, the Joint Liquidators are not permitted to bring lawsuits in the United States to recover these "preference payments," nor for any other purpose.
To join the debate click here.
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group – SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
Tuesday, 18 February 2014
Letter from COVISAL Regarding Clawbacks from Grant Thornton
February 17, 2014
Stanford’s victims feel defrauded again by the Joint Liquidators Marcus Wide & Hugh Dickson of Grant Thornton.
Innocent Stanford victims are in a panic - many suffering emotional distress.
Today marks the five year anniversary of the Stanford debacle and the Joint Liquidators Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson, of Grant Thornton, decided to give Stanford’s defrauded depositors an anniversary present - a letter asking for the return of money that they withdrew during the six months prior to the collapse of the Stanford International Bank Limited (“SIBL”).
The Letter from Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson of Grant Thornton reads as follows:
I write further to my previous notification to you regarding your claim, which was allowed in the amount of (x dollars) under the above Primary Express Account.
A significant amount of funds was withdrawn in the six-month period preceding SIB ceasing to trade of 23 February 2009. We consider that these payments were unfairly prejudicial to the other creditors of the Company under sections 204 of the Antigua and Barbuda International Business Corporations Act and thus preferential (the Preference Payments). In order to re-balance the creditors’ position, we are initiating a claw back process through the Courts against creditors who have received Preference Payments.
According to the Company records, you have received Preference Payments of US$ x which we require be repaid to the Estate. Please see the attached breakdown showing how your Preference Payment was calculated.
On repayment of the Preference Payment, your claim will be increased by the amount repaid resulting in a revised claim of US$ x, which will be used to calculate distributions as they are paid from time to time.
Failure to repay the Preference Payment will result in the estate withholding dividends until sufficient funds are held back to offset the full amount of the Preference Payment you received; at point, you will be eligible to receive future dividends. Failure to repay may also result in the estate seeking judgment against you and to collect the Preference amount.
The Court has approved this decision to adjust your entitlement to any distribution in the future. You do however have the right to challenge this decision. If you with to challenge this decision, the Court has directed that in the first instance, you must apply directly to the Joint Liquidators at Stanford.enquiries@uk.gt.com or the address above within 120 days of the date of this correspondence. All future communication regarding this claim should include the Primary Express Account Number. This will serve as your claim number.
Yours sincerely
For and on behalf of the Stanford International Bank Limited (in Liquidation)
Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson
Joint Liquidators
The letter sent by the Joint Liquidators to investors challenging the above decision:
“Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your email.
Your objection has been received and added to our system. You are not required to do anything more at this point.
All objections raised are being collated by the Joint Liquidators. Once the 120-day period expires, the objecting parties will be contacted and advised of the next steps.
Please note that the Joint Liquidators reserve the right to pursue the investor if they do not repay the preference payments.
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours faithfully
For and on behalf of
Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson”
Victims’ reactions:
Many Stanford’s victims have contacted COViSAL to express their anger and disbelief. They are in shock after receiving this sinister claw back letter from the Joint Liquidators. Innocent families have been waiting for any meaningful distribution of their stolen savings; the majority of them have been enduring five years of hardship, unable to pay for living expenses or medical treatments. Mr. Wide and Mr. Dickson's shotgun approach to claw back investors who withdrew money from their principal invested at SIBL is cruel and horrific. The Joint Liquidators did not consider the consequences to the well being of many victims in poor health and emotional fragility before sending this blunt and damaging letter.
“I am doing my best to contain the actual kind of foul language that I truly wish to use after reading this embarrassing letter sent by your company. I could not sleep when I read it last night at 2:00 a.m. in the morning wondering HOW, JUST HOW can I explain this NONSENSE to my parents when I translate the letter for them? It is an absolute disgrace and you, your company, and/or whichever court might have come up with this ruling should be ashamed before God, family, and life itself,” one victim wrote to Mr. Wide and Mr. Dickson, objecting to the letter.
“The letter that I just received from Grant Thornton is affecting me emotionally… I never received the amount of my allowed claim; I wrote to them many times and I am still waiting for an answer,” another victim said.
“What I understand from the letter is that according to them, I received ‘preferential payments’ that were prejudicial to other investors!!! So, what was I?... That I have to return an amount of money so they would consider returning something that was already mine?…”, a victim commented.
“This act is an aberration, and a total injustice. Now the Joint Liquidators have found a way to keep getting a paycheck for themselves and their comrades for a long time. They are keeping the money they were supposed to distribute to victims; they found an easy target - the innocent families that knew nothing of this fraud.”
“The Joint Liquidators should go after the net winners who took all of their money out, such as the Antiguan government that confiscated properties and received millions of dollars in loans from our savings." “The Joint Liquidators have not recovered any assets and are desperate to maintain most of the money assigned by the Department of Justice from the repatriation of funds from England."
The facts:
The innocent families, who had their life savings deposited at SIBL in Antigua, did not know and had no previous knowledge of the bank’s problems. It is a fact that the majority of the depositors only became aware that SIBL was in trouble when the SEC intervened the Stanford Financial Group on February 17, 2009.
In reference to the withdrawals made by the majority of depositors during the six months prior to the closing of SIBL’s operations, they were not “Preferential Payments,” they were Legitimate Withdrawals of part of their principal by the rightful owners of the money, which they deposited and withdrew at the bank during the ordinary course of business of SIBL. These withdrawals were made rightfully and in good faith. Families withdrew part of their invested principal to pay for living expenses, medical treatments, to help a relative in financial need, for a down payment to buy a home or to buy a car, to pay for a vacation, or to start a business.
These families lost all of their life savings in Stanford’s fraud; many sold their homes and other assets they had left to be able to survive. The majority of investors in the SIBL were common people, families that worked very hard for 30-40 years to save money for their retirement, for a college fund for their children or grandchildren, and to have savings available for a medical emergency, among other things.
During the past five years, victims of the fraud have been living in dire straits; many died because they could not bear the news of losing their savings or because they could not pay for a life saving operation. The Stanford fiasco destroyed their lives. Recently, the Joint Liquidators announced a 1% distribution of the victims' approved net remaining principal after the interests and withdrawals were deducted. Families saw a light of hope with the announcement. However, Mr. Wide & Mr. Dickson decided to drop a bombshell at the last minute by sending these cold and calculated letters to innocent depositors, asking them to return their own money to the Estate.
Show me the money!
Mr. Wide, Mr. Dickson and their colleagues have received millions of dollars from our stolen savings in fees and expenses, and so far they have not recovered any significant assets. Now, they want to exclude honest victims from a rightful distribution, including the money that was confiscated in England, and that according to the U.S. Department of Justice was to be distributed to the innocent families.
Why don't they go after the “Net Winners” and the insiders who took all of their money out; such as financial advisors and directors, major clients, large institutions, wealthy individuals and the government of Antigua that confiscated Stanford’s properties and owes Stanford’s Estate millions of dollars in loans that were taken from our savings?
It seems that the money available from our stolen savings is simply petty cash for the attorneys and professionals managing the Liquidation of SIBL. They are getting rich quick, while the victims are unable to pay for their living expenses and medical bills, many continuing to live in poverty.
Where are the morals and the good conscience of the people responsible for the Stanford case?
COViSAL’s requests
The actions in pursuing claw backs against innocent investors are supported by neither logic nor law. The Estate stands to expend a substantial amount of resources with little prospect for a meaningful recovery - money that could be use to help victims in need.
Why prolong the suffering of innocent victims who do not have any means to defend themselves before the Courts of Antigua?
What honest and transparent legal entity is providing oversight of the liquidation process?
Where are the checks and balances?
COViSAL hopes that the authorities responsible for the Stanford Case and the courts in Antigua make their principles coincide with their actions and show the world, with actions, its commitment to honesty, equality and justice.
May God bless the hearts of the thousands of innocent families - victims of a fraud that still continues!
To join the debate click here.
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group – SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
Stanford’s victims feel defrauded again by the Joint Liquidators Marcus Wide & Hugh Dickson of Grant Thornton.
Innocent Stanford victims are in a panic - many suffering emotional distress.
Today marks the five year anniversary of the Stanford debacle and the Joint Liquidators Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson, of Grant Thornton, decided to give Stanford’s defrauded depositors an anniversary present - a letter asking for the return of money that they withdrew during the six months prior to the collapse of the Stanford International Bank Limited (“SIBL”).
The Letter from Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson of Grant Thornton reads as follows:
I write further to my previous notification to you regarding your claim, which was allowed in the amount of (x dollars) under the above Primary Express Account.
A significant amount of funds was withdrawn in the six-month period preceding SIB ceasing to trade of 23 February 2009. We consider that these payments were unfairly prejudicial to the other creditors of the Company under sections 204 of the Antigua and Barbuda International Business Corporations Act and thus preferential (the Preference Payments). In order to re-balance the creditors’ position, we are initiating a claw back process through the Courts against creditors who have received Preference Payments.
According to the Company records, you have received Preference Payments of US$ x which we require be repaid to the Estate. Please see the attached breakdown showing how your Preference Payment was calculated.
On repayment of the Preference Payment, your claim will be increased by the amount repaid resulting in a revised claim of US$ x, which will be used to calculate distributions as they are paid from time to time.
Failure to repay the Preference Payment will result in the estate withholding dividends until sufficient funds are held back to offset the full amount of the Preference Payment you received; at point, you will be eligible to receive future dividends. Failure to repay may also result in the estate seeking judgment against you and to collect the Preference amount.
The Court has approved this decision to adjust your entitlement to any distribution in the future. You do however have the right to challenge this decision. If you with to challenge this decision, the Court has directed that in the first instance, you must apply directly to the Joint Liquidators at Stanford.enquiries@uk.gt.com or the address above within 120 days of the date of this correspondence. All future communication regarding this claim should include the Primary Express Account Number. This will serve as your claim number.
Yours sincerely
For and on behalf of the Stanford International Bank Limited (in Liquidation)
Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson
Joint Liquidators
The letter sent by the Joint Liquidators to investors challenging the above decision:
“Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your email.
Your objection has been received and added to our system. You are not required to do anything more at this point.
All objections raised are being collated by the Joint Liquidators. Once the 120-day period expires, the objecting parties will be contacted and advised of the next steps.
Please note that the Joint Liquidators reserve the right to pursue the investor if they do not repay the preference payments.
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours faithfully
For and on behalf of
Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson”
Victims’ reactions:
Many Stanford’s victims have contacted COViSAL to express their anger and disbelief. They are in shock after receiving this sinister claw back letter from the Joint Liquidators. Innocent families have been waiting for any meaningful distribution of their stolen savings; the majority of them have been enduring five years of hardship, unable to pay for living expenses or medical treatments. Mr. Wide and Mr. Dickson's shotgun approach to claw back investors who withdrew money from their principal invested at SIBL is cruel and horrific. The Joint Liquidators did not consider the consequences to the well being of many victims in poor health and emotional fragility before sending this blunt and damaging letter.
“I am doing my best to contain the actual kind of foul language that I truly wish to use after reading this embarrassing letter sent by your company. I could not sleep when I read it last night at 2:00 a.m. in the morning wondering HOW, JUST HOW can I explain this NONSENSE to my parents when I translate the letter for them? It is an absolute disgrace and you, your company, and/or whichever court might have come up with this ruling should be ashamed before God, family, and life itself,” one victim wrote to Mr. Wide and Mr. Dickson, objecting to the letter.
“The letter that I just received from Grant Thornton is affecting me emotionally… I never received the amount of my allowed claim; I wrote to them many times and I am still waiting for an answer,” another victim said.
“What I understand from the letter is that according to them, I received ‘preferential payments’ that were prejudicial to other investors!!! So, what was I?... That I have to return an amount of money so they would consider returning something that was already mine?…”, a victim commented.
“This act is an aberration, and a total injustice. Now the Joint Liquidators have found a way to keep getting a paycheck for themselves and their comrades for a long time. They are keeping the money they were supposed to distribute to victims; they found an easy target - the innocent families that knew nothing of this fraud.”
“The Joint Liquidators should go after the net winners who took all of their money out, such as the Antiguan government that confiscated properties and received millions of dollars in loans from our savings." “The Joint Liquidators have not recovered any assets and are desperate to maintain most of the money assigned by the Department of Justice from the repatriation of funds from England."
The facts:
The innocent families, who had their life savings deposited at SIBL in Antigua, did not know and had no previous knowledge of the bank’s problems. It is a fact that the majority of the depositors only became aware that SIBL was in trouble when the SEC intervened the Stanford Financial Group on February 17, 2009.
In reference to the withdrawals made by the majority of depositors during the six months prior to the closing of SIBL’s operations, they were not “Preferential Payments,” they were Legitimate Withdrawals of part of their principal by the rightful owners of the money, which they deposited and withdrew at the bank during the ordinary course of business of SIBL. These withdrawals were made rightfully and in good faith. Families withdrew part of their invested principal to pay for living expenses, medical treatments, to help a relative in financial need, for a down payment to buy a home or to buy a car, to pay for a vacation, or to start a business.
These families lost all of their life savings in Stanford’s fraud; many sold their homes and other assets they had left to be able to survive. The majority of investors in the SIBL were common people, families that worked very hard for 30-40 years to save money for their retirement, for a college fund for their children or grandchildren, and to have savings available for a medical emergency, among other things.
During the past five years, victims of the fraud have been living in dire straits; many died because they could not bear the news of losing their savings or because they could not pay for a life saving operation. The Stanford fiasco destroyed their lives. Recently, the Joint Liquidators announced a 1% distribution of the victims' approved net remaining principal after the interests and withdrawals were deducted. Families saw a light of hope with the announcement. However, Mr. Wide & Mr. Dickson decided to drop a bombshell at the last minute by sending these cold and calculated letters to innocent depositors, asking them to return their own money to the Estate.
Show me the money!
Mr. Wide, Mr. Dickson and their colleagues have received millions of dollars from our stolen savings in fees and expenses, and so far they have not recovered any significant assets. Now, they want to exclude honest victims from a rightful distribution, including the money that was confiscated in England, and that according to the U.S. Department of Justice was to be distributed to the innocent families.
Why don't they go after the “Net Winners” and the insiders who took all of their money out; such as financial advisors and directors, major clients, large institutions, wealthy individuals and the government of Antigua that confiscated Stanford’s properties and owes Stanford’s Estate millions of dollars in loans that were taken from our savings?
It seems that the money available from our stolen savings is simply petty cash for the attorneys and professionals managing the Liquidation of SIBL. They are getting rich quick, while the victims are unable to pay for their living expenses and medical bills, many continuing to live in poverty.
Where are the morals and the good conscience of the people responsible for the Stanford case?
COViSAL’s requests
- We ask the Joint Liquidators to stop the claw backs on innocent families, victims of this horrendous fraud who are “Net Losers.” You signed a joint agreement with the U.S. Receiver, and other parties, to go after the "Net Winners.”
- We ask that all innocent victims be included in the upcoming 1% distribution that you recently announced, and any other future distribution, without being held prisoner through a 120-day holding period with an unclear and uncertain outcome.
- We ask the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Receiver, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Stanford Examiner, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee, who jointly signed an agreement with the Joint Liquidators, to voice their opinion on the matter and demand that the Joint Liquidators stop these cruel actions that are hurting innocent families.
- We ask the Courts in Antigua not to allow the Joint Liquidators, who were named to prevent the waste and squandering of the creditors' patrimony, to continue consuming what’s left of our stolen savings, and now, go after innocent investors.
The actions in pursuing claw backs against innocent investors are supported by neither logic nor law. The Estate stands to expend a substantial amount of resources with little prospect for a meaningful recovery - money that could be use to help victims in need.
Why prolong the suffering of innocent victims who do not have any means to defend themselves before the Courts of Antigua?
What honest and transparent legal entity is providing oversight of the liquidation process?
Where are the checks and balances?
COViSAL hopes that the authorities responsible for the Stanford Case and the courts in Antigua make their principles coincide with their actions and show the world, with actions, its commitment to honesty, equality and justice.
May God bless the hearts of the thousands of innocent families - victims of a fraud that still continues!
To join the debate click here.
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group – SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
Thursday, 12 December 2013
GT Update Regarding Payment Date
Here is the latest update from Grant Thornton regarding payment date for claims....
Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic242.html
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
We had some hold up with some disputed claims which required applications to Court – which are now done and past the appeal date. We are therefore making distribution arrangements with one of two banks – which we hope to have complete in the next two weeks. While there is a remote chance of having a the distribution out by Christmas realistically it will be early in January.
Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic242.html
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
Tuesday, 3 September 2013
Joint Liquidators Finalizing Claims Process to Make Distribution to Creditor-Victims
Joint Liquidators Finalizing Claims Process to Make Distribution to Creditor-Victims
Distribution in the 1% range to be completed before year-end
Antigua, September 3, 2013 – Joint Liquidators Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson of Grant Thornton have funds to distribute and plan to do so by year’s end. The Liquidators are processing the large number of U.S. claims submitted to the claims process as a result of the Joint Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol for Stanford International Bank. Once the process is completed, the distribution process will begin and is expected to last a couple of months. The goal is to have the funds distributed by the end of the year.
“This has been a long and arduous process and we are pleased to fulfill our objective to bring some resolution by distributing funds to the Creditor-Victims,” said Wide.
Further information on the status of the Joint Liquidators’ efforts and process will be posted on the Joint Liquidators’ official website at www.sibliquidation.com.
Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic186.html
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
Wednesday, 17 April 2013
New Provisional Liquidators Appointed to Stanford Development Company (“SDC”)
Marcus Wide of Grant Thornton (British Virgin Islands) Limited and Hordley Forbes of Forbes and Associates (Antigua) were appointed as the new Joint Provisional Liquidators of SDC by The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, High Court of Justice, Antigua and Barbuda as of April 17, 2013.
With extensive years of combined experience, Wide and Forbes provisional joint appointment represents an important step in the management of SDC in and efficient and effective manner and in the recovery of money for the creditor-victims and the employees and other stakeholders. An urgent component of this liquidation are the past due wages that may be due and ordering the books. Accordingly, the newly appointed Joint Provisional Liquidators’ first call to action is to organize and clarify the past due wages and arrange for prompt payment. We ask the SDC employees and the creditor-victims for patience through the transition as the proper amounts owed are determined and the terms of the appointment order is implemented. The Joint Provisional Liquidators are committed to bringing a prompt resolution to this matter in the most efficient and beneficial manner for the interests of the pertinent stakeholders, including the SDC employees.
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:
http://sivg.org.ag/
The Stanford International Victims Group Forum
http://sivg.org.ag/
The Stanford International Victims Group Forum
Friday, 12 April 2013
Stanford Victim Penny-a-Dollar Payment Plan Goes to Judge
By Thomas Korosec, Andrew Harris & Laurel Brubaker Calkins - Apr 11, 2013 8:12 PM GMT-0400
R. Allen Stanford’s investors may recoup some of their losses more than four years after the Stanford Group Co. founder was sued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and put out of business.
Ralph Janvey, the receiver appointed by a federal judge in 2009 to marshal and liquidate Stanford’s personal and business assets, today asked permission to make a $55 million interim distribution to about 17,000 claimants, or about 1 cent for each of the $5.1 billion lost in the fraud scheme.
“We will follow it up in a subsequent distribution as the money comes in,” Janvey’s attorney, Kevin Sadler of Baker Botts LLP, told U.S. District Judge David Godbey today in Dallas.
The proposed payout would trail the more than $5.4 billion paid to victims of Bernard L. Madoff, who was arrested in December 2008; about $4.9 billion paid clients of the MF Global Inc. brokerage after its parent MF Global Holdings Ltd. failed in October 2011; and the $123 million interim distribution for victims of Peregrine Financial Group Inc. founder Russell Wasendorf, who prosecutors last year said stole $215 million.
“No distribution plan can satisfy every claimant,”Janvey’s lawyers said in a Feb. 12 court filing. “But the receiver’s interim plan, which drew only three objections from thousands of claimants, comes remarkably close.”
“The court finds the motion to be well-taken,” Godbey said in a two-page order. He heard more than two hours of argument this morning.
A federal jury in Houston last year found Stanford, 63, guilty of lying to investors about the nature and oversight of certificates of deposit issued by his Antigua-based bank. The jurors decided he must forfeit $330 million in accounts seized by the U.S. government.
Sentenced to 110 years in federal prison, Stanford has appealed the verdict.
Godbey today asked Sadler whether it was proper to distribute Stanford’s money before entering a final order in the SEC case against the financier and his businesses.
One objection to the payout plan came from the law firm Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP. A lawyer for the firm, Myles Bartley, told the judge today that it’s owed $1.4 million for work done for Stanford entities and isn’t included in the first group of distributions.
Sadler said there would be enough funds to resolve those claims even if the judge approved the proposed payment plan.
In an e-mailed statement, Sadler called the judge’s ruling today “a significant milestone” in the receivership’s effort to get money to Stanford fraud victims.
Godbey’s order requires the Janvey receivership and the Antiguan liquidators to “perform in accordance with their rights and obligations as outlined in the settlement agreement.”
“So long as it continues, millions of dollars in assets that could otherwise be distributed to victims of the Stanford Ponzi scheme will remain tied up in the courts,” Sadler told Godbey in a filing last month.
The liquidators, Grant Thornton International Ltd. accountants Hugh Dickson and Marcus Wide, joined in the approval request through a separate filing.
For dropping their dispute with Janvey and the U.S. Justice Department, the Antiguan liquidators will receive fees of $36 million from Stanford’s frozen funds in the U.K., according to a statement jointly released by both receivers on March 12. The Antiguan liquidators already have received $20 million from the U.K. accounts.
About $23 million in Canadian funds and $132.5 million in Swiss funds will be transferred to the Justice Department and Janvey for distribution to investors through a system the U.S. receiver is establishing, according to the joint statement.
(Comment from Kate...I see Shaw is still opposing anything and everything that does not support her SIPC claim. She has always opposed this agreement because she told me it could interfere with her SIPC claim. So thanks Shaw for putting your own wants and needs before those of the victims. Clearly when the Joint Liquidators are successful in getting money from the banks, I take it Shaw will not want any!!)
“There is no Plan B,” Sadler told the judge.
Edward H. Davis Jr., an attorney for the liquidators, told Godbey today that an Antiguan court approved the agreement this week.
He said the agreement funds a “war chest” for the liquidators to further pursue lawsuits.
“The Joint Liquidators are pleased to have obtained the approval of the settlement from the High Court in Antigua this past Monday,” Davis said today in an e-mailed statement.
Attorneys representing law firms already defending suits filed by Janvey in the U.S. objected to the accord, arguing that it would result in more litigation offshore.
“There is obviously a jurisdictional issue,” Godbey said.“There is no getting around it.”
Shaw couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on Godbey’s ruling this afternoon. Peter Morgenstern, an attorney who serves on the official Stanford Investors Committee, also didn’t immediately reply to voice-mail and e-mail requests for comment.
An additional $4.1 million in Stanford-related assets have been identified in an account held by Pershing LLC, according to a court filing by Sadler yesterday seeking an order for the turnover of those funds.
The SEC case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank, 09-cv-00298, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The criminal case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09-cr-00342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).
To contact the reporters on this story: Tom Korosec in the Dallas federal courthouse at tkorosec@texaswordworks.com; Andrew Harris in the Chicago federal courthouse at aharris16@bloomberg.net; Laurel Brubaker Calkins in Houston at laurel@calkins.us.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net.
Ralph Janvey, the receiver appointed by a federal judge in 2009 to marshal and liquidate Stanford’s personal and business assets, today asked permission to make a $55 million interim distribution to about 17,000 claimants, or about 1 cent for each of the $5.1 billion lost in the fraud scheme.
“We will follow it up in a subsequent distribution as the money comes in,” Janvey’s attorney, Kevin Sadler of Baker Botts LLP, told U.S. District Judge David Godbey today in Dallas.
The proposed payout would trail the more than $5.4 billion paid to victims of Bernard L. Madoff, who was arrested in December 2008; about $4.9 billion paid clients of the MF Global Inc. brokerage after its parent MF Global Holdings Ltd. failed in October 2011; and the $123 million interim distribution for victims of Peregrine Financial Group Inc. founder Russell Wasendorf, who prosecutors last year said stole $215 million.
“No distribution plan can satisfy every claimant,”Janvey’s lawyers said in a Feb. 12 court filing. “But the receiver’s interim plan, which drew only three objections from thousands of claimants, comes remarkably close.”
Cross-Border Protocol
Godbey didn’t rule today on Janvey’s bid for payment plan approval. The judge granted a request to approve the Cross-Border Protocol, a cooperation agreement between the Dallas court-appointed receivership and U.S. authorities on one side, and Antiguan court-appointed liquidators of Stanford assets outside the U.S. on the other. That approval could boost investors’ final recovery.“The court finds the motion to be well-taken,” Godbey said in a two-page order. He heard more than two hours of argument this morning.
A federal jury in Houston last year found Stanford, 63, guilty of lying to investors about the nature and oversight of certificates of deposit issued by his Antigua-based bank. The jurors decided he must forfeit $330 million in accounts seized by the U.S. government.
Sentenced to 110 years in federal prison, Stanford has appealed the verdict.
Godbey today asked Sadler whether it was proper to distribute Stanford’s money before entering a final order in the SEC case against the financier and his businesses.
No Precedent
No legal precedent requires Godbey to first issue such a ruling, Janvey’s lawyer replied. He also told the judge that in a prior decision he said “not a nickel” of the money recovered by the receiver from Stanford entities was not taken by fraud.One objection to the payout plan came from the law firm Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP. A lawyer for the firm, Myles Bartley, told the judge today that it’s owed $1.4 million for work done for Stanford entities and isn’t included in the first group of distributions.
Sadler said there would be enough funds to resolve those claims even if the judge approved the proposed payment plan.
In an e-mailed statement, Sadler called the judge’s ruling today “a significant milestone” in the receivership’s effort to get money to Stanford fraud victims.
Godbey’s order requires the Janvey receivership and the Antiguan liquidators to “perform in accordance with their rights and obligations as outlined in the settlement agreement.”
Long Dispute
Lawyers for both factions battled for months for control of $300 million of Stanford assets outside the U.S.“So long as it continues, millions of dollars in assets that could otherwise be distributed to victims of the Stanford Ponzi scheme will remain tied up in the courts,” Sadler told Godbey in a filing last month.
The liquidators, Grant Thornton International Ltd. accountants Hugh Dickson and Marcus Wide, joined in the approval request through a separate filing.
For dropping their dispute with Janvey and the U.S. Justice Department, the Antiguan liquidators will receive fees of $36 million from Stanford’s frozen funds in the U.K., according to a statement jointly released by both receivers on March 12. The Antiguan liquidators already have received $20 million from the U.K. accounts.
About $23 million in Canadian funds and $132.5 million in Swiss funds will be transferred to the Justice Department and Janvey for distribution to investors through a system the U.S. receiver is establishing, according to the joint statement.
‘Ransom’ Payment
Angie Shaw, a founder of the Stanford Victims Coalition, has denounced the agreement as “ransom” that rewards the Antiguan liquidators at the investors’ expense.(Comment from Kate...I see Shaw is still opposing anything and everything that does not support her SIPC claim. She has always opposed this agreement because she told me it could interfere with her SIPC claim. So thanks Shaw for putting your own wants and needs before those of the victims. Clearly when the Joint Liquidators are successful in getting money from the banks, I take it Shaw will not want any!!)
“There is no Plan B,” Sadler told the judge.
Edward H. Davis Jr., an attorney for the liquidators, told Godbey today that an Antiguan court approved the agreement this week.
He said the agreement funds a “war chest” for the liquidators to further pursue lawsuits.
“The Joint Liquidators are pleased to have obtained the approval of the settlement from the High Court in Antigua this past Monday,” Davis said today in an e-mailed statement.
Attorneys representing law firms already defending suits filed by Janvey in the U.S. objected to the accord, arguing that it would result in more litigation offshore.
“There is obviously a jurisdictional issue,” Godbey said.“There is no getting around it.”
Fees Paid
Janvey’s professionals had been paid $63.3 million in fees and expenses as of Feb. 7, according to his most recent status report. That represents about a quarter of the $230.2 million Janvey has recovered for the estate. He has paid out $53.3 million more in costs to wind up Stanford’s business interests.Shaw couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on Godbey’s ruling this afternoon. Peter Morgenstern, an attorney who serves on the official Stanford Investors Committee, also didn’t immediately reply to voice-mail and e-mail requests for comment.
An additional $4.1 million in Stanford-related assets have been identified in an account held by Pershing LLC, according to a court filing by Sadler yesterday seeking an order for the turnover of those funds.
The SEC case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank, 09-cv-00298, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The criminal case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09-cr-00342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).
To contact the reporters on this story: Tom Korosec in the Dallas federal courthouse at tkorosec@texaswordworks.com; Andrew Harris in the Chicago federal courthouse at aharris16@bloomberg.net; Laurel Brubaker Calkins in Houston at laurel@calkins.us.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net.
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:
http://sivg.org.ag/
The Stanford International Victims Group Forum
http://sivg.org.ag/
The Stanford International Victims Group Forum
Monday, 8 April 2013
Antiguan Courts Ratify Agreement Between Janvey & GT
Good news for ALL victims!!
Today I attended the Antiguan courts with Marcus Wide, Edd Davis and four other lawyers.
I am pleased to inform you that the agreement between the parties has been ratified by the Antigua courts. Let us all hope that when the agreement goes before judge Godbey later this week no individuals attempt to block this agreement which has the support of the vast majority of victims.
Today I attended the Antiguan courts with Marcus Wide, Edd Davis and four other lawyers.
I am pleased to inform you that the agreement between the parties has been ratified by the Antigua courts. Let us all hope that when the agreement goes before judge Godbey later this week no individuals attempt to block this agreement which has the support of the vast majority of victims.
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:
http://sivg.org.ag/
The Stanford International Victims Group Forum
http://sivg.org.ag/
The Stanford International Victims Group Forum
Saturday, 30 March 2013
Stanford Victims Will Benefit From $300M Settlement
In a huge step forward for R. Allen Stanford’s cheated investors and creditors, a settlement aims to break the logjam over who is entitled to $300 million worth of frozen assets around the world.
When Stanford’s Ponzi scheme was exposed in 2009 and his business went under, it spawned a global hunt for his many assets to repay his investors and creditors. But those involved in the search—U.S. government agencies, a U.S.-court appointed receiver and the liquidators of Stanford’s Antiguan bank—fought in courts across the world over who controlled the various assets.
The settlement, announced last week and subject to the approval of several courts in the coming weeks, will resolve the years-long battle. It will also speed efforts to return money to those who invested in certificates of deposit issued by Stanford International Bank, a scheme through which Stanford ultimately cheated investors out of $7 billion. Stanford used investors’ cash to further the fraud and fund a lavish lifestyle in which he accumulated real estate, yachts and other assets around the world.
The U.S. receiver warned in court papers that if the settlement isn’t approved, “millions of dollars in assets that could otherwise be distributed to the victims of the Stanford Ponzi scheme will remain tied up in the courts.”
Some of the specific deal terms include handing over $44 million of assets frozen in the U.K. to the Antiguan liquidators, which they’ll distribute to victims in that court proceeding. The liquidators will get another $36 million from the U.K. to fund their continued search for more assets.
More than $132.5 million that was found in Switzerland and $23 million in Canada will be forfeited to the U.S. Department of Justice, which will allow that to be distributed through the U.S. receivership. Antiguan victims will get another $60.5 million from Switzerland.
The settlement doesn’t allow the distribution of any of the $300 million in frozen assets to be paid to two government creditors, the Internal Revenue Service and Antiguan government.
The settlement is subject to the approval of the U.S. District Court in Dallas, the Antiguan court and London’s Central Criminal Court.
Convicted last year of fraud, conspiracy and other criminal charges, Stanford is now serving a 110-year prison sentence. He has insisted he did nothing wrong and has appealed his conviction and sentence.
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:
http://sivg.org.ag/
The Stanford International Victims Group Forum
http://sivg.org.ag/
The Stanford International Victims Group Forum
Proskauer, Hunton, Chadbourne Attack Antiguan Stanford Deal
By Maria Chutchian
Proskauer Rose LLP, Hunton & Williams LLP and Chadbourne & Parke LLP on Thursday challenged a settlement between the U.S. and Antiguan receivers in charge of compensating victims of Robert Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme, saying the deal exposes them to duplicative litigation.
The three firms join Greenberg Traurig LLP in urging a Texas court to reject the settlement, which will resolve disputes about jurisdiction over $300 million that Stanford had in the U.K., Switzerland and Canada.
Proceedings are already underway in the U.S. that are looking to hold the law firms liable with respect to their legal work for Houston-based Stanford Financial Group, alleging that they did not do enough to stop Stanford’s fraud.
Furthermore, the deal ignores earlier court-ordered prohibitions to the U.S. and Antiguan receivers pursuing independent lawsuits against lawyers and duplicating their efforts in the two nations' court systems, as well as terms that would allow the Antiguan receivers to conduct U.S. discovery without being subject to the personal jurisdiction of U.S. courts, the firms argue.
The settlement agreement includes a provision that allows the receivers and government agencies to pursue the same claims in different jurisdictions, the firms contend. This could force them to defend themselves against the same allegations both in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and again in Antigua.
“This result creates the possibility of inconsistent judgments, and in any event would entail a waste of judicial resources and the resources of the parties,” Proskauer said in its objection to the deal.
The firms are asking the court to either deny the settlement should or remove the provision that allows for the duplicate claims.
Stanford rose to prominence as the head of the multinational financial services group that bore his name, whose banking arm was the Stanford International Bank in Antigua. The four firms that have objected served as outside law firms to some of Stanford's companies for a time, but all have denied any knowledge or culpability in his massive scheme.
After investigators in February 2009 alleged that the consistently above-average returns Stanford promised were possible only because of fraud, regulators in both Antigua and the U.S. appointed receivers to handle the claims. They had been at odds until the settlement was reached.
The settlement, announced March 12, would allow distributions to victims to go forward without litigation between the U.S. receiver and his counterparts in Antigua — joint liquidators Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson of the accounting firm Grant Thornton — threatening to disrupt the process as it had in the past.
A hearing in Antigua on the proposed settlement, which requires U.S., U.K. and Antiguan approval, is scheduled for April 8.
Stanford was convicted of securities fraud in March 2012 and sentenced to 110 years in prison.
Proskauer is represented by Bruce W. Collins and Neil R. Burger of Carrington Coleman Sloman & Blumenthal LLP and by James P. Rouhandeh, Daniel J. Schwartz and Richard A. Cooper of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.
Chadbourne is represented by Harry M. Reasoner and William D. Sims Jr. of Vinson & Elkins LLP and by Daniel J. Beller, Daniel J. Leffell and William B. Michael of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP.
Hunton is represented by Richard A. Sayles and Shawn Long of Sayles Werbner and by Jeffrey D. Colman, David Jiménez-Ekman, April A. Otterberg Kaija K. Hupila of Jenner & Block LLP.
U.S. receiver Ralph Janvey is represented by Kevin M. Sadler, Scott D. Powers and David T. Arlington of Baker Botts LLP.
The case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank Ltd. et al., case number 3:09-cv-00298, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Proskauer Rose LLP, Hunton & Williams LLP and Chadbourne & Parke LLP on Thursday challenged a settlement between the U.S. and Antiguan receivers in charge of compensating victims of Robert Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme, saying the deal exposes them to duplicative litigation.
The three firms join Greenberg Traurig LLP in urging a Texas court to reject the settlement, which will resolve disputes about jurisdiction over $300 million that Stanford had in the U.K., Switzerland and Canada.
Proceedings are already underway in the U.S. that are looking to hold the law firms liable with respect to their legal work for Houston-based Stanford Financial Group, alleging that they did not do enough to stop Stanford’s fraud.
Furthermore, the deal ignores earlier court-ordered prohibitions to the U.S. and Antiguan receivers pursuing independent lawsuits against lawyers and duplicating their efforts in the two nations' court systems, as well as terms that would allow the Antiguan receivers to conduct U.S. discovery without being subject to the personal jurisdiction of U.S. courts, the firms argue.
The settlement agreement includes a provision that allows the receivers and government agencies to pursue the same claims in different jurisdictions, the firms contend. This could force them to defend themselves against the same allegations both in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and again in Antigua.
“This result creates the possibility of inconsistent judgments, and in any event would entail a waste of judicial resources and the resources of the parties,” Proskauer said in its objection to the deal.
The firms are asking the court to either deny the settlement should or remove the provision that allows for the duplicate claims.
Stanford rose to prominence as the head of the multinational financial services group that bore his name, whose banking arm was the Stanford International Bank in Antigua. The four firms that have objected served as outside law firms to some of Stanford's companies for a time, but all have denied any knowledge or culpability in his massive scheme.
After investigators in February 2009 alleged that the consistently above-average returns Stanford promised were possible only because of fraud, regulators in both Antigua and the U.S. appointed receivers to handle the claims. They had been at odds until the settlement was reached.
The settlement, announced March 12, would allow distributions to victims to go forward without litigation between the U.S. receiver and his counterparts in Antigua — joint liquidators Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson of the accounting firm Grant Thornton — threatening to disrupt the process as it had in the past.
A hearing in Antigua on the proposed settlement, which requires U.S., U.K. and Antiguan approval, is scheduled for April 8.
Stanford was convicted of securities fraud in March 2012 and sentenced to 110 years in prison.
Proskauer is represented by Bruce W. Collins and Neil R. Burger of Carrington Coleman Sloman & Blumenthal LLP and by James P. Rouhandeh, Daniel J. Schwartz and Richard A. Cooper of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.
Chadbourne is represented by Harry M. Reasoner and William D. Sims Jr. of Vinson & Elkins LLP and by Daniel J. Beller, Daniel J. Leffell and William B. Michael of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP.
Hunton is represented by Richard A. Sayles and Shawn Long of Sayles Werbner and by Jeffrey D. Colman, David Jiménez-Ekman, April A. Otterberg Kaija K. Hupila of Jenner & Block LLP.
U.S. receiver Ralph Janvey is represented by Kevin M. Sadler, Scott D. Powers and David T. Arlington of Baker Botts LLP.
The case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank Ltd. et al., case number 3:09-cv-00298, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:
http://sivg.org.ag/
The Stanford International Victims Group Forum
http://sivg.org.ag/
The Stanford International Victims Group Forum
Tuesday, 26 March 2013
Antiguan Court Hearing Scheduled for April 8th on the Approval of the Joint Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol for Stanford International Bank
A Potential Distribution of Assets in Close Proximity
Antigua, March 22, 2013 – Earlier this week, the Antiguan Court scheduled the hearing of an Application of the Joint Liquidators to Approve the Settlement Agreement with the Receiver, the US Department of Justice, and others. The hearing will be held before Madam Justice Henry of the Antiguan Court at 11:30am, local time on April 8, 2013. Creditor-victims may file responses to the application with the Antiguan court and may attend the hearing to voice their opinions on the Agreement. The Joint Liquidators advise creditor-victims to file their responses by 4:00 p.m., Wednesday April 3, 2013 Eastern Standard Time to ensure that their opinions are considered, effectively, and to also e-mail their response to stanford.claims@uk.gt.com.
The appropriate method to lodge responses with the Court is by filing an affidavit setting out the issues which form the basis of the relevant response.
This hearing, along with that scheduled by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas for April 11, 2013, on the same matter, brings creditor-victims of the Stanford fraud closer to an expeditious distribution of assets as a result of the unified plan among the Joint Liquidators, the Receiver, and the DOJ. Among the benefits, the Settlement Agreement, which will only become effective after it has been approved by courts in the US, Antigua and the United Kingdom, resolves litigation over approximately $300 million in assets frozen in Canada, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, provides for coordinated claims processes, and cooperation and an exchange of information with respect to litigation recoveries.
Further information on the procedure for filing responses, and a copy of the Agreement, are posted on the Joint Liquidators’ official website at www.sibliquidation.com. Persons who believe they were victims of this fraud scheme should visit this sites for additional information.
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:
http://sivg.org.ag/
The Stanford International Victims Group Forum
http://sivg.org.ag/
The Stanford International Victims Group Forum
Friday, 22 March 2013
Important Announcement Concerning Stanford Receivership
The Joint Liquidators (JLs) Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson of the Stanford International Bank, Ltd. (SIB) and the U.S. Receiver for Stanford Financial Group and all related entities (Receiver), have entered into a Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol (Settlement Agreement) with one another, the U.S. Examiner, John Little, the Official Stanford Investors Committee (OSIC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Advisory Creditors Committee of the Liquidation of SIB has also voted to give its approval to the Settlement Agreement.
Among many other benefits, the Settlement Agreement resolves litigation over approximately $300 million in assets frozen in Canada, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, and creates a unified plan among the JLs, the Receiver, and the DOJ to expedite the handling and distribution of those assets to creditor-victims.
The Settlement Agreement will only become effective after it has been approved by courts in the US, Antigua, and the U.K. On March 12, 2013, the Receiver, SEC, Examiner, and Official Stanford Investors Committee filed a Joint Motion to Approve the Settlement Agreement in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Responses to the Joint Motion must be filed no later than March 28, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. central and the Court will hold a hearing on the Joint Motion on Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. central The text of the Court's Order setting the response deadline and hearing is set forth below. Anyone considering filing a response to the Joint Motion or appearing in the U.S. District Court in relation to the motion should consult with their own legal counsel.
After all three courts have approved the Settlement Agreement, it will become effective and pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement the parties will pursue the release of funds via appropriate legal processes in the respective countries, including Canada and Switzerland. The Settlement Agreement has several benefits, including that it:
- creates a plan for the distribution of almost 90% of the frozen assets from the U.K., Canada, and Switzerland pursuant to which distributions will be made as soon as the necessary approvals are obtained from the pertinent authorities in those countries;
- allocates $36 million of the funds in the U.K. to the JLs’ estate in order to pursue additional funds for the estate, to be released over time under the supervision of the Central Criminal Court in London, which the JLs expect to significantly enhance amounts available for distribution because those funds will be used to further additional asset recovery efforts. The remaining $44 million of the funds in the U.K. will be distributed to creditor-victims by the JLs;
- allocates in Canada all $23 million to the DOJ to be transferred to the Receiver to be distributed to creditor-victims;
- allocates in Switzerland $132.5 million to be forfeited to the DOJ and transferred to the Receiver to be distributed to creditor-victims and $60.5 million to be transferred to the JLs for distribution to victims;
- provides that distribution of the frozen funds shall be made to creditor-victims of SIB and not to other claimants such as the Internal Revenue Service or the Antiguan government;
- provides a framework for the sharing of information among the JLs, the Receiver, and OSIC to achieve efficiencies, minimize burdens, and maximize recoveries in Stanford-related litigation;
- facilitates cooperation and coordination of efforts with respect to litigation and recovery and monetization of Stanford assets;
- provides for coordination of claims and distribution processes between the JLs and the Receiver; and
- terminates the substantial expense of competing legal claims to, and proceedings relating to, the frozen assets in Canada, the U.K., Switzerland, and the US.
The Settlement Agreement is a product of the parties’ common goal of optimizing and enlarging the overall recovery for creditor-victims as quickly and cost-effectively as possible. The parties to the Agreement all believe that the Agreement is in the best interests of the victims of the Stanford fraud.
Further information, including a copy of the Agreement, the Joint Motion to Approve the Agreement, and a Q&A about the Agreement, are available on the U.S. Receiver’s website at http://stanfordfinancialreceivership.com. Further information is also available on the JLs’ official website at http://www.sibliquidation.com, and on the Examiner’s website http://www.lpf-law.com/.
Text of March 18, 2013 Order of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas:
The Court will hold a hearing on the Receiver's motion for approval of interim distribution plan [1766] and the SEC, Receiver, Examiner, and Official Stanford Investors Committee's joint motion to approve settlement agreement and cross-border protocol (the "Joint Motion") [Doc. 1793 in SEC v. Stanford, 09-CV-298, Doc. 189 in In re Stanford International Bank, 09-CV-721] on Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1505. The time for parties to these actions to respond to the Receiver's motion for approval of interim distribution plan has lapsed, see N.D. TEX. R. CIV. P. 7.1(e), and the Court will not entertain any further responses or objections from those parties. Parties who wish to file a response to the Joint Motion must do so no later than March 28, 2013 at 5:00. Nonparties, including but not limited to investors or other potential claimants, may file written comments or objections to either motion, also no later than March 28, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. The Receiver may file a reply to those responses, comments, or objections no later than April 5, 2013 at 5:00 PM. During the hearing, the Court will not entertain comments, objections, or argument from parties or nonparties that failed to file written responses, comments, or objections.
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:
http://sivg.org.ag/
The Stanford International Victims Group Forum
http://sivg.org.ag/
The Stanford International Victims Group Forum
Wednesday, 13 March 2013
Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol Q and A
When will money be distributed?
The date when distributions will be made is presently unknown. Although the Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, and the Department of Justice have reached agreement regarding the disposition of the international Stanford assets, the assets remain in control of authorities in the U.K., Switzerland, and Canada. The parties will work together to encourage these authorities to release the assets quickly upon approval of the agreement so that money may be distributed to creditor-victims as soon as possible.
What was the cause for the delay in reaching a final agreement after the agreement in principle was announced?
The settlement agreement is a six-party agreement that deals with assets and related litigation in five different jurisdictions. As a result, the drafting of the agreement was a lengthy process, requiring consultation with attorneys and authorities in numerous jurisdictions. Once the agreement was drafted, all parties to the agreement carefully evaluated the agreement, considering all possible implications of finally approving its terms. Because of the importance of the issues covered by the settlement agreement, the final deliberative phase of the process was necessarily lengthy. The length of time needed to complete the settlement agreement is ultimately a reflection of the degree of care all parties exercised in preparing and finalizing the agreement.
Why is $36 million being reserved for working capital?
The settlement agreement allocates $18 million to the Antiguan liquidation estate primarily to fund litigation that the parties believe will have a substantially positive return for the Antiguan liquidation estate. An additional $18 million may also be allocated for working capital, including litigation funding, if necessary. This working capital cannot be used to fund any litigation adverse to any other party to the definitive agreement. Further, every effort will be made to minimize the amount actually used for working capital, and any funds not actually used for working capital will be released for distribution to creditor-victims.
What is the status of the $20 million that was previously loaned to the Antiguan liquidation estate from the U.K. Central Criminal Court?
The $20 million, which came from Stanford assets in the U.K., was advanced to the Antiguan liquidation estate during the pendency of the dispute over control of those assets. The funds have been spent to cover expenses of the Antiguan liquidation estate, which was the purpose for which they were advanced by the Central Criminal Court. Because the Settlement Agreement places control of the U.K. assets with the Antiguan Joint Liquidators, the Settlement Agreement extinguishes the obligation to repay the loan.
Who will receive money from the distribution?
The international assets covered by the settlement agreement will be released only to creditor-victims of the Stanford fraud scheme. No other claimant will receive a distribution from the pool of international assets. Therefore, claimants such as the United States Internal Revenue Service and the Government of Antigua and Barbuda will be excluded from the distribution of the international Stanford assets.
What do claimants need to do to become eligible for a distribution by the Receiver from the international assets covered by the settlement agreement?
The Receiver will distribute funds from the international assets to eligible claimants who submitted claims to the Receiver on or before September 1, 2012, which was the deadline set by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas for submitting claims to the Receiver. Claimants do not need to take any further action at this time to become eligible for a distribution of funds from the international assets.
Why aren't the Joint Liquidators and the Receiver making a single, joint distribution?
The Receiver and the Joint Liquidators are each charged by their appointing courts with making a distribution of assets from their respective estates. The laws applicable to their respective distributions are similar but not identical. Therefore, it is impractical to have a single, joint distribution. However, the Joint Liquidators and the Receiver have agreed to coordinate their efforts to the maximum extent possible to minimize duplication.
Will this agreement end all litigation between the Receiver and the Joint Liquidators?
The agreement will resolve all current disputes between and among the Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, and the Department of Justice concerning the international Stanford assets. It is anticipated that further court proceedings may be required before all international assets are released for distribution. However, the Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, and the Department of Justice have agreed to work in concert in any such proceedings to ensure that assets are released for distribution as quickly and expeditiously as possible.
What has to happen before the settlement agreement is fully and finally approved?
The settlement agreement will be presented to the US federal court in Dallas, the court in Antigua and Barbuda, and to the Central Criminal Court in London. Once all of those courts have approved the settlement agreement, the agreement will become effective.
Will creditors be permitted to state their views concerning the settlement agreement prior to review of the agreement by the courts?
Yes. The Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, the Examiner, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee each invite Stanford creditors to contact them and express their views, whether favorable or unfavorable, concerning the settlement agreement. Creditors are also encouraged to file any objections to the settlement agreement with the courts in the United States and Antigua and to attend the hearings regarding approval of the settlement agreement. The Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, and the Examiner will post notice on their respective websites regarding the date and locations of those hearings, as well as the deadlines for filing objections to settlement approval. Creditors considering filing an objection or appearing in court should consult with their own legal counsel.
How will the Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee handle asset recovery litigation in the future?
In general, the Receiver, the Official Stanford Investors Committee, and the Joint Liquidators will continue to handle litigation in the jurisdictions where they have already been recognized. The Receiver, the Official Stanford Investors Committee, and the Joint Liquidators will share information and coordinate their efforts when possible in an effort to maximize recoveries for victims of the Stanford fraud.
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:
http://sivg.org.ag/
The Stanford International Victims Group Forum
The date when distributions will be made is presently unknown. Although the Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, and the Department of Justice have reached agreement regarding the disposition of the international Stanford assets, the assets remain in control of authorities in the U.K., Switzerland, and Canada. The parties will work together to encourage these authorities to release the assets quickly upon approval of the agreement so that money may be distributed to creditor-victims as soon as possible.
What was the cause for the delay in reaching a final agreement after the agreement in principle was announced?
The settlement agreement is a six-party agreement that deals with assets and related litigation in five different jurisdictions. As a result, the drafting of the agreement was a lengthy process, requiring consultation with attorneys and authorities in numerous jurisdictions. Once the agreement was drafted, all parties to the agreement carefully evaluated the agreement, considering all possible implications of finally approving its terms. Because of the importance of the issues covered by the settlement agreement, the final deliberative phase of the process was necessarily lengthy. The length of time needed to complete the settlement agreement is ultimately a reflection of the degree of care all parties exercised in preparing and finalizing the agreement.
Why is $36 million being reserved for working capital?
The settlement agreement allocates $18 million to the Antiguan liquidation estate primarily to fund litigation that the parties believe will have a substantially positive return for the Antiguan liquidation estate. An additional $18 million may also be allocated for working capital, including litigation funding, if necessary. This working capital cannot be used to fund any litigation adverse to any other party to the definitive agreement. Further, every effort will be made to minimize the amount actually used for working capital, and any funds not actually used for working capital will be released for distribution to creditor-victims.
What is the status of the $20 million that was previously loaned to the Antiguan liquidation estate from the U.K. Central Criminal Court?
The $20 million, which came from Stanford assets in the U.K., was advanced to the Antiguan liquidation estate during the pendency of the dispute over control of those assets. The funds have been spent to cover expenses of the Antiguan liquidation estate, which was the purpose for which they were advanced by the Central Criminal Court. Because the Settlement Agreement places control of the U.K. assets with the Antiguan Joint Liquidators, the Settlement Agreement extinguishes the obligation to repay the loan.
Who will receive money from the distribution?
The international assets covered by the settlement agreement will be released only to creditor-victims of the Stanford fraud scheme. No other claimant will receive a distribution from the pool of international assets. Therefore, claimants such as the United States Internal Revenue Service and the Government of Antigua and Barbuda will be excluded from the distribution of the international Stanford assets.
What do claimants need to do to become eligible for a distribution by the Receiver from the international assets covered by the settlement agreement?
The Receiver will distribute funds from the international assets to eligible claimants who submitted claims to the Receiver on or before September 1, 2012, which was the deadline set by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas for submitting claims to the Receiver. Claimants do not need to take any further action at this time to become eligible for a distribution of funds from the international assets.
Why aren't the Joint Liquidators and the Receiver making a single, joint distribution?
The Receiver and the Joint Liquidators are each charged by their appointing courts with making a distribution of assets from their respective estates. The laws applicable to their respective distributions are similar but not identical. Therefore, it is impractical to have a single, joint distribution. However, the Joint Liquidators and the Receiver have agreed to coordinate their efforts to the maximum extent possible to minimize duplication.
Will this agreement end all litigation between the Receiver and the Joint Liquidators?
The agreement will resolve all current disputes between and among the Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, and the Department of Justice concerning the international Stanford assets. It is anticipated that further court proceedings may be required before all international assets are released for distribution. However, the Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, and the Department of Justice have agreed to work in concert in any such proceedings to ensure that assets are released for distribution as quickly and expeditiously as possible.
What has to happen before the settlement agreement is fully and finally approved?
The settlement agreement will be presented to the US federal court in Dallas, the court in Antigua and Barbuda, and to the Central Criminal Court in London. Once all of those courts have approved the settlement agreement, the agreement will become effective.
Will creditors be permitted to state their views concerning the settlement agreement prior to review of the agreement by the courts?
Yes. The Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, the Examiner, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee each invite Stanford creditors to contact them and express their views, whether favorable or unfavorable, concerning the settlement agreement. Creditors are also encouraged to file any objections to the settlement agreement with the courts in the United States and Antigua and to attend the hearings regarding approval of the settlement agreement. The Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, and the Examiner will post notice on their respective websites regarding the date and locations of those hearings, as well as the deadlines for filing objections to settlement approval. Creditors considering filing an objection or appearing in court should consult with their own legal counsel.
How will the Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee handle asset recovery litigation in the future?
In general, the Receiver, the Official Stanford Investors Committee, and the Joint Liquidators will continue to handle litigation in the jurisdictions where they have already been recognized. The Receiver, the Official Stanford Investors Committee, and the Joint Liquidators will share information and coordinate their efforts when possible in an effort to maximize recoveries for victims of the Stanford fraud.
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:
http://sivg.org.ag/
The Stanford International Victims Group Forum
Friday, 15 February 2013
Notice to Prove issued by Antigua Joint Liquidators
Notice to Prove
Stanford International Bank Limited – In Liquidation
Creditors who have not lodged a proof of debt by 31 March 2013 may be excluded from this dividend.
DATED THIS 14 of FEBRUARY 2013
For and on behalf of Stanford International Bank Limited
Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson
Joint Liquidators
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:
http://sivg.org.ag/
The Stanford International Victims Group Forum
Saturday, 8 December 2012
New Forum Announcement for Stanford International Victims Group
Stanford International Victims Group are pleased to announce the creation of a new forum which can be found at:
http://sivg.org.ag/
http://sivg.org.ag/
Friday, 7 December 2012
Receiver, liquidators end fight over Stanford assets
Ponzi schemer R. Allen Stanford's Antiguan liquidators have agreed to cooperate with his U.S. receiver and federal prosecutors to jointly control the convicted financier's remaining assets, the liquidators said.
The receiver and liquidators have battled for control of Stanford's assets since U.S. regulators seized his companies in February 2009.
The agreement announced Thursday by liquidators Hugh Dickson and Marcus Wide, and independently confirmed by Kevin Sadler, a lawyer for the court-appointed U.S. receiver, clears one of the last obstacles to compensating victims of Stanford's investment scheme.
The parties "reached an agreement in principle that, if finalized and approved by the relevant authorities," would result in coordination of victim claims, increased information sharing and cooperation on asset recovery, Wide and Dickson said in an e-mailed statement.
An estimated 20,000 investors were defrauded of more than $7 billion through a Ponzi scheme that Stanford created around bogus certificates of deposit sold by Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd.
Stanford, 63, was convicted in March of leading the fraud and stealing more than $2 billion to finance a lavish lifestyle and an array of money-losing ventures, ranging from Caribbean resort developments to cricket tournaments.
He is serving a 110-year sentence in a federal prison in Florida as he appeals his conviction and sentence.
Ralph Janvey was appointed receiver by a federal judge in Dallas to marshal Stanford's assets and wind down his companies in the U.S. and abroad. London-based Wide and Dickson were appointed by an Antiguan court to do the same.
"This is a multistep process that will play out over the next several weeks, which is definitely under way," Sadler said. "We're not leaving some disputes to be resolved later."
The Justice Department obtained an administrative freeze on more than $300 million in overseas accounts.
The accord also represents "a resolution of pending disputes concerning funds now frozen in the U.K., Canada and Switzerland, and a release of funds for distribution to Stanford's investor victims," the liquidators said.
Sadler, Janvey's lead lawyer, confirmed in an e-mail that the cooperation accord had been reached but didn't disclose details.
The receiver and liquidators have battled for control of Stanford's assets since U.S. regulators seized his companies in February 2009.
The agreement announced Thursday by liquidators Hugh Dickson and Marcus Wide, and independently confirmed by Kevin Sadler, a lawyer for the court-appointed U.S. receiver, clears one of the last obstacles to compensating victims of Stanford's investment scheme.
The parties "reached an agreement in principle that, if finalized and approved by the relevant authorities," would result in coordination of victim claims, increased information sharing and cooperation on asset recovery, Wide and Dickson said in an e-mailed statement.
An estimated 20,000 investors were defrauded of more than $7 billion through a Ponzi scheme that Stanford created around bogus certificates of deposit sold by Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd.
Stanford, 63, was convicted in March of leading the fraud and stealing more than $2 billion to finance a lavish lifestyle and an array of money-losing ventures, ranging from Caribbean resort developments to cricket tournaments.
He is serving a 110-year sentence in a federal prison in Florida as he appeals his conviction and sentence.
Ralph Janvey was appointed receiver by a federal judge in Dallas to marshal Stanford's assets and wind down his companies in the U.S. and abroad. London-based Wide and Dickson were appointed by an Antiguan court to do the same.
"This is a multistep process that will play out over the next several weeks, which is definitely under way," Sadler said. "We're not leaving some disputes to be resolved later."
The Justice Department obtained an administrative freeze on more than $300 million in overseas accounts.
The accord also represents "a resolution of pending disputes concerning funds now frozen in the U.K., Canada and Switzerland, and a release of funds for distribution to Stanford's investor victims," the liquidators said.
Sadler, Janvey's lead lawyer, confirmed in an e-mail that the cooperation accord had been reached but didn't disclose details.
Thursday, 6 December 2012
Joint Statement of the U.S. Receiver (Ralph Janvey), the Joint Liquidators (Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson), and the U.S. Examiner (John Little)
Joint Statement of the U.S. Receiver (Ralph Janvey), the Joint Liquidators
(Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson), and the U.S. Examiner (John Little)
Agreement reached in principle
ANTIGUA-December 5, 2012-- After extensive negotiations, and with the input of United States DOJ and SEC representatives, the U.S. Receiver (Ralph Janvey), the Joint Liquidators (Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson), and the U.S. Examiner (John Little) have reached an agreement, in principle, that, if finalized and approved by the relevant authorities, would result in (a) coordination between the U.S. Receiver and the Joint Liquidators concerning their respective claim processes, (b) increased sharing of information, (c) cooperation with respect to the asset recovery and some of the other litigation efforts, (d) a resolution of pending disputes concerning funds now frozen in the United Kingdom, Canada and Switzerland, and (e) a release of funds for distribution to Stanford's investor-victims.
We are working on finalizing a definitive settlement agreement, which we hope to be able to present in the near future for public comment and court approval. To facilitate their discussions, all of the participants have agreed to keep these negotiations confidential until definitive agreement is reached or the parties conclude that no agreement will be possible. The U.S. Receiver, the Joint Liquidators and the U.S. Examiner have agreed to release this statement so that Stanford victims know that the various participants are continuing to work to reach an agreement that will achieve the goals set forth above. We continue to have your interests at the forefront and we understand the very difficult circumstances you face as victims.
Friday, 31 August 2012
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.
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.