Reports of Gilardi withholding Distribution Cheques

We are receiving reports of Gilardi withholding distribution checks to certain claimants.


If you are affected then Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic210.html 

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

Observations on Report by Morganstern Re Stanford-Related Cases

UPDATE ON STATUS OF MORGENSTERN STANFORD-RELATED CASES; CONTINUING RECOVERY EFFORTS AND CASE DEVELOPMENTS
December 9, 2011

PM says:

Since our last update, there have been several developments that I wanted to call to your attention. This past Monday, we filed our response to the bank defendant's motions to dismiss our complaint against them. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to share the actual response with you because of confidentiality requirements imposed on us. We will continue to aggressively press ahead with this lawsuit against the banks, and have asked the Court to permit the Official Stanford Investors’ Committee (on which we serve) to join the case. The banks have an opportunity to respond, and it is unclear when the Court will consider and decide the motions. We remain confident about our cases, and believe that the claims against the banks could result in significant recoveries. Of course there remain no guarantees of success.

So you filed your response to the banks but we can’t know what that response is, well there’s a familiar story. Surely if you are filing on behalf of your clients (Stanford victims) then the clients have a right to know what you are saying? How much more time (It’s been nearly 3 years since you originally filed these actions against the banks) are you going to spend on these lawsuits before we hear something positive? And, as these are class action lawsuits (filed in Texas I believe) are they all going to be thrown out under SLUSA ? Can you also give me a reason why you feel the need to include the committee to join this case?  I am glad you are not giving any guarantees about this one as I lost all confidence in this action a long time ago.

PM says:

On a second front, the hearing on the Antiguan liquidators’ motion for Chapter 15 recognition is scheduled for December 21 in Dallas. We are actively opposing that application, as we are very concerned about the prospect of the Antiguan court and government exercising control over (i) the hundreds of millions of funds located and frozen by the Department of Justice in overseas bank accounts, and (ii) the Antiguan government gaining access to litigation recoveries that we anticipate in the future and other assets. The Antiguan government itself owes at least tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars to the Stanford investors, has a history of being corrupt, facilitated and was complicit in this fraud, and has since even failed to extradite Leroy King to the United States to respond to the serious criminal charges pending against him. Although the U.S. legal system is certainly not perfect, we believe it to be far superior to the Antiguan alternative for maximizing investor recoveries.

 If you bothered to take any interest in the mood of Antigua, the government here and what is happening, you would (and do) know that Grant Thornton are acting completely independent from the Antigua Government. You would also know that the courts here come under English law and the appeals procedure again is laid down in English law. To date the courts in the US do not appear to be doing a very good job for the victims, hell they allowed mostly US lawyers to highjack all the positions on the committee. You also know that the Antigua government no longer have possession of any of the Stanford properties and assets and that Grant Thornton are working very hard to bring these under their control for the benefit of all victims. Talking about what the Antigua government owes to the victims, how about we look at what the US politicians owe from “donations” made by Stanford? Isn’t it about time all these politicians paid the money back? It comes to far more than Antigua ever borrowed from Stanford? Again, you talk about the Antigua government being complicit in the fraud. What about America, the CIA, the DEA, the last president, the SEC, the politicians? Compare that to one stupid Antiguan who accepted cash to keep Stanford informed about what was happening, he was a very small fish and he will be brought to justice. Let’s get things into prospective and get your own house in order before you start on Antigua. Also while we are talking about maximising the investors recovery, let’s just think for a moment about the IRS and what they are sitting waiting to take out of the Stanford estate, $260Million I believe at the last count and that can change if and when they take into account the $1.8 Billion “loan” that Stanford gave himself.

PM says:

Our opposition to the Antiguan liquidators is not an endorsement of how this case has proceeded to date. We remain very frustrated by the lack of substantial progress, and are continuing our constant efforts to speed up the cases and maximize recovery for all Stanford investors.

Grant Thornton have only been in situ for less than 6 months and have done a fantastic job, not least at keeping the investors informed about what they are doing and what is happening. They have brought together a TOTALLY INDEPENDENT VICTIM committee, which surprise, surprise is actually made up of VITIMS from around the world. They are asking the victims what their questions are and they are taking the trouble to answer those questions. Compare this to the US committee who for the most part have ignored letters and questions from the victims, have ignored their grievances, for the most part have failed to keep the victims informed, have misled the victims (I refer here to the idea and original composition of the committee we were led to believe would be formed). It’s no wonder they don’t want another (in my opinion) more professional and capable group of Liquidators (GT) coming in and spoiling their nice cosy little set-up.

PM says:

As usual, there continue to be unfounded and untrue rumors being circulated about the Investors Committee. The Committee, which we are part of, is working very hard and represents ALL Stanford investors, regardless of nationality or residence. This allegation about the Committee only serving U.S. investors, is completely untrue and unfair. This was the finding of the Court when it recently denied an attempt by the Kachroo firm to reconstruct the Committee, and denied their motion to intervene in the case.

With regard to the rumours, how are the victims supposed to feel when (see comments above) we have been ignored and to date the majority of efforts seem to have been spent trying to get SIPC for mainly US victims. The committee is made up of mainly Americans, the Political scene is working purely for the American victims, Angela Shaw sends out emails saying she will ONLY REPRESENT THE AMERICANS….der, I wonder why all the international victims doubt your sincerity about representing them? With regard to the finding of the courts regarding Kachroo’s motion to intervene,I believe this was denied on a point of law. Actions speak louder than words and the actions of the committee to date reflect the grave concerns the International Victims have about their neglect by you and the committee. If victim beleive they are not being fairly represented then clearly you have afiled to keep them informed.  It would seem that Kachroo gave you all the kick up the butt that was so badly needed.

We are continuing to move forward with our investigation of potential sources of recoveries, are in discussions (which cannot be made public) with certain significant litigation targets, and are proceeding as quickly as possible with the filed litigations seeking substantial recoveries for investors. We are also representing your interests in all of the major court proceedings.

PM says:

I expect that we will have a further report for you after the next Court hearing on December 21. I know that many of you are frustrated by our lack of personal, individual contact with you. We are trying our best to concentrate virtually all of our efforts on the lawsuits and recovery efforts which we hope will result in significant distributions to you eventually. After the hearings in December and the upcoming holidays, I do plan to schedule a trip to Mexico and other locations, at the beginning of the year, to provide an in-person update to anyone who is interested in attending. In the meantime, please keep watching for updates and monitor the examiner’s website for other Committee news.

Well you are right about us being frustrated by your lack of personal, individual contact.  There are a lot of very disillusioned victims out there. Hope you plan a trip to Antigua, I would LOVE to meet up with you…and while you are at it, please bring Ms. Shaw, I would also love to meet her…as would most of the Antigua population!!

Finally, we are all anxiously awaiting word about the commencement of Allen Stanford’s criminal trial, which remains unscheduled. We will provide you with that information as soon as possible.

Peter D. Morgenstern

Committee Struggles to find support

It would seem that the ONLY TWO letters of support for the Committee, come from TWO MEMBERS of the committee being criticised…how sad is that?


UPDATE ON STATUS OF MORGENSTERN STANFORD-RELATED CASES; CONTINUING RECOVERY EFFORTS AND CASE DEVELOPMENTS

October 7, 2011

Some of you have undoubtedly been reading and hearing negative and untrue comments about the efforts we have undertaken, both as lawyers and as members of the Official Stanford Investors Committee, to recover your lost investments. Much of the misinformation and what I believe to be defamatory statements have been sourced to individuals and attorneys who are apparently seeking through misleading tactics, to insert themselves into the case, and to unfairly portray events and likely results for their own benefit and not for yours (in my view). I assure you again that there is no greater priority for us than to seek the maximum financial recovery for you in the shortest period of time. My colleagues and I are working tirelessly to accomplish that end.

We will be having an Investors Committee meeting and will be participating in a number of official court hearings and conferences next week in Dallas. I will provide you with a more detailed update shortly thereafter. In the meantime, I thought it would be helpful to share two letters sent by leaders of the Stanford Victims Community to a reporter who recently published an article about the case. I think the letters fairly capture the reality of the situation.

Please note that I have now officially joined a new law firm Butzel Long, p.c. which is a 150 lawyer firm with substantial resources which I intend to utilize in connection with the continued prosecution of these cases. My new email address is morgenstern@butzel.com and my new direct phone number is: 212-374-5379. The core team that has been working on this matter will remain the same but we will add additional personnel as required. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.

Peter D. Morgenstern



Ms. Triedman,

I just read your column about the Stanford Ponzi scheme Receivership debacle and was very disappointed to see the grossly defamatory allegations Gaytri Kachroo made about the Court-appointed Investors Committee lawyers. Those lawyers have spent hours a day for well over a year researching and filing claims the Receiver didn’t. There are also numerous tolling agreements that are not public that could result in substantial recoveries for the investors. Unlike the Receiver, the Committee lawyers do not bill for their time and are working purely on a contingency-fee basis for the cases they have filed for all Stanford investors. If they don’t win those lawsuits, they don’t get paid. There is also a tremendous amount of work those lawyers engage in on behalf of the investors that will never result in any compensation – like working with various government agencies on their investigations and other matters that will affect the case.

Separate from their work on the Investors Committee, the three U.S. plaintiff’s lawyers on the Committee worked for 18 months on filing class-action lawsuits on behalf of their clients who may have paid them a small retainer fee. Those cases--and the other work those lawyers do for their clients like filing claims, keeping their clients updated on the case, representing their overall interests in all matters of the case—are completely separate from the work those lawyers do on behalf of the estate. It is a gross misrepresentation to allege the Committee lawyers are “double-dipping” or taking further advantage of Stanford investors.

The Investors Committee lawyers are the biggest advocates Stanford investors have. I know this because I also serve on the Investors Committee with them as one of the two investors. I see the voluminous daily communications, the countless meetings, the invaluable institutional knowledge they bring to the case, their frustration with the complexities involving the Receiver and other matters that absolutely demonstrate without question their interest is in helping Stanford victims recover and not in lining their own pockets. In many ways, the lawyers have also invested with Stanford and they won’t recover anything until the victims do.

I suggest reading the Committee’s response to Ms. Kachroo’s motion to intervene (attached here). If you still think Ms. Kachroo’s allegations have any merit, I also suggest contacting Robert Roseman, the lawyer who is suing Ms. Kachroo on behalf of a previous client.
Sincerely,

Angela Shaw
Director and Founder
Stanford Victims Coalition


Dear Ms. Triedman,

I have just read your article in the 'American Lawyer' regarding the Stanford Ponzi scheme. In particular, it was quite disappointing to see you include such a lengthy paragraph filled with criticism of the individual attorneys on the Investors' Committee (IC).

Unfortunately, when you describe Ms. Kachroo as prominent, it implies to your readers that this somehow gives her credibility in the Stanford case. Ms. Kachroo’s involvement in the Madoff case has absolutely no relevance to the Stanford case. The two cases are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Ms. Kachroo represents a relatively very small group of people. Ms. Kachroo became involved in the Stanford case very late in the game. The paragraph that you dedicated to her in your article acknowledges to me that she remains far from up to speed on the activities of the Committee attorneys.

Beyond the substantial amount of time that these attorneys spend on their own Stanford cases (that may or may not result in payment), these attorneys spend an immeasurable amount of time and expertise on efforts dedicated solely to the Stanford victims. With no compensation at all.

There are multiple daily calls, conference calls, emails, court filings, Receiver exchanges, etc among the IC members. There are evening and weekend calls and mailings. Many if not most of these calls are centered around issues unrelated to the lawsuits referred to in your article, but rather on other issues that need looking after on behalf of all victims.

There have been countless trips (personally paid for) to various cities for meetings with numerous government agencies, politicians, Antiguan liquidators, and others…. all on behalf of all Stanford victims yet unrelated to lawsuits.

My name is John Wade. I am a veterinarian by trade and a victim of the Stanford crime. I am also founder of the Louisiana Stanford Victims Group and represent (sadly) 1800 victims in my state. Lastly, I sit on the Investors' Comittee on behalf of my fellow victims. I have been involved almost daily with the attorneys maligned in your article. I can assure you, that it is undeserved. Not only given valuable time, expertise and effort to the Stanford victims' plight, but they have done so in a manner that in my opinion elevates the standard of their profession.

John Wade, DVM

Court Approves Stanford Victims Committee

Court Approves Victims Committee

Update on the Status of Morgenstern & Blue's Stanford Related Cases and Recovery Efforts and Other Case Developments

Client Update

Just in from Morgenstern and Blue

Dear Clients:

We are providing this update concerning a significant development in the case relating to the roles of the U.S. Receiver (Ralph Janvey) and the Antiguan Liquidators (Nigel Hamilton-Smith and Peter Wastell of Vantis). As you know, the U.S. Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators have been fighting on a number of fronts over control of Stanford’s assets. In the U.S. Courts, the Antiguan Liquidators started what is called a Chapter 15 Proceeding (named after the section of the Bankruptcy Code that applies to actions related to foreign bankruptcies). In the Chapter 15 Proceeding, the Antiguan Liquidators asked Judge David Godbey, the Federal Judge presiding over the Stanford case in Dallas, to find that Stanford International Bank, Ltd. was primarily based in Antigua, and that the Antiguan Liquidators (not the U.S. Receiver) should control Stanford International Bank’s assets, and the distribution of those assets to Stanford’s victims and other creditors. The U.S. Receiver opposed that request, arguing that all Stanford matters should be handled through the federal court in Dallas. That dispute was scheduled for a hearing in January, but was abruptly cancelled shortly before it was scheduled to begin.

On May 18, 2010, the U.S. Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators announced that they had reached a settlement agreement that would resolve the Chapter 15 Proceeding and allocate assets and responsibility between them. In essence, the agreement provided that the Antiguan Liquidators would be responsible for all assets and actions in Antigua, and that the U.S. Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators would not interfere with each other and would attempt to work out further arrangements for cooperation. The U.S. Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators jointly requested that Judge Godbey approve the stipulation between them.

Yesterday, however, news reports from the Caribbean indicated that Vantis has been fired by the Antiguan authorities, and that no successor liquidators have yet been named. The apparent removal of Vantis casts considerable doubt on the continued validity of the agreement that the U.S. Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators reached.

In all events, we felt compelled to object to Court approval of the agreement because we do not believe that the agreement, at least in its current form, is in the best interests of our clients or other Stanford investors. We are particularly concerned that the agreement would leave in place, and formalize, a dual-receivership that would require investors to submit two sets of claims, to two sets of liquidators, with differing requirements. We are also troubled by the agreement’s perpetuation of a system that essentially requires the investors to pay the bill for two sets of administrators, two sets of attorneys, two sets of accountants, and so on. In our view, a real resolution of the disputes between the U.S. Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators would unify control of Stanford’s assets, establish a single system for the submission of claims and distribution of assets, and eliminate duplication of effort and expense. Because the proposed agreement does not accomplish those goals, we filed an objection yesterday in which we argued that the Court should not approve the settlement. (A copy of the Objection is available on our website.)

We do not know when Judge Godbey will act on the Receivers’ motion to approve the settlement. When he does, we will provide you with a further update.

This information can also be found on our website:

http://mbstanford.typepad.com/clientinformation

Attorney for Stanford investors says ECCB sending mixed messages

The attorney representing Stanford investors who have just filed a lawsuit against the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank (ECCB) has identified what he says are inconsistencies in the institution’s claimed intentions for the Bank of Antigua (BoA).

Peter Morgenstern of New York firm Morgenstern & Blue LLC said two statements issued by the ECCB – one after fraud charges were laid against BoA owner Allen Stanford last February and the other in response to the Stanford Victims Coalition lawsuit announcement last week – have sent mixed messages about what the Central Bank plans for BoA.

“I think that there is a great deal of contradictory information that is being disseminated by the government officials of Antigua and now the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank and it’s very difficult for us as representative of the investors to know precisely what the position of either the government or the ECCB is under the circumstances,” he told The Daily OBSERVER.

Morgenstern pointed out that in a statement dated February 25, 2009, in which the ECCB sought to reassure the public following the run on BoA, the Central Bank said that to protect the interest of depositors and to preserve the stability of the financial system of Antigua & Barbuda, it had used its emergency powers to assume control of BoA and “took exclusive custody control and possession of all the funds, assets and other property and undertaking of the Bank wherever situated including funds on deposit at the Bank.”

“The Central Bank is therefore by law currently in control of the bank to the exclusion of the shareholder and any and all former directors of the institution,” it added.

Then last week, Morgenstern said, in outlining the facts relevant to its intervention, the ECCB insisted that it had not sold or otherwise disposed of the property, assets and undertaking of or any shareholding of BoA and that the Eastern Caribbean Amalgamated Financial Company Ltd, which was set up to run the day-to-day operations of the bank, was simply managing the bank.

“That’s clearly contradictory to the earlier statement,” Morgenstern argued. “The above clearly indicates that the ECCB was taking on much more than the management role that they and the government now allege they were taking on.”

Efforts to reach the ECCB Governor Sir Dwight Venner for a response to Morgenstern’s claims have so far been unsuccessful.

Meantime, the lawyer has sought to clarify that while his clients agree that the ECCB had both the power and obligation to stabilise the situation after the run on BoA, it’s what they did, or rather didn’t do, after that they have taken issue with.

The attorney claimed that the ECCB did not follow through on its own laws and regulations.

“Once they took the action they took, legally under their own governing statute they were required to retain an independent, outside auditor to determine the value of the bank and to distribute the value of the institution to the owners of the bank if there was a value, and we think it was very valuable and continues to be a very valuable financial institution,” he said, insisting that the rightful owners in this case are the victims of Stanford’s alleged US $8 billion fraud.

Finance Minister Harold Lovell had earlier indicated that the BoA would be valued but to date, there has been no update on whether it has been completed.