Open Letter From Stanford Receiver Dated February 14, 2014

Stanford Financial Group Receivership 

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

 Phone 866.964.6301 

 February 14, 2014

 To All Those Affected by the Stanford Fraud:

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

To read the full transcript click here.


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

Stanford International Bank Joint Liquidators, U.S. Stanford Receiver, Examiner, Official Stanford Investors Committee, DOJ, and SEC Sign Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol

Stanford International Bank Joint Liquidators, U.S. Stanford Receiver, Examiner, Official Stanford Investors Committee, DOJ, and SEC Sign Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol

DALLAS, TX, March 12, 2013 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), announced today that they 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. When the Agreement is presented to the US court and the Antiguan court for approval, victims will have the opportunity to appear and express their views concerning the Settlement Agreement. 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 U.K. Central Criminal Court, 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, will be posted on the U.S. Receiver's website at http://stanfordfinancialreceivership.com, on the JLs official website at http://www.sibliquidation.com, and on the Examiner's website http://www.lpf-law.com/. Persons who believe they were victims of this fraud scheme should visit those sites for additional information. sivgadmin Posts: 21 Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:58 pm


For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:

http://sivg.org.ag/

The Stanford International Victims Group Forum

Allen Stanford Lawyer Sued by Receiver for Aiding Fraud

By Edvard Pettersson & Thomas Korosec (Bloomberg)


A lawyer who worked for convicted financier R. Allen Stanford and two law firms that employed the attorney were sued by the receiver for Stanford’s business over claims they aided his Ponzi scheme.

The court-appointed receiver, Ralph Janvey, filed a complaint yesterday in federal court in Dallas. He accuses Thomas Sjoblom, the lawyer, and Proskauer Rose LLP, where Sjoblom was a partner from 2006 to 2009, and Chadbourne & Parke LLP, where Sjoblom was a partner from 2002 to 2006, of aiding and abetting Stanford’s fraudulent scheme.

Stanford, 62, was convicted in March of stealing more than $2 billion from depositors at his Antigua bank to finance a lavish personal lifestyle that included private jets, yachts and mansions. He is serving a 110-year term in a federal prison in Florida as he appeals his conviction and sentence.
Sjoblom, in the summer of 2005, joined a conspiracy at Houston-based Stanford Financial to obstruct a U.S. Securities Exchange Commission investigation into the Ponzi scheme, according to Janvey’s complaint.

“Sjoblom, who had 20 years of experience as a senior lawyer in the SEC’s Enforcement Division, spent the next four years delaying and obstructing the investigation by lying to the SEC,” Janvey said.

Receiver’s Allegations

The receiver accuses the lawyer of falsely stating that he had personally confirmed Stanford Financial wasn’t a Ponzi scheme, instructing Stanford Financial to hide documents from the SEC, misrepresenting the existence and nature of the SEC’s investigation to Stanford Group Co.’s auditors, and offering false testimony to the SEC.

Sjoblom didn’t immediately respond to an e-mail after regular business hours yesterday seeking comment on the lawsuit.

Nick Clark, a spokesman for Proskauer, had no immediate comment, and Andrew Blum, a Chadbourne spokesman, didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment on the lawsuit after regular business hours.

The case is Janvey v. Proskauer, 13-00477, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).




For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:

http://sivg.org.ag/

The Stanford International Victims Group Forum

Obama, politicians decline to return Stanford money

By Murray Waas
Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:40pm EST

(Reuters) - National fundraising committees for the Democratic and
Republican parties, President Barack Obama, and other major politicians have declined to return campaign donations totaling $1.8 million from Houston financier R. Allen Stanford, now on trial for allegedly masterminding a $7 billion Ponzi scheme.

The court-appointed receiver charged with returning money to Stanford
investors obtained a federal court order last June against five Democratic
and Republican campaigns. But they haven't returned the money. The
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee received $950,500; the National
Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), $238,500; the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee, $200,000; the Republican National
Committee $128,500, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC)
$83,345.

The contributions to the campaign committees and candidates were given by
Stanford himself, Stanford executives, and a political action committee
associated with the financier.

The receiver, Ralph Janvey, is also trying to claw back money Stanford
donated to individual politicians. The list of his recipients reads like a
who's who of Washington, including President Obama - who received $4,600
from Stanford in his 2008 election campaign - Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas),
the chairman of the NRCC, and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the chairman of
the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. Janvey is seeking
these funds informally, and has not filed lawsuits.

Money has already been returned by House Speaker John Boehner, Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. John McCain, among others. But the
roughly $154,000 recovered from elected officials is a fraction of the $1.8
million still outstanding.

The $4,600 Janvey is seeking from the Obama campaign reflects only direct
contributions from Allen Stanford himself. The total may be as high $31,000
when Stanford's contributions to Obama's other campaign committees are
included, along with money from senior Stanford executives, and the Stanford Financial Group's now defunct PAC, according to campaign finance records and an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.

"ROBS THE STORE"

The Obama campaign donated the $4,600 contribution to charity on February
18, 2009, just days after Stanford's alleged fraud came to light. The Obama
campaign officially has no comment on the matter, but a source familiar with the campaign's thinking told Reuters that it does not intend to return the money to the receiver or Stanford investors.

Kevin Sadler, lead counsel for the Stanford receivership, condemned the
failure by the Obama campaign to turn over the contributions to the
receiver. He said "the money was never theirs to begin with," so they have
no more right to the money than an ordinary person who was given it from "a
guy who goes into a Seven Eleven and robs the store."

Stanford is on trial for allegedly bilking $7 billion from investors, the
second-largest Ponzi scheme in the nation's history. He has denied any
wrongdoing or taking money from investors.

In his opening statement, assistant U.S. attorney Greg Costa, alleged: "Some people trusted Mr. Stanford with their entire life savings... He stole from them so he could live the lavish lifestyle of a billionaire."

Stanford's attorney Robert Scardino, in his opening, acknowledged that
billions of dollars from Stanford's bank had gone missing, but said that
Stanford knew nothing about it, and the money had been taken by a Stanford
deputy.

The receiver first wrote to the Obama campaign five days after it gave the
money to charity in 2009, asking that it instead be returned to investors.

"If you have already donated such amounts to charity, we request you
consider donating an equal amount to the Receivership," Janvey wrote back on February 23, 2009. "By returning such amounts to the Receivership Estate, you will help reduce the losses suffered by victims of the alleged fraud."

The national campaign committees are working though the court system. They
have appealed a federal judge's order to return the money to a higher court, which has not yet decided whether to consider the matter.

There is scant legal precedent when it comes to clawing back such campaign
contributions. That's because it is often difficult to prove in court that a campaign committee took money that was clearly illicit and therefore must
return it to the victims of an alleged fraud, according to Meredith McGehee, the policy director for the non-profit Campaign Legal Center.

"If there is a clear trail, they can be forced to give the money back," she
said, noting that in cases like Stanford -- where yachts, homes and other
assets have been successfully claimed by the receiver - donations could be
fair game as well. That contrasts with a case like the 2002 telecom
accounting scandal at WorldCom, where there was fraud but also legitimate
business that can cloud the source of campaign donations.

Aside from the courts, McGehee said, another check on the system is that
candidates have to face "the court of public opinion if they are given and
then keep stolen money."

This is not the first Obama campaign contribution to have recently come into question. Last Monday, Obama's reelection campaign returned more than
$200,000 in campaign contributions it had received from the American
brothers of a Mexican casino magnate who has been in trouble with the law.
Juan Jose Rojas Cardona jumped bail in the U.S. in 1994 after being charged
with drug trafficking and fraud, according to the New York Times. The
campaign said it did not know the background of the Cardona brothers when it accepted the contribution.

Stanford spent considerable sums on lobbying and on donating to members of
Congress. According to former U.S. State Department and federal law
enforcement officials, the goal was to prevent passage of legislation and
enactment of regulations that would have strengthened money laundering laws
relating to offshore banking, which would have hampered his ability to
conduct his own allegedly illicit offshore business haven on the Caribbean
island of Antigua, where the Stanford International Bank was headquartered.

As a U.S. Senator from Illinois, Obama was one of three senators who in
February 2007, along with Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and then Sen. Norm
Coleman (R-Minn.), sponsored their own version of offshore banking
legislation.

A senior official of the NRSC, which raised funds for Republican house
members and candidates, said that the committee had attempted to settle the
receiver's demands but its offer was rejected.

According to this person, who declined to be identified, the NRSC offered to return the entire $83,345 Stanford donated and about seventy percent of the receiver's legal fees. However, the receiver was adamant that the
reimbursement should include 100 percent of his legal fees.

After that demand, the NRSC appealed the lower court's decision. Repeated
calls and emails to the other committees were not returned.

The receiver hasn't sued individual politicians for reimbursement, but has
been trying to persuade them to refund donations voluntarily, with mixed
success.

Sessions received $10,000 in campaign contributions from Stanford, the
largest amount among members of Congress who have yet to refund
contributions to the Stanford receiver. Sessions received an additional
$31,000 from other Stanford executives and the Stanford Financial Group's
Political Action Committee, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.


Torrie Miller, a spokesperson for Sessions, said in an email that Sessions
would not give $10,000 to the Stanford receiver, because Sessions had
already "donated to charity" the dollar amount of all contributions from
individuals charged in the case.

Stanford gave widely to members of Congress from Texas, his home state and
the location of many of his brokerage offices. According to the receiver's
report, Cornyn, who is chairman of the NRSC, received $6,000 from Stanford - money that Cornyn has not yet returned to the receiver.

TRIP TO ANTIGUA

In late 2004, Stanford paid for a three-day "financial services industry
fact-finding" trip for Cornyn and his wife to Antigua and Barbuda, according to congressional financial disclosure statements.

A spokesman for Cornyn, Mark Gosnell, said in a statement: "Sen. Cornyn
donated $4,000 received from Allen Stanford to Big Brothers Big Sisters of
America," a 100 year-old national children's charity.

A number of the individual campaign committees of current and former members of Congress received about $154,000 in contributions from Stanford that have yet to be returned, based on the receiver's last accounting in January, information provided to Reuters by the receiver and from interviews with members of congress and their staffs.

Among those who have turned over money to the receiver are Boehner, who
received $5,000 from Stanford; Reid, who received $8,000; and McCain's
presidential campaign committee, which was given $2,300.

Of those who have paid the receiver, former Democratic Senator Chris Dodd's
presidential campaign and senatorial campaign received and returned the
highest amount of funds-- $27,500. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Alabama), gave
back the second largest amount, $14,000. Calls to Boehner, Reid, Dodd,
McCain and Shelby were not returned.

Federal District Court Judge David Godbey, who ruled in favor of the
receiver in June, said the campaign committees "will endure no greater
hardship than that suffered by other innocent victims of the Stanford
Defendants' Ponzi scheme who must do the same." He added that while they may be innocent beneficiaries of Stanford's largesse, "they are not entitled to special treatment."

Many of Stanford's alleged American victims were middle class-retirees, like Stan Kaufman, a retired Philadelphia school teacher, and his wife, Linda, who lost their entire half million dollar retirement fund. Stan Kaufman recalled in an interview that he was lured to invest by a salesman who assured him that Stanford's bank was heavily regulated and all of his
deposits assured.

"They stole everything," said Kaufman. "We worked hard our whole lives. Even while teaching a full day, I always worked a second job. We now have to watch every penny. We have taken thriftiness to a new level."

It is unclear that there is much money left over for the allegedly bilked
investors. Last Monday, prosecutors introduced evidence that Stanford in
late 2008 assured his most successful brokers that they had nothing to worry about because the Stanford International Bank "was sitting on $5.1 billion."
A top aide, however, emailed him around the same time to say that they only
had about $173 million on hand.

Davis, Stanford's former deputy and the bank's former chief financial
officer, has testified that by December 2008, the bank's reserves were a
mere $88 million.

Stanford International Victims Group Press Release

SIVG Press Release

Motion to Intervene and for Appointment to the Official Stanford Investor Committee

Motion to Intervene and Declaration (Filed)

Court Filing: Libyans Knew Stanford Was Running Scam When They Withdrew Millions

By: Scott Cohn
Senior Correspondent, CNBC
Newly unsealed court documents obtained by CNBC allege the Libyan government knew Allen Stanford was running a scam when officials withdrew tens of millions of dollars in Stanford investments in 2008 and early 2009.

The Libyan Investment Authority and the Libyan Foreign Investment Company managed to withdraw nearly $55 million, including $12 million in January, 2009, less than three weeks before Stanford was accused by U.S. authorities of running a $7 billion Ponzi scheme.

The newly unsealed complaint, filed on behalf of the court-appointed receiver who is rounding up assets for investors, says the Libyans deposited all the funds in a Citibank account in the U.S. A federal judge has ordered the funds frozen at least until a hearing in December.

CNBC first reported last week on the claims by receiver Ralph Janvey, but the identity of the bank was not disclosed until now. Citibank has not been accused of wrongdoing.

Also undisclosed until now was the allegation that the Libyans knew before the general public — or Stanford's 28,000 investors — that the Stanford empire was about to collapse.

Stanford traveled to Tripoli and met with representatives of the Libyan Investment Authority on January 25 and 26, 2009. Two days later, according to the court filing, the Libyans withdrew $12.6 million — the last in a series of withdrawals dating back to November, 2008. On February 16, 2009, the SEC sued Stanford, shutting the business down.

"(I)t is clear the Libyan Defendants had access to Mr. Stanford that was substantially superior to other investors," the filing says, "and the Libyan defendants were aware of the impending demise of the Stanford investment scheme well before the Receivership was imposed on the Stanford parties."

The filing cites a U.S. State Department cable first revealed by WikiLeaks as proof the Libyans knew Stanford was in trouble. The cable, sent on January 28, 2010, notes that the head of the Libyan Investment Authority, Mohamed Layas, initially denied the fund invested with Stanford, saying the Texas financier approached the LIA "in the middle of this crisis" — proof, the filing said, that Stanford was seeking help from the Libyans, and the Libyans knew exactly why he was there.

According to the filing, Janvey's office traced the funds the Libyans withdrew to two Citibank accounts, one with a balance, as of March, of nearly $2.8 million, and the other with a balance of nearly $1.4 billion.

The complaint says all the Libyan withdrawals — $54.8 million — belong to Stanford's 28,000 investors.

Stanford's companies "made the payments to the Libyan defendants with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud their creditors," the filing says.

While the discovery of the funds is an important step, it is not entirely clear how Janvey will ultimately collect the funds, because of the ongoing Libyan crisis.

For now, the funds are frozen by court order, with a hearing scheduled for December.

Allen Stanford, who faces 14 criminal counts in the alleged Ponzi scheme, has denied wrongdoing. He is currently scheduled to go on trial in January.

Stanford Court Receiver Seeks $55 Million from Libya, All in US Banks

Published: Friday, 17 Jun 2011 | 2:19 PM By: Scott Cohn

Senior Correspondent, CNBC

The court-appointed receiver who is recovering assets for investors in Allen Stanford's alleged Ponzi scheme is demanding that Libya's sovereign wealth funds return millions of dollars they somehow managed to withdraw just before the firm blew up in 2009, CNBC has learned.

And all of the money is on deposit in a U.S. bank.

In a complaint still under seal in U.S. District Court in Dallas, attorney Ralph Janvey demands the return of nearly $55 million in alleged "fraudulent transfers" to the Libyans. The money includes $12 million in funds Libya managed to withdraw just after Allen Stanford made a personal trip to meet with members of the Qaddafi regime in early 2009.

Three weeks later, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed suit against Stanford and his companies, shutting down the alleged scam. A spokesman for Janvey tells CNBC all of the money is in a U.S. bank, but he could not disclose which bank because the order is still under seal.

All of the funds have been frozen by the court, pending a hearing in December.

Press Release from the Office of Gaytri Kachroo

Here is the latest information from the office of Gaytri Kachroo with regard to the news concerning SIPC. It is worth remembering that Kachroo Legal Services are the only attorneys that have SIPC experience – of any of the attorneys out there – because of their vast experience in the Madoff case.

I would urge all victims to make contact with Kachroo Legal Services to establish whether or not you may be eligible for coverage under this latest proposal Ms Kachroo and her staff will be able to help you and answer your questions. WE have a new fight on our hands now because the remaining victims who are not eligible under this new proposal now have to make sure that either SIPC is restricted to only being allowed access to SGC assets to recover advance (and there are no assets in SGC) or, if SIPC are determined to go after everything including the land in Antigua, money in Switzerland and the UK (and from what I am hearing this is going to be their strategy), then each and every victim has to be included under SIPC.

My own opinion is that the American Committee will be giving themselves a pat on the back and congratulating themselves on a job well done. From my own standpoint as the proposal stands at the moment they have sold most of us down the river and it will cost the majority of victims dearly. The next step is pushing for coverage for all victims and with this in mind the first thing you need to determine is if you are going to be eligible for SIPC. We then have to start protecting all of our assets except SGC and making sure that SIPC does not take what little we have.

As with our registration of interest against the SEC, we need the help and support of Gaytri to make sure SIPC either includes all victims in this latest proposal or they are restricted to only being able to claim against SGC. This is going to be a tough battle to have us all included, and we all need to be united in this.


Regards, Kate.

Here is a part-copy of the latest from KLS:

Dear KLS Stanford Client:

The SEC determination on the SIPC issue was released yesterday. SIPC coverage was determined to apply to all SGC customers!!!

We believe that the SVC has in large part played a key role in this positive outcome and we are very pleased that many of you will have full or partial recovery of the amounts you have deposited (less any withdrawals of income or principal from those deposits). Please note we sent our letter to the Chairman this week in support of SIPC coverage. We have also made our support known through several meetings in the past few weeks to those in positions of power over this outcome. Senator Vitter's ultimatum in the 11th hour to hold up Commission nominations until this determination was successful obviously helped to push this determination through! He has now dropped this roadblock. As you may know, I met with Sen. Vitter's office two weeks ago.

Eligibility: Many of you are up in the air about eligibility and the process given your connection through advisors with SGC, or STC. We will determine and push for your eligibility, as well as complete the claim forms for you so that you receive appropriate payment in a timely manner - for those who have signed up for Stanford Further Actions (SFA) and for those who continue to do so. Please note that SIPC will recover these monies from the liquidation in Antigua and Texas. KLS will play a key role in the recovery of assets in those jurisdictions and will keep you informed as part of the SFA package for which you have signed up.

Stanford's receiver sues him for $1.8 billion from CD loans

A court-appointed receiver filed suit Friday against jailed financier R. Allen Stanford, asking return of $1.8 billion loaned to him since 1999.

The lawsuit filed in North Texas U.S. District Court claims that across the years, Stanford rarely earned any income outside what he was loaned from Stanford International Bank Ltd.’s certificate of deposit sales. He also never repaid the money, it says.

Stanford was chief executive officer of Stanford Financial Group and its affiliates until early 2009, when the international financial empire came crashing down under the weight of a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.

He, four Stanford executives and an Antiguan bank regulator were indicted on multiple charges that they ran or participated in a $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme on CD investors.

The lawsuit says the investors numbers 50,000 in 100 countries. Scores of Mississippians were among them and lost their retirement funds and life savings.

Stanford, who is in jail, is set to go on trial Sept. 12 in Houston, Texas. The others are expected to be tried afterward.

They all pleaded not guilty, except former COO James M. Davis, who pleaded guilty later in 2009 and will testify against them.

The new lawsuit insists that at least since 1999, Stanford’s financial empire was insolvent. It also insists that each payment of CD proceeds to him was “made with actual intent to hinder, delay and defraud” its creditors.

Ralph Janvey, the receiver, said he’s still seeking records from Antigua and Switzerland, where a “secret” account disbursed money to Stanford.

He also says that at the time SIB was placed into receivership in Februrary 2009, the bank was insolvent by more than $6 billion.

“R. Allen Stanford was either unable to repay principal or interest on the loans or never intended to do so,” the lawsuit states.

Ponzi Proprieties

"It is with a pious fraud as with a bad action; it begets a calamitous necessity of going on."

-- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason.

One of the questions being asked with increasing regularity is what is the polite thing to do when you have benefitted from the actions of someone running a Ponzi scheme. In one case it may be that you invested and got remarkable returns, and in another it may be that you were not an investor, but the recipient of the funds that the Ponzi schemer stole. Herewith two different answers to that question. But first, a word about the process itself.

Let us assume that you invested $100 with Bernie Madoff 10 years ago, and for the last 10 years have been getting a 30 percent return on the investment. Now you learn that in the years after you made your first investment, Mr. Madoff convinced everyone in your neighbourhood to give him $100 to invest, and he used that to pay you. Once that became known, of course, your neighbours were upset. The courts were also upset and appointed someone called a receiver to try to recoup for your neighbours the profits on the $100 investment you and other early investors made. Early investors were not the only beneficiaries of Ponzi schemes. Sometimes the schemer gave money he collected to charities, or even politicians, for political purposes.

Irving Picard is the court-appointed trustee of the Madoff mess that was uncovered on December 8, 2008. To date, Mr. Picard has recovered almost one half of the estimated $20 billion lost by Madoff investors. A good chunk of what Mr. Picard has collected to date comes from the widow of Jeffry M. Picower. Mr. Picower had invested with Mr. Madoff for more than 30 years. Ms. Picower agreed to return $7.2 billion to the fund. In a statement accompanying her agreement to pay, she said:

On behalf of my late husband Jeffry and his estate, I am announcing today that we... will return every penny received from almost 35 years of investing with Bernard Madoff, an amount totalling $7.2 billion that will go to the Madoff victims' compensation fund. Although it is my understanding that the estate's legal liability may not have exceeded $2.4 billion, I believe that this settlement honours what Jeffry would have wanted... I believe that the Madoff Ponzi scheme was deplorable and I am deeply saddened by the tragic impact it continues to have on the lives of its victims. It is my hope that this settlement will ease that suffering.
Not everyone is concerned about victims.

Ralph Janvey is a Dallas lawyer. He is the receiver for Stanford Financial Group that was run by R. Allen Stanford. In early 2009, it was learned that Mr. Stanford had stolen more than $7 billion from investors in 114 countries in a Ponzi scheme. Mr. Janvey, like Mr. Picard, is charged with trying to recover that money for the victims of the fraud. To date, Mr. Janvey has recovered less than $200 million. Part of his problem is the kinds of people who benefitted from the scheme before it was uncovered. They were not all investors. Some of them were members of Congress and the Democratic and Republican National Committees, to whom Mr. Stanford made contributions.

They were not eager to return the funds they had received. According to the Washington Post: "At least 50 members of the House and Senate have either ignored restitution demands or donated some of Stanford's campaign contributions to charity instead... " Included among the refuseniks are Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader, Charles Schumer, the chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Senator Bill Nelson who chairs a Finance Committee subcommittee and Senator John Cornyn, a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Senator Cornyn explained that, when he learned of the Ponzi-like character of the Stanford operation, he donated the money he'd received to charity. Senator Cornyn comes from Texas. According to one victims' group, 1,300 Texans invested with Stanford and lost $582 million that the receiver is trying to recover. The 1,300 probably feel a lot better knowing that Mr. Cornyn gave the funds that rightfully belonged to them to charity instead of to the receiver, who could have distributed it back to them. Senator Nelson told the Post he had given the money he received to charity but was now preparing to write a check to the receiver. Mr. Cantor said he'd give back the money if the receiver gave him a release. It isn't clear what he wants to be released from. The political fundraising committees are less tractable. According to the Post, "four of the principal national Republican and Democratic fundraising committees took in $1.6 million in Stanford donations," that they have refused to disgorge and over which they are now fighting with the receiver.

It's too bad the beneficiaries of the Stanford scam didn't have among their number people of the caliber of Ms. Picower. If there were, the receiver might have recovered more than a paltry $200 million. Indeed, it's too bad there aren't more people with a moral compass like that possessed by Ms. Picower living among us.

Third Party Discovery of Foreign Bank Records Should First Proceed Under the Hague Convention

Where U.S. litigation discovery obligations were argued to be in conflict with foreign civil and criminal privacy statutes, many recent opinions found that discovery should proceed under the Federal Rules over the protest of the foreign data custodians. See, e.g., Gucci Amer., Inc. v. Curveal Fashion, No. 09 Civ. 8458, 2010 WL 808639 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2010) (compelling the third-party U.S. parent of a foreign bank to produce documents located at its subsidiary despite claims that such production was illegal under Malaysian law) discussed further in prior blog posts here and here. However, in SEC v. Stanford International Bank Ltd, the court departed from this pattern in finding that discovery should first proceed under the Hague convention “in the interest of comity.” Civil Action No. 3:09–CV–0298–N, 2011 WL 1378470 at *14 (N.D.Tex. April 6, 2011).

In this case, the court previously determined that R. Allen Stanford, his associates, and various entities under Stanford's control (collectively “Stanford”) operated “a massive Ponzi scheme that stole approximately $8 billion from an estimated 50,000 investors scattered over more than 100 countries,” and accordingly, the Court appointed a Receiver to identify and take control of Stanford’s assets. Id. at *1. As third-party Société Générale Private Banking (Suisse) S.A. (“SocGen”) was believed to hold accounts belonging to Stanford, the Receiver sought to discover account records under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”). Id. at *2. SocGen, opposing discovery under the FRCP, argued that as the sought-after documents were located in Switzerland, compliance with the FRCP discovery request would “subject it and its employees to criminal, civil, and administrative penalties under Swiss law.” Id. Instead, SocGen argued that the Receiver should first utilize the discovery procedures of the Hague Convention, of which Switzerland is a signatory.

To determine under which mechanism discovery should proceed, the court applied the balancing of factors set out in Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. U.S. District Court, 482 U.S. 522, 538, 107 S.Ct. 2542, 96 L.Ed.2d 461 (1987) (“Aérospatiale”) and Minpeco, S.A. v. Conticommodity Serv., Inc., 116 F.R.D. 517, 523 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). These factors include: (1) the importance to the litigation of the documents or other information requested; (2) the degree of specificity of the request; (3) whether the information originated in the United States; (4) the availability of alternative means of securing the information, (5) the competing interests of the nations whose laws are in conflict; (6) the hardship of compliance on the party or witnesses from whom discovery is sought; and (7) the good faith of the party resisting discovery under the Federal Rules. See id. at *4.

The court’s application of these factors was initially fairly typical. Factors 1, 2, and 4 were found to favor the Receiver, as the documents were “vital” to the receivership proceedings and not available anywhere else. In particular, the court noted that as it considered the Receiver to essentially be SocGen’s customer, the discovery request “constitutes no more than a bank customer asking for a copy of its own records.” Id. at *5-6, 8, and 11. Counseling the opposite conclusion, factors 3, 6, and 7 were found to favor SocGen, as the documents were only located in Switzerland; this defense was not raised in bad faith; and “comity counsels deference” to SocGen’s “potentially well-founded fear” that compliance with the discovery request under the Federal Rules could lead to prosecution. Id. at *7-8, and 12-13.

Where the Court’s analysis deviates significantly from other opinions is its consideration of the fifth factor, which in this case involves the competing interests of the U.S. and Switzerland. Whereas other courts found that U.S. discovery interests trumped foreign privacy concerns, the Stanford court found this factor to be neutral, after noting that any such balancing of interests would be “political” and “especially inapposite in this case, where the legislative authorities of both nations essentially have spoken by adopting the Convention.” Id. at *9. Compare id. (“the Convention inherently, and adequately, balances the competing sovereign interests here because its use will benefit U.S. interests by providing the needed evidence, and protect Swiss interests by avoiding intrusions upon Swiss sovereignty.”) with Gucci, 2010 WL at *7 (“[T]he Court concludes that the United States interest in fully and fairly adjudicating matters before its courts . . . outweighs Malaysia’s interest in protecting the confidentiality of its banking customers’ records.”).

On balance, the Stanford court found that the comity factors weighed in SocGen’s favor “at least in the first instance.” Id. at *13. Accordingly, the Receiver was to proceed with discovery under the Hague Convention, but was not precluded from renewing its request for discovery under the FRCP should its efforts be unsuccessful. Id. at *13-14. In so holding, the court acknowledged that others relied on the discretion provided by the Supreme Court in Aérospatiale as a “green light to generally ‘discard[ ] the treaty as an unnecessary hassle.’” Id. at *3 (citing In re Automotive Refinishing, 358 F.3d 288, 306 (3rd Cir. 2004)). However, this approach “ignores Aérospatiale's admonition to ‘exercise special vigilance’ in international discovery disputes . . . and exemplifies courts' intrinsic ‘proforum bias’ warned against by . . . the Aérospatiale minority.” Id.

While it is unclear the extent to which this approach will be followed by other courts in the future, this opinion illustrates that it is possible for litigants and third parties to successfully navigate cross border discovery conflicts even where privacy interests are at stake.

Lawmakers rebuff pleas to return funds from alleged Ponzi schemer

While Allen Stanford was flying high, he and his colleagues spent more than $10 million on campaign contributions and lobbying payments to curry favor in Washington. But all that money was diverted from investors in what authorities have called an elaborate Ponzi scheme, second only to Bernard Madoff’s in U.S. history, according to court documents.

Since Stanford’s arrest in 2009, a court-appointed receiver for the Houston-based Stanford Financial Group has been struggling to reclaim investor funds paid out to in-house and contract lobbyists, financial advisers and others whose services may have helped enable the scheme.

The receiver, Dallas lawyer Ralph S. Janvey, has been able to recover only about 5 percent of the political contributions he has targeted. Four of the principal national Republican and Democratic fundraising committees took in $1.6 million in Stanford donations, but they are vigorously fighting demands that they return it

At least 50 members of the House and Senate have either ignored restitution demands or donated some of Stanford’s campaign contributions to charity instead, according to the receiver and a survey by The Washington Post. Included are House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.); Senate Rules Committee Chairman Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.); Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), who chairs a Finance Committee subcommittee; and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

After questioning by The Post, a few of the lawmakers say they are having second thoughts. “We’re prepared to send the money back if they’re prepared to send us a release,” a spokesman for Cantor’s fundraising committee said.

“A check will be cut shortly,” Nelson’s spokesman said, explaining that the senator earlier donated matching funds to charity in keeping with his practice for “individuals who run afoul of the law.”

Kevin M. Sadler, an Austin-based lawyer who speaks for Janvey, said no one in Washington has argued that Stanford, who is in federal custody while awaiting trial, is innocent. Instead, they have challenged the receiver’s legal standing or argued that he waited too long to litigate. “Such indifference to the victims of a massive fraud scheme is difficult to understand,” Sadler said.

Thus far, Janvey has filed 45 lawsuits as part of his global scramble to recover a fraction of the more than $7 billion that prosecutors allege Stanford stole from investors in 114 countries. His authority has been upheld twice in federal civil court, where an appellate panel affirmed last December that there was considerable evidence that “the Stanford enterprise operated as a Ponzi scheme.” It cited in particular the August 2009 guilty plea of Stanford aide James Davis, who said the firm had routinely reported false returns and used new income to pay client debts.

Noting this confession, Janvey forged a legal strategy that includes pursuing payments to lobbyists and advisers, arguing that the money represented fraudulent transfers and therefore is eligible for seizure.

Breakdown of Ralph Janvey's Second Interim Fee

Below is a breakdown of Janvey's Fee's, it is an absolute disgrace and an insult to ALL Victims.

Doc671-4 Appendix to Receivers Second Interim Fee Sch Exh H-K80409

Grizzlies Sued Over Stanford Funds; More Money Sought From Memphis Hospitals

The court-appointed receiver for disgraced financier R. Allen Stanford’s empire, along with an official group of Stanford investors, has added another Memphis name to the group of entities they’re suing.

They also want more money from two Memphis entities they’ve already sued.

On Thursday, Stanford receiver Ralph Janvey filed a joint suit against the owners of pro basketball teams the Houston Rockets and the Memphis Grizzlies.

That suit seeks the recovery of almost $1.6 million in allegedly sham CD proceeds from Stanford.

The suit says that investigation is continuing and that the final amount might be higher. It does not break the amount down between the two NBA teams.

Meanwhile, the Stanford Investors Committee filed suit in February against St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital; its fundraising arm, ALSAC; and the Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital Foundation.

That suit sought to recover at least $7.3 million in Stanford funds.

The same day the Grizzlies were sued, an amended complaint was filed against the hospital entities asking for more money.

The “official Stanford Investors Committee” in the amended complaint says it has now identified almost $12 million in Stanford funds paid to the ALSAC-related defendants and at least $1.5 million to Le Bonheur.

All the sides in the ALSAC-related case have met for at least one mediation session. A court form shows the April 7 session was unsuccessful.

Stanford Bank Records Fight Belongs Under Hague, Judge Says

R. Allen Stanford’s court-appointed receiver should pursue Swiss banking records he says are held by a unit of Paris-based Societe Generale through the Hague Convention and not U.S. courts, a federal judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge David Godbey in Dallas today rejected court-appointed receiver Ralph Janvey’s request for an order compelling a Lausanne, Switzerland-based unit of the Paris bank to produce its records of any accounts held by Stanford personally or through one of his businesses since Jan. 1, 2000.

“If the Swiss authorities agree with this court that the receiver is simply seeking production of his own banking records, then the receiver may easily obtain what he needs,” Godbey said in the ruling.

Stanford is civilly and criminally accused by the U.S. of leading a $7 billion investment-fraud scheme through the sale of certificates of deposit by Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd. He has denied any wrongdoing.

The financier allegedly routed more than $100 million in investor funds through the Swiss bank accounts, Janvey told the judge in Feb. 22 court papers. The judge heard arguments on the issue Feb. 28.

Responding to the receiver’s demand, Societe Generale lawyers told the court their client is bound by Swiss banking secrecy laws, the violation of which could result in their being prosecuted.

Punishment Threat

“The threat of criminal punishment is real, including the possibility of imprisonment,” SocGen lawyer Noelle Reed, an attorney with New York’s Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, said in a Feb. 28 court filing.

“Swiss residents cannot avoid these laws simply by turning information over to their American counterparts to be ‘produced’ in this country,” Reed said.

Reed didn’t immediately return an e-mail seeking comment today.

Janvey’s subpoena had been served on a Societe Generale office in Miami last year. The receiver was appointed after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil enforcement action against Stanford in February 2009.

If Janvey doesn’t get the records, he “may renew his request” in federal court in Dallas, Godbey said.

The SEC case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank Ltd., 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).

Forensic accountant gives Stanford investors a little hope

They have so much riding on such slim hope, but it may be all they have left.

For two years, Stanford Financial Group's victims have struggled with the grim reality of their situation. Not only is their money gone, but every safety net has failed them. Now, they're hoping a new finding by a forensic accountant will give them a better chance at getting some of their money back.

Last week, investors circulated a declaration by FTI Consulting, an accounting firm hired by receiver Ralph Janvey to determine whether Stanford investors should be covered by the Securities Investor Protection Corp.

The ruling found that money that was supposed to buy certificates of deposit at Stanford's Antiguan bank was diverted for other purposes.

The finding "100 percent supports the legal argument we've made" to get investors covered by SIPC, Angela Shaw, the head of the Stanford Victims Coalition, said in an e-mail sent to other investors.

After all, SIPC is covering some of the losses for Bernie Madoff's victims because he never bought the stocks he told clients he'd bought for them.

While the two cases may seem similar, they aren't. Nothing about the accountant's findings in the Stanford case changes SIPC's determination that investors aren't covered, said Stephen Harbeck, SIPC's chief executive.

"We don't see a customer that we can protect," he said.

SIPC doesn't cover lost investment value, even if there may be fraud involved. Stanford investors' money may have been diverted, but the CDs did exist and the bank still had records of investors owning them, the accountant's report found. What was falsified, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission, was the assets that backed up those CDs.

Hoping SEC will step in
Stanford investors, though, hope the FTI report will encourage the SEC, which missed so many warnings about Stanford for so long, to ask SIPC to extend the coverage. So far, it hasn't. The SEC could even sue SIPC to compel it to cover Stanford's victims, but that's never happened.

"In this instance, both parties agree that there's no cause to initiate coverage," Harbeck said. "We were not designed to replace the initial purchase price when a security goes down in value."

That, of course, is not what Stanford victims want to hear. And who can blame them? After all, they weren't chasing exorbitant returns on risky investments. They thought they were buying a safe haven � low-risk CDs - in a time of market turmoil. In many cases, they were following the advice of their trusted brokers.

Confusing to investors
SIPC is a narrowly defined insurance fund. The arcane details of its limitations have confused investors for years - at least the few who were even aware it existed.

In creating SIPC, Congress was careful to insure against broker misconduct, but not to shield investors from risk that, recent Wall Street bailouts aside, is supposed to be a part of investing.

The Stanford case, though, raises the question of whether that law needs amending.

After all, the SEC claims Stanford brokers peddled the bogus CDs, collecting commissions for selling them to clients of the company's brokerage operation, which was a SIPC member.

In other words, SIPC coverage enhanced the veneer of credibility that Stanford used to sell itself to investors, and the FTI report describes a SIPC member firm that was diverting funds from customer purchases without the customers' knowledge. The fact that the alleged fraud wasn't quite as blatant as Madoff's - an obfuscation instead of an outright lie - is a hairline distinction with multibillion-dollar consequences.

Improvements ahead?
Given all the damage from Stanford's collapse, perhaps some good can yet come from the ashes. Perhaps Congress can review the law and build better protections for future investors.

SIPC touts itself as investors' first line of defense. For Stanford investors, it may be their last hope.

Stanford, Libya Connected Through Alleged Ponzi Scheme

In January of 2009, accused ponzi scheme financier Allen Stanford and his girlfriend, Andrea Stoelker, boarded one of Stanford's private jets for an exotic yet fateful trip. First stop: Tripoli, Libya.

The global financial crisis was at its worst, and Stanford, like nearly every other banker in the world, was trying hard to keep his empire afloat.

Libya, which had only recently won fully normalized relations with the U.S., would throw Stanford a major lifeline, according to court filings: The Libyan government's sovereign wealth fund invested some $500 million with Stanford, who left Libya the next day along with Stoelker and an unidentified third person, bound for Zurich, Switzerland.

But three weeks later, it all fell apart. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission accused Stanford of running a $7 billion Ponzi scheme, and a court froze all the firm's assets—including, presumably, Libya's money.

It had been widely believed that the Gaddafi regime was one of the largest victims of the alleged Stanford scam, in which investors have thus far recovered less than three cents on the dollar.

But now, CNBC has learned Libya may have managed to withdraw much of its Stanford investment just before the firm collapsed, according to a source close to the case. If true, it would have been a stunningly fast trade that thousands of much smaller investors were unable to make.

All the deposits and withdrawals by Stanford investors are being closely examined by a court-appointed receiver, Dallas attorney Ralph Janvey, who has already filed hundreds of millions of dollars in "clawback" claims against investors who allegedly withdrew money they were not entitled to.

There was no immediate comment from Janvey's team on whether he plans to pursue a claim against Libya. If Stanford's empire was, in fact, a Ponzi scheme, attorneys could argue that the money invested by Libya was owed to earlier investors, so that money returned to Libya would constitute a fraudulent transfer.

The last-minute investment with Stanford by the Libyan government has been the subject of renewed speculation now that the government has fallen into chaos and Libya's U.S. assets have been frozen.

In a 2010 State Department cable uncovered by WikiLeaks, the head of Libya's sovereign wealth fund is said to have told the U.S. ambassador that the fund turned down investment requests from Stanford and convicted Ponzi schemer Bernard Madoff. But a source close to the case tells CNBC Libya did indeed invest with Stanford, "to the tune of nine figures."

Allen Stanford, who is currently undergoing drug treatment at a prison hospital in Butner, North Carolina, has denied wrongdoing.

In a 2009 bail hearing, prosecutors cited the January trip to Libya as evidence Stanford had the means to flee.

But his attorney at the time, Dick DeGuerin, argued the trip was above board.

"In fact, Mr. Stanford applied through the State Department and the embassy, the Libyan embassy in Washington, DC, to travel to Libya to develop business there," DeGuerin said according to a transcript of the hearing. "The state department of the United States is encouraging American business, now that the travel ban and the business ban is over with, to develop business there. That's why Mr. Stanford was there."

The judge in the case sided with the government, ruling Stanford's international ties made him a flight risk. He has been held without bail ever since, and his trial—which could shed more light on the Libyan connection—has been put indefinitely on hold.

Investors Cite Inattention by Regulators

Blaine Smith, of Baton Rouge, says each new revelation of inattention by state and federal regulators to the dealings of investment promoter Robert Allen Stanford intensifies the pain felt by those who lost their savings to the man.

More than $1 million of Smith’s retirement savings vanished in February 2009, when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission alleged that Stanford orchestrated more than $7.2 billion in frauds against more than 25,000 investors across this country and 112 others.

Two years later, the Dallas receiver appointed by a federal judge to find and recover Stanford’s assets for eventual distribution to devastated investors reports that he has only $77.1 million in unrestricted cash.

The receiver, attorney Ralph Janvey, added in his report this month that he actually recovered $188.3 million. But fees and expenses ate up $46.2 million of that total. Another $14.4 million in fees and expenses are subject to court approval for Janvey’s team of lawyers, accountants, investigators and clerical staff.

The first claim against any money that remains in the receivership after fees and expenses is that of the IRS, which wants $226 million for Stanford’s alleged unpaid taxes, penalties and interest.

Smith spent more than 20 years with Exxon and also worked as a homebuilder before Stanford’s chief financial officer, James M. Davis, of Baldwyn, Miss., pleaded guilty to fraud charges and admitted that Stanford’s investments had been a scam.

But Smith’s personal pain increased last year, when the SEC inspector general reported that some of the commission’s regulators concluded in 1997 that Stanford’s operations likely were fraudulent. The IG reported that SEC examiners in Fort Worth asked four times that Stanford be investigated for possible fraud, but their requests were ignored.

Repeatedly, people who lost savings to Stanford have asked the SEC to authorize the Securities Investor Protection Corp. to cover some of their losses. SIPC, created by Congress in 1970, is funded by the financial services industry.

SIPC spread more than $500 million among some of the thousands of people defrauded by confessed swindler Bernard Madoff. To date, however, SIPC coverage has not been extended to Stanford victims.

"Our families are being kicked to the curb in the twilight of our lives," Smith said recently.

Bills to reimburse at least some Stanford investors for some of their losses have been filed in Congress. But none has become law.

Janvey initially attempted to claw back nearly $1 billion that some lucky Stanford investors retrieved in the months before the SEC shut down the man's operations. The receiver took that action against the advice of the SEC, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals eventually ruled Janvey could not retrieve a dime of innocent investors' principal.

Broken investors in other countries are watching this tense tragedy play out in Congress and federal courts.

They're desperate, too. And they hope they won’t be left behind if Congress and the SEC eventually require SIPC to compensate Stanford investors in this country.

Stanford, 60, continues to deny felony charges pending against him in Houston. He continues to ask federal courts to release him from custody. His trial was postponed indefinitely last month after he was discovered to be addicted to anti-depressants. He is under treatment at the Federal Medical Center in Butner, N.C.

Lloyds of London sues former Stanford executives

Three former Stanford Financial Group executives are being sued by Lloyds of London and Arch Specialty Insurance Co. over the executives' claims for directors and officers liability insurance.

Yolanda Suarez, Juan Rodriguez-Tolentino and Pablo M. “Mauricio” Alvarado are named in the lawsuit which was filed this week in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division.

The underwriters claim that the trio are not entitled to claim directors and officers insurance, known as D&O insurance, because of the Ponzi scheme claims against them.

R. Allen Stanford, former head of Houston-based Stanford Financial Group, is awaiting trial for his role in an alleged $7 billion Ponzi scheme involving certificates of deposit.

Suarez was chief of staff for Stanford Financial Group Co. and the secretary and a board member for Stanford Group Holdings Inc. — two of the many Stanford entities allegedly involved in the Ponzi scheme. Rodriguez-Tolentino was president of Stanford International Bank, and Alvarado was general counsel of Stanford Financial Group.

Ralph Janvey, the Dallas-based court-appointed receiver for the Stanford matter has already filed lawsuits against Suarez, Rodriguez-Tolentino and Alvarado to get back nearly $9.9 million Janvey said the defendants had received from CD proceeds.

The case is Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s of London in Syndicates 2987, 2488, 1866, 1084, 1274, 4000 & 1183 et al v. Tolentino et al, 3:11-cv-00360-B.