TO ALL SEC CLIENTS
February 26, 2014
Zelaya et al v. United States of America
Dear Stanford/SEC Clients:
We write to update you with respect to important information regarding the claim against the Securities and Exchange Commission.
To read the complete update from Kachroo Legal Services 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 Zelaya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zelaya. Show all posts
Thursday, 27 February 2014
Thursday, 24 October 2013
Kachroo Legal Services Stanford Update October 23rd 2013
STANFORD UPDATE OCTOBER 23rd 2013
TO ALL SEC CLIENTS
TO ALL SFA CLIENTS
Dear Stanford Clients:
We write to update you with important information regarding the claim against the SEC and
ZELAYA V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
As you may be aware, United States District Court Judge Robert N. Scola recently issued an order granting the Government’s second motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ complaint. This ruling comes despite the historic victory previously achieved in surviving the Government’s first motion to dismiss. The result of the order is that the lower court has made a final determination on the entire case and as such KLS is now in a position to appeal the entire case to the United States Court of Appeals for authoritative resolution of all issues.
To that end, KLS has filed a notice of appeal earlier this month, and will submit its full appeal brief in November. KLS will of course keep all clients up to date with developments in the case as they arise, including the approximate timeline of the appeal.
STANFORD FURTHER ACTIONS
In accordance with our previous updates, we would like to make sure that all clients are aware of progress with the Dallas receiver. By now, clients should have received:
1) A notice of Determination
2) A Certification Notice.
If You Have Already Received A Certification Notice
For those of you who have already received a notice directly, it is important to let us know as soon as possible so that we can assist you in processing your claim. Please forward any and all paperwork you have received from the Receiver. Please also sign the attached confirmation in order for us to be able to deal with the Receiver on your behalf directly.
If You Have Not Yet Received A Certification Notice
If you have not yet received a notice, we can check on the current status of your case on your behalf. To enable us to do this, please sign the attached confirmation. Please also be vigilant for any notifications sent to you directly by email as there are strict deadlines to respond.
If You Are Not Yet a Stanford Further Actions (SFA)
Client If you have not yet signed a retainer agreement with KLS, time is running out to submit and process these claims. If you would like us to deal with these claims to the receiver on your behalf, please sign the enclosed authorization form and or contact us with any queries you may have. We can then forward you our standard retainer letter.
SALE OF STANFORD INVESTORS’ CLAIMS
KLS is being solicited by a number of funds that appear to have increased their initial offers to acquire claims from Stanford investors to between 10 and 20 cents on the dollar (i.e. 10-20% of their claimed value). If any of our clients have an interest in pursuing such an offer, please advise us directly so we can facilitate discussions with these funds.
Very truly yours,
Gaytri D. Kachroo
Kachroo Legal Services, P.C.
Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic224.html
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
TO ALL SEC CLIENTS
TO ALL SFA CLIENTS
Dear Stanford Clients:
We write to update you with important information regarding the claim against the SEC and
ZELAYA V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
As you may be aware, United States District Court Judge Robert N. Scola recently issued an order granting the Government’s second motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ complaint. This ruling comes despite the historic victory previously achieved in surviving the Government’s first motion to dismiss. The result of the order is that the lower court has made a final determination on the entire case and as such KLS is now in a position to appeal the entire case to the United States Court of Appeals for authoritative resolution of all issues.
To that end, KLS has filed a notice of appeal earlier this month, and will submit its full appeal brief in November. KLS will of course keep all clients up to date with developments in the case as they arise, including the approximate timeline of the appeal.
STANFORD FURTHER ACTIONS
In accordance with our previous updates, we would like to make sure that all clients are aware of progress with the Dallas receiver. By now, clients should have received:
1) A notice of Determination
2) A Certification Notice.
If You Have Already Received A Certification Notice
For those of you who have already received a notice directly, it is important to let us know as soon as possible so that we can assist you in processing your claim. Please forward any and all paperwork you have received from the Receiver. Please also sign the attached confirmation in order for us to be able to deal with the Receiver on your behalf directly.
If You Have Not Yet Received A Certification Notice
If you have not yet received a notice, we can check on the current status of your case on your behalf. To enable us to do this, please sign the attached confirmation. Please also be vigilant for any notifications sent to you directly by email as there are strict deadlines to respond.
If You Are Not Yet a Stanford Further Actions (SFA)
Client If you have not yet signed a retainer agreement with KLS, time is running out to submit and process these claims. If you would like us to deal with these claims to the receiver on your behalf, please sign the enclosed authorization form and or contact us with any queries you may have. We can then forward you our standard retainer letter.
SALE OF STANFORD INVESTORS’ CLAIMS
KLS is being solicited by a number of funds that appear to have increased their initial offers to acquire claims from Stanford investors to between 10 and 20 cents on the dollar (i.e. 10-20% of their claimed value). If any of our clients have an interest in pursuing such an offer, please advise us directly so we can facilitate discussions with these funds.
Very truly yours,
Gaytri D. Kachroo
Kachroo Legal Services, P.C.
Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic224.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, 27 August 2013
KLS COMMENT ON ZELAYA DECISION
However, this decision gives us an opportunity to squarely resolve this fundamental and historic jurisdictional hurdle so that the litigation can proceed without further review based upon an appeals decision in the fourth circuit.
Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic181.html
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
Friday, 16 August 2013
SEC wins dismissal of lawsuit over handling of $7 billion Stanford fraud
We are awaiting a statement from Gaytri regarding this, she says the Judge totally missed the point of our lawsuits and she is appealing this. We will post Gaytri's response as soon as we receive it.
(Reuters) - A federal judge in Florida has thrown out a lawsuit accusing the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of negligence for failing to report that the now-imprisoned swindler Allen Stanford was running a $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme.
U.S. District Judge Robert Scola in Miami said the market regulator was shielded under an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act that bars claims arising from misrepresentation or deceit.
The plaintiffs, Carlos Zelaya and George Glantz, said they lost a combined $1.65 million with Stanford, and sought class-action status on behalf of investors who were victims of his fraud. They plan to appeal Monday's decision, their lawyer Gaytri Kachroo said. SEC spokesman Kevin Callahan declined to comment.
Stanford, 63, is serving a 110-year prison sentence after he was convicted on criminal charges in March 2012 for a fraud that the government said was centered in certificates of deposit issued by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank.
Zelaya and Glantz claimed that the SEC considered Stanford's business a fraud after each of four examinations between 1997 and 2004, but failed to advise the Securities Investor Protection Corp, which compensates victims of failed brokerages.
The SEC filed civil charges against Stanford in February 2009, two months after the multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme of New York-based swindler Bernard Madoff was uncovered. In a typical Ponzi scheme, investors are promised high or consistent returns relative to the amount of risk taken, and older investors are paid with money from newer investors.
Last September, Scola let the lawsuit against the SEC go forward, saying the plaintiffs could argue that the regulator had breached a duty to report Stanford's misconduct.
But on Monday, he said the FTCA exception barring claims of misrepresentation deprived him of jurisdiction.
"The plaintiffs claim that they were induced into entering disadvantageous business transactions because of the SEC's misrepresentation," he wrote. "The plaintiffs' cause of action is a classic claim for misrepresentation."
Their lawyer Kachroo said: "We believe that the judge did not draw the appropriate distinction between a claim based on a misrepresentation and our claim based on a failure to warn in line with the SEC's mandatory duty to notify SIPC."
In 2010, the SEC's inspector general criticized the regulator, finding that it knew as early as 1997 that Stanford was likely running a Ponzi scheme.
Earlier this year, federal appeals courts in New York and California dismissed lawsuits against the SEC by victims of Madoff's fraud.
The case is Zelaya et al. v. U.S., U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, No. 11-62644.
Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic177.html
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
(Reuters) - A federal judge in Florida has thrown out a lawsuit accusing the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of negligence for failing to report that the now-imprisoned swindler Allen Stanford was running a $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme.
U.S. District Judge Robert Scola in Miami said the market regulator was shielded under an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act that bars claims arising from misrepresentation or deceit.
The plaintiffs, Carlos Zelaya and George Glantz, said they lost a combined $1.65 million with Stanford, and sought class-action status on behalf of investors who were victims of his fraud. They plan to appeal Monday's decision, their lawyer Gaytri Kachroo said. SEC spokesman Kevin Callahan declined to comment.
Stanford, 63, is serving a 110-year prison sentence after he was convicted on criminal charges in March 2012 for a fraud that the government said was centered in certificates of deposit issued by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank.
Zelaya and Glantz claimed that the SEC considered Stanford's business a fraud after each of four examinations between 1997 and 2004, but failed to advise the Securities Investor Protection Corp, which compensates victims of failed brokerages.
The SEC filed civil charges against Stanford in February 2009, two months after the multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme of New York-based swindler Bernard Madoff was uncovered. In a typical Ponzi scheme, investors are promised high or consistent returns relative to the amount of risk taken, and older investors are paid with money from newer investors.
Last September, Scola let the lawsuit against the SEC go forward, saying the plaintiffs could argue that the regulator had breached a duty to report Stanford's misconduct.
But on Monday, he said the FTCA exception barring claims of misrepresentation deprived him of jurisdiction.
"The plaintiffs claim that they were induced into entering disadvantageous business transactions because of the SEC's misrepresentation," he wrote. "The plaintiffs' cause of action is a classic claim for misrepresentation."
Their lawyer Kachroo said: "We believe that the judge did not draw the appropriate distinction between a claim based on a misrepresentation and our claim based on a failure to warn in line with the SEC's mandatory duty to notify SIPC."
In 2010, the SEC's inspector general criticized the regulator, finding that it knew as early as 1997 that Stanford was likely running a Ponzi scheme.
Earlier this year, federal appeals courts in New York and California dismissed lawsuits against the SEC by victims of Madoff's fraud.
The case is Zelaya et al. v. U.S., U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, No. 11-62644.
Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic177.html
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
Friday, 11 January 2013
Kachroo Legal Services Stanford Update January 2013
Stanford Update January 2013
Dear Stanford Clients: This letter will update you on the recent activity in the Zelaya case. As you may recall, at the time of our last update, we had drafted and served a variety of discovery requests (that is, requests for information from the Government) regarding the SEC's knowledge of the Stanford Ponzi scheme and other requests directed towards proving our claims. We anticipated receiving responses to those requests and then determining whether those responses were adequate or whether we needed to request that the Court compel better responses from the Government.
After receiving and reviewing the Government's responses to our discovery, we determined that the responses were plainly inadequate and incomplete. We attempted to negotiate with the Government to resolve some of its objections to our requests, but the Government was unwilling to withdraw many of its objections. Although we are continuing to negotiate a resolution to the discovery dispute, we have also filed a motion to compel with the Court requesting that the Court compel better discovery responses from the Government.
The Government also recently filed a second motion to dismiss our complaint. Although generally a defendant can only file one motion to dismiss, there are a few limited jurisdictional grounds that can be raised at any time to dismiss a complaint. The Government has raised arguments that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case because the Federal Tort Claims Act contains certain exceptions that apply in this case. For a more detailed explanation of the Government's arguments, we are attaching the motion to dismiss to this update. We are currently preparing a response to the motion, and we are confident that the Court will again deny the Government's attempts to dismiss the case.
In the meantime, the Government has also filed a motion to stay all discovery while its motion to dismiss is pending. The Government argues that it should not have to engage in discovery while a motion is pending that could result in a dismissal of the case altogether. We are currently working on a response to this motion, and we believe the Government's argument to stay discovery is without merit. We believe our pending motion to compel discovery, coupled with the Government's pending motion to stay discovery, perfectly contrasts the two sides in this case. We are pushing forward on all cylinders, and the Government is resisting at every turn.
For your review, attached are copies of our motion to compel discovery, the Government's second motion to dismiss, and the Government's motion to stay discovery.
Attachments:
Plaintiffs Motion to Compel
US Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
Zelaya v. USA -USA Motion to Stay Discovery
For more information and discussions visit Stanford International Victims Group Forum
Dear Stanford Clients: This letter will update you on the recent activity in the Zelaya case. As you may recall, at the time of our last update, we had drafted and served a variety of discovery requests (that is, requests for information from the Government) regarding the SEC's knowledge of the Stanford Ponzi scheme and other requests directed towards proving our claims. We anticipated receiving responses to those requests and then determining whether those responses were adequate or whether we needed to request that the Court compel better responses from the Government.
After receiving and reviewing the Government's responses to our discovery, we determined that the responses were plainly inadequate and incomplete. We attempted to negotiate with the Government to resolve some of its objections to our requests, but the Government was unwilling to withdraw many of its objections. Although we are continuing to negotiate a resolution to the discovery dispute, we have also filed a motion to compel with the Court requesting that the Court compel better discovery responses from the Government.
The Government also recently filed a second motion to dismiss our complaint. Although generally a defendant can only file one motion to dismiss, there are a few limited jurisdictional grounds that can be raised at any time to dismiss a complaint. The Government has raised arguments that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case because the Federal Tort Claims Act contains certain exceptions that apply in this case. For a more detailed explanation of the Government's arguments, we are attaching the motion to dismiss to this update. We are currently preparing a response to the motion, and we are confident that the Court will again deny the Government's attempts to dismiss the case.
In the meantime, the Government has also filed a motion to stay all discovery while its motion to dismiss is pending. The Government argues that it should not have to engage in discovery while a motion is pending that could result in a dismissal of the case altogether. We are currently working on a response to this motion, and we believe the Government's argument to stay discovery is without merit. We believe our pending motion to compel discovery, coupled with the Government's pending motion to stay discovery, perfectly contrasts the two sides in this case. We are pushing forward on all cylinders, and the Government is resisting at every turn.
For your review, attached are copies of our motion to compel discovery, the Government's second motion to dismiss, and the Government's motion to stay discovery.
Attachments:
Plaintiffs Motion to Compel
US Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
Zelaya v. USA -USA Motion to Stay Discovery
For more information and discussions visit Stanford International Victims Group Forum