Stanford Victims Coalition Update Regarding SIPC

Dear SVC Members,

 I apologize for the gap in time between updates, but I have some very exciting news today about a project I have been working on full-time all year—a legislative remedy that should get us SIPC if the bill is passed—regardless of the outcome of the SEC vs. SIPC appeal (which could still go our way). “The Restoring Main Street Investor Protection and Confidence Act,” is being introduced in the House today with a Senate companion bill to follow. A hearing of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises is set for Thursday, November 21 (victims are encouraged to attend and I will be testifying along with another Stanford victim). A Senate Banking Committee hearing will be held as well, but a date has not been set.............


To read the Complete Update from SVC Visit: http://sivg.org.ag/topic236.html 


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

Angela Shaw Replaced by Ms Reed on OSIC

For those victims who were not aware Ms Shaw has resigned from the OSIC and been replaced by Ms Reed. The "REPORT OF THE OFFICIAL STANFORD INVESTORS COMMITTEE" can be viewed here:

Doc1889_OSIC_ReportReMembership_070813

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

Grant Thornton Response to Angela Shaw's Questions

Grant Thornton Response to Angela Shaw's Questions

Federal court hears row over Stanford investor claims / Angela Shaw says she is confused!!

1/24/2012

WASHINGTON, Jan 24 (Reuters) - A hearing in federal court on Tuesday gave the victims of Allen Stanford's alleged Ponzi scheme little clarity after a federal judge said he needed more time before deciding whether an industry-backed fund should be forced to let the investors file claims.

The case before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia centers on a dispute between the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Securities Investor Protection Corp, a non-profit corporation that helps investors recover missing funds in the event a brokerage fails.

Stanford, 61, was arrested in 2009 over charges that he ran a $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme linked to certificates of deposit issued by his Antigua-based bank.

His criminal trial began on Monday in Texas. U.S. prosecutors told the jury on Tuesday that Stanford used lies and bribes to steal customers' hard-earned savings.

The SEC in December took formal legal action to try and force SIPC to launch a liquidation proceeding in Texas so that the victims of Stanford's alleged scheme may file claims.

SIPC is standing by its decision not to intervene on behalf of Stanford investors, saying its governing law does not apply to the Stanford bank.

In a three-hour hearing in Washington on Tuesday, a lawyer for the SEC urged the court to compel SIPC to launch a liquidation proceeding.

The SEC also sought to convince District Judge Robert Wilkins that he should leave it to another court to rule on the merits of whether or not certain customers will be eligible for compensation.

"We are not saying a court will never decide the customer question," said Matthew Martens, the chief litigation counsel for the SEC. "There is a time and place for such a determination."

SIPC argues it is limited by law to protecting customers against the loss of missing cash or securities in the custody of failing or insolvent SIPC-member brokerage firms. And while Stanford's Texas-based brokerage was a SIPC member, its offshore bank was not.

Eugene Assaf, outside counsel for SIPC from Kirkland & Ellis, said the SEC is trying to punt the matter down to Texas because the agency knows it does not have the facts to back up its argument.

"One of the facts they rely on is from a coalition of people who invested. That is at best double or triple hearsay," said Assaf. "I am skeptical when I don't see facts laid out the way they are normally laid out between litigants."

SIPC said if the judge decides to order it to start a liquidation proceeding, then it in turn will be forced to litigate each matter claim by claim, a process that will cost its fund a lot of money.

Wilkins, who asked skeptical questions of both sides during the hearing, said he would try to rule soon.

Angela Shaw, the founder and director of the Stanford Victims Coalition which says it can show investor money never went to Stanford's bank and was misspent by the brokerage arm, said she was a bit disappointed by Tuesday's hearing.

"I'm confused. There seems to be no sense of urgency," said Shaw, who flew in from Texas for the hearing. "It's going to take time the victims don't have."

The SEC case against SIPC is SEC v Securities Investor Protection Corporation, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, no. 1:11-mc-00678-RLW.

For the SEC: Matthew Martens of the SEC

For the SIPC: Edwin U of Kirkland & Ellis

(Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch)

How Many Members does SVC Actually Represent Continued

It seems the SVC has become acutely aware their claim to representing 4000 victims is in question. After a year or more of being ignored victims have miraculously started receiving emails from Angela, unfortunately its to little to late as can be seen by the comments from the victims.

Richard
Senior Member
Mon 21 Nov

I received the following message from Angela since it went on the blog. The first I have heard from her this year. I wonder how many more have had their membership revoked, for what reasons, and whether the numbers she claims reflect the SVC's reduced status.

I have received notification you did not receive notice that your membership in the Stanford Victims Coalition had been revoked. The SVC reserves the right to revoke membership at any time, without notification.

Patron1
Senior member
Tues Nov 22

I also just received an Email from Angela, here is my reply:

Hi Angela,
with all respect I would like to remind you that I do not belong to the Stanford Victims Coalition since 2 years ago.
I do not receive any SVC-Newsletter since 2 years ago, and I remember you have sent an Email more than 1 year ago writting that you will represent only the us-victims.

If you would like to send some information under the name of the "Stanford Investors Committee", then you are welcome to do it but please not under the name of "Stanford Victims Coalition".

P.S. when you say that you represent 4.000 international victim, I hope my name is not included there; otherwise please say "3.999 international victim"
Thank you!

Grumpy
Junior Member
Tue Nov 22

Yes .....strange isn't it
I also received the email yesterday after about 18 months silence

alfonso
Junior Member
Tue Nov 22

The same happened to me. I replied in the same way as other member did it. Everybody must reply to her like was done above.
I dont trust anymore the Committee and of course neither Janvey. What about Little? He never did his job, he is only getting a check every end-month!

IlianaF
Junior Member
Tue Nov 22

I am really without words...
I have the same situation like all you.

Wisea
Senior Member
Tue Nov 22

I've gotten, few hours ago, the same SVC e-mail.
I wonder I'm eligible now for SIPC, along with ALL the victims, worldwide

alphaandomega
Junior Member
Tue Nov 22

I also received the email from Angela including the letter sent to the DOJ as an attachment. The last time I received an update from her was back in January this year, explaining how to file the claim against the SEC.

Carola
Junior Member
Tue Nov 22

I have received the same mail in February on this year, from angela, and yesterdey the same as everybody did.

was_calm_cool_investor
Senior Member
Sun Nov 27

She excluded me from her mailing list a long time ago - even though she got substantial amounts of money from me for her efforts- As she mentioned to me from day one when she stared all this was :
She did not want international victims to get a penny - her campaign was only directed to help a few and mostly for her family. Her excuse was that the USA government would not feel good about paying to foreign investors 7 Billion - Therefore, she was pressing only for a few under a very limited spectrum – Such as Brokerage accounts in Houston only – as she has 8 accounts each one for $500,000 opened in Houston - feel sorry she lost that money but, I also lost $1.5 million in only one account.
I am not member of SVC which such low moral standards and I qualify equaly for SIPC regardless
Article by Stanfords Nemesis

How Many Members does SVC Actually Represent?

One of the reasons Judge Godbey cited for denying the Motion to Intervene is that the Stanford Victims Coalition claims to represent 4,000 members in 50 countries.

As an investor who once joined the SVC forum, and hence became an SVC member, I have not been informed by the SVC I am no longer a member, yet have received no communications from the SVC for at least 18 months.

How many more of us are there who joined the SVC via it's forum but have been effectively dis-communicated?

If there are any other SVC members who have not received regular communications for some considerable time, please reply to this thread on the Stanford Victims Forum at: http://svg.creatuforo.com/ or post your name in the comments section here on the blog.

Please take the time to respond as it may be important.

Richard


H-A
Senior member
Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:15 pm

Hi Richard
Like you I was an SVC member, and have not heard from them for a long time.
___________________________________________________________

Wisea:
Senior Member
Posted Nov 17, 2011

I also joined the SVC long time ago and I'm thinking seriously I'm still a member of it. Never have been informed the contrary by dear Angel
___________________________________________________________

The Admin Stanford International Victims Forum
Fri 18th Nov:

I also was a member of SVC. However I dont receive any newsletter since almost 2 years ago.

Anyway, there is an Email from Angela where she wrote she does not represent any longer the international victims...

Please do not forget that in the old Forum there was plenty of SPAM done by "registered members". Those members were never deleted, therefore the number of "registered members" in the old forum grow up until reach more than 4.000 "members". There you have the so called by Angela: "Representation of more than 4.000 victims"

We need to stop all this lies and manipulation!
__________________________________________________________

Maribeo
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:16 pm

I was also a SVC member. When the forum was "desactivated" Angela stopped sending the bulletins by email or any information . Definitely I am clear she and SVC doesn't represent me. I also wrote to her a letter asking for answers, I am still waiting for a response. I have the feeling that we were useful for her original purposes and now we are disposables.

Maribeo
_________________________________________________________

WikiLeaks-Stanford
Junior member
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 4:19 am

I can write the same. I did not receive any response from Angela, Mr. Little (suppose to keep the victims informed), nor Dr. Peter.

The old forum was shut down to keep most of the victim outside any discussion or information; in that way "they" can do whatever they want for their own benefit.
__________________________________________________________

gmrantigua
Junior member
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 2:00 pm

Afternoon Everyone
Yes we are also in the same position. Joined at the very beginning but have received no communication for at least 18 months

Regards
GMR
_________________________________________________________

Victim
Junior member
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:45 am

Also a member of SVC but no newlsetters for around 18 months ..... and I had previously made a donation to the group towards an open letter in a USA newspaper.

I guess I am not surprised by Shaw's actions. I have learned a lot about human behaviour in the last few years.
___________________________________________________________

WENDYANNE
Senior member
Posts: 663
Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:32 pm

Count me in, Angela decided a long time ago that she did not want me to know what she was doing.

And this is why we need signatures on the petition, to show we are not just one or two disgruntled victims (as Judge Godbey said) but that there are hundreds of us and that we have been ignored and disenfranchised by Angela and the committee.
___________________________________________________________

Stanfords Nemesis
Senior member
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011

Count me in, I also seen to be persona non grata. Have not received anything from SVC for nearly 2 years. Guess we were all taken for a ride by Angela to make up the numbers so she could “appear” to be representing many when in fact she represented few. Once on the committee her true motives came out and she sent the letter saying she would only represent the Americans. Why am I not surprised?

Press Release from Stanford International Victims Group

Stanford

INTERNATIONAL VICTIMS

GROUP

SEEKING JUSTICE FOR 21,000 VICTIMS WORLDWIDE

The Stanford case:

International Victims Charge

America to Play Fair

PRESS RELEASE

In 2009 on the heels of the Madoff fraud, the Ponzi scheme operated by R Allen Stanford was uncovered which has received widespread media coverage in the United States. What has not been widely reported is that only 4,000 of the 21,000 victims worldwide are US citizens. The remaining 17,000, the vast majority, are innocent victims from around the globe, who all have one common cause; to recover their life savings, stolen by the US citizen R Allen Stanford, under the guise of his Stanford Financial Group, based in Houston, Texas, and regulated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

It is now almost three years since R Allen Stanford was charged with fraud and his various enterprises wound-up and sold by the US court appointed receiver Ralph Janvey. Yet to date there has been no distribution of any funds recovered by the receiver, nor even a mechanism created whereby those funds can be fairly distributed equally among all the innocent victims, some of whom have lost their homes and become ill, while others have died waiting. Meanwhile the receiver, his general counsel, Kevin Sadler of Baker Botts, and the other advisors he has engaged are consuming all the available funds they have collected.

Further, in the United States there has been no recognition that anyone but US voters and taxpayers have been harmed by this massive fraud, perpetrated by a US citizen, based in Texas, where officials of the US regulator preferred to spend their time at work watching porn instead of taking the enforcement actions they were charged with, against a business they knew to be a fraud.

The failure of the SEC in detecting the Madoff Ponzi scheme has been well reported and investigated, yet some of those SEC officials who missed Madoff knew as far back as 1997 that Stanford may be a fraud. The Stanford empire was investigated by the SEC on at least four occasions, first in 1997, and they concluded even back then it was likely a massive Ponzi scheme, yet no action was taken, as the SEC did not think there were any American investors, consequently they permitted the fraud to continue and grow exponentially for a further twelve years, abandoning 21,000 innocent victims to their fate, simply because they believed it did not concern US interests. How wrong could they be, and how prejudiced in their negligent disregard for their duties.

The SEC have been investigated for their failure to detect the Stanford fraud, and heavily criticized. Their own Inspector General has stated that the depth of their failure is unbelievable; and US congressmen have claimed that the debt they owe the Stanford victims is enormous, and have demanded that they should act swiftly, so families whose retirement and savings were stolen as a result of greed and government failure can begin to rebuild their lives.

Following the investigation, earlier this year many hundreds of innocent Stanford victims worldwide filed protective claims against the SEC for negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The SEC have had their allotted six months to respond, yet remain unconscionably silent, with no regard for the consequences of their complicity, or the demands of elected officials.

Now the SEC find themselves and their appointed receiver once again under investigation, for the way they have conducted this receivership.

The Securities and Investors Protection Act was passed by congress to provide a fund to repay innocent victims of US securities fraud, irrespective of their nationality or place of abode. It gave the registered broker/dealers a veneer of respectability and investors the comfort of believing there was a safety net should the worst happen and any of the US financial advisors they trusted turn out to be liars, crooks, or thieves.

It has taken the SEC two years, under considerable political pressure, to instruct SIPC to do the right thing, yet we now learn the number of innocent victims who believed they were eligible for compensation may be limited further, and that SIPC themselves may raid the receivership estate, to recover their losses at the expense of the remaining victims.

Whenever innocent foreign victims of the Stanford fraud have asked for recognition in the United States, invariably they have been told that Stanford operated his fraud from the small Caribbean island of Antigua, and what right have they to expect that US authorities and officials have any obligation or other moral duty to extend assistance. The tentacles of the Stanford empire stretched halfway around the globe and in each of its outposts was portrayed as a safe, stable, and conservative institution backed by a major Texas based group, regulated in the US, who claimed to extend protection to investors worldwide equivalent to that benefiting US citizens. Further, R Allen Stanford, the founder and sole shareholder was compared by Forbes to the likes of UBS and Wachovia, and accredited him as one of the United States 400 wealthiest individuals, with a portfolio of $51bn under management. After the president of the United States, George W Bush, and a raft of US senators and congressmen also lent Stanford their endorsement, how could his credibility possibly be questioned further?

At the request of dissatisfied victims of the Stanford fraud, the courts have recently appointed two very experienced directors of Grant Thornton as joint liquidators of Stanford International Bank, and charged them to recover and distribute, fairly and equally, and in the shortest possible time, the losses stemming from the Stanford Ponzi scheme. Grant Thornton have been recognized as the most proper person to recover losses stemming from the Stanford fraud, with the best chance of success by courts in every jurisdiction worldwide, except in the United States, where the receiver, Ralph Janvey, and his ‘official’ investors committee, comprising mainly self-interested attorneys, have contrived to establish a network of vested interests which serve primarily to benefit themselves, and through which they have reached an agreement whereby they may charge excessive fees which may run to hundreds of millions of dollars, all at the expense of all the innocent victims. Grant Thornton has strived to reach a workable protocol with Janvey for the benefit the innocent victims, yet the vested interests in the US continue to block any agreement from being reached.

There are frozen funds overseas, to the tune of $250m that Grant Thornton wish to recover and distribute equally, transparently, and quickly, to all the Stanford victims worldwide, yet they have been further blocked by the United States Department of Justice, who seek to ‘repatriate’ those funds to the US, to be distributed; how? These are funds that did not originate from the US yet the DoJ insists that US minority interests should once again be given preferential treatment.

The perpetrator of the fraud R Allen Stanford still awaits trial in Texas. Unlike Madoff he has not confessed, but pleads the fifth amendment; has changed attorneys as frequently as changing his socks; claimed incompetence; drug addiction; and now memory loss; what next? His trial has been postponed twice, and is now due to be heard in January 2012, meanwhile many of the initial charges have been dropped, and there are some who believe he may soon be granted bail, and conveniently disappear.

In a recent twist many of the lawsuits that may eventually benefit the victims of this fraud, already delayed two years due to restrictions imposed by the judge appointed by the DoJ to hear the criminal case against Stanford; may now fail entirely, following a ruling by another judge; appointed by the SEC to preside over the civil case, again all at the expense of the innocent victims.

Enough is enough. The United States authorities and institutions have failed us all, not just US citizens, and we all deserve to be treated equally. We have all seen our entire life savings stolen by a US citizen who was permitted to operate for years due to the negligence of the US regulator, and we now find US court appointed officers determined to line their pockets at the further expense of the innocent victims, and through political pressure, place US citizens in a preferential position, while the perpetrator of the fraud continues to mock us all.

It may not appear so to the US victims of this fraud but the world is watching just how self-interested and what blatant disregard some fficials and citizens of the US appear to have for anyone but themselves.

All 21,000 innocent Stanford victims lost their life savings in this massive fraud. All the foreign victims ask is to be treated with fairness, equality, and with due respect. No more humiliation and injustice. Is it too much to ask that the officials of the world’s most powerful, wealthy, and technologically advanced nation show some integrity, accept responsibility for the consequences of their complicity in the Stanford fraud, and make due recompense without further delay to each and every victim regardless of class, creed or citizenship.

SVC Claiming SIPC for US Victims Only

To all international victims who may be eligible for SIPC - Please read this latest communication from Angela Shaw to the SVC very carefully. She is negotiating with SIPC to limit any payment to only US citizens.

Instead of asking SiPC to reduce the ceiling of $500k per claim, and extend the net to all investors, which would be a much fairer distribution that every Stanford victim could benefit from, once again the US victims have shown their true colours, and their lack of consideration for anyone but themselves.

If the (mainly Louisiana) STC IRA account holders are to be included, then so should all the other investors who purchased through SGC registered representatives.

Angela is still claiming to the US Government she represents all 28,000 victims worldwide, and they are witless enough to believe her.


SVC Members,

Again, I don’t have a lot of news about the SIPC Board vote, but I do have some.

Yesterday, Senator Vitter spoke with SIPC Chairman Orlan Johnson and the feedback I have received is that the Senator continues to feel the SIPC Board is moving in the right direction and needs two to three more weeks of reviewing the facts and the law. Senator Vitter will meet again with the Chairman in two weeks.

Unfortunately, the Stanford entities’ records are still be reviewed by the SIPC Board and it will be another few weeks before a formal decision is announced.

Also yesterday, the SVC’s SIPA lawyer and I had a lengthy conference call with the SIPC General Counsel. She was unable to share where the Board is in its review process, but the detailed questions I was asked about the SVC’s demographic data was insightful. While this is purely speculation on my part, the line of questioning led me to believe the Board is leaning toward accepting the SEC’s request because they are trying to determine how many of the victims were SGC customers and if the SEC’s directive is followed, would that satisfy the investors the SVC’s counsel has represented in its arguments (which has always been all SGC US customers).

The SEC’s request is exactly what the SVC and our lawyer have pursued as his expert opinion is the law is limited to customers of a SIPC member, and he would not have made a broader legal argument to include affiliate entity investors like those who bought from SGC Venezuela (foreign affiliates are excluded in the statute).
That said, if there is a liquidation, those investors can likely file claims and have a court venue to dispute any denial of claims – a right they do not currently have.

I know this is complicated for some of you, but the corporate structure of the Stanford entities makes this case so very unique, and there are thousands of international investors who will likely not qualify for SIPC if the SIPC Board accepts the SEC’s request. My understanding is that all US investors were customers of SGC unless they bought the CDs from a Stanford rep in another country.

As I have mentioned before, I cannot determine how a SIPC trustee would determine whether someone was a brokerage customer, but from what I have seen almost 100% is that
all US investors and a couple of thousand international investors did purchase the CDs through SGC. The STC IRA accounts were included in the SEC’s recommendation also because those were sold by SGC registered representatives.

I think these developments are reason to be hopeful and I will continue to update you all when I know anything. I have emphasized with the SIPC staff and Board that it would ease a lot of minds if there was a defined time frame for this process. They are unable to do that right now, but continue to assure me that the Board is working as quickly as possible and that they do not intend to delay the decision any longer than absolutely necessary.

Keep praying, my friends!

Sincerely,

Angela

Director and Founder

Stanford Victims Coalition

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

Letter to the Editor of Caribbean360

Letter to the Editor, Caribbean360

August 22, 2011

Dear Sir or madam,

A story published in the August 18, 2011, edition of Caribbean360, “Investors question Antigua Stanford liquidators” makes several erroneous and unfortunate statements that only mislead and confuse victims of SIB’s failure.

I am a creditor of the Stanford International Bank (SIB), being a holder of Certificates of Deposit (CDs). As such I have one focus – what is the best way to maximize the estate of SIB and what is the best way to maximize the distribution of funds to the creditors. To this end, I have become a member of the Antiguan Liquidators’ Creditors Committee, and I can assure you it is our mission to assist the Joint Liquidators in expeditiously recovering victims’ assets in a process that is equitable and transparent.

Unfortunately, the article published on August 18 appears bent on upsetting and confusing victims. So please let me begin by setting some of the record straight.

First, the current liquidators, Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson, both of Grant Thornton, were appointed only on May 12, 2011, by the High Court of Antigua. They replaced Nigel Hamilton- Smith and Peter Wastell of Vantis, who were removed by the Court. (Wide and Dickson were not nominated by the Government, or any of its agencies, but were the deliberate choice of victims). It is common knowledge that Vantis, the previous liquidators, owes the court and the estate an accounting of the claim for $18 million fees and expenses, and that a hearing will occur in October, 2011. These fees may be challenged by the estate, but that cannot be known until the accounting is presented to the court.

Second, let us not lose sight of the fact that SIB was an Antigua corporation, now in bankruptcy, and that Antiguan laws rule on Antigua bankruptcies. It is also a fact that 99.9% of the creditors of SIB are the holders of CDs in SIB. The Hon. Mr. Justice Mario Michel of the High Court in Antigua appointed Mr. Wide and Mr. Dickson liquidators of SIB, charged them with the collection of all assets of SIB, and the eventual distribution of the assets to the creditors. To also be clear, note that the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court circuit, of which the Antiguan High Court is a part, is, like the US Courts, independent of government, and its authority to make this appointment, and therefore the authority of the Liquidators, has already been recognized by the Courts in Switzerland and the UK, countries where there are significant assets. While still on the issue of authority, let’s note that beyond the High Court there is the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal, with a final right of appeal to the British Privy Counsel (formerly known as the House of Lords), whose authority and competence is respected around the world.

Whereas the US courts have been recognized as the prosecutors of the SEC’s case against R. Allen Stanford and his assets, this does not, and can not, include authority for the bankruptcy of SIB.

Third, the extensive expertise of Grant Thornton, Mr. Wide, and Mr. Dickson, in the matter of liquidation, bankruptcies, and fraud, is well documented. Please refer to their bios in the website http://www.sibliquidation.com for more information. I will vouch that that they are very open and very conscious about their role in working for the creditors.

Fourth, Mr. Wide and Mr. Dickson, as required by the Order appointing them, delivered a report on Aug. 15, 2011, to the Court in Antigua that presents a detailed accounting of their work and accomplishments in the first 90 days of their mandate, and an outline of their planned recovery efforts. The report has been circulated to victims groups, provided to both the US Receiver and the US investors committee and posted on the liquidators’ website under “reports”.

In this very lucid report, which is highly recommend for immediate reading by any and all interested parties, the liquidators mention how both they and the previous liquidators have been handicapped by the U.S. Department of Justice, Ralph Janvey, the court-appointed receiver in the U.S., and now the Stanford Investors Committee, in attaining the maximum asset retrieval for the victims of the SIB bankruptcy. Included are issues where funds are frozen and not being managed, and where it appears that funds may be appropriated by the DOJ, which took “the position that criminal asset forfeiture has priority over the rights of officeholders or their estates” in order to uphold their freeze of assets in the UK and Switzerland. These issues have to be a major concern for all CD creditors.

The report also documents where an associate of R. Allen Stanford is attempting to sell off assets, at deeply discounted prices, bought with proceeds of the SIB CDs, for personal use by Mr. Stanford. The U.S. courts, without proper jurisdictional authority, have been powerless to claim these assets for the SIB estate. The operating expenses funds requested from, and granted by, the UK courts, will be used to recover these assets, estimated at $70 million or more, for all creditors.

In the first 90 days, along with the court order freezing the $70 million of Stanford- controlled assets in Antigua, the liquidators have started an action against Mr. Stanford personally, entered into an agreement to sell a Stanford-owned buildings worth $4.5 million, and identified numerous other claims that belong to the liquidation estate that can be pursued for the benefit of victims.

Fifth, in spite of the August 18th letter claim that “the Stanford Investors Committee has asked Grant Thornton to agree to a cooperation protocol between the two proceedings,” such a protocol was one of the first issues dealt with co-operatively with the U.S. receiver, who the liquidators have been in discussion with. At the present time it appears to be scuttled by the Stanford Investors Committee, which has interjected with a demand for a protocol of their own design which we on the advising committee fear is only to maximize the committee’s projected fees that they are charging to the estate via the U.S. courts.

Sixth, Angela Shaw questions “why a liquidator would have to litigate to secure Stanford-owned properties in Antigua. That litigation shouldn’t be necessary.” Unfortunately, litigation is the only means that in the common law system, which the U.S. shares with Antigua, to take these assets away from those who currently hold them. While frustrating it is unavoidable.

Our Antiguan Liquidators’ Creditors Committee of seven is composed of six victims from different countries representative of the location of victims, and a seventh person was asked by a group of victims in Mexico to participate. The Committee, which has met no fewer than five times since its creation six weeks ago, is single minded; recover what rightfully belongs to the victims of Stanford International Bank in the maximum amounts possible, as soon as possible, and distribute the proceeds to the creditors. We have no other stake in the game, and we receive no compensation other than our share of what the creditors receive.

The story published August 18 in Caribbean360 has offered little to help our efforts. Rather, it pits one group against the other, creating a deadlock that only one person could enjoy – Allen Stanford. For the benefit of the creditors, this has to end.

Eric Cohen
Nassau, Bahamas

CONSOLIDATED REPLY TO RESPONSES BY SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, RECEIVER, EXAMINER AND OFFICIAL STANFORD INVESTORS COMMITTEE

CONSOLIDATED REPLY TO RESPONSES BY SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, RECEIVER, EXAMINER AND OFFICIAL STANFORD INVESTORS COMMITTEE TO KLS STANFORD VICTIMS’ MOTION TO INTERVENE AND FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE OFFICIAL STANFORD INVESTOR COMMITTEE

Intervention Reply (Filed Ver. With Exhibits)

SEC INSPECTOR GENERAL TO INVESTIGATE STANFORD TEXAS RECEIVERSHIP

KLS Press Release & Motion to Intervene

We have learned today that SEC Inspector General David Kotz will begin an investigation of the Texas Receivership of Allen Stanford, pursuant to a request by Kachroo Legal Services, P.C.

The request by Kachroo Legal Services, P.C. to initiate an investigation attached the recently filed Motion to Intervene and Declaration based on the malfeasance and waste of the receivership which to date has consumed all collected assets, $120 million. The motion also details an inside deal between the Receiver and the Official Stanford Investor Committee which
provided a pre-approved 25% percent contingency fee to attorneys on the Committee who have not objected to any of the Receiver's fees. This is despite their role of holding the receivership accountable and on track and their right to raise and be heard on any issue in the Receivership proceedings.

The Inspector General will likely investigate the SEC's failure to appropriately oversee this Receivership. The last objection concerning overbilling by the Receiver Ralph Janvey filed by the SEC was over one and one-half years ago.

For further information please contact Kachroo Legal Services, P.C. at (617) 864-0755 or email wlugo@kachroolegal.com. For further information about Kachroo Legal Services, P.C., please review our website www.kachroolegal.com.

KLS Stanford Victims Motion to Intervene

Stanford Investors Committee Reacts to Victim's Claims

Caribbean 360

Stanford Investors Committee reacts to victims' claims
It denies overseeing what the victims claims are excessive fees being charged by the receiver overseeing the gathering of assets to repay investors.

TEXAS, United States, Monday July 11, 2011 – The man who leads the committee set up last August to protect the interests of investors who lost money in Allen Stanford's alleged fraud has responded to some of the criticism leveled at the body in a motion filed in court last week.

In the court document filed by Kachroo Legal Services (KLS), the investors allege that court-appointed receiver Ralph Janvey had used up the majority of the money recovered on expenses.

It also said the Official Stanford Investors Committee, which was set up after a judge granted a request by the victims to give them a say in the recovery of assets, was among those not "acting as a check on the excessive fees and expenses compared to the minimal recovery, challenging the contingency fee arrangement, the operation of the receivership, and otherwise voicing concern over the ineffectiveness of this receivership”.

But in a statement made after the filing of the motion, Head of the Committee John Little - the Dallas attorney who also serves as a liaison between the court, the receiver and the creditors - said that "while the Committee does work in conjunction with the receiver's counsel and other professionals, it is not authorized to review the receiver's fees as KLS mistakenly alleges".

"The Official Stanford Investors Committee is absolutely committed to recovering the highest rate of return possible for Stanford's victims regardless of citizenship or nationality," added the court-appointed examiner.

As for the motion's other allegations and request that four Stanford investors represented by KLS be permitted to intervene and be appointed to serve on the Committee, Little has decided not to address that in the media.

He said the Committee would discuss the motion and respond appropriately via the court.

Little noted, though, that the seven members of the Committee were specifically chosen to represent the cross-section of the 20,000 victims of the US$7 billion alleged Ponzi scheme and that the Committee's members have been actively engaged in a broad range of activities on behalf of the victims, including substantial litigation against third parties and working with the U.S. government authorities overseeing the civil and criminal proceedings.

Along with Janvey and Little, the Committee comprises Ed Snyder, Ed Valdespino and Jaime Pinto Tabini, attorneys for Stanford investors in Mexico, Latin America and Peru respectively; Dr. John Wade, a customer of Stanford Trust Company; and Angela Shaw, a Stanford International Bank CD investor and director and founder of the Stanford Victims Coalition.

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)

Statement by Kachroo Legal Services

"Kachroo Legal Services, P.C. wishes to inform Stanford investors that despite slanderous representations it will not file amended claims for any Stanford investors unnecessarily and it is not our intention to do so, nor has it ever been. KLS is attempting to extend an offer to review your claim and if it is found to be lacking to amend it to participate in any potential class action we file. The review would be done free of charge. Note also that unlike the 30 percent contingency of other attorneys, KLS is charging a small up front stipend and only a 15 percent contingency fee upon recovery."


Please contact us IMMEDIATELY to review your claim so that you are included in the class action at wlugo@kachroolegal.com or by calling 617-864-0755.

First Lawsuit against the SEC Announced

I would encourage everyone to read this lawsuit from start to finish, it will give you hope for our action when the time comes.

It should also make those of you who self-filed realise what is at stake here and convince you to do the right thing and make sure your Registration of Interest filing is not rejected by the SEC and you lose the chance to be part of our lawsuit.

The fact that this action has been filed will convince the SEC to go through each and every Registration of Interest to try and deny as many as they can and they know that once they have rejected your filing you cannot come back later, so please think carefully, it is worth the risk for a few hundred dollars?

Now read the case that has been filed:

Stanford Investors Sue SEC for Losses in Alleged Swindle

Stanford Investors v USA

URGENT - PROPOSAL TO ALL SELF-FILERS AND OTHERS EXPECTING COVERAGE IN THE KLS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE SEC

To: ALL SELF-FILERS AND OTHERS EXPECTING COVERAGE IN THE KLS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE SEC

From: Kachroo Legal Services, P.C. (KLS)

We are currently in the process of amending on behalf of Stanford Investors all self-filed or otherwise filed administrative claims under the U.S. Federal Tort Claims Act. It has come to our attention that many claims do not have required information and statements necessary to formulate a valid administrative claim. It has also come to our attention that the letters of claim filed by many attorneys on behalf of Stanford investors are insufficient to establish a claim under the FTCA, because not all information required in the FTCA forms is provided. All such claims will be deemed invalid with or without any response from the SEC.

IT IS IMPERATIVE that such claims be amended and refiled by KLS as soon as possible.

Kachroo Legal Services will be providing amendment of your claims if you provide the following within the next month:

1. Your last financial statement evidencing investment into Stanford International Bank, or any Stanford entity;

2. Your name and full contact information including email and phone numbers;

3. A witness name and address to your specific investment;

4. Whether you have made any insurance claim for recovery of your claim.

5. If you have invested less than $100,000 USD, legal fees of $500; If you have invested less than $1mill USD, legal fees of $1000;

If you have invested more than $1mill USD, legal fees of $1500.


Please contact us IMMEDIATELY to file your amended claim so that you are included in the class action at wlugo@kachroolegal.com or by calling 617-864-0755.

DISMAY AS OFFICIAL STANFORD INVESTORS COMMITTEE FILE LAWSUIT AGAINST ST JUDE’S CHILDREN’S CANCER HOSPITAL CHARITY

On this day today, the second anniversary of the civil action by the SEC against the Stanford Financial Group, wholly owned by Allen Stanford awaiting trial on 23 counts of fraud in Texas, allegedly too incompetent to stand trial after being beaten-up in prison and fed a cocktail of anti-depressants. What have we learned?

Firstly Allen Stanford is apparently competent enough today to file a lawsuit against the US prosecutors, the FBI and SEC, accusing them of ‘abusive law enforcement’ and seeking $7.2bn in damages. Since he was declared indigenous after Lloyds of London contested their officer’s insurance policy, following the hiring and firing of a carousel of well tailored attorneys, he is now represented by two public defenders. It begs the question who is paying for his lawsuit, and how did he miraculously recover well enough to instruct them.

Now he has recovered, please let the criminal trial begin, and that $7.2bn would also be the same amount the innocent victims of the alleged Stanford fraud have lost. If he’s so innocent, where‘s the money?

On this day today, the Statute of Limitations for any lawsuits in connection with the Stanford case also expired.

Three months ago we woke up to the fact the so-called (SIC) Stanford Investors Committee was going to do nothing very much to help us, so we found a new attorney and launched our own campaign to file FTCA claims against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), for their negligence in not closing down Stanford sooner. They knew he was a fraud 13 years ago. Some of the SEC were merely asleep on the job, while others were caught with their pants down watching porn on their computers. The campaign has been a resounding success, and several thousand Stanford investors have now filed claims.

On this day today, we also anticipated a flood of claims from the receiver and the (SIC) Stanford Investors Committee, who have reportedly been toiling away tirelessly for several months in total secrecy, all in our best interests.

We anticipated a plethora of lawsuits against, amongst others;

BDO Seidman, one of the worlds largest accounting firms, who audited Stanford Group Company, and who fudged their accounts four years running to hide from SIPC it was insolvent and only being supported by tainted funds from SIB in Antigua.

FINRA, who twice fined Stanford for misleading investors, a mere slap on the wrist, but despite all the red flags, could see no further..

The State of Florida, who through their Dept of Banking and Finance granted the newly formed (in 1998) Stanford Fiduciary Investor Services, the illegal right to move vast amounts of money offshore without the reporting a penny to regulators. Yes, Jeb Bush the brother of former President George W Bush became Governor of Florida earlier that same year, and both were recipients of generous campaign donations from Allen Stanford.

Greenburg Traurig, the deep pocketed Miami lawfirm who lobbied endlessly to set up Stanfords Florida deal, and who have been implicated in numerous other murky transactions.

Forbes, and who could forget their endorsement of Stanford as one of Americas richest 40 billionaires with $50bn under management. They gave Stanford his greatest aura of credibility.

One would have anticipated, with four experienced attorneys on the (SIC) Stanford Investors Committee; together with the examiner, the receiver, and Angela Shaw Kogutt, the director and founder of the SVC; these would all be rich pickings; but did they choose to file any suits against any of these? No, not one.

On this day today, sadly, we learned they chose instead to file a suit against St Jude’s, the children’s cancer research hospital charity who give hope to sick children and their families. Allen Stanford donated $7m towards St Jude’s, quite possibly the only truly good deed the ‘Knight’ ever did. No matter where those funds came from, there is one indisputable fact; St Jude’s received and spent them in good faith to keep a lot of sick kids alive, and who can begrudge them that?

On this day today, it should have been the day we were all celebrating having made the first step towards recovery from the US Government, who knew for 13 years that Allen Sanford was a fraud, but did nothing. Instead I am sickened that the Stanford Investors Committee, who supposedly act in our best interests, could have instigated such a callous and insensitive action against such a deserving institution as St Jude’s without our knowledge, and without our consent.

To all the Stanford investors reading this, I urge you to write or email the Stanford Investors Committee members to withdraw this suit against St Jude’s. In the eyes of the world we are all as equally guilty as those undeserving members of the committee who are behind it. Please let us do one good thing and make this right.

Thank you

Richard

ONLY TWO WEEKS NOW BEFORE THE DEADLINE FOR STANFORD FINANCIAL GROUP INVESTORS EXPIRES

The deadline for FTCA claims by investors of the failed Stanford Financial Group against the US Securities and Exchange Commission is now just 18 days.

Investors in the failed Stanford International Bank, a part of the Stanford Financial Group, in receivership since the arrest of Allen Stanford, who is currently in detention in Houston awaiting trial on 23 charges of fraud, have just two weeks left to submit administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the US Securities and Exchange Commission, for their negligence in not closing down Allen Stanford sooner, despite knowing for 13 years it was likely he was operating a Ponzi scheme. Had they done so earlier many thousands of investors would have been spared the loss of their life savings.

The deadline for claims is fast approaching. Unless claims are submitted correctly and timely, and delivery receipted by the SEC before the two year Statute of Limitations expires, on the 16th February 2011, Stanford investors will be denied any recovery from the US government, forever.
Stanford investors have engaged an attorney to submit FTCA claims against the SEC. This action against the SEC is a real chance for full recovery of losses from the failed Stanford Financial Group. It will not prejudice any SIPC recovery efforts, and is open to all the Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality, or place of residence.

CLAIMS TAKE SEVERAL DAYS TO PROCESS AND MUST BE SUBMITTED CORRECTLY AND TIMELY BEFORE THE 16th FEBRUARY OR THEY WILL BE REJECTED


Any Stanford investors who have not yet decided, should contact their attorney at their earliest opportunity, or the attorney the Stanford investors have hired: Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Mass, who already have considerable experience of submitting FTCA claims on behalf of the Madoff investors. Email: info@kachroolegal.com

Should any Stanford investors wish for more detail of the campaign and the various arguments, please register for our private investor’s forum, which is free of charge and available to all bona-fide investors in the failed Stanford Financial Group: http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register