Thursday, 22 March 2012 Caribarena news Antigua News
Antigua St John's - Marcus Wide, managing director at Grant Thornton, has
said although his firm assisted the US Congressmen involved in the petition
to investigate the Antigua government's potential involvement in the US$7
billion Stanford Ponzi Scheme, his office does not prosecute criminal
matters.
But it will be pursuing all "improper transactions" made by Stanford
International Bank (SIB).
In an exclusive interview with Caribarena.com on Wednesday, Wide confirmed
that his office had assisted the US Congressmen with the liquidation and its independence from the Government of Antigua.
He said too that the office of Grant Thornton, which was appointed on May
13, 2011 by Justice Mario Michel of the Eastern Caribbean High Court, as the new liquidators of Stanford International Bank Ltd, had even "corrected some factual information in relation to the liquidation in the original resolution".
Caribarena.com asked the liquidator whether his office intends to file any
charges in Antigua & Barbuda or go after any political contributions, legal
fees, or even the cricket prizes lavishly handed out by Stanford while a
knight in the country.
"We are not criminal prosecutors, so unless we believe we can win and
collect, it would not be proper to spend money that would otherwise be
available to the depositors and victims," Wide said.
He added, however, that Grant Thornton intends to pursue all "improper"
transactions where it is commercially reasonable to do so.
"This includes assessing the quality of the evidence about the transaction,
an assessment of the law, and chances of success in court, and an assessment of our ability to enforce the judgment and recover money for the benefit of the estate," Wide said.
The liquidator pointed out, however, that his firm does not intend to
duplicate claims already made by receiver Ralph Janvey.
Regarding the general position taken by Grant Thornton on the move by the US Congressmen, Wide said, "We have no position or comment on any dispute
between the Government of Antigua and the Government of the United States of America."
Showing posts with label court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label court. Show all posts
Thursday, 22 March 2012
Monday, 19 March 2012
Stanford Investor Class Actions Restored by Appeals Court
By Andrew Harris on March 19, 2012
(Bloomberg)
R. Allen Stanford’s aggrieved investors can press state court class-action lawsuits they filed seeking to recover losses in his $7 billion international fraud scheme, a U.S. appeals court ruled.
The New Orleans based panel today reversed a lower-court decision that the claims were barred by a federal law preventing plaintiffs from pursuing state-law claims arising from the purchase or sale of federally regulated securities.
A federal court jury in Houston on March 6 found Stanford guilty of mail and wire fraud in the sale of certificates of deposit issued by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd. He is to be sentenced June 14.
The purchase or sale of securities is only “tangentially related” to Stanford’s scheme, the unanimous three-judge panel said, reviving four lawsuits filed against those who sold the CDs and lawyers and an insurer for the Stanford bank.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued Stanford and two other top executives in his organization in February 2009, alleging they misled investors about the nature and oversight of the Antiguan bank and the CDs it issued.
He and other executives were indicted on federal charges four months later. Finance chief James Davis pleaded guilty to fraud in August 2009 and testified against Stanford in his six- week trial.
U.S. District Judge David Godbey in Dallas, who has been overseeing the SEC case and related litigation, took jurisdiction over the investor claims removed from state to federal court.
Lower-Court Ruling
He dismissed them because Stanford advertised the CDs as being backed by regulated securities and some investors sold securities to finance their CD purchases. Those facts put the CD-related suits in the ambit of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, the judge ruled.
The appeals court disagreed.
“We find that the fact that some of the plaintiffs sold some ‘covered securities’ in order to put their money in the CDs was not more than tangentially related to the fraudulent scheme,” the New Orleans panel said.
The case is Roland v. Green, 11-10932, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (New Orleans).
(Bloomberg)
R. Allen Stanford’s aggrieved investors can press state court class-action lawsuits they filed seeking to recover losses in his $7 billion international fraud scheme, a U.S. appeals court ruled.
The New Orleans based panel today reversed a lower-court decision that the claims were barred by a federal law preventing plaintiffs from pursuing state-law claims arising from the purchase or sale of federally regulated securities.
A federal court jury in Houston on March 6 found Stanford guilty of mail and wire fraud in the sale of certificates of deposit issued by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd. He is to be sentenced June 14.
The purchase or sale of securities is only “tangentially related” to Stanford’s scheme, the unanimous three-judge panel said, reviving four lawsuits filed against those who sold the CDs and lawyers and an insurer for the Stanford bank.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued Stanford and two other top executives in his organization in February 2009, alleging they misled investors about the nature and oversight of the Antiguan bank and the CDs it issued.
He and other executives were indicted on federal charges four months later. Finance chief James Davis pleaded guilty to fraud in August 2009 and testified against Stanford in his six- week trial.
U.S. District Judge David Godbey in Dallas, who has been overseeing the SEC case and related litigation, took jurisdiction over the investor claims removed from state to federal court.
Lower-Court Ruling
He dismissed them because Stanford advertised the CDs as being backed by regulated securities and some investors sold securities to finance their CD purchases. Those facts put the CD-related suits in the ambit of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, the judge ruled.
The appeals court disagreed.
“We find that the fact that some of the plaintiffs sold some ‘covered securities’ in order to put their money in the CDs was not more than tangentially related to the fraudulent scheme,” the New Orleans panel said.
The case is Roland v. Green, 11-10932, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (New Orleans).
Thursday, 12 January 2012
Allen Stanford lawyers want out just before trial
By Jonathan Stempel | Reuters
Just 12 days before jury selection is to begin in a much-delayed case, lawyers for Allen Stanford, accused of running a $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme, have asked to withdraw from the case.
The request by Ali Fazel and Robert Scardino is the latest twist in a case in which Stanford, once believed to be a billionaire but who later claimed to be indigent, has employed roughly 14 different lawyers, and spent several months under medical care after being ruled incompetent to stand trial.
Fazel and Scardino, who were appointed by the court and are being paid with public funds, had previously sought to delay jury selection beyond the scheduled January 23 date.
In a joint filing on Wednesday with the U.S. District Court in Houston, they said rulings by the presiding judge David Hittner, budget matters and non-public issues make it "untenable" for them to stay on the case.
"The time and budgetary constraints imposed on defense counsel have operated to deprive the accused of counsel who are adequately prepared to render the constitutional threshold of effective assistance," they said. "Counsel cannot represent the accused competently."
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment.
It is unclear whether Hittner will grant the withdrawal request.
On December 28, he called the public interest in a speedy trial "particularly acute," citing charges that Stanford caused billions of dollars of losses and noting that the defendant has been in detention for 2-1/2 years since his June 2009 arrest.
"This case needs to be tried," he wrote.
Prosecutors accused Stanford of deceiving thousands of investors into buying bogus certificates of deposit from his Antiguan bank, Stanford International Bank Ltd.
The defendant faces a 14-count indictment in one of the largest white-collar fraud cases since Bernard Madoff was arrested in December 2008 for his Ponzi scheme, in which older investors are paid with money from newer investors.
Stanford also faces civil fraud charges by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in a separate case.
Former SEC lawyer Spencer Barasch is expected, without admitting wrongdoing, to settle Justice Department civil charges over an apparent conflict of interest when he did some work for Stanford after leaving the Commission, people familiar with the matter have said.
The case is U.S. v. Stanford, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, No. 09-00342.
Just 12 days before jury selection is to begin in a much-delayed case, lawyers for Allen Stanford, accused of running a $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme, have asked to withdraw from the case.
The request by Ali Fazel and Robert Scardino is the latest twist in a case in which Stanford, once believed to be a billionaire but who later claimed to be indigent, has employed roughly 14 different lawyers, and spent several months under medical care after being ruled incompetent to stand trial.
Fazel and Scardino, who were appointed by the court and are being paid with public funds, had previously sought to delay jury selection beyond the scheduled January 23 date.
In a joint filing on Wednesday with the U.S. District Court in Houston, they said rulings by the presiding judge David Hittner, budget matters and non-public issues make it "untenable" for them to stay on the case.
"The time and budgetary constraints imposed on defense counsel have operated to deprive the accused of counsel who are adequately prepared to render the constitutional threshold of effective assistance," they said. "Counsel cannot represent the accused competently."
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment.
It is unclear whether Hittner will grant the withdrawal request.
On December 28, he called the public interest in a speedy trial "particularly acute," citing charges that Stanford caused billions of dollars of losses and noting that the defendant has been in detention for 2-1/2 years since his June 2009 arrest.
"This case needs to be tried," he wrote.
Prosecutors accused Stanford of deceiving thousands of investors into buying bogus certificates of deposit from his Antiguan bank, Stanford International Bank Ltd.
The defendant faces a 14-count indictment in one of the largest white-collar fraud cases since Bernard Madoff was arrested in December 2008 for his Ponzi scheme, in which older investors are paid with money from newer investors.
Stanford also faces civil fraud charges by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in a separate case.
Former SEC lawyer Spencer Barasch is expected, without admitting wrongdoing, to settle Justice Department civil charges over an apparent conflict of interest when he did some work for Stanford after leaving the Commission, people familiar with the matter have said.
The case is U.S. v. Stanford, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, No. 09-00342.
Friday, 23 December 2011
Allen Stanford Found Mentally Fit for Fraud Trial in January
By Laurel Brubaker Calkins
Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) -- R. Allen Stanford, whose lawyers failed to convince a judge that he’s mentally unfit to stand trial, was ordered to face a jury next month on charges he swindled investors of more than $7 billion. The trial is to begin with jury selection on Jan. 23.
Stanford’s defense team argued unsuccessfully that his mental capacity was diminished by head injuries he suffered in a 2009 jailhouse assault and the effects of powerful anxiety medications prescribed in prison after the beating.
“I have found by a preponderance of the evidence that Stanford is competent to stand trial,” U.S. District Judge David Hittner in Houston said yesterday in finding Stanford able to assist in his defense.
Hittner’s ruling followed 2 1/2 days of debate over the extent of brain damage Stanford, 61, suffered from the assault and the extent to which he might be faking memory loss.
“He wants to con his way out of this case the same way he conned investors for more than 20 years,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregg Costa told Hittner yesterday. “Don’t let him do it.”
Robert E. Cochrane, the psychologist who was Stanford’s lead evaluator at the federal prison hospital in Butner, North Carolina, testified that the former financier failed every test designed to expose fakers.
Stanford’s claim of complete retrograde amnesia, the loss of the memory of what happened before the event responsible, is “remarkable” because it is so rare, Cochrane said.
First Amnesia Report
Stanford first reported having lost his memory after he arrived at Butner in February, more than a year after the assault, the government said.
“Every doctor on the stand agreed that Mr. Stanford is not suffering from the complete retrograde amnesia he repeatedly claimed he had,” Costa said. Once it is accepted that Stanford is exaggerating his memory loss, “it pulls the rug out from under all the other psychological problems he’s reporting,” the prosecutor said.
Ali Fazel, Stanford’s lead lawyer, argued that all the examining doctors agreed “He’s not right. There’s something wrong with him.”
Fazel said Stanford’s brain trauma and psychological impairments leave him incapable of assisting his lawyers or testifying in his own defense.
“Mr. Stanford isn’t running away from anything,” Fazel said. “He wants to fight.” Fazel said.
Desire to Help
Stanford was assaulted and over-medicated while in government custody and wanted the “opportunity to get better and help his counsel,” Fazel argued.
The defense put on testimony from three psychiatrists or neuropsychologists who all said the former billionaire is incompetent.
“He says it’s like there’s a blackboard with all his life written on it, but there are clouds that obscure it,” Victor Scarano, a forensic psychiatrist who examined Stanford for the defense, testified Dec. 21. “Every once in a while, a cloud opens up and he can connect with the memory, and then the clouds comes back.”
Scarano testified Stanford can’t recall some of his children, romantic encounters or business details. He retains “partial pieces” of memory, Scarano said.
Ralph Lilly, a neurologist for Stanford’s defense, testified Dec. 21 that the ex-financier’s brain damage and health problems, including depression, heart and liver disease, have put him “at risk for suicide.”
All-Night Observation
Based on news media reports of that testimony, Stanford was placed under psychiatric watch last night at the federal lockup in Houston. He arrived in court this morning complaining heatedly to his attorneys of having been kept awake and under observation in the jail’s “psyche hole” all night.
A prison official told Hittner an overnight mental evaluation was conducted out of “an abundance of caution,” given Stanford’s high profile and his own doctor’s testimony. She said Stanford will be re-evaluated tonight to determine if he can be returned to the general prison population.
Stanford has been held as a flight risk since his June 2009 indictment on charges of defrauding investors through a scheme built on allegedly bogus certificates of deposit at Antigua- based Stanford International Bank Ltd.
Hittner delayed Stanford’s trial, first set for last January, after three doctors testified that the financier was incapable of assisting in his defense because of his drug dependency and potential effects from the head injury.
Houston Jail
Stanford was sent back to a Houston lockup in November after Butner medical officials certified him competent to stand trial.
Prosecutors say Stanford skimmed more than $1 billion of investor funds to acquire a fleet of jets and yachts, multiple mansions and a private Caribbean island, as well as to give money to women with whom he had children. He has denied wrongdoing.
The case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09-cr-342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).
Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) -- R. Allen Stanford, whose lawyers failed to convince a judge that he’s mentally unfit to stand trial, was ordered to face a jury next month on charges he swindled investors of more than $7 billion. The trial is to begin with jury selection on Jan. 23.
Stanford’s defense team argued unsuccessfully that his mental capacity was diminished by head injuries he suffered in a 2009 jailhouse assault and the effects of powerful anxiety medications prescribed in prison after the beating.
“I have found by a preponderance of the evidence that Stanford is competent to stand trial,” U.S. District Judge David Hittner in Houston said yesterday in finding Stanford able to assist in his defense.
Hittner’s ruling followed 2 1/2 days of debate over the extent of brain damage Stanford, 61, suffered from the assault and the extent to which he might be faking memory loss.
“He wants to con his way out of this case the same way he conned investors for more than 20 years,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregg Costa told Hittner yesterday. “Don’t let him do it.”
Robert E. Cochrane, the psychologist who was Stanford’s lead evaluator at the federal prison hospital in Butner, North Carolina, testified that the former financier failed every test designed to expose fakers.
Stanford’s claim of complete retrograde amnesia, the loss of the memory of what happened before the event responsible, is “remarkable” because it is so rare, Cochrane said.
First Amnesia Report
Stanford first reported having lost his memory after he arrived at Butner in February, more than a year after the assault, the government said.
“Every doctor on the stand agreed that Mr. Stanford is not suffering from the complete retrograde amnesia he repeatedly claimed he had,” Costa said. Once it is accepted that Stanford is exaggerating his memory loss, “it pulls the rug out from under all the other psychological problems he’s reporting,” the prosecutor said.
Ali Fazel, Stanford’s lead lawyer, argued that all the examining doctors agreed “He’s not right. There’s something wrong with him.”
Fazel said Stanford’s brain trauma and psychological impairments leave him incapable of assisting his lawyers or testifying in his own defense.
“Mr. Stanford isn’t running away from anything,” Fazel said. “He wants to fight.” Fazel said.
Desire to Help
Stanford was assaulted and over-medicated while in government custody and wanted the “opportunity to get better and help his counsel,” Fazel argued.
The defense put on testimony from three psychiatrists or neuropsychologists who all said the former billionaire is incompetent.
“He says it’s like there’s a blackboard with all his life written on it, but there are clouds that obscure it,” Victor Scarano, a forensic psychiatrist who examined Stanford for the defense, testified Dec. 21. “Every once in a while, a cloud opens up and he can connect with the memory, and then the clouds comes back.”
Scarano testified Stanford can’t recall some of his children, romantic encounters or business details. He retains “partial pieces” of memory, Scarano said.
Ralph Lilly, a neurologist for Stanford’s defense, testified Dec. 21 that the ex-financier’s brain damage and health problems, including depression, heart and liver disease, have put him “at risk for suicide.”
All-Night Observation
Based on news media reports of that testimony, Stanford was placed under psychiatric watch last night at the federal lockup in Houston. He arrived in court this morning complaining heatedly to his attorneys of having been kept awake and under observation in the jail’s “psyche hole” all night.
A prison official told Hittner an overnight mental evaluation was conducted out of “an abundance of caution,” given Stanford’s high profile and his own doctor’s testimony. She said Stanford will be re-evaluated tonight to determine if he can be returned to the general prison population.
Stanford has been held as a flight risk since his June 2009 indictment on charges of defrauding investors through a scheme built on allegedly bogus certificates of deposit at Antigua- based Stanford International Bank Ltd.
Hittner delayed Stanford’s trial, first set for last January, after three doctors testified that the financier was incapable of assisting in his defense because of his drug dependency and potential effects from the head injury.
Houston Jail
Stanford was sent back to a Houston lockup in November after Butner medical officials certified him competent to stand trial.
Prosecutors say Stanford skimmed more than $1 billion of investor funds to acquire a fleet of jets and yachts, multiple mansions and a private Caribbean island, as well as to give money to women with whom he had children. He has denied wrongdoing.
The case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09-cr-342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).
Wednesday, 21 December 2011
Allen Stanford Suicidal, Unfit for Trial: Doctor
By Laurel Brubaker Calkins - Dec 21, 2011
Indicted financier R. Allen Stanford, accused of leading a $7 billion investment fraud scheme, arrives for a hearing at the Bob Casey Federal Courthouse in Houston on Jan. 6, 2011.
R. Allen Stanford is suicidal and may never recover sufficiently from a jailhouse beating to stand trial next month on charges he ran a $7 billion Ponzi scheme, a doctor who examined him for the defense testified.
Defense lawyers and U.S. prosecutors argued for the second day in federal court in Houston over Stanford’s mental fitness. Stanford, 61, says he can’t remember family vacations, business dealings or romantic encounters with women because of the attack and because of anxiety drugs. The U.S. says he’s faking it.
Dr. Ralph Lilly, a neurologist, testified today that Stanford sustained “a major injury that required major surgery’’ in the 2009 inmate assault. Stanford is delusional and believes the government is out to destroy him, Lilly said. The doctor said he couldn’t predict when Stanford might be ready for trial.
“He’s at risk for suicide,” Lilly told U.S. District Judge David Hittner, citing an examination of Stanford this month. “His memory is like a crossword puzzle that’s fallen to the ground and doesn’t come together anymore.”
Lilly told the judge he didn’t know when or whether Stanford would be able to go on trial.
“I can’t say in the next month or ever,’’ he said.
Further Treatment
Depending on how Hittner rules, Stanford will undergo further treatment or face a trial Jan. 23 on charges of running a Ponzi scheme that cost investors more than $7 billion. If convicted, he could go to prison for the rest of his life.
Stanford has been imprisoned as a flight risk since his June 2009 indictment on charges of defrauding investors through a scheme built on allegedly bogus certificates of deposit at Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd.
Stanford benefited from eight months of treatment in Butner, where he was successfully weaned from powerful anti- anxiety drugs prescribed after the assault, Lilly said. The lasting effects of the brain injury have left him depressed and occasionally hallucinatory, Lilly said.
“He’s delusional, paranoid and he feels the government has selected him to destroy him for whatever reason they may have,’’ Lilly testified. He said Stanford believes the U.S. wants to “make money off his businesses’’ and has tortured him.
Prison Psychologist
Robert E. Cochrane, a psychologist at the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ medical center in Butner, North Carolina, testified yesterday that Stanford failed every test designed to expose fakers. His claim of complete retrograde amnesia, loss of the memory of things that happened before the event that caused it, is “remarkable” because the condition is so rare, Cochrane said.
Lilly said today that Stanford is “absolutely’’ not faking his condition and isn’t even aware of the extent to which his mental faculties are impaired.
“His symptoms are characteristic of someone with a brain injury,’’ Lilly said. “His prognosis is limited.’’
The case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09-cr-342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).
Indicted financier R. Allen Stanford, accused of leading a $7 billion investment fraud scheme, arrives for a hearing at the Bob Casey Federal Courthouse in Houston on Jan. 6, 2011.
R. Allen Stanford is suicidal and may never recover sufficiently from a jailhouse beating to stand trial next month on charges he ran a $7 billion Ponzi scheme, a doctor who examined him for the defense testified.
Defense lawyers and U.S. prosecutors argued for the second day in federal court in Houston over Stanford’s mental fitness. Stanford, 61, says he can’t remember family vacations, business dealings or romantic encounters with women because of the attack and because of anxiety drugs. The U.S. says he’s faking it.
Dr. Ralph Lilly, a neurologist, testified today that Stanford sustained “a major injury that required major surgery’’ in the 2009 inmate assault. Stanford is delusional and believes the government is out to destroy him, Lilly said. The doctor said he couldn’t predict when Stanford might be ready for trial.
“He’s at risk for suicide,” Lilly told U.S. District Judge David Hittner, citing an examination of Stanford this month. “His memory is like a crossword puzzle that’s fallen to the ground and doesn’t come together anymore.”
Lilly told the judge he didn’t know when or whether Stanford would be able to go on trial.
“I can’t say in the next month or ever,’’ he said.
Further Treatment
Depending on how Hittner rules, Stanford will undergo further treatment or face a trial Jan. 23 on charges of running a Ponzi scheme that cost investors more than $7 billion. If convicted, he could go to prison for the rest of his life.
Stanford has been imprisoned as a flight risk since his June 2009 indictment on charges of defrauding investors through a scheme built on allegedly bogus certificates of deposit at Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd.
Stanford benefited from eight months of treatment in Butner, where he was successfully weaned from powerful anti- anxiety drugs prescribed after the assault, Lilly said. The lasting effects of the brain injury have left him depressed and occasionally hallucinatory, Lilly said.
“He’s delusional, paranoid and he feels the government has selected him to destroy him for whatever reason they may have,’’ Lilly testified. He said Stanford believes the U.S. wants to “make money off his businesses’’ and has tortured him.
Prison Psychologist
Robert E. Cochrane, a psychologist at the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ medical center in Butner, North Carolina, testified yesterday that Stanford failed every test designed to expose fakers. His claim of complete retrograde amnesia, loss of the memory of things that happened before the event that caused it, is “remarkable” because the condition is so rare, Cochrane said.
Lilly said today that Stanford is “absolutely’’ not faking his condition and isn’t even aware of the extent to which his mental faculties are impaired.
“His symptoms are characteristic of someone with a brain injury,’’ Lilly said. “His prognosis is limited.’’
The case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09-cr-342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).
Tuesday, 22 November 2011
Stanford arraignment set for Nov 28th
Source: Tex Parte Blog
Judge David Hittner: Stephen Cochell, who represents R. Allen Stanford in civil suit, can’t have in-person access to his client until criminal case is completed.
Posted on November 18, 2011
Houston financier R. Allen Stanford is back in Texas and back at the Federal Detention Center in Houston, according to Federal Bureau of Prisons records. But proximity doesn’t do much good for Stephen Cochell, an attorney in Houston who represents Stanford in a civil suit, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank Ltd, et al., which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
On Nov. 17, Senior U.S. District Judge David Hittner of the Southern District of Texas, who is presiding over Stanford’s criminal case, signed an order precluding Cochell from “in-person access” to Stanford at the FDC in Houston until Stanford’s criminal case is “completed.” Hittner wrote that it has come to his attention that Cochell issued a public statement concerning Stanford’s “current mental status” that could “directly impact the on-going criminal prosecution and impending jury trial” against Stanford in his court.
Hittner wrote that Cochell, in the statement, said Stanford “continues to suffer from short-term and long-term memory loss” and should remain at the federal medical facility in Butner, N.C., through the end of January 2012. Stanford recently returned to Houston after undergoing treatment in Butner for a dependency on prescription drugs. Cochell, of the Cochell Law Firm, declines comment. Stanford’s criminal-defense attorneys, Robert Scardino and Ali Fazel, partners in Scardino & Fazel in Houston, did not immediately return a telephone message left at their office.
Stanford’s criminal trial was set for January, but Hittner delayed it after finding Stanford was mentally incompetent to stand trial. On May 4, the government filed a superseding indictment against Stanford, and his arraignment is set for Nov. 28 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Milloy of the Southern District of Texas.
Stanford pleaded not guilty to the charges in his original indictment of June 2009. He faces a total of 14 counts: one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud; five counts of wire fraud; five counts of mail fraud; one count of conspiracy to obstruct an SEC investigation; one count of obstruction of an SEC investigation; and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.
Judge David Hittner: Stephen Cochell, who represents R. Allen Stanford in civil suit, can’t have in-person access to his client until criminal case is completed.
Posted on November 18, 2011
Houston financier R. Allen Stanford is back in Texas and back at the Federal Detention Center in Houston, according to Federal Bureau of Prisons records. But proximity doesn’t do much good for Stephen Cochell, an attorney in Houston who represents Stanford in a civil suit, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank Ltd, et al., which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
On Nov. 17, Senior U.S. District Judge David Hittner of the Southern District of Texas, who is presiding over Stanford’s criminal case, signed an order precluding Cochell from “in-person access” to Stanford at the FDC in Houston until Stanford’s criminal case is “completed.” Hittner wrote that it has come to his attention that Cochell issued a public statement concerning Stanford’s “current mental status” that could “directly impact the on-going criminal prosecution and impending jury trial” against Stanford in his court.
Hittner wrote that Cochell, in the statement, said Stanford “continues to suffer from short-term and long-term memory loss” and should remain at the federal medical facility in Butner, N.C., through the end of January 2012. Stanford recently returned to Houston after undergoing treatment in Butner for a dependency on prescription drugs. Cochell, of the Cochell Law Firm, declines comment. Stanford’s criminal-defense attorneys, Robert Scardino and Ali Fazel, partners in Scardino & Fazel in Houston, did not immediately return a telephone message left at their office.
Stanford’s criminal trial was set for January, but Hittner delayed it after finding Stanford was mentally incompetent to stand trial. On May 4, the government filed a superseding indictment against Stanford, and his arraignment is set for Nov. 28 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Milloy of the Southern District of Texas.
Stanford pleaded not guilty to the charges in his original indictment of June 2009. He faces a total of 14 counts: one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud; five counts of wire fraud; five counts of mail fraud; one count of conspiracy to obstruct an SEC investigation; one count of obstruction of an SEC investigation; and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.
Sunday, 2 October 2011
Lawyers to Attend Judge Godbey's Court on 13th OCT for what is described as "Status Conference"
I don't know what this is about, but Judge Godbey has sent out electronic notifications to hundreds of movants and lawyers to attend his court on 13th OCT. For what is described as "Status Conference". Here is a copy of the court docs. and which cases have been notified:
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Texas
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 9/28/2011 at 11:15 AM CDT and filed on 9/27/2011
Case Name: In RE: Stanford Entities Securities Litigation
Case Number: 3:09-md-02099-N
Filer:
Document Number: 21
Docket Text:
ORDER: The Court will hold a status conference for all parties to the Stanford MDL proceeding on 10/13/2011 10:30 AM in US Courthouse, Courtroom 1505, 1100 Commerce St., Dallas, TX 75242-1310 before Judge David C Godbey. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 9/27/2011) (jkm)
Case Name: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank Ltd et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-00298-N
Filer:
Document Number: 1449
Case Name: Adams et al v. Stanford Group Company et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-00334-N
Filer:
Document Number: 28
Case Name: Pre-War Art, Inc. et al v. Stanford Coins & Bullion, Inc. et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-00559-N
Filer:
Document Number: 87
Case Name: Trustmark National Bank v. HP Financial Services Venezuela, C.C.A. et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-00633-N
Filer:
Document Number: 18
Case Name: In re Stanford International Bank Ltd. Debtor in a Foreign Proceeding
Case Number: 3:09-cv-00721-N
Filer:
Document Number: 84
Case Name: Janvey v. Alguire et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-00724-N
Filer:
Document Number: 769
Case Name: Troice et al v. Willis of Colorado, Inc. et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-01274-N
Filer:
Document Number: 149
Case Name: Troice et al v. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-01600-N
Filer:
Document Number: 92
Case Name: Gonzalez et al v. Ralph S. Janvey et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-01603-N
Filer:
Document Number: 45
Case Name: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Ralph S Janvey
Case Number: 3:09-cv-01736-N
Filer:
Document Number: 25
Case Name: Allen v. Stanford Group Company et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02041-N
Filer:
Document Number: 12
Ranni v. Willis of Colorado Inc et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02042-N
Filer:
Document Number: 24
Case Name: Janvey v. Reeves
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02151-N
Filer:
Document Number: 37
Frank et al v. The Commonwealth of Antigua and Barbuda
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02165-N
Filer:
Document Number: 44
Case Name: Kyle v. Stanford International Bank Ltd. et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02166-N
Filer:
Document Number: 15
Case Name: Turk et al v. Pershing LLC
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02199-N
Filer:
Document Number: 68
Case Name: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London et al v. Stanford et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02206-N
Filer:
Document Number: 21
Case Name: In the Matter of the Tax Liabilities of John Does
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02290-N
Filer:
Document Number: 14
Case Name: Rotstain et al v. Trustmark National Bank et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02384-N
Filer:
Document Number: 86
Case Name: Queyrouze et al v. Bank of Antigua et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00304-N
Filer:
Document Number: 23
Case Name: MacArthur, et al v. Certain Underwriters/Names at Lloyd's of London, et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00313-N
Filer:
Document Number: 33
Case Name: Jackson et al v. Cox et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00328-N
Filer:
Document Number: 37
Case Name: Janvey v. Venger et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00366-N
Filer:
Document Number: 233
Case Name: Janvey v. Rodriguez Posada, et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00415-N
Filer:
Document Number: 67
Case Name: Janvey v. Wealth Management Services, Ltd.
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00477-N
Filer:
Document Number: 18
Case Name: Janvey v. Gilbe Corp.
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00478-N
Filer:
Document Number: 69
Case Name: Janvey v. Barnes et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00527-N
Filer:
Document Number: 23
Case Name: Janvey v. Buck's Bits Service, Inc.
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00528-N
Filer:
Document Number: 56
Case Name: Janvey v. Johnson
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00617-N
Filer:
Document Number: 46
Case Name: Janvey v. Barr
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00725-N
Filer:
Document Number: 41
Case Name: Rupert et al v. Winter
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00799-N
Filer:
Document Number: 76
Case Name: Janvey v. Interim Executive Management, Inc.
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00829-N
Filer:
Document Number: 15
Case Name: Janvey v. Indigo Trust
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00844-N
Filer:
Document Number: 46
Case Name: Janvey v. Dokken et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00931-N
Filer:
Document Number: 76
Case Name: Janvey v. Fernandez et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01002-N
Filer:
Document Number: 128
Case Name: Janvey v. Stoelker
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01272-N
Filer:
Document Number: 25
Case Name: Carter et al v. Mills et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01328-N
Filer:
Document Number: 13
Case Name: Janvey v. Wieselberg et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01394-N
Filer:
Document Number: 34
Case Name: Janvey v. Merge Healthcare, Inc.
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01465-N
Filer:
Document Number: 20
Case Name: Casanova et al v. Willis of Colorado Inc et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01862-N
Filer:
Document Number: 12
Case Name: Kneese et al v. Pershing, LLC
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01908-N
Filer:
Document Number: 17
Case Name: Janvey v. Tonarelli
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01955-N
Filer:
Document Number: 11
Case Name: Janvey v. Dillon Gage Inc. of Dallas et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01973-N
Filer:
Document Number: 25
Case Name: Janvey vs. Rodriguez-Tolentino et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-02290-N
Filer:
Document Number: 8
Case Name: Janvey v. Stanford
Case Number: 3:10-cv-02322-N
Filer:
Document Number: 12
Case Name: Janvey v. Bogar et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-02583-N
Filer:
Document Number: 16
Case Name: Janvey v. Alvarado
Case Number: 3:10-cv-02584-N
Filer:
Document Number: 7
Case Name: Janvey v. Stinson
Case Number: 3:10-cv-02586-N
Filer:
Document Number: 21
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Toms et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00018-N
Filer:
Document Number: 15
Godbey. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 9/27/2011) (jkm)
Case Name: Janvey et al v. The University of Miami
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00041-N
Filer:
Document Number: 16
Case Name: Janvey et al v. The Inter-American Economic Council
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00044-N
Filer:
Document Number: 7
Case Name: Janvey et al v. IMG Worldwide, Inc.
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00117-N
Filer:
Document Number: 29
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Miami Heat Limited Partnership et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00158-N
Filer:
Document Number: 23
Case Name: Ralph S Janvey, et al. v. PGA Tour Inc
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00226-N
Filer:
Document Number: 17
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Allen
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00289-N
Filer:
Document Number: 6
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Arizaga
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00290-N
Filer:
Document Number: 6
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Vingerhoedt et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00291-N
Filer:
Document Number: 6
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Giusti et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00292-N
Filer:
Document Number: 10
Case Name: Janvey et al v. The Golf Channel, Inc.
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00294-N
Filer:
Document Number: 13
Case Name: Janvey et al v. ATP Tour Inc
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00295-N
Filer:
Document Number: 13
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Salgar
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00296-N
Filer:
Document Number: 7
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Romero
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00297-N
Filer:
Document Number: 22
Case Name: The Official Stanford Investors Committee v. Cort & Cort et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00298-N
Filer:
Document Number: 15
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Castaneda
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00299-N
Filer:
Document Number: 6
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Brown
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00301-N
Filer:
Document Number: 12
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Blackman
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00302-N
Filer:
Document Number: 8
Case Name: The Official Stanford Investors Committee v. American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities, Inc. et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00303-N
Filer:
Document Number: 28
Case Name: Mendez et al v. Pershing, LLC et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00314-N
Filer:
Document Number: 11
Case Name: The Official Stanford Investors Committee et al v. Breazeale Sachse & Wilson LLP et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00329-N
Filer:
Document Number: 38
Case Name: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London et al v. Tolentino et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00360-N
Filer:
Document Number: 11
Case Name: Robert Juan Dartez, LLC et al v. The United States of America
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00602-N
Filer:
Document Number: 23
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Chung Design, LLC.
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00738-N
Filer:
Document Number: 7
Case Name: Janvey v. Insideout Sports & Entertainment
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00760-N
Filer:
Document Number: 7
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Rocketball, Ltd. et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00770-N
Filer:
Document Number: 10
Case Name: Trustmark National Bank v. Carribean Sun Airlines, Inc. et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00924-N
Filer:
Document Number: 16
Case Name: Official Stanford Investors Committee v. Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Martin, LLP.
Case Number: 3:11-cv-01025-N
Filer:
Document Number: 9
Case Name: Wilkinson et al v. BDO USA, LLP et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-01115-N
Filer:
Document Number: 37
Case Name: Janvey v. Libyan Investment Authority et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-01177-N
Filer:
Document Number: 22
Case Name: Janvey v. Stanford
Case Number: 3:11-cv-01199-N
Filer:
Document Number: 10
Case Name: Janvey v. Rincon
Case Number: 3:11-cv-01659-N
Filer:
Document Number: 5
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Texas A&M University
Case Number: 3:11-cv-01895-N
Filer:
Document Number: 5
Case Name: Rishmague et al v. Winter et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-02024-N
Filer:
Document Number: 15
Docket Text:
ORDER: The Court will hold a status conference for all parties to the Stanford MDL proceeding on 10/13/2011 10:30 AM in US Courthouse, Courtroom 1505, 1100 Commerce St., Dallas, TX 75242-1310 before Judge David C Godbey. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 9/27/2011) (jkm)
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Texas
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 9/28/2011 at 11:15 AM CDT and filed on 9/27/2011
Case Name: In RE: Stanford Entities Securities Litigation
Case Number: 3:09-md-02099-N
Filer:
Document Number: 21
Docket Text:
ORDER: The Court will hold a status conference for all parties to the Stanford MDL proceeding on 10/13/2011 10:30 AM in US Courthouse, Courtroom 1505, 1100 Commerce St., Dallas, TX 75242-1310 before Judge David C Godbey. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 9/27/2011) (jkm)
Case Name: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank Ltd et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-00298-N
Filer:
Document Number: 1449
Case Name: Adams et al v. Stanford Group Company et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-00334-N
Filer:
Document Number: 28
Case Name: Pre-War Art, Inc. et al v. Stanford Coins & Bullion, Inc. et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-00559-N
Filer:
Document Number: 87
Case Name: Trustmark National Bank v. HP Financial Services Venezuela, C.C.A. et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-00633-N
Filer:
Document Number: 18
Case Name: In re Stanford International Bank Ltd. Debtor in a Foreign Proceeding
Case Number: 3:09-cv-00721-N
Filer:
Document Number: 84
Case Name: Janvey v. Alguire et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-00724-N
Filer:
Document Number: 769
Case Name: Troice et al v. Willis of Colorado, Inc. et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-01274-N
Filer:
Document Number: 149
Case Name: Troice et al v. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-01600-N
Filer:
Document Number: 92
Case Name: Gonzalez et al v. Ralph S. Janvey et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-01603-N
Filer:
Document Number: 45
Case Name: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Ralph S Janvey
Case Number: 3:09-cv-01736-N
Filer:
Document Number: 25
Case Name: Allen v. Stanford Group Company et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02041-N
Filer:
Document Number: 12
Ranni v. Willis of Colorado Inc et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02042-N
Filer:
Document Number: 24
Case Name: Janvey v. Reeves
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02151-N
Filer:
Document Number: 37
Frank et al v. The Commonwealth of Antigua and Barbuda
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02165-N
Filer:
Document Number: 44
Case Name: Kyle v. Stanford International Bank Ltd. et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02166-N
Filer:
Document Number: 15
Case Name: Turk et al v. Pershing LLC
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02199-N
Filer:
Document Number: 68
Case Name: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London et al v. Stanford et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02206-N
Filer:
Document Number: 21
Case Name: In the Matter of the Tax Liabilities of John Does
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02290-N
Filer:
Document Number: 14
Case Name: Rotstain et al v. Trustmark National Bank et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02384-N
Filer:
Document Number: 86
Case Name: Queyrouze et al v. Bank of Antigua et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00304-N
Filer:
Document Number: 23
Case Name: MacArthur, et al v. Certain Underwriters/Names at Lloyd's of London, et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00313-N
Filer:
Document Number: 33
Case Name: Jackson et al v. Cox et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00328-N
Filer:
Document Number: 37
Case Name: Janvey v. Venger et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00366-N
Filer:
Document Number: 233
Case Name: Janvey v. Rodriguez Posada, et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00415-N
Filer:
Document Number: 67
Case Name: Janvey v. Wealth Management Services, Ltd.
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00477-N
Filer:
Document Number: 18
Case Name: Janvey v. Gilbe Corp.
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00478-N
Filer:
Document Number: 69
Case Name: Janvey v. Barnes et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00527-N
Filer:
Document Number: 23
Case Name: Janvey v. Buck's Bits Service, Inc.
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00528-N
Filer:
Document Number: 56
Case Name: Janvey v. Johnson
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00617-N
Filer:
Document Number: 46
Case Name: Janvey v. Barr
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00725-N
Filer:
Document Number: 41
Case Name: Rupert et al v. Winter
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00799-N
Filer:
Document Number: 76
Case Name: Janvey v. Interim Executive Management, Inc.
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00829-N
Filer:
Document Number: 15
Case Name: Janvey v. Indigo Trust
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00844-N
Filer:
Document Number: 46
Case Name: Janvey v. Dokken et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00931-N
Filer:
Document Number: 76
Case Name: Janvey v. Fernandez et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01002-N
Filer:
Document Number: 128
Case Name: Janvey v. Stoelker
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01272-N
Filer:
Document Number: 25
Case Name: Carter et al v. Mills et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01328-N
Filer:
Document Number: 13
Case Name: Janvey v. Wieselberg et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01394-N
Filer:
Document Number: 34
Case Name: Janvey v. Merge Healthcare, Inc.
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01465-N
Filer:
Document Number: 20
Case Name: Casanova et al v. Willis of Colorado Inc et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01862-N
Filer:
Document Number: 12
Case Name: Kneese et al v. Pershing, LLC
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01908-N
Filer:
Document Number: 17
Case Name: Janvey v. Tonarelli
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01955-N
Filer:
Document Number: 11
Case Name: Janvey v. Dillon Gage Inc. of Dallas et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01973-N
Filer:
Document Number: 25
Case Name: Janvey vs. Rodriguez-Tolentino et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-02290-N
Filer:
Document Number: 8
Case Name: Janvey v. Stanford
Case Number: 3:10-cv-02322-N
Filer:
Document Number: 12
Case Name: Janvey v. Bogar et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-02583-N
Filer:
Document Number: 16
Case Name: Janvey v. Alvarado
Case Number: 3:10-cv-02584-N
Filer:
Document Number: 7
Case Name: Janvey v. Stinson
Case Number: 3:10-cv-02586-N
Filer:
Document Number: 21
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Toms et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00018-N
Filer:
Document Number: 15
Godbey. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 9/27/2011) (jkm)
Case Name: Janvey et al v. The University of Miami
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00041-N
Filer:
Document Number: 16
Case Name: Janvey et al v. The Inter-American Economic Council
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00044-N
Filer:
Document Number: 7
Case Name: Janvey et al v. IMG Worldwide, Inc.
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00117-N
Filer:
Document Number: 29
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Miami Heat Limited Partnership et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00158-N
Filer:
Document Number: 23
Case Name: Ralph S Janvey, et al. v. PGA Tour Inc
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00226-N
Filer:
Document Number: 17
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Allen
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00289-N
Filer:
Document Number: 6
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Arizaga
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00290-N
Filer:
Document Number: 6
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Vingerhoedt et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00291-N
Filer:
Document Number: 6
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Giusti et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00292-N
Filer:
Document Number: 10
Case Name: Janvey et al v. The Golf Channel, Inc.
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00294-N
Filer:
Document Number: 13
Case Name: Janvey et al v. ATP Tour Inc
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00295-N
Filer:
Document Number: 13
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Salgar
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00296-N
Filer:
Document Number: 7
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Romero
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00297-N
Filer:
Document Number: 22
Case Name: The Official Stanford Investors Committee v. Cort & Cort et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00298-N
Filer:
Document Number: 15
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Castaneda
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00299-N
Filer:
Document Number: 6
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Brown
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00301-N
Filer:
Document Number: 12
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Blackman
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00302-N
Filer:
Document Number: 8
Case Name: The Official Stanford Investors Committee v. American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities, Inc. et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00303-N
Filer:
Document Number: 28
Case Name: Mendez et al v. Pershing, LLC et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00314-N
Filer:
Document Number: 11
Case Name: The Official Stanford Investors Committee et al v. Breazeale Sachse & Wilson LLP et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00329-N
Filer:
Document Number: 38
Case Name: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London et al v. Tolentino et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00360-N
Filer:
Document Number: 11
Case Name: Robert Juan Dartez, LLC et al v. The United States of America
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00602-N
Filer:
Document Number: 23
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Chung Design, LLC.
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00738-N
Filer:
Document Number: 7
Case Name: Janvey v. Insideout Sports & Entertainment
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00760-N
Filer:
Document Number: 7
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Rocketball, Ltd. et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00770-N
Filer:
Document Number: 10
Case Name: Trustmark National Bank v. Carribean Sun Airlines, Inc. et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00924-N
Filer:
Document Number: 16
Case Name: Official Stanford Investors Committee v. Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Martin, LLP.
Case Number: 3:11-cv-01025-N
Filer:
Document Number: 9
Case Name: Wilkinson et al v. BDO USA, LLP et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-01115-N
Filer:
Document Number: 37
Case Name: Janvey v. Libyan Investment Authority et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-01177-N
Filer:
Document Number: 22
Case Name: Janvey v. Stanford
Case Number: 3:11-cv-01199-N
Filer:
Document Number: 10
Case Name: Janvey v. Rincon
Case Number: 3:11-cv-01659-N
Filer:
Document Number: 5
Case Name: Janvey et al v. Texas A&M University
Case Number: 3:11-cv-01895-N
Filer:
Document Number: 5
Case Name: Rishmague et al v. Winter et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-02024-N
Filer:
Document Number: 15
Docket Text:
ORDER: The Court will hold a status conference for all parties to the Stanford MDL proceeding on 10/13/2011 10:30 AM in US Courthouse, Courtroom 1505, 1100 Commerce St., Dallas, TX 75242-1310 before Judge David C Godbey. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 9/27/2011) (jkm)
Friday, 11 June 2010
Update relating to recent decision by the Court of Antigua re: Stanford International Bank Ltd - in Liquidation (SIB)
The Joint Liquidators of SIB, Mr Nigel Hamilton-Smith and Mr Peter Wastell, were appointed by the Financial Services Regulatory Commission of Antigua and Barbuda as Joint Receivers, and subsequently Joint Liquidators, of SIB on 19 February 2009.
Following a decision by the High Court of Antigua on Tuesday 8 June 2010, the Joint Liquidators wish to confirm that the Court has decided that they should be removed from office and alternative liquidators appointed. As at the date of this release, a written judgment has not been handed down by the Antiguan Court.
The Joint Liquidators have been advised by their legal counsel that the basis of the decision, which has as yet only been given orally by the Judge, was incorrect and that it should be urgently appealed to the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal.
Since their appointment, the Joint Liquidators have continued to make significant progress in their efforts to recover monies on behalf of the creditors and investors of SIB and, as recently as 7 June 2010, were recognised by the Swiss Financial Regulator as the officers to whom control of the SIB assets in Switzerland, totalling in excess of US$100 million, should pass.
Following extensive negotiations, the Government of Antigua & Barbuda had also recently confirmed that the properties owned by SIB, which the Government had made moves to compulsorily purchase, would be released to the Joint Liquidators, as part of their ongoing efforts to obtain the maximum return for creditors.
In addition, a settlement agreement between the Joint Liquidators and the United States Receiver was reached in late May 2010, which sought to bring to a conclusion the legal challenges that have taken place between them in relation to the assets of SIB that are located in Antigua, the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada.
The Joint Liquidators wish to confirm that they will request a stay in the High Court decision pending their appeal to the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal to enable them to remain in office. The Joint Liquidators remain focused on recovering the assets of SIB for creditors. All SIB investors who have not yet registered their claim on the Online Claims Management System should do so via the website at https://stanford.vantisplc.com/, where their claims will continue to be processed.
Following a decision by the High Court of Antigua on Tuesday 8 June 2010, the Joint Liquidators wish to confirm that the Court has decided that they should be removed from office and alternative liquidators appointed. As at the date of this release, a written judgment has not been handed down by the Antiguan Court.
The Joint Liquidators have been advised by their legal counsel that the basis of the decision, which has as yet only been given orally by the Judge, was incorrect and that it should be urgently appealed to the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal.
Since their appointment, the Joint Liquidators have continued to make significant progress in their efforts to recover monies on behalf of the creditors and investors of SIB and, as recently as 7 June 2010, were recognised by the Swiss Financial Regulator as the officers to whom control of the SIB assets in Switzerland, totalling in excess of US$100 million, should pass.
Following extensive negotiations, the Government of Antigua & Barbuda had also recently confirmed that the properties owned by SIB, which the Government had made moves to compulsorily purchase, would be released to the Joint Liquidators, as part of their ongoing efforts to obtain the maximum return for creditors.
In addition, a settlement agreement between the Joint Liquidators and the United States Receiver was reached in late May 2010, which sought to bring to a conclusion the legal challenges that have taken place between them in relation to the assets of SIB that are located in Antigua, the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada.
The Joint Liquidators wish to confirm that they will request a stay in the High Court decision pending their appeal to the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal to enable them to remain in office. The Joint Liquidators remain focused on recovering the assets of SIB for creditors. All SIB investors who have not yet registered their claim on the Online Claims Management System should do so via the website at https://stanford.vantisplc.com/, where their claims will continue to be processed.
Thursday, 10 June 2010
Vantis to Appeal Antigua High Court Decision
The Joint Liquidators of SIB, Mr Nigel Hamilton-Smith and Mr Peter Wastell, were appointed by the Financial Services Regulatory Commission of Antigua and Barbuda as Joint Receivers, and subsequently Joint Liquidators, of SIB on 19 February 2009.
Following a decision by the High Court of Antigua on Tuesday 8 June 2010, the Joint Liquidators wish to confirm that the Court has decided that they should be removed from office and alternative liquidators appointed. As at the date of this release, a written judgment has not been handed down by the Antiguan Court.
The Joint Liquidators have been advised by their legal counsel that the basis of the decision, which has as yet only been given orally by the Judge, was incorrect and that it should be urgently appealed to the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal.
Since their appointment, the Joint Liquidators have continued to make significant progress in their efforts to recover monies on behalf of the creditors and investors of SIB and, as recently as 7 June 2010, were recognised by the Swiss Financial Regulator as the officers to whom control of the SIB assets in Switzerland, totalling in excess of US$100 million, should pass.
Following extensive negotiations, the Government of Antigua & Barbuda had also recently confirmed that the properties owned by SIB, which the Government had made moves to compulsorily purchase, would be released to the Joint Liquidators, as part of their ongoing efforts to obtain the maximum return for creditors.
In addition, a settlement agreement between the Joint Liquidators and the United States Receiver was reached in late May 2010, which sought to bring to a conclusion the legal challenges that have taken place between them in relation to the assets of SIB that are located in Antigua, the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada.
The Joint Liquidators wish to confirm that they will request a stay in the High Court decision pending their appeal to the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal to enable them to remain in office. The Joint Liquidators remain focused on recovering the assets of SIB for creditors. All SIB investors who have not yet registered their claim on the Online Claims Management System should do so via the website at https://stanford.vantisplc.com/, where their claims will continue to be processed.
Following a decision by the High Court of Antigua on Tuesday 8 June 2010, the Joint Liquidators wish to confirm that the Court has decided that they should be removed from office and alternative liquidators appointed. As at the date of this release, a written judgment has not been handed down by the Antiguan Court.
The Joint Liquidators have been advised by their legal counsel that the basis of the decision, which has as yet only been given orally by the Judge, was incorrect and that it should be urgently appealed to the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal.
Since their appointment, the Joint Liquidators have continued to make significant progress in their efforts to recover monies on behalf of the creditors and investors of SIB and, as recently as 7 June 2010, were recognised by the Swiss Financial Regulator as the officers to whom control of the SIB assets in Switzerland, totalling in excess of US$100 million, should pass.
Following extensive negotiations, the Government of Antigua & Barbuda had also recently confirmed that the properties owned by SIB, which the Government had made moves to compulsorily purchase, would be released to the Joint Liquidators, as part of their ongoing efforts to obtain the maximum return for creditors.
In addition, a settlement agreement between the Joint Liquidators and the United States Receiver was reached in late May 2010, which sought to bring to a conclusion the legal challenges that have taken place between them in relation to the assets of SIB that are located in Antigua, the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada.
The Joint Liquidators wish to confirm that they will request a stay in the High Court decision pending their appeal to the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal to enable them to remain in office. The Joint Liquidators remain focused on recovering the assets of SIB for creditors. All SIB investors who have not yet registered their claim on the Online Claims Management System should do so via the website at https://stanford.vantisplc.com/, where their claims will continue to be processed.
Monday, 19 April 2010
Update from Peter Morganstern to Stanford Victims
While it may not always be publicly apparent, please know that we are working very hard to advance the cause of maximizing recoveries for Stanford investors, and I personally spend the great majority of my own professional time on this matter. Second, I believe that there is a misperception that the victims from outside the United States are not being fairy represented. That is not true. The considerable majority of our clients (which exceeds 1000 in total) reside outside the United States and all of my efforts are on behalf of the entire group, without reference to where they are located. Our cases against the banks and Antigua are proceeding as expeditiously as possible (the banks are due to answer the complaint next month), and we are investigating other potentially lucrative claims all the time. We believe that other promising cases will be filed shortly. The legal process is slow, but we are aggressively pursuing all avenues for recovery. The process is particularly burdensome in large complex cases like this, and the involvement of a foreign government makes things even more complicated, as we need to formally serve Antigua under a foreign treaty, which takes several months even when the other side is cooperative, which they are not. We are doing everything we can under international law, to pursue the claims we filed against Antigua, the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank, and the other defendants. Please note that our economic interests are absolutely aligned with the victims that we represent, as our compensation depends on the success of our efforts.
We also strongly believe that the victims of this terrible fraud deserve to be compensated under the applicable laws that we cite in our complaints. As you know, we sought to move the main cases from the receivership to bankruptcy court. After the court expressed skepticism about the wisdom of removing the receiver and his team after a year of work, and the potential for increased expense and delay, we devised a compromise that will empower investors through an official committee.
This was not our first choice. Under the order we submitted to the court, we are still able to seek to move the case to bankruptcy in the future, if we are dissatisfied with this arrangement. The committee will be formed as soon as the court enters the order, as we expect it will. I assure you that the committee will represent the interests of all victims and we have been responding to people who have expressed interest in serving on the committee. I apologize for the fact that I am not always able to respond to personal emails as quickly as some people would like. We are trying to balance the legitimate desire of our clients for responses and updates with our efforts to work toward the quickest possible successful resolution of the cases. Please feel free to share this as you consider appropriate, and let's keep in touch.
Regards, PDM
We also strongly believe that the victims of this terrible fraud deserve to be compensated under the applicable laws that we cite in our complaints. As you know, we sought to move the main cases from the receivership to bankruptcy court. After the court expressed skepticism about the wisdom of removing the receiver and his team after a year of work, and the potential for increased expense and delay, we devised a compromise that will empower investors through an official committee.
This was not our first choice. Under the order we submitted to the court, we are still able to seek to move the case to bankruptcy in the future, if we are dissatisfied with this arrangement. The committee will be formed as soon as the court enters the order, as we expect it will. I assure you that the committee will represent the interests of all victims and we have been responding to people who have expressed interest in serving on the committee. I apologize for the fact that I am not always able to respond to personal emails as quickly as some people would like. We are trying to balance the legitimate desire of our clients for responses and updates with our efforts to work toward the quickest possible successful resolution of the cases. Please feel free to share this as you consider appropriate, and let's keep in touch.
Regards, PDM
Thursday, 18 February 2010
U.S. appeals court says Stanford must stay in jail
A U.S. appeals court denied for the second time a bid by accused swindler Allen Stanford to be released from jail pending trial.
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said in a ruling on Wednesday that Stanford's lawyers presented "no new circumstances" in their second effort to win his release.
His lawyers argued that because of his declining mental and physical health, Stanford's friends and family had offered to hire armed off-duty peace officers to guard him to ensure that he would appear in court.
"We're disappointed, but based on the way this case has gone, we are not surprised," Kent Schaffer, Stanford's criminal defense attorney said.
Stanford's legal team is mulling an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Schaffer said.
Stanford, 59, was first deemed a flight risk by U.S. District Judge David Hittner in June 2009. His trial is set for January 2011.
During his time in jail, Stanford has been hospitalized at least two times, for a rapid heartbeat and for injuries he sustained in a fight with another prisoner. He has also lost a considerable amount of weight.
The Texas financier, who has denied any wrongdoing, faces civil and criminal charges related to a $7 billion Ponzi scheme.
Prosecutors allege that Stanford sold fraudulent certificates of deposit issued by his offshore bank in Antigua, and used those proceeds to bankroll a lavish lifestyle that included private jets, a yacht and luxury homes.
In another development, lawyers who represent Stanford in civil fraud case said they plan to file a motion asking that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's complaint against the former billionaire be dismissed.
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said in a ruling on Wednesday that Stanford's lawyers presented "no new circumstances" in their second effort to win his release.
His lawyers argued that because of his declining mental and physical health, Stanford's friends and family had offered to hire armed off-duty peace officers to guard him to ensure that he would appear in court.
"We're disappointed, but based on the way this case has gone, we are not surprised," Kent Schaffer, Stanford's criminal defense attorney said.
Stanford's legal team is mulling an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Schaffer said.
Stanford, 59, was first deemed a flight risk by U.S. District Judge David Hittner in June 2009. His trial is set for January 2011.
During his time in jail, Stanford has been hospitalized at least two times, for a rapid heartbeat and for injuries he sustained in a fight with another prisoner. He has also lost a considerable amount of weight.
The Texas financier, who has denied any wrongdoing, faces civil and criminal charges related to a $7 billion Ponzi scheme.
Prosecutors allege that Stanford sold fraudulent certificates of deposit issued by his offshore bank in Antigua, and used those proceeds to bankroll a lavish lifestyle that included private jets, a yacht and luxury homes.
In another development, lawyers who represent Stanford in civil fraud case said they plan to file a motion asking that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's complaint against the former billionaire be dismissed.
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
Stanford again seeks bail
A psychiatrist who examined R. Allen Stanford believes he is in danger of suffering “a complete nervous breakdown” if he is not released from prison on bail and allowed to properly prepare for his scheduled criminal trial, according to court documents.
In documents asking that the jailed businessman be released on bail, attorneys argue Stanford's deteriorating mental and physical health, combined with the difficulty of seeing his attorneys while at the downtown Houston Federal Detention Center, make it impossible for him to properly prepare for trial.
The court documents include letters from more than two dozen family and friends who say Stanford would not flee if released. “I can guarantee you that my dad will go nowhere if released on bail,” one of his sons wrote. “He knows that running would get him nowhere, it would only make things worse.”
Stanford has been in federal custody since June 18, shortly after a Houston grand jury indicted him and others accused of cheating investors who bought certificates of deposit from his bank on the Caribbean island of Antigua. He faces 21 counts of conspiracy, fraud, bribery and obstruction of justice.
After his arrest in Virginia Stanford was brought to Houston, where a magistrate court judge ruled on June 25 he could remain free if he posted $500,000 bail and wore a tracking device.
But before the release paperwork was completed the government appealed the order to U.S. District Court Judge David Hittner, who ruled that Stanford is a flight risk and ordered he remain in custody.
Prosecutors have not yet responded to the new request for bail.
In the weeks after his arrest, while held at the Joe Corley Detention Center in Conroe, Stanford was hospitalized repeatedly for heart problems and for treatment following a beating from a fellow inmate. He was transferred to the downtown detention center on Sept. 29.
The physical and mental strains of imprisonment have taken a heavy toll on Stanford, according to court filings: He has lost 40 pounds in the last 90 days, and has been prescribed medications for elevated and irregular heartbeats, ulcers and depression.
Victor Scarano, a Houston psychiatrist and lawyer who examined Stanford in jail, concludes that his “physical and mental state is continuing to deteriorate” and he is suffering “major depression.”
“If the present set of circumstances persist, Mr. Stanford's spiraling downhill course will continue to the point where he will suffer further serious physical disorders and, more likely than not, a complete nervous breakdown,” Scarano says, according to the court documents.
Scarano doubts that anti-depressants would be enough to treat the condition but giving Stanford the freedom “to work with his attorneys in creating a strong and formidable defenses, is the treatment that will do the most to enhance his physical and mental recovery,” according to the filing.
It says the limited visiting hours and security measures at the detention center make it “sheer sophistry” to assume Stanford would be able to review even a fraction of the more than 7 million documents involved in the case to prepare for his trial, now scheduled for January 2011.
Attorneys argue that there are other ways than incarceration for assuring Stanford will not flee, including putting him in home confinement with an armed guard, a measure his lawyers say New York federal courts have used successfully.
Stanford's defense team notes several cases where wealthy, well-traveled individuals accused of massive white collar fraud have been allowed to remain free on bail with few restrictions. They include Bernard Madoff, who later pleaded guilty in a massive Ponzi scheme and is serving prison time, and hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam, accused of insider trading, who remains out on bail.
Attorneys included dozens of letters from Stanford's family and friends pleading with Judge Hittner to free Stanford pending trial. The letter writers include his parents, fiancé, and five of his six children.
His son Robert A. Stanford Jr. wrote that his father taught him to “never run away” from a problem.
“My dad won't back down from this case until he finally proves to the world that he is not guilty,” the younger Stanford wrote.
In documents asking that the jailed businessman be released on bail, attorneys argue Stanford's deteriorating mental and physical health, combined with the difficulty of seeing his attorneys while at the downtown Houston Federal Detention Center, make it impossible for him to properly prepare for trial.
The court documents include letters from more than two dozen family and friends who say Stanford would not flee if released. “I can guarantee you that my dad will go nowhere if released on bail,” one of his sons wrote. “He knows that running would get him nowhere, it would only make things worse.”
Stanford has been in federal custody since June 18, shortly after a Houston grand jury indicted him and others accused of cheating investors who bought certificates of deposit from his bank on the Caribbean island of Antigua. He faces 21 counts of conspiracy, fraud, bribery and obstruction of justice.
After his arrest in Virginia Stanford was brought to Houston, where a magistrate court judge ruled on June 25 he could remain free if he posted $500,000 bail and wore a tracking device.
But before the release paperwork was completed the government appealed the order to U.S. District Court Judge David Hittner, who ruled that Stanford is a flight risk and ordered he remain in custody.
Prosecutors have not yet responded to the new request for bail.
In the weeks after his arrest, while held at the Joe Corley Detention Center in Conroe, Stanford was hospitalized repeatedly for heart problems and for treatment following a beating from a fellow inmate. He was transferred to the downtown detention center on Sept. 29.
The physical and mental strains of imprisonment have taken a heavy toll on Stanford, according to court filings: He has lost 40 pounds in the last 90 days, and has been prescribed medications for elevated and irregular heartbeats, ulcers and depression.
Victor Scarano, a Houston psychiatrist and lawyer who examined Stanford in jail, concludes that his “physical and mental state is continuing to deteriorate” and he is suffering “major depression.”
“If the present set of circumstances persist, Mr. Stanford's spiraling downhill course will continue to the point where he will suffer further serious physical disorders and, more likely than not, a complete nervous breakdown,” Scarano says, according to the court documents.
Scarano doubts that anti-depressants would be enough to treat the condition but giving Stanford the freedom “to work with his attorneys in creating a strong and formidable defenses, is the treatment that will do the most to enhance his physical and mental recovery,” according to the filing.
It says the limited visiting hours and security measures at the detention center make it “sheer sophistry” to assume Stanford would be able to review even a fraction of the more than 7 million documents involved in the case to prepare for his trial, now scheduled for January 2011.
Attorneys argue that there are other ways than incarceration for assuring Stanford will not flee, including putting him in home confinement with an armed guard, a measure his lawyers say New York federal courts have used successfully.
Stanford's defense team notes several cases where wealthy, well-traveled individuals accused of massive white collar fraud have been allowed to remain free on bail with few restrictions. They include Bernard Madoff, who later pleaded guilty in a massive Ponzi scheme and is serving prison time, and hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam, accused of insider trading, who remains out on bail.
Attorneys included dozens of letters from Stanford's family and friends pleading with Judge Hittner to free Stanford pending trial. The letter writers include his parents, fiancé, and five of his six children.
His son Robert A. Stanford Jr. wrote that his father taught him to “never run away” from a problem.
“My dad won't back down from this case until he finally proves to the world that he is not guilty,” the younger Stanford wrote.
Saturday, 21 November 2009
Stanford investors to Antigua: Remove liquidator
ST. JOHN'S, Antigua -- A group of investors is urging an Antiguan court to remove a British accounting firm appointed to collect assets of a Caribbean offshore bank at the center of an alleged Ponzi scheme by Texas financier R. Allen Stanford.
Martin Kenney, a lawyer for the group led by Florida businessman Alexander Fundora, said his clients have asked the High Court of Antigua to remove Vantis Business Recovery Services as liquidator because a Canadian court found earlier this year that it had deleted data from computers in the Montreal branch of Stanford International Bank Ltd.
"In order to recover and apportion the bank's assets in the fairest and most efficient way possible for the victims of this apparent grand fraud, it is crucial to have Vantis removed and replaced as soon as possible," Kenney said Friday from the British Virgin Islands.
Vantis was appointed by Antiguan authorities to liquidate the assets of Stanford International Bank. A spokeswoman for the firm did not immediately return a telephone call Saturday.
Kenney said that Vantis wiped out original data on computers in the Stanford bank's branch in Montreal, Quebec, in March, without the authority of the Canadian courts and without notifying the Quebec financial regulator.
The Superior Court in Montreal ruled in September that Vantis deliberately misled the court, destroyed original computer data, and removed financial information. Vantis operated with "questionable motives," Judge Claude Auclair wrote in the Sept. 11 judgment.
The Canadian court subsequently replaced Vantis with Ralph Janvey, a lawyer appointed by U.S. courts to liquidate Stanford assets.
Vantis and Janvey have been fighting for jurisdiction over the assets, frustrating investors who are eager to recover money they invested in what U.S. authorities have alleged as a massive Ponzi scheme.
Stanford, once a benefactor of the Antiguan government, is in a Texas jail awaiting trial on charges including money laundering and fraud.
Prosecutors accuse Stanford of leading a $7 billion Ponzi scheme by promising inflated returns to about 28,000 investors on certificates of deposits. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said he instead used the money from new investors to pay off old ones. They also accuse him of skimming more than $1 billion to fund his lavish lifestyle
Martin Kenney, a lawyer for the group led by Florida businessman Alexander Fundora, said his clients have asked the High Court of Antigua to remove Vantis Business Recovery Services as liquidator because a Canadian court found earlier this year that it had deleted data from computers in the Montreal branch of Stanford International Bank Ltd.
"In order to recover and apportion the bank's assets in the fairest and most efficient way possible for the victims of this apparent grand fraud, it is crucial to have Vantis removed and replaced as soon as possible," Kenney said Friday from the British Virgin Islands.
Vantis was appointed by Antiguan authorities to liquidate the assets of Stanford International Bank. A spokeswoman for the firm did not immediately return a telephone call Saturday.
Kenney said that Vantis wiped out original data on computers in the Stanford bank's branch in Montreal, Quebec, in March, without the authority of the Canadian courts and without notifying the Quebec financial regulator.
The Superior Court in Montreal ruled in September that Vantis deliberately misled the court, destroyed original computer data, and removed financial information. Vantis operated with "questionable motives," Judge Claude Auclair wrote in the Sept. 11 judgment.
The Canadian court subsequently replaced Vantis with Ralph Janvey, a lawyer appointed by U.S. courts to liquidate Stanford assets.
Vantis and Janvey have been fighting for jurisdiction over the assets, frustrating investors who are eager to recover money they invested in what U.S. authorities have alleged as a massive Ponzi scheme.
Stanford, once a benefactor of the Antiguan government, is in a Texas jail awaiting trial on charges including money laundering and fraud.
Prosecutors accuse Stanford of leading a $7 billion Ponzi scheme by promising inflated returns to about 28,000 investors on certificates of deposits. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said he instead used the money from new investors to pay off old ones. They also accuse him of skimming more than $1 billion to fund his lavish lifestyle
Thursday, 19 November 2009
Stanford lawyers and Lloyd's of London butt heads in court
R. Allen Stanford sat in court glumly for three hours Tuesday while a dozen lawyers debated whether insurance should pay for his criminal attorneys and whether those lawyers will have to report to a civil receiver when they find something new in the case.
Lloyd's of London lawyers announced in court that under a Stanford company policy, they've paid out $4.2 million to some criminal defense lawyers for work done before the August guilty plea of the Stanford company's chief financial officer, James Davis.
The Lloyd's lawyers said they won't pay further for the criminal defense of Stanford or those accused with him because Davis said they conspired with him. They said that the insurance contract said Lloyd's could stop payment if it determined money laundering was committed. Though Davis didn't plead guilty to money laundering, Lloyd's contends the terms of the policy were violated.
Dan Cogdell, lawyer for the former Stanford chief investment officer, Laura Holt, disputed that position.
“It's a bad faith denial of coverage,” he said.
Stanford, Holt and others are accused of cheating investors who bought certificates of deposit issued by Stanford International Bank, on the Caribbean island of Antigua, and sold through companies affiliated with Houston-based Stanford Financial Group.
Stanford, a native Texan who founded Stanford Financial Group and is the only one of the defendants in the case who is behind bars while awaiting trial, faces 21 counts of conspiracy, fraud, bribery and obstruction of justice.
Lawyers for Stanford and other defendants asked U.S. District Judge David Hittner to order Lloyd's to pay on its policy, possibly unprecedented in a criminal case.
“We're in uncharted water,” Hittner said, asking lawyers on both sides to submit briefs on the issue.
Hittner observed that the insurance lawyers' position would mean taxpayers have to pay for legal representation of Stanford and his codefendants.
Frozen assets
The payment of the criminal defense lawyers has been an ongoing issue. When the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil fraud suit last February in Dallas, it froze all the company assets and the personal assets of Allen Stanford and Holt.
Holt filed a separate lawsuit against Lloyd's in Houston federal court Tuesday, saying it was denying her coverage in bad faith. It's unclear whether Hittner will hear that case.
Also discussed Tuesday, but left undecided, is whether a receiver appointed by the Dallas court in the SEC case should be allowed to force criminal defense lawyers to hand over information they obtain while conducting their defense investigations.
Constitutional rights
Kent Schaffer, Stanford's lawyer, argued that the receiver's demands could violate defendants' constitutional rights and interfere with attorney-client privilege.
On that and the insurance issue, prosecutor Gregg Costa asked the judge to consider moving the case along as quickly as possible, especially since Stanford is imprisoned.
Stanford, who has had two surgeries since he went to jail in late June and has dropped more than 35 pounds, was unshaven and gaunt.
Concern on health
He leaned his head down so much at the beginning of the hearing that Hittner asked his lawyers to check on him and admonished that if Stanford is not well enough to attend court, he should stay in the detention center downtown.
Stanford perked up during a break, engaging in animated conversation with two U.S. marshals.
Lloyd's of London lawyers announced in court that under a Stanford company policy, they've paid out $4.2 million to some criminal defense lawyers for work done before the August guilty plea of the Stanford company's chief financial officer, James Davis.
The Lloyd's lawyers said they won't pay further for the criminal defense of Stanford or those accused with him because Davis said they conspired with him. They said that the insurance contract said Lloyd's could stop payment if it determined money laundering was committed. Though Davis didn't plead guilty to money laundering, Lloyd's contends the terms of the policy were violated.
Dan Cogdell, lawyer for the former Stanford chief investment officer, Laura Holt, disputed that position.
“It's a bad faith denial of coverage,” he said.
Stanford, Holt and others are accused of cheating investors who bought certificates of deposit issued by Stanford International Bank, on the Caribbean island of Antigua, and sold through companies affiliated with Houston-based Stanford Financial Group.
Stanford, a native Texan who founded Stanford Financial Group and is the only one of the defendants in the case who is behind bars while awaiting trial, faces 21 counts of conspiracy, fraud, bribery and obstruction of justice.
Lawyers for Stanford and other defendants asked U.S. District Judge David Hittner to order Lloyd's to pay on its policy, possibly unprecedented in a criminal case.
“We're in uncharted water,” Hittner said, asking lawyers on both sides to submit briefs on the issue.
Hittner observed that the insurance lawyers' position would mean taxpayers have to pay for legal representation of Stanford and his codefendants.
Frozen assets
The payment of the criminal defense lawyers has been an ongoing issue. When the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil fraud suit last February in Dallas, it froze all the company assets and the personal assets of Allen Stanford and Holt.
Holt filed a separate lawsuit against Lloyd's in Houston federal court Tuesday, saying it was denying her coverage in bad faith. It's unclear whether Hittner will hear that case.
Also discussed Tuesday, but left undecided, is whether a receiver appointed by the Dallas court in the SEC case should be allowed to force criminal defense lawyers to hand over information they obtain while conducting their defense investigations.
Constitutional rights
Kent Schaffer, Stanford's lawyer, argued that the receiver's demands could violate defendants' constitutional rights and interfere with attorney-client privilege.
On that and the insurance issue, prosecutor Gregg Costa asked the judge to consider moving the case along as quickly as possible, especially since Stanford is imprisoned.
Stanford, who has had two surgeries since he went to jail in late June and has dropped more than 35 pounds, was unshaven and gaunt.
Concern on health
He leaned his head down so much at the beginning of the hearing that Hittner asked his lawyers to check on him and admonished that if Stanford is not well enough to attend court, he should stay in the detention center downtown.
Stanford perked up during a break, engaging in animated conversation with two U.S. marshals.
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Appellate court panel to decide
An appellate court panel soon will decide more than the question of whether a small group of Robert Allen Stanford’s innocent investors is required to surrender its remaining assets to more than 25,000 others in Louisiana and around the globe.
The three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans also will determine who is “somebody” and who is “nobody.” That’s another big question in an increasingly bitter dispute between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Dallas attorney SEC officials handpicked to marshal Stanford’s remaining assets.
That attorney is Ralph S. Janvey, the court-appointed receiver for assets seized from Stanford and Stanford’s companies after the SEC shut down the Texas promoter in February and alleged that he and others swindled as much as $9 billion from his investors.
Janvey has recovered more than $128 million in cash and other assets he says can easily be converted to cash.
He has stated in court records he hopes to recover another $335 million in cash and investments from people in foreign countries.
Janvey is asking the 5th Circuit to allow him to seize $894 million from the frozen accounts of approximately 600 U.S. investors who did not lose all their money when the SEC halted Stanford’s operations. He does not allege any of those people were aware of any of the crimes that a federal indictment in Houston alleges Stanford committed.
Janvey argues federal case law requires him to complete the financial destruction of those innocent investors so he can share their remaining assets with all other innocent investors across the nation and around the world.
It is a position with which Dallas attorney John J. Little, a court-appointed examiner responsible for the interests of investors, disagrees on practical as well as legal grounds.
Little maintains foreign investors will never surrender any profits or principal to Janvey.
Therefore, the remaining money of innocent investors in the United States should not be subject to what Little sees as unfair seizure by Janvey.
The SEC maintains it never takes such action against innocent investors who have lost more money than they received in profits before the collapse of a fraudulent scheme.
And, in situations in which innocent investors are net winners, the commission says that it recovers only their profits, not their principal.
Last week, 5th Circuit Judges William L. Garwood, James L. Dennis and Edward Prado heard oral arguments on Janvey’s appeal of a Dallas judge’s decision in favor of the SEC.
Garwood, in particular, sparred with Janvey’s appellate attorney, Kevin M. Sadler of Dallas.
Garwood repeatedly asked Sadler why Janvey should be permitted to sue innocent investors whose assets the SEC chose not to seize. The judge said some attorneys might conclude the only parties who should appeal such matters are the SEC and any defendant affected by an SEC action.
“In a sense,” Garwood told Sadler, “you’re nobody.”
Sadler responded: “We’re here trying to establish a uniform rule.
“You said we’re nobody, and I have to disagree with you,” Sadler added.
Garwood suggested a receiver in a securities fraud case has an obligation to follow the lead of the SEC.
“You’re not doing that,” Garwood told Sadler.
“We are doing it,” Sadler shot back. “The SEC has abandoned its responsibility.”
The judges agreed to consider the case on an expedited basis
The three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans also will determine who is “somebody” and who is “nobody.” That’s another big question in an increasingly bitter dispute between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Dallas attorney SEC officials handpicked to marshal Stanford’s remaining assets.
That attorney is Ralph S. Janvey, the court-appointed receiver for assets seized from Stanford and Stanford’s companies after the SEC shut down the Texas promoter in February and alleged that he and others swindled as much as $9 billion from his investors.
Janvey has recovered more than $128 million in cash and other assets he says can easily be converted to cash.
He has stated in court records he hopes to recover another $335 million in cash and investments from people in foreign countries.
Janvey is asking the 5th Circuit to allow him to seize $894 million from the frozen accounts of approximately 600 U.S. investors who did not lose all their money when the SEC halted Stanford’s operations. He does not allege any of those people were aware of any of the crimes that a federal indictment in Houston alleges Stanford committed.
Janvey argues federal case law requires him to complete the financial destruction of those innocent investors so he can share their remaining assets with all other innocent investors across the nation and around the world.
It is a position with which Dallas attorney John J. Little, a court-appointed examiner responsible for the interests of investors, disagrees on practical as well as legal grounds.
Little maintains foreign investors will never surrender any profits or principal to Janvey.
Therefore, the remaining money of innocent investors in the United States should not be subject to what Little sees as unfair seizure by Janvey.
The SEC maintains it never takes such action against innocent investors who have lost more money than they received in profits before the collapse of a fraudulent scheme.
And, in situations in which innocent investors are net winners, the commission says that it recovers only their profits, not their principal.
Last week, 5th Circuit Judges William L. Garwood, James L. Dennis and Edward Prado heard oral arguments on Janvey’s appeal of a Dallas judge’s decision in favor of the SEC.
Garwood, in particular, sparred with Janvey’s appellate attorney, Kevin M. Sadler of Dallas.
Garwood repeatedly asked Sadler why Janvey should be permitted to sue innocent investors whose assets the SEC chose not to seize. The judge said some attorneys might conclude the only parties who should appeal such matters are the SEC and any defendant affected by an SEC action.
“In a sense,” Garwood told Sadler, “you’re nobody.”
Sadler responded: “We’re here trying to establish a uniform rule.
“You said we’re nobody, and I have to disagree with you,” Sadler added.
Garwood suggested a receiver in a securities fraud case has an obligation to follow the lead of the SEC.
“You’re not doing that,” Garwood told Sadler.
“We are doing it,” Sadler shot back. “The SEC has abandoned its responsibility.”
The judges agreed to consider the case on an expedited basis