By Andrew Harris and Laurel Brubaker Calkins
Nov. 29 (Bloomberg) -- R. Allen Stanford, the Texas financier accused of leading a $7 billion investment fraud, faces a Dec. 20 hearing to determine whether he is mentally fit to stand trial next year.
Stanford, 61, returned to Houston earlier this month after a nearly nine-month stay at a U.S. Bureau of Prisons hospital at Butner, North Carolina. He was treated there for a dependency on anti-anxiety drugs given to him in prison and evaluated for the after-effects of a head injury sustained in a jailhouse assault.
Houston U.S. District Judge David Hittner today scheduled the competency hearing to determine if Stanford can assist in his defense. In a separate order, the judge said Stanford’s criminal trial would start with jury selection on Jan. 23.
The former chairman and chief executive officer of Houston- based Stanford Group Co. is accused of misleading investors about the nature and oversight of certificates of deposit issued by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd.
Stanford, who maintains his innocence, has been in custody since June 2009, when he was indicted by a federal grand jury in Houston. The court has twice postponed previously scheduled trial dates.
Aiding Defense
Ali Fazel, one of his defense attorneys, today declined to comment on the hearing and trial dates, citing an earlier order from Hittner barring attorneys from discussing the case publicly.
Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the trial date. She has previously declined to comment because of the gag order.
If he’s found unable to help his attorneys prepare his defense, Stanford could return to Butner for further treatment, said Eric Sussman, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice in Chicago, in an interview earlier this month.
If Hittner finds Stanford can’t sufficiently recover his faculties, the judge would be required to decide whether the financier must be committed to a long-term care facility, said Sussman, now a partner in the Chicago office of New York-based Kaye Scholer LLP.
For Stanford to be permanently institutionalized, “he’d have to be deemed a danger to himself or others,” said Sussman, who isn’t involved in the case. “To the extent the judge finds he can’t be restored to competency, they may have to drop the charges,” he said.
Doctors
Houston attorney Wendell Odom, who convinced a jury that Andrea Yates was insane when she drowned her children, said if the government’s doctors have found Stanford fit for trial, it will be difficult for the defense to prove otherwise. Stanford will have an even tougher time proving he’s so permanently incapacitated that he can never be tried, Odom said.
“Mental competency is an incredibly low standard, not the same as insanity,” said Odom, a former federal prosecutor. “It basically means you are cognizant of what’s going on and you can talk to your attorney.”
The case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09cr342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).
Showing posts with label financier. Show all posts
Showing posts with label financier. Show all posts
Tuesday, 29 November 2011
Friday, 4 February 2011
ECB face legal action as Allen Stanford's creditors seek redress
The England and Wales Cricket board face the threat of legal action to return $3.5 million (£2.2 million) it received from the ill-fated deal with the disgraced financier Sir Allen Stanford.
Receivers acting for creditors of Stanford's collapsed $7 billion financial empire have begun legal action against a number of sports bodies and figures, including IMG Worldwide, who represent golfer Vijay Singh, and the Miami Heat basketball team, to recoup sponsorship fees. They have indicated that they will be looking into the ECB's relationship with the Texan and it could face action to repay "ill-gotten gains" received from its deal.
Stanford is currently in custody awaiting trial in the United States charged with running an alleged $7 billion "Ponzi" scheme based on the sale of certificates of deposit in his Antiguan-based Stanford International Bank. He denies the charges
The ECB's ill-fated decision to strike a $100 million deal for a series of Twenty20 matches against a Stanford Superstars XI is one of the most embarrassing and controversial episodes in its history, and the prospect of legal action will confirm the worst fears of its critics.
"There has been a running fear in the ECB that the receiver could come after them, and this could be the knock on the door they have been dreading for two years," said a source familiar with the Stanford deal.
The threat of legal action comes with the Stanford receiver, Ralph Janvey, pursuing sporting bodies sponsored by Stanford. Last month Janvey commenced legal action against sports and media company IMG Worldwide to recover $10.5 million paid by Stanford in sponsorship and promotion fees to golfer Singh.
They have also launched a $1.3 million suit against the Miami Heat basketball franchise, and are pursuing another golfer, David Toms, for $905,087.
Janvey is claiming that the money was "fraudulently transferred" from the proceeds of an illegal investment scheme, and the sports companies did not provide "good value" for the payments, and cannot demonstrate they had received the money "in good faith".
Kevin Sadler, a lawyer working for Janvey, said via email: "The Receiver and his professionals are engaged in a process of uncovering and then investigating all significant payments made by any of the Stanford entities, and that would include payments made to professional sports figures or organisations.
"Any entity (or person) which received payments from the Stanford Ponzi scheme is subject to a claim for fraudulent transfer, unless the recipient can prove that the payment was received in good faith AND that reasonably equivalent value was given in exchange for the payments.
"Payments made for the purpose of promoting the Stanford business image to the public would not pass the legal test of reasonably equivalent value."
Michael Owen and Kevin Pietersen could also face action to recoup personal deals with Stanford.
Owen was recruited as an ambassador for the Stanford Financial Group in April 2008, and is reported to have been paid £500,000 for his services, some of which is understood to have been reinvested in the Stanford International Bank.
Kevin Pietersen, the England captain at the time of the first and only Stanford Super Series in Antigua, was recruited as an ambassador and is thought to have received around £50,000.
Eight former West Indian players, including Sir Vivian Richards, Curtly Ambrose, Courtney Walsh and Richie Richardson, were also retained as ambassadors being paid a reported $10,000-per-month.
The ECB declined to comment on the issue last night but did take legal advice when charges were levelled against Stanford in February 2009. Their lawyers are understood to have advised that it was unlikely that they would have to repay the money, but a claim could not be ruled out.
The ECB's deal was for five Stanford Super Series, featuring England and a Stanford Superstars XI, culminating in a $20 million winner-takes-all final. The ECB also agreed to host an annual quadrangular Twenty20 tournament at Lord's featuring England, a Stanford XI and two international sides, with Sri Lanka and New Zealand approached to play in the first event.
Stanford's arrest meant that only the first Super Series was played, in which England were humiliated by 10 wickets and the Stanford Superstars shared $13 million of the $20 million prize fund. They, too, could find themselves pursued by the receivers.
The remaining $7 million was split between the ECB and the West Indies Cricket Board. In December 2008 the ECB agreed to distribute £1.4 million of the income, with £50,000 going to each of the 18 first-class counties and another £500,000 going to the minor county board to be spent on coaching.
Speaking after Stanford's arrest in February 2009, ECB chairman Giles Clarke ruled out repaying the money and said that the ECB had acted in good faith. "We entered into the Stanford transaction in good faith," Clarke told The Telegraph. "Like many sporting bodies we carried out our side of the contract and he carried out his and we were paid. We then passed those funds on, to the benefit of the game."
Speaking at the time of Stanford's arrest, Rose Romero of the Securities and Exchange Commission, said: "We are alleging a fraud of shocking magnitude that has spread its tentacles throughout the world."
Stanford was due to stand trial this month but was ruled unfit because of a dependence on prescription medication developed in jail. Doctors ruled that a head injury incurred during a jailhouse beating could also have impaired his ability to assist his defence. A judge ordered that he be weaned from the drugs before the trial can commence.
Feeling the heat
Ralph Janvey, the receiver acting for creditors of Sir Allan Stanford’s collapsed financial empire, is pursuing legal action to recoup sponsorship fees from a number of sports organisations.
Miami Heat
The NBA franchise is being sued for $1.3m relating to “Stanford’s sponsorship, advertising and promotional activities” according to the receiver. The Heat will have to repay the money and costs if the receiver is successful.
IMG Worldwide
The receiver is seeking $10.5m in “golf endorsement fees” paid to IMG’s former client Vijay Singh (right) from 2006-2009, claiming that the money came from “unwitting investors” in the alleged Stanford Ponzi scheme. Singh offered to pay half of the financier’s $100,000 bail. According to the receiver IMG received $7.3m in 2008, and $114,000 in the six weeks before Stanford’s companies were seized. IMG declined to comment last night.
David Toms
Toms was sponsored by Stanford companies and is being sued for $905,000. He was paid through a brokerage account opened on his behalf by the Stanford Financial Group. The receiver alleges that Toms earned money from contested certificates of deposit issued by the Stanford International Bank, but his spokesman has denied he made any profit.
Receivers acting for creditors of Stanford's collapsed $7 billion financial empire have begun legal action against a number of sports bodies and figures, including IMG Worldwide, who represent golfer Vijay Singh, and the Miami Heat basketball team, to recoup sponsorship fees. They have indicated that they will be looking into the ECB's relationship with the Texan and it could face action to repay "ill-gotten gains" received from its deal.
Stanford is currently in custody awaiting trial in the United States charged with running an alleged $7 billion "Ponzi" scheme based on the sale of certificates of deposit in his Antiguan-based Stanford International Bank. He denies the charges
The ECB's ill-fated decision to strike a $100 million deal for a series of Twenty20 matches against a Stanford Superstars XI is one of the most embarrassing and controversial episodes in its history, and the prospect of legal action will confirm the worst fears of its critics.
"There has been a running fear in the ECB that the receiver could come after them, and this could be the knock on the door they have been dreading for two years," said a source familiar with the Stanford deal.
The threat of legal action comes with the Stanford receiver, Ralph Janvey, pursuing sporting bodies sponsored by Stanford. Last month Janvey commenced legal action against sports and media company IMG Worldwide to recover $10.5 million paid by Stanford in sponsorship and promotion fees to golfer Singh.
They have also launched a $1.3 million suit against the Miami Heat basketball franchise, and are pursuing another golfer, David Toms, for $905,087.
Janvey is claiming that the money was "fraudulently transferred" from the proceeds of an illegal investment scheme, and the sports companies did not provide "good value" for the payments, and cannot demonstrate they had received the money "in good faith".
Kevin Sadler, a lawyer working for Janvey, said via email: "The Receiver and his professionals are engaged in a process of uncovering and then investigating all significant payments made by any of the Stanford entities, and that would include payments made to professional sports figures or organisations.
"Any entity (or person) which received payments from the Stanford Ponzi scheme is subject to a claim for fraudulent transfer, unless the recipient can prove that the payment was received in good faith AND that reasonably equivalent value was given in exchange for the payments.
"Payments made for the purpose of promoting the Stanford business image to the public would not pass the legal test of reasonably equivalent value."
Michael Owen and Kevin Pietersen could also face action to recoup personal deals with Stanford.
Owen was recruited as an ambassador for the Stanford Financial Group in April 2008, and is reported to have been paid £500,000 for his services, some of which is understood to have been reinvested in the Stanford International Bank.
Kevin Pietersen, the England captain at the time of the first and only Stanford Super Series in Antigua, was recruited as an ambassador and is thought to have received around £50,000.
Eight former West Indian players, including Sir Vivian Richards, Curtly Ambrose, Courtney Walsh and Richie Richardson, were also retained as ambassadors being paid a reported $10,000-per-month.
The ECB declined to comment on the issue last night but did take legal advice when charges were levelled against Stanford in February 2009. Their lawyers are understood to have advised that it was unlikely that they would have to repay the money, but a claim could not be ruled out.
The ECB's deal was for five Stanford Super Series, featuring England and a Stanford Superstars XI, culminating in a $20 million winner-takes-all final. The ECB also agreed to host an annual quadrangular Twenty20 tournament at Lord's featuring England, a Stanford XI and two international sides, with Sri Lanka and New Zealand approached to play in the first event.
Stanford's arrest meant that only the first Super Series was played, in which England were humiliated by 10 wickets and the Stanford Superstars shared $13 million of the $20 million prize fund. They, too, could find themselves pursued by the receivers.
The remaining $7 million was split between the ECB and the West Indies Cricket Board. In December 2008 the ECB agreed to distribute £1.4 million of the income, with £50,000 going to each of the 18 first-class counties and another £500,000 going to the minor county board to be spent on coaching.
Speaking after Stanford's arrest in February 2009, ECB chairman Giles Clarke ruled out repaying the money and said that the ECB had acted in good faith. "We entered into the Stanford transaction in good faith," Clarke told The Telegraph. "Like many sporting bodies we carried out our side of the contract and he carried out his and we were paid. We then passed those funds on, to the benefit of the game."
Speaking at the time of Stanford's arrest, Rose Romero of the Securities and Exchange Commission, said: "We are alleging a fraud of shocking magnitude that has spread its tentacles throughout the world."
Stanford was due to stand trial this month but was ruled unfit because of a dependence on prescription medication developed in jail. Doctors ruled that a head injury incurred during a jailhouse beating could also have impaired his ability to assist his defence. A judge ordered that he be weaned from the drugs before the trial can commence.
Feeling the heat
Ralph Janvey, the receiver acting for creditors of Sir Allan Stanford’s collapsed financial empire, is pursuing legal action to recoup sponsorship fees from a number of sports organisations.
Miami Heat
The NBA franchise is being sued for $1.3m relating to “Stanford’s sponsorship, advertising and promotional activities” according to the receiver. The Heat will have to repay the money and costs if the receiver is successful.
IMG Worldwide
The receiver is seeking $10.5m in “golf endorsement fees” paid to IMG’s former client Vijay Singh (right) from 2006-2009, claiming that the money came from “unwitting investors” in the alleged Stanford Ponzi scheme. Singh offered to pay half of the financier’s $100,000 bail. According to the receiver IMG received $7.3m in 2008, and $114,000 in the six weeks before Stanford’s companies were seized. IMG declined to comment last night.
David Toms
Toms was sponsored by Stanford companies and is being sued for $905,000. He was paid through a brokerage account opened on his behalf by the Stanford Financial Group. The receiver alleges that Toms earned money from contested certificates of deposit issued by the Stanford International Bank, but his spokesman has denied he made any profit.