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.
Friday, 11 June 2010
Just in from Morgenstern and Blue
Dear Clients:
We are providing this update concerning a significant development in the case relating to the roles of the U.S. Receiver (Ralph Janvey) and the Antiguan Liquidators (Nigel Hamilton-Smith and Peter Wastell of Vantis). As you know, the U.S. Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators have been fighting on a number of fronts over control of Stanford’s assets. In the U.S. Courts, the Antiguan Liquidators started what is called a Chapter 15 Proceeding (named after the section of the Bankruptcy Code that applies to actions related to foreign bankruptcies). In the Chapter 15 Proceeding, the Antiguan Liquidators asked Judge David Godbey, the Federal Judge presiding over the Stanford case in Dallas, to find that Stanford International Bank, Ltd. was primarily based in Antigua, and that the Antiguan Liquidators (not the U.S. Receiver) should control Stanford International Bank’s assets, and the distribution of those assets to Stanford’s victims and other creditors. The U.S. Receiver opposed that request, arguing that all Stanford matters should be handled through the federal court in Dallas. That dispute was scheduled for a hearing in January, but was abruptly cancelled shortly before it was scheduled to begin.
On May 18, 2010, the U.S. Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators announced that they had reached a settlement agreement that would resolve the Chapter 15 Proceeding and allocate assets and responsibility between them. In essence, the agreement provided that the Antiguan Liquidators would be responsible for all assets and actions in Antigua, and that the U.S. Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators would not interfere with each other and would attempt to work out further arrangements for cooperation. The U.S. Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators jointly requested that Judge Godbey approve the stipulation between them.
Yesterday, however, news reports from the Caribbean indicated that Vantis has been fired by the Antiguan authorities, and that no successor liquidators have yet been named. The apparent removal of Vantis casts considerable doubt on the continued validity of the agreement that the U.S. Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators reached.
In all events, we felt compelled to object to Court approval of the agreement because we do not believe that the agreement, at least in its current form, is in the best interests of our clients or other Stanford investors. We are particularly concerned that the agreement would leave in place, and formalize, a dual-receivership that would require investors to submit two sets of claims, to two sets of liquidators, with differing requirements. We are also troubled by the agreement’s perpetuation of a system that essentially requires the investors to pay the bill for two sets of administrators, two sets of attorneys, two sets of accountants, and so on. In our view, a real resolution of the disputes between the U.S. Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators would unify control of Stanford’s assets, establish a single system for the submission of claims and distribution of assets, and eliminate duplication of effort and expense. Because the proposed agreement does not accomplish those goals, we filed an objection yesterday in which we argued that the Court should not approve the settlement. (A copy of the Objection is available on our website.)
We do not know when Judge Godbey will act on the Receivers’ motion to approve the settlement. When he does, we will provide you with a further update.
This information can also be found on our website:
http://mbstanford.typepad.com/clientinformation
We are providing this update concerning a significant development in the case relating to the roles of the U.S. Receiver (Ralph Janvey) and the Antiguan Liquidators (Nigel Hamilton-Smith and Peter Wastell of Vantis). As you know, the U.S. Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators have been fighting on a number of fronts over control of Stanford’s assets. In the U.S. Courts, the Antiguan Liquidators started what is called a Chapter 15 Proceeding (named after the section of the Bankruptcy Code that applies to actions related to foreign bankruptcies). In the Chapter 15 Proceeding, the Antiguan Liquidators asked Judge David Godbey, the Federal Judge presiding over the Stanford case in Dallas, to find that Stanford International Bank, Ltd. was primarily based in Antigua, and that the Antiguan Liquidators (not the U.S. Receiver) should control Stanford International Bank’s assets, and the distribution of those assets to Stanford’s victims and other creditors. The U.S. Receiver opposed that request, arguing that all Stanford matters should be handled through the federal court in Dallas. That dispute was scheduled for a hearing in January, but was abruptly cancelled shortly before it was scheduled to begin.
On May 18, 2010, the U.S. Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators announced that they had reached a settlement agreement that would resolve the Chapter 15 Proceeding and allocate assets and responsibility between them. In essence, the agreement provided that the Antiguan Liquidators would be responsible for all assets and actions in Antigua, and that the U.S. Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators would not interfere with each other and would attempt to work out further arrangements for cooperation. The U.S. Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators jointly requested that Judge Godbey approve the stipulation between them.
Yesterday, however, news reports from the Caribbean indicated that Vantis has been fired by the Antiguan authorities, and that no successor liquidators have yet been named. The apparent removal of Vantis casts considerable doubt on the continued validity of the agreement that the U.S. Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators reached.
In all events, we felt compelled to object to Court approval of the agreement because we do not believe that the agreement, at least in its current form, is in the best interests of our clients or other Stanford investors. We are particularly concerned that the agreement would leave in place, and formalize, a dual-receivership that would require investors to submit two sets of claims, to two sets of liquidators, with differing requirements. We are also troubled by the agreement’s perpetuation of a system that essentially requires the investors to pay the bill for two sets of administrators, two sets of attorneys, two sets of accountants, and so on. In our view, a real resolution of the disputes between the U.S. Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators would unify control of Stanford’s assets, establish a single system for the submission of claims and distribution of assets, and eliminate duplication of effort and expense. Because the proposed agreement does not accomplish those goals, we filed an objection yesterday in which we argued that the Court should not approve the settlement. (A copy of the Objection is available on our website.)
We do not know when Judge Godbey will act on the Receivers’ motion to approve the settlement. When he does, we will provide you with a further update.
This information can also be found on our website:
http://mbstanford.typepad.com/clientinformation
Thursday, 10 June 2010
Stop the Madness: Stanford Co-Defendant Asks to be Tried Separately
If past behavior is indeed a reliable predictor of future behavior, we’re in for a wacky few months with Allen Stanford, the financier accused of masterminding a $7 billion Ponzi scheme.
Now, even his co-defendants are looking to get away from the financier, who seems to be having a fairly miserable go of it while he awaits his trial — and whose antics are appearing increasingly erratic. (Click here for a recent story from the WSJ’s Amir Efrati on Stanford’s merry-go-round of lawyers.)
Laura Holt, one of Stanford’s co-defendants asked U.S. Judge David Hittner on Wednesday to separate her trial from that of Stanford, her former boss. In her filing, she cited a “circus-like” behavior by Stanford and his current lead criminal defense lawyer. Click here for the story from the Houston Chronicle; here for Holt’s filing.
The lawyers for Holt, the former chief investment officer of Stanford Financial group, told Judge Hittner that that Holt’s rights to a fair trial could be prejudiced by the Stanford’s antics, which include a whole bunch of lawyer switching.
In their motion, Holt’s lawyers also allege that Stanford and his lawyers, a group called the Bennett-Nguyen Joint Venture, have flouted court orders.
The motion is nicely summarized by the Chron’s Mary Flood:
The motion complains that Stanford faked spitting up blood in court by biting his tongue months ago, has burned through 11 different law firms in a “circus like manner” and mocked the court at a hearing, after which he was ordered to sit and stay quiet.
Bennett has sent a “ridiculous stream of people” into prison to visit Stanford, the motion alleges, says he is bankrupt, has been accused of insurance fraud by his former co-counsel, has submitted a bloated $80 million budget for Stanford’s defense and has misled the court by ghostwriting court correspondence that was supposed to be coming from Stanford.
Bennett refused comment to Flood when she asked about the motion today, before referring the the question to another attorney who was not available.
Prosecutors oppose Holt’s request but refused further comment.
Stanford, Holt and six others face criminal charges involving conspiracy, fraud, bribery and obstruction of justice in what prosecutors say is a $7 billion Ponzi scheme that defrauded some 30,000 investors globally.
Now, even his co-defendants are looking to get away from the financier, who seems to be having a fairly miserable go of it while he awaits his trial — and whose antics are appearing increasingly erratic. (Click here for a recent story from the WSJ’s Amir Efrati on Stanford’s merry-go-round of lawyers.)
Laura Holt, one of Stanford’s co-defendants asked U.S. Judge David Hittner on Wednesday to separate her trial from that of Stanford, her former boss. In her filing, she cited a “circus-like” behavior by Stanford and his current lead criminal defense lawyer. Click here for the story from the Houston Chronicle; here for Holt’s filing.
The lawyers for Holt, the former chief investment officer of Stanford Financial group, told Judge Hittner that that Holt’s rights to a fair trial could be prejudiced by the Stanford’s antics, which include a whole bunch of lawyer switching.
In their motion, Holt’s lawyers also allege that Stanford and his lawyers, a group called the Bennett-Nguyen Joint Venture, have flouted court orders.
The motion is nicely summarized by the Chron’s Mary Flood:
The motion complains that Stanford faked spitting up blood in court by biting his tongue months ago, has burned through 11 different law firms in a “circus like manner” and mocked the court at a hearing, after which he was ordered to sit and stay quiet.
Bennett has sent a “ridiculous stream of people” into prison to visit Stanford, the motion alleges, says he is bankrupt, has been accused of insurance fraud by his former co-counsel, has submitted a bloated $80 million budget for Stanford’s defense and has misled the court by ghostwriting court correspondence that was supposed to be coming from Stanford.
Bennett refused comment to Flood when she asked about the motion today, before referring the the question to another attorney who was not available.
Prosecutors oppose Holt’s request but refused further comment.
Stanford, Holt and six others face criminal charges involving conspiracy, fraud, bribery and obstruction of justice in what prosecutors say is a $7 billion Ponzi scheme that defrauded some 30,000 investors globally.
SEC's regional offices present managerial problems, become an obstacle to reform
For nearly a decade, Julie Preuitt told her colleagues at the Securities and Exchange Commission's Fort Worth office that she had found problems at a fabulously successful investment firm in Houston, saying its unmatched returns were probably the result of fraud.
But officials in the agency's enforcement division weren't interested in complex cases, just quick-hit lawsuits that would make the regional office look active, according to a review by the SEC inspector general. They brushed off her warnings about the Houston enterprise run by R. Allen Stanford -- only much later exposing it as one of the largest scams ever: an $8 billion Ponzi scheme.
So Preuitt was dismayed in 2007 when the Fort Worth office decided to extend what she feared was the same quick-hit approach to other work. Her complaints centered on a new method of inspecting financial firms that she protested was motivated only by a desire to boost the office's exam statistics. Preuitt was also essentially demoted after vocalizing her complaints, according to a second report by the inspector general.
The introduction of the new inspections, dubbed raves, followed by Preuitt's reassignment, opened a rift between Fort Worth managers and staff that continues today, undercutting the effort by SEC leaders in Washington to rebuild the agency and promote coordination after years of setbacks, according to current and former SEC officials and internal agency documents, including three separate reports by the SEC's inspector general.
Managing the SEC's 11 regional offices has long posed a difficult challenge. Breakdowns in coordination among the New York, Boston and Washington offices, for example, helped Bernard Madoff get away with his Ponzi scheme for years.
These failures are among various agency shortcomings documented over recent years in internal reviews and media reports. The accounts have in part blamed an agency culture that favored easy cases over difficult ones, as well as a deadening bureaucracy and a workload that has overwhelmed the staff.
The Fort Worth office investigates alleged wrongdoing by public companies and financial firms in Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas and conducts periodic reviews, or "exams," of financial companies. The region is home to some of the country's largest public companies, and most financial firms have major offices there.
Fort Worth's fumbling of the Stanford fraud investigation was discussed in an inspector general's report published two months ago. But its findings that the office failed to act on credible concerns about Stanford -- potentially costing investors more than a billion dollars -- only hinted at broader problems within the office.
Tensions in Fort Worth escalated in 2006 after Preuitt, an assistant regional director for exams, was beaten out by her colleague, Kimberly Garber, for the job of overseeing the office's exams of financial companies. Soon after, Garber told the staff she was interested in boosting the number of exams the office conducted, and later decided to introduce a new half-day exam for brokerage companies that sold investments to customers or traded on their behalf. In these exams, SEC officials would interview management and review company policies for complying with securities rules, but did not examine company records. The end result was a page-long summary.
Several lower-ranking officials, including Preuitt and her deputy, Joel Sauer, protested the new type of review, according to agency documents and current and former officials. Preuitt and Sauer said that the rapid-fire exams were an artificial way of boosting the number of exams the Fort Worth office conducted, were cursory at best and duplicated work being done by other regulators.
Garber decided to proceed with the exams. Preuitt protested vocally and repeatedly, contacting agency officials in Washington to complain about the raves. But agency officials in Washington let them proceed in the hope of spotting more cases of financial fraud, according to SEC spokesman John Nester.
Her superiors -- Rose Romero, head of the Fort Worth office, and Garber -- considered Preuitt antagonistic in the way she voiced her objections. They took action against her, removing Preuitt, a 16-year veteran, from the exam program and placing her in a job with far fewer responsibilities, according to the inspector general's report.
The inspector general said the way Preuitt raised her concerns could be proper grounds for disciplinary action, but not the substance. He concluded that "the connection between [Preuitt's] complaints about program functions and the personnel actions against her" was "inappropriate."
"It's bad whenever you take someone who's got experience and knows what they're doing and kind of put them on the sidelines," said Hugh Wright, a 28-year SEC veteran who formerly ran the examination and enforcement programs in Fort Worth.
Garber and Romero declined to be interviewed for this story. They said Nester spoke on their behalf.
After Preuitt was reassigned, Sauer wrote to Christopher Cox, the SEC's chairman at the time, to raise concerns about the situation and, more broadly, about Garber's management.
In the letter, Sauer also complained about a trip Garber had arranged for her staff to visit state regulators in Kansas. She'd had the team stay in Baldwin City, well outside Topeka, at a turn-of-the-century bed and breakfast called Three Sisters Inn. The inn was owned by Garber's brother and sister-in-law.
In a later review, the SEC's top ethics lawyer concluded that Garber violated the agency's rules by using her public office for private gain of her relatives, the inspector general reported. Nester said "appropriate action was taken" in connection with the Kansas trip but provided no details.
Sauer's letter of concern was forwarded to Romero; Sauer was told by Washington officials that Romero would work on the issues he raised.
But Sauer's supervisors, Romero and Garber, took disciplinary action against him and issued a letter of reprimand for insubordinate behavior, the inspector general found. Sauer quit in 2008. "I am proud of my work at the SEC and the work of the [Fort Worth] examination staff. I will let my record of 13 years of service to the SEC and Texas State Securities Board speak for itself," Sauer said in a statement.
Nester said senior officials in the office had "acted appropriately" by taking the guidance of the SEC's human resources department before taking action against Preuitt and Sauer. Preuitt did not respond to phone calls seeking comment.
Current and former Fort Worth SEC officials said the clash between Preuitt and Garber kicked off a period of ill will between managers and their staff. One official said there was "a lack of trust," saying many front-line examiners disagreed with how Garber treated staff and how she has run the exam program
In Washington, SEC chairman Mary Schapiro and her team have espoused a different approach. They suspended rave inspections across the whole agency, in favor of programs to verify assets claimed by investment companies in the wake of the large number of Ponzi schemes disclosed in the past two years.
But officials in the agency's enforcement division weren't interested in complex cases, just quick-hit lawsuits that would make the regional office look active, according to a review by the SEC inspector general. They brushed off her warnings about the Houston enterprise run by R. Allen Stanford -- only much later exposing it as one of the largest scams ever: an $8 billion Ponzi scheme.
So Preuitt was dismayed in 2007 when the Fort Worth office decided to extend what she feared was the same quick-hit approach to other work. Her complaints centered on a new method of inspecting financial firms that she protested was motivated only by a desire to boost the office's exam statistics. Preuitt was also essentially demoted after vocalizing her complaints, according to a second report by the inspector general.
The introduction of the new inspections, dubbed raves, followed by Preuitt's reassignment, opened a rift between Fort Worth managers and staff that continues today, undercutting the effort by SEC leaders in Washington to rebuild the agency and promote coordination after years of setbacks, according to current and former SEC officials and internal agency documents, including three separate reports by the SEC's inspector general.
Managing the SEC's 11 regional offices has long posed a difficult challenge. Breakdowns in coordination among the New York, Boston and Washington offices, for example, helped Bernard Madoff get away with his Ponzi scheme for years.
These failures are among various agency shortcomings documented over recent years in internal reviews and media reports. The accounts have in part blamed an agency culture that favored easy cases over difficult ones, as well as a deadening bureaucracy and a workload that has overwhelmed the staff.
The Fort Worth office investigates alleged wrongdoing by public companies and financial firms in Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas and conducts periodic reviews, or "exams," of financial companies. The region is home to some of the country's largest public companies, and most financial firms have major offices there.
Fort Worth's fumbling of the Stanford fraud investigation was discussed in an inspector general's report published two months ago. But its findings that the office failed to act on credible concerns about Stanford -- potentially costing investors more than a billion dollars -- only hinted at broader problems within the office.
Tensions in Fort Worth escalated in 2006 after Preuitt, an assistant regional director for exams, was beaten out by her colleague, Kimberly Garber, for the job of overseeing the office's exams of financial companies. Soon after, Garber told the staff she was interested in boosting the number of exams the office conducted, and later decided to introduce a new half-day exam for brokerage companies that sold investments to customers or traded on their behalf. In these exams, SEC officials would interview management and review company policies for complying with securities rules, but did not examine company records. The end result was a page-long summary.
Several lower-ranking officials, including Preuitt and her deputy, Joel Sauer, protested the new type of review, according to agency documents and current and former officials. Preuitt and Sauer said that the rapid-fire exams were an artificial way of boosting the number of exams the Fort Worth office conducted, were cursory at best and duplicated work being done by other regulators.
Garber decided to proceed with the exams. Preuitt protested vocally and repeatedly, contacting agency officials in Washington to complain about the raves. But agency officials in Washington let them proceed in the hope of spotting more cases of financial fraud, according to SEC spokesman John Nester.
Her superiors -- Rose Romero, head of the Fort Worth office, and Garber -- considered Preuitt antagonistic in the way she voiced her objections. They took action against her, removing Preuitt, a 16-year veteran, from the exam program and placing her in a job with far fewer responsibilities, according to the inspector general's report.
The inspector general said the way Preuitt raised her concerns could be proper grounds for disciplinary action, but not the substance. He concluded that "the connection between [Preuitt's] complaints about program functions and the personnel actions against her" was "inappropriate."
"It's bad whenever you take someone who's got experience and knows what they're doing and kind of put them on the sidelines," said Hugh Wright, a 28-year SEC veteran who formerly ran the examination and enforcement programs in Fort Worth.
Garber and Romero declined to be interviewed for this story. They said Nester spoke on their behalf.
After Preuitt was reassigned, Sauer wrote to Christopher Cox, the SEC's chairman at the time, to raise concerns about the situation and, more broadly, about Garber's management.
In the letter, Sauer also complained about a trip Garber had arranged for her staff to visit state regulators in Kansas. She'd had the team stay in Baldwin City, well outside Topeka, at a turn-of-the-century bed and breakfast called Three Sisters Inn. The inn was owned by Garber's brother and sister-in-law.
In a later review, the SEC's top ethics lawyer concluded that Garber violated the agency's rules by using her public office for private gain of her relatives, the inspector general reported. Nester said "appropriate action was taken" in connection with the Kansas trip but provided no details.
Sauer's letter of concern was forwarded to Romero; Sauer was told by Washington officials that Romero would work on the issues he raised.
But Sauer's supervisors, Romero and Garber, took disciplinary action against him and issued a letter of reprimand for insubordinate behavior, the inspector general found. Sauer quit in 2008. "I am proud of my work at the SEC and the work of the [Fort Worth] examination staff. I will let my record of 13 years of service to the SEC and Texas State Securities Board speak for itself," Sauer said in a statement.
Nester said senior officials in the office had "acted appropriately" by taking the guidance of the SEC's human resources department before taking action against Preuitt and Sauer. Preuitt did not respond to phone calls seeking comment.
Current and former Fort Worth SEC officials said the clash between Preuitt and Garber kicked off a period of ill will between managers and their staff. One official said there was "a lack of trust," saying many front-line examiners disagreed with how Garber treated staff and how she has run the exam program
In Washington, SEC chairman Mary Schapiro and her team have espoused a different approach. They suspended rave inspections across the whole agency, in favor of programs to verify assets claimed by investment companies in the wake of the large number of Ponzi schemes disclosed in the past two years.
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.