www.stanfordfinancialreceivership.com
Open in
urlscan Pro
69.163.179.215
Public Scan
URL:
https://www.stanfordfinancialreceivership.com/
Submission: On February 04 via api from US — Scanned from US
Submission: On February 04 via api from US — Scanned from US
Form analysis 0 forms found in the DOM
Text Content
Home | Statements | Court Papers | FAQs | Customer Accounts
| Claims | Employees | Contact Us | En Espanol
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS - THIS PAGE DISCUSSES THE FOLLOWING TOPICS:
* Update to Stanford Victims Concerning the Receivership’s Settlement with
Trustmark
* Update to Stanford Victims Concerning the Receivership’s Settlements with
Trustmark, SG Suisse, Independent Bank, HSBC plc and Toronto Dominion Bank
* Receiver files Status Report
* Receiver files Additional Schedules of Distribution Payments to Be Made
Pursuant to the 1st through 9th Interim Plans
* Receiver files Motion to Enforce the Trustmark Settlement
* Receivership Court Approves Settlements with Toronto Dominion Bank, HSBC Bank
plc, and Independent Bank, but Payments to Investors May Be Delayed
* Receivership Court Approves Trustmark and SG Suisse Settlements; However,
Appeals by R. Allen Stanford and the Antiguan Joint Liquidators Delay $257
Million in Payments to Investors
* Receiver files Additional Schedules of Distribution Payments to Be Made
Pursuant to the 1st through 9th Interim Plans
* Receiver's 39th Report Regarding the Claims & Distribution Process
* Receiver's 23rd Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities
* Receiver files Additional Schedules of Distribution Payments to Be Made
Pursuant to the 1st through 9th Interim Plans
* Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlements with
Toronto Dominion Bank, HSBC Bank plc, and Independent Bank (formerly known as
Bank of Houston)
* Stanford Receiver Responds to Senator Kennedy Inquiry
* Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with
Société Générale Private Banking (Suisse), S.A. and Blaise Friedli
* Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlements with
Remaining Bank Defendants, Bringing Total Bank Case Settlements to $1.6
Billion
* Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with
Trustmark National Bank
* Receiver files Additional Schedules of Distribution Payments to Be Made
Pursuant to the 1st through 9th Interim Plans
* Receiver files Additional Schedules of Distribution Payments to Be Made
Pursuant to the 1st through 9th Interim Plans
* Receiver files 1st Schedule of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to 9th Interim
Distribution Plan
* OSIC Claims Against Foreign Banks Set for Jury Trial
* Court Approves Receiver’s 9th Interim Distribution Plan
* Insurance Settlement Funds Paid to Receiver
* Notice of Opportunity to Submit Insurance Claim
* District Court Denies Motions to Dismiss Claims Against Foreign Bank
Defendants
* District Court Awards the Receiver More than $6 Million in Attorneys’ Fees
* Receiver's 21st Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities
* Receiver's 37th Report Regarding the Claims & Distribution Process
* Receiver files 1st Schedule of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to 8th Interim
Distribution Plan
* Court Approves Receiver’s 8th Interim Distribution Plan
* District Court Sentences Leroy King, Former Administrator and CEO of
Antigua’s Financial Services Regulatory Commission, to 10 Years Imprisonment
* $111.5 Million in Swiss Assets Released to the Receiver for Distribution to
Eligible Investor CD Claimants
* District Court Approves $65 Million Amended Settlement with Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, Arch Specialty Insurance Company, and
Lexington Insurance Company
* Receiver files Motion for Approval of $216 Million 8th Interim Distribution
Plan & Request for Expedited Consideration
* Receiver and OSIC Settlements Totaling $132 Million Are Fully and Finally
Approved
* Receiver's 20th Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities
* Receiver files Additional Schedules of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to the
1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Interim Plans
* Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Amended
Settlement with Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, Lexington
Insurance Company, and Arch Specialty Insurance Company and Seek Court
Approval
* Receiver files Schedules of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to the 2nd, 3rd,
4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Interim Distribution Plans
* Receiver's 19th Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities
* Twenty-First Joint Advisory regarding Pending Motions
* Court Approves Receiver’s 7th Interim Distribution Plan
* Receiver files 1st Schedule of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to the 6th
Interim Distribution Plan
* Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with
Greenberg Traurig LLP and Greenberg Traurig, P.A.
* Objections by Former Stanford Employees Delay Distribution Payments to
Victims
* Court Approves Receiver's 6th Interim Distribution Plan
* Receiver's 17th Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities
* Receiver files Additional Schedules of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to the
1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Interim Distribution Plans
* Receiver files 1st Set of Schedules of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to the
5th Interim Distribution Plan
* Court Approves Receiver's 5th Interim Distribution Plan
* District Court Approves Settlement with Proskauer Rose LLP
* Nineteenth Joint Advisory regarding Pending Motions
* Receiver's 16th Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities
* Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with
Proskauer Rose LLP
* Receiver Files Motion for Approval of 5th Interim Distribution Plan
* Receiver files Additional Schedules of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to the
1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Interim Distribution Plans
* Seventeenth Joint Advisory regarding Pending Motions
* Receiver's 15th Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities
* District Court Denies Motions for Leave to Intervene
* District Court Approves Settlement with Hunton and Williams LLP
* Receiver's 14th Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities
* Receiver files additional Schedules of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to the
1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Interim Distribution Plans
* District Court Approves Settlement with Bowen Miclette & Britt, Inc. and
Related Persons
* District Court Approves Settlement with Willis Towers Watson Public Limited
Company and Related Persons and Entities
* Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with
Hunton & Williams, LLP
* Receiver's 13th Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities
* Receiver files 1st Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 4th
Interim Distribution Plan
* Update on Receiver's Lawsuit Against Former Stanford Financial Advisors
* District Court Approves Settlement with Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of
London, Lexington Insurance Company, and Arch Specialty Insurance Company
* Court Approves Receiver's 4th Interim Distribution Plan
* Receiver files additional Schedules of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to the
1st, 2nd, and 3rd Interim Distribution Plans
* Fifth Circuit Rules Receiver Not Required to Arbitrate $215 million
Fraudulent Transfer Claim Against Former Stanford Financial Advisers
* Defendant David Nanes Arrested in Mexico City
* United States Supreme Court Denies Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the
Criminal Case Against R. Allen Stanford
* Receiver's 12th Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities
* Receiver files the next three Schedules of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to
the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Interim Distribution Plans
* Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlements with
Stanford’s Insurance Brokers
* Receiver files 1st Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 3rd
Interim Distribution Plan
* Receiver files 5th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 2nd
Interim Distribution Plan
* Receiver files 4th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 2nd
Interim Distribution Plan
* Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, Lexington Insurance Company, and
Arch Specialty Insurance Company and Seek Court Approval
* Notice Of Public Auction Of Real Property In Union County, Mississippi
* Receiver files 14th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 1st
Interim Distribution Plan
* Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with
Chadbourne & Parke, LLP and Seek Court Approval
* Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with
Kroll and Seek Court Approval
* Court Approves Receiver's 3rd Interim Distribution Plan
* Receiver files 3rd Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 2nd
Interim Distribution Plan
* Receiver files 13th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 1st
Interim Distribution Plan
* Receiver files 2nd Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 2nd
Interim Distribution Plan
* Fifth Circuit Affirms the Judgment in the Criminal Case Against R. Allen
Stanford
* Stanford Receiver Wins $50 Million Jury Verdict in First Breach of Fiduciary
Duty Case Against Stanford Insider
* Fifth Circuit Vacates Golf Channel Opinion and Seeks Guidance from Texas
Supreme Court
* Receiver files 12th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 1st
Interim Distribution Plan
* Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlements and
Seek Court Approval
* Receiver Prevails in First Fraudulent Transfer Jury Trial Arising From
Stanford Ponzi Scheme
* Fifth Circuit Orders Golf Channel to Repay Millions to Receiver
* Receiver files 11th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 1st
Interim Distribution Plan
* Receiver files 1st Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 2nd
Interim Distribution Plan
* Receiver files 10th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 1st
Interim Distribution Plan
* Notice of Ruling in SEC v. SIPC
* Court Approves Receiver's 2nd Interim Distribution Plan
* Receiver files 9th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 1st
Interim Distribution Plan
* Joint Comments by the U.S. Receiver, the Examiner and the Official Stanford
Investors Committee Concerning the Liquidators' Efforts to Recover Preference
Payments
* Notice of Public Auction of Real Property in Harris County, Texas
* Open Letter From Stanford Receiver Dated February 14, 2014
* Receiver files 8th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim
Distribution Plan
* Third Joint Advisory regarding Pending Motions
* Statement On Behalf of the Receiver Concerning Filing of Petition with the
Supreme Court of the United States
* Receiver's 7th Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities
* Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Order Requiring Trustmark National
Bank to Turn Over Stanford Receivership Funds to Receiver.
* Receiver's Sixth Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities
* Receiver files 7th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim
Distribution Plan
* Receiver files 6th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim
Distribution Plan
* Receiver files 5th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim
Distribution Plan
* Receiver files 4th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim
Distribution Plan
* Receiver files 3rd Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim
Distribution Plan
* Receivership Settlement Agreement Approved in Canada
* Receiver files 2nd Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim
Distribution Plan
* Receiver files 1st Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim
Distribution Plan
* The Receiver and Examiner file Joint Advisory to the Court Regarding Pending
Motions
* Court Approves Receiver’s Interim Distribution Plan
* Status of Political Contribution Returns
* Notice of Public Auctions of Personal Property in Dallas County, Texas
* Inquiries Concerning Prior Investigation by SEC OIG
* Receiver's Fifth Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities
* US District Court approves Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol
* Antigua and Barbuda High Court of Justice approves Settlement Agreement and
Cross-Border Protocol
* Court Sets Hearing on Receiver's Motions to Approve Distribution and
Settlement Concerning Foreign Assets
* Receiver, SEC, Examiner, and Official Stanford Investors Committee file Joint
Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol
* Stanford International Bank Joint Liquidators, U.S. Stanford Receiver,
Examiner, Official Stanford Investors Committee, DOJ, and SEC Sign Settlement
Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol
* Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol Q and A
* The District Court Rules in Favor of the Receiver in His Claim to Recover Net
Winnings Paid to Stanford "Net Winner" Investors
* The Receiver Files Motion for Approval of Interim Distribution Plan
* Joint Press Release and Statement of the U.S. Receiver (Ralph Janvey), the
Joint Liquidators (Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson), and the U.S. Examiner (John
Little)
* Antiguan Joint Liquidators File Motion to Extend Briefing Deadlines in Fifth
Circuit Based on Successful Negotiation of Confidential Settlement Term Sheet
* Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment Ordering National Political
Committees to Repay $1.6 Million in Stanford Contributions
* Notice of Public Auctions of Miscellaneous Assets
* Receiver's Statement Regarding IRS Notice of Claim
* Receiver's Interim Report Regarding Claims Process
* Court Issues Order Directing the Antiguan Liquidators to Cooperate with the
US Receiver and Denies the Antiguan Liquidators' Request to have the Antiguan
Proceeding Recognized as the Foreign Main Proceeding for Stanford
International Bank Ltd.
* Notice of Ruling in SEC v. SIPC
* Receiver's Fourth Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities
* Receiver's First Monthly Report Regarding Fees and Expenses Incurred as a
Result of the Claims Process
* Second Joint Report Regarding Pending Litigation
* Notice of Private Equity Auction
* Notice of Change of Plea in United States v. Laura Pendergest-Holt
* Notice of Sentencing in United States v. Robert Allen Stanford
* Sentencing Hearing Scheduled in Stanford Criminal Case
* Notice of Bar Date and Procedures for Submitting Proofs of Claims
* Court Issues Order Granting Receiver's Motion to Establish Bar Date for
Claims and Procedures for Submitting Proofs of Claim
* Notice of Public Auction of Miscellaneous Assets
* Notice of Public Auction of Real Property in Harris County, Texas
* Sentencing Hearing Scheduled in Stanford Criminal Case
* Examiner's Comment Concerning Frozen Stanford Funds
* Receiver Files Amended Motion To Establish Bar Date for Claims and Procedures
for Submitting Proofs of Claim
* Court Issues Order Granting Attorneys' Fees in Political Campaign Committee
Cases
* District Court Order in Case Regarding SIPC Coverage
* Receiver Files Complaint Against Thomas Sjoblom, Proskauer Rose, LLP and
Chadbourne & Parke, LLP
* Trial Date Set in Stanford Criminal Case
* Receiver Motion To Establish Bar Date for Claims and Procedures for
Submitting Proofs of Claim
* Court Issues Order Denying Motion to Intervene
* Receiver's Third Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities
* Notice of Public Auction of Miscellaneous Assets
* Notice of Public Auction of Miscellaneous Assets
* Notice of Public Auction of Real Property in Baldwyn, Lee and Prentiss
Counties, Mississippi
* Court Issues Order Granting Summary Judgment
* Opinion of Appeals Court from Hearing Regarding Motion to Intervene
* SEC Determination Regarding SIPC Coverage
* Notice of the Status of United States v. Robert Allen Stanford
* Superseding Federal Criminal Indictment Against Robert Allen Stanford
* Notice of Public Auction of Miscellaneous Assets
* Notice of Adjournment of Private Equity Auction
* Notice of Public Auction of Miscellaneous Assets
* Notice of Public Auction of Remaining St. Croix Properties
* Notice of Private Equity Auction
* Notice of Public Auction - Forefront Golf Facility, Baldwyn, MS
* Receiver's Second Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities
* Notice of the Status of United States v. Robert Allen Stanford et al.
* Notice of Public Auction - Collierville, TN
* Notice of Public Auction - Tupelo, MS
* Notice of Huntingdon Property Sale
* Notice of Private Equity Auction
* Notice of Anchor Inn Public Auction
* Notice of Bjerget House Public Auction
* Opinion of Appeals Court from Hearing Regarding Frozen Financial Advisor
Accounts
* Receiver Files Complaint Against Susan Stanford
* Receiver Files Complaint Against Juan Rodriguez-Tolentino, Sonia G. Velez,
and Wilfrido Velez
* Receiver Files Complaint Against Dillon Gage
* Receiver Files Complaint Against Oreste Tonarelli
* Receiver Files Complaint Against Andrea M. Stoelker
* Notice of Public Auction of Real Property in Fort Bend County, Texas
* Stanford Receiver, Examiner and Victims Announce Formation of Official
Committee to Represent Victims' Interests
* Receiver Files Complaint Against Merge Healthcare, Inc.
* Receiver Files Complaint Against Certain Former Stanford Employees Who
Invested in SIBL CDs
* Receiver's Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset Collection
and Ongoing Activities
* Court Issues Order Granting Preliminary Injunction
* Receiver Files Additional Complaint Against Certain Stanford Investors
* Notice of Public Auction for Sale of 5050 Westheimer, Houston, Texas
* Receiver Files Additional Complaint Against Certain Stanford Investors
* Receiver Files Additional Complaint Against Certain Stanford Investors
* Receiver Files Complaint Against Interim Executive Management, Inc.
* Receiver Files Application for TRO, Preliminary Injunction, and Writ of
Attachment Concerning Accounts of Former Stanford Employees
* Receiver files additional Complaint Against Certain Stanford Investors
* Notice of Public Auction for Sale of 20 Casuarina, Coral Gables, Florida
* Receiver files additional Complaint Against Certain Stanford Investors
* Stanford Receiver and Victims Announce Agreement on Formation of Official
Committee to Represent Victims' Interests
* Receiver files additional Complaint Against Certain Stanford Investors
* Receiver files Complaints Against Wealth Management Services, Ltd. and
additional Stanford Investors
* Receiver files additional Complaint Against Certain Stanford Investors
* Judge Orders Carlos Loumiet and Hunton & Williams to Produce Information to
Receiver
* Status Gagosian Litigation
* United Kingdom Court Order
* Receiver files Complaint Against Certain Stanford Investors
* Receiver Files Lawsuit to Enforce Return of Political Contributions
* Receiver files Supplemental Complaints Against Certain Stanford Investors and
Former Stanford Employees
* Receiver Sends Settlement Offers to Additional Stanford Investors
* Court Approves Agreement Amongst SEC, Receiver and Examiner regarding All
Outstanding Fee Applications
* Process for Release of Coins and Bullion
* 2009 W-2 Forms For Employees
* Transfer of Remaining Brokerage Accounts Not Subject to Court Freeze
* Settlements of Claims Against Certain CD Investors
* Cancellation of Chapter 15 Hearing (Vantis)
* Order Regarding Coins and Bullion
* Cooperation Offer
* Receiver Files Amended Complaint as to Certain Stanford Investors
* Order Regarding IRS's "John Doe" Summons
* Chapter 15 Hearing (Vantis)
* Release of Remaining Frozen Investor Accounts Following Fifth Circuit Ruling
Regarding Claw Backs
* Opinion of Appeals Court from Hearing Regarding Claw Backs
* Transcript of Appeals Court Hearing Regarding Claw Backs
* Receiver’s Interim Report on Assets and Cost Reductions
* Stanford University Trademark Litigation
* Canadian Court Replaces Vantis with US Receiver and Rebukes Antiguan
Liquidators for Misconduct
* Applications by Receiver for Fees and Expenses
* Superseding Criminal Indictment in Florida Obstruction Case
* Lawsuit Against Financial Advisors
* Unavailability of SIPC Coverage for SIB CDs
* Fifth Circuit Grants Receiver's Motions To Extend Asset Freeze During Appeal
of Claw Back Decision
* Receiver Motion To Extend Asset Freeze During Appeal of Claw Back Decision
* Receiver Statement Regarding Court Hearing Addressing Clawbacks
* Motion Regarding Coin and Bullion Claims and Assets
* Receiver Files Amended Complaint To Recover $925 Million of CD Related Funds
* Notice of the Status of United States v. Robert Allen Stanford et al. and
United States v. James M. Davis
* Receiver Report on Status of Frozen Accounts
* U.K. Court Orders Regarding Estate Assets in the U.K.
* Court Order Regarding Account Freeze
* Filing of Additional Clawback Claims
* Federal Criminal Indictments Against Allen Stanford and Others
* SEC Files Second Amended Complaint in Civil Case
* Allen Stanford Motion to Disqualify Baker Botts
* Sale of Building by Swiss Entity
* Status of Stanford International Bank, Ltd. CDs
* Response to Bukrinsky Motion Regarding Bankruptcy
* Court Agrees to Consider Chapter 15 Request
* Account Management Fees
* Customer Account Review and Release Information
* Report of the Receiver
* Redirection of Client Online Account Access
* Court Issues Order Denying Interventions
* Court Issues Order Appointing Examiner
* General Information
Update to Stanford Victims Concerning the Receivership’s Settlement with
Trustmark - Trustmark National Bank transferred to the Receiver on February 2,
2024 the $100 million payment due under the settlement agreement approved by the
court on May 4, 2023. Payment by Trustmark was delayed by several months due to
objections and appeals filed by Allen Stanford. The Receiver and his team of
professionals will begin working on a set of distribution schedules for the net
funds from this settlement. The distribution must be approved by the Court, and
the Receiver expects to seek court approval in the coming weeks.
Payment on the Receiver’s remaining bank settlements continues to be delayed
because of appeals being pursued by Allen Stanford and the Antiguan Joint
Liquidators. The Receiver’s settlements with Toronto-Dominion Bank, Independent
Bank (formerly Bank of Houston), and HSBC have been delayed by a petition for
writ of certiorari being pursued by Allen Stanford in the United States Supreme
Court. Stanford’s deadline to file this petition is February 15, 2024. The
Receiver’s settlement with SG Suisse is pending an appeal filed by the Antiguan
Joint Liquidators in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The appeal is fully briefed and set for oral argument during the first week of
April 2024.
Update to Stanford Victims Concerning the Receivership’s Settlements with
Trustmark, SG Suisse, Independent Bank, HSBC plc and Toronto Dominion Bank As of
December 8, 2023, the Receivership has not received any funds from the
Settlements with the Banks and therefore cannot make any distributions from
these settlements, due to unresolved objections and appeals filed by Allen
Stanford and the Antiguan Joint Liquidators. The following is the current status
of each of these settlements:
Trustmark
Payment of the $100 million Trustmark settlement is due only after the Orders
dismissing Trustmark from the Smith and Abbott cases become final. The Order in
the Smith case was entered on November 27, 2023, and will become final December
27, 2023. However, the parties’ Agreed Motion to Dismiss Trustmark from the
Abbott case was filed on November 14, 2023, and remains pending. The Receiver
and OSIC filed a notice on December 6, 2023 confirming that the motion was
agreed and unopposed, but the Court has not taken any action on the Motion.
Unless and until Trustmark is dismissed from the Abbott case and the dismissal
order becomes final, the settlement funds will not be paid by Trustmark.
SG Suisse
The Antiguan Joint Liquidator’s appeal of the Order approving the SG Suisse
settlement of $157 million remains pending. The appeal should be fully briefed
in early January 2024, but the ultimate resolution of this appeal likely will
not occur until late 2024, at the earliest. Until the appeal is resolved, the
settlement funds will not be paid by SG Suisse.
TD/IB/HSBC
Allen Stanford’s objections to this group of settlements, totaling $1.345
billion, continue to prevent the Orders approving these settlements from
becoming final. After Stanford’s appeals in the Fifth Circuit were dismissed
earlier this year, Stanford filed a request with the U.S. Supreme Court for a
60-day extension (until February 15, 2024) of his deadline to file a petition
for certiorari. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., as the Justice allotted to the
Fifth Circuit, granted the requested extension ex parte and without prior notice
to the Receiver or OSIC. On November 8, 2023, The Receiver and OSIC filed an
application to vacate the extension and to deny Stanford’s requested extension,
but the Court has not taken any action on the application. If Stanford files a
petition for certiorari on or about his extended deadline, it is likely that his
appeal will not be resolved for several months. Until his appeal is resolved,
and the Orders approving the settlements become final, no settlement funds will
be paid by these banks.
Receiver files Status Report - On September 8, 2023, the Receiver filed a Status
Report Concerning Certain Stanford-related Lawsuits with the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. To view a
copy of the Status Report, please click here.
Receiver files Additional Schedules of Distribution Payments to Be Made Pursuant
to the 1st through 9th Interim Plans - On August 29, 2023, the Receiver filed
with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, the following nine distribution schedules: the 25th Schedule of
Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 1st
Interim Plan; the 17th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD
Claimants Pursuant to the 2nd Interim Plan; the 13th Schedule of Payments to Be
Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 3rd Interim Plan; the
11th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant
to the 4th Interim Plan; the 9th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible
Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 5th Interim Plan; the 8th Schedule of
Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 6th
Interim Plan; the 7th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD
Claimants Pursuant to the 7th Interim Plan; the 6th Schedule of Payments to Be
Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 8th Interim Plan; and the
6th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant
to the 9th Interim Plan. These nine distribution schedules will be followed by
others, each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis. To
view a copy of these schedules, please click here
Receiver files Motion to Enforce the Trustmark Settlement - On August 11, 2023,
the Received filed a Motion to Enforce the Trustmark Settlement with the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division,
arguing that the Trustmark Settlement has become final under its terms,
notwithstanding Allen Stanford’s frivolous litigation efforts (motion may be
found here) The Receiver also filed a motion to expedite the briefing of the
motion to enforce (motion may be found here) As was previously noted, some of
the bank defendants are of the view that the settlements do not become “final”
until Allen Stanford has exhausted all of his vexatious litigation efforts. The
Receiver’s motion to enforce seeks to terminate these efforts to delay funding
of the Trustmark settlement.
Receivership Court Approves Settlements with Toronto Dominion Bank, HSBC Bank
plc, and Independent Bank, but Payments to Investors May Be Delayed - On August
8, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
entered orders approving the Receiver’s and Official Stanford Investors
Committee’s settlements with Toronto Dominion Bank (order may be found here),
HSBC Bank plc (order may be found here), and Independent Bank (order may be
found here). However, timing of funding of the settlements, and thus
distributions to victims, remains uncertain because R. Allen Stanford opposed
all three settlements and some of the bank defendants are of the view that the
settlements do not become “final” until Allen Stanford has exhausted all of his
vexatious litigation efforts. The District Court and the Fifth Circuit already
have ruled that Stanford has no right to appeal, as his filings are both
irrelevant to the settlements and frivolous. Specifically, the Fifth Circuit
previously dismissed Stanford’s appeals of the approval orders for the related
Trustmark (order may be found here) and SG Suisse settlements (order may be
found here) on July 25 and July 28, respectively. The Receiver is reviewing his
legal options concerning the matter, and will take whatever legal action he can
to terminate any effort to delay funding of the settlements.
Receivership Court Approves Trustmark and SG Suisse Settlements; However,
Appeals by R. Allen Stanford and the Antiguan Joint Liquidators Delay $257
Million in Payments to Investors - The United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas has entered orders approving the Receiver’s and
Official Stanford Investors Committee’s settlements with Trustmark (on May 4,
2023; order may be found here) and with SG Suisse (on June 8, 2023; order may be
found here). R. Allen Stanford opposed both settlements, and the Antiguan Joint
Liquidators opposed the SG Suisse settlement. Stanford has appealed both
approval orders, and the Antiguan Joint Liquidators (Liquidators |
sibliquidation.com) have appealed the order approving the SG Suisse settlement.
Stanford’s appeal, which the District Court has already described as “not in
good faith” (order may be found here), does not challenge the merits of the
settlements; instead, Stanford is using the settlement approval process to
attempt to re-litigate his criminal conviction and the entire 14-year
Receivership. The Antiguan Joint Liquidators’ appeal likewise does not actually
challenge the merits or amount of the SG Suisse settlement. The Receiver is
working to have these appeals resolved as quickly as possible. The Receiver has
filed motions to dismiss both of Stanford’s appeals (motions to dismiss may be
found here and here), and those motions await a ruling by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Receiver has not yet responded to
the Joint Liquidators’ appeal, which was only filed on July 7, 2023. Neither
settlement approval can become final, and therefore no settlement payment will
be made to the Receiver, until the appeals are resolved. If the appeals had not
been filed, the funds from these two settlements ($257 million) would have been
available for distribution to investors later this year. The Receiver cannot yet
estimate when the appeals will be resolved and thus is unable to provide an
estimated time for distribution to investors.
Receiver files Additional Schedules of Distribution Payments to Be Made Pursuant
to the 1st through 9th Interim Plans - On May 17, 2023, the Receiver filed with
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, the following nine distribution schedules: the 24th Schedule of
Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 1st
Interim Plan; the 16th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD
Claimants Pursuant to the 2nd Interim Plan; the 12th Schedule of Payments to Be
Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 3rd Interim Plan; the
10th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant
to the 4th Interim Plan; the 8th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible
Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 5th Interim Plan; the 7th Schedule of
Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 6th
Interim Plan; the 6th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD
Claimants Pursuant to the 7th Interim Plan; the 5th Schedule of Payments to Be
Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 8th Interim Plan; and the
5th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant
to the 9th Interim Plan. These nine distribution schedules will be followed by
others, each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis. To
view a copy of these schedules, please click here.
Receiver's 39th Report Regarding the Claims & Distribution Process - On May 16,
2023, the Receiver filed a report with the Court that discusses the status of
the Receivership's claim process. To view the report, click here.
Receiver's 23rd Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities - On May 15, 2023, the Receiver filed a report
with the Court that discusses the status of the Receivership, the Receivership's
asset collection efforts and ongoing activities. To view the report, click here.
Receiver files Additional Schedules of Distribution Payments to Be Made Pursuant
to the 1st through 9th Interim Plans - On March 31, 2023, the Receiver filed
with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, the following nine distribution schedules: the 23rd Schedule of
Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 1st
Interim Plan; the 15th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD
Claimants Pursuant to the 2nd Interim Plan; the 11th Schedule of Payments to Be
Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 3rd Interim Plan; the 9th
Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to
the 4th Interim Plan; the 7th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible
Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 5th Interim Plan; the 6th Schedule of
Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 6th
Interim Plan; the 5th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD
Claimants Pursuant to the 7th Interim Plan; the 4th Schedule of Payments to Be
Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 8th Interim Plan; and the
4th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant
to the 9th Interim Plan. These nine distribution schedules will be followed by
others, each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis. To
view a copy of these schedules, please click here.
Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlements with
Toronto Dominion Bank, HSBC Bank plc, and Independent Bank (formerly known as
Bank of Houston)
On March 8, 2023, the Receiver and the Official Stanford Investors Committee
(“OSIC”) filed Motions seeking Court approval of three separate settlements
entered into with (1) Toronto Dominion Bank (the “TD Bank Settlement”), (2) HSBC
Bank plc (the “HSBC Settlement”), and (3) Independent Bank, formerly known as
Bank of Houston (the “Independent Settlement”). Pursuant to the terms of the TD
Bank Settlement, the Receivership Estate will receive $1.205 billion for
distribution to victims of the Stanford Ponzi scheme. Pursuant to the terms of
the HSBC Settlement, the Receivership Estate will receive $40 million for
distribution to the victims of the Stanford Ponzi scheme. Pursuant to the terms
of the Independent Settlement, the Receivership Estate will receive $100 million
for distribution to the victims of the Stanford Ponzi scheme. In connection with
the TD Bank Settlement, and for the benefit of the victims of the Stanford Ponzi
scheme, counsel for the OSIC has also agreed to a substantial decrease in the
attorneys’ fees that would have been payable pursuant to counsel’s contingency
fee agreement.
On March 15, 2023, the Court entered Scheduling Orders setting hearings on the
Motions to Approve the TD Bank Settlement, the HSBC Settlement, and the
Independent Settlement, and establishing a schedule for the submission of
objections to those Settlements.
The Court has set a hearing on the Motions to Approve the TD Bank Settlement,
the HSBC Settlement and the Independent Settlement at 9:30 am on August 8, 2023.
Any party wishing to file an objection to the TD Bank Settlement, the HSBC
Settlement, and/or the Independent Bank Settlement must do so no later than July
18, 2023.
You may access the materials pertaining to the TD Bank Settlement, the HSBC
Settlement, and the Independent Settlement by clicking on the links below:
* TD Bank Scheduling Order, click HERE (English), click HERE (Spanish).
* HSBC Scheduling Order, click HERE (English), click HERE (Spanish).
* Independent Scheduling Order, click HERE (English), click HERE (Spanish).
* Motion to Approve TD Bank Settlement, click HERE (English only).
* Appendix in Support of Motion to Approve TD Bank Settlement, click HERE
(English only).
* Motion to Approve HSBC Settlement, click HERE (English only).
* Appendix in Support of Motion to Approve HSBC Settlement, click HERE (English
only).
* Motion to Approve Independent Settlement, click HERE (English only).
* Appendix in Support of Motion to Approve Independent Settlement, click HERE
(English only).
* TD Bank Settlement Agreement, click HERE (English), click HERE (Spanish).
* HSBC Settlement Agreement, click HERE (English), click HERE (Spanish).
* Independent Settlement Agreement, click HERE (English), click HERE (Spanish).
* Notice of TD Bank Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings (Exhibit A), click
HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish).
* Notice of HSBC Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings (Exhibit A), click HERE
(English) and HERE (Spanish).
* Notice of Independent Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings (Exhibit A), click
HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish).
* Proposed TD Bank Bar Order (SEC Action) (Exhibit B), click HERE (English),
click HERE (Spanish).
* Proposed HSBC Bar Order (SEC Action) (Exhibit B), click HERE (English), click
HERE (Spanish).
* Proposed Independent Bar Order (SEC Action) (Exhibit B), click HERE
(English), click HERE (Spanish).
* TD Bank Publication Notice (Exhibit E), click HERE (English), click HERE
(Spanish).
* HSBC Publication Notice (Exhibit E), click HERE (English), click HERE
(Spanish).
* Independent Publication Notice (Exhibit E), click HERE (English), click HERE
(Spanish).
TD BANK/HSBC/INDEPENDENT SETTLEMENT FAQs:
* Why did the OSIC and Receiver settle with TD Bank for $1.205 billion, with
HSBC for $40 million, and with Independent for $100 million?
* The reasons for the amounts of the settlement are discussed at length in the
respective Motions to Approve the Settlements and the Declarations included
in the Appendices to the Motions. You can review the Motions to Approve the
Settlement and the supporting Appendices by clicking on the links above.
* If approved, which Stanford investors will be entitled to distributions from
the TD Bank Settlement, the HSBC Settlement, and the Independent Settlement?
* Proceeds available for distribution from these three Settlement will be
distributed on a pro rata basis to all Stanford Investors who (a) have
Allowed Claim Amounts determined by the Receiver’s claim and distribution
process, and (b) have submitted a completed Certification Notice to the
Receiver (as required by the Court’s Order approving the Receiver’s First
Interim Distribution). After the Court approves the three Settlements and
that approval has become final, the Receiver will file a motion proposing and
asking the Court to approve a specific distribution plan for available
proceeds from the three Settlements.
* Can you explain the “substantial decrease in the attorneys’ fees” that would
have been payable in connection with the TD Bank settlement?
* The OSIC’s agreement with the attorneys prosecuting the litigation against TD
Bank contemplated that the attorneys would be compensated with a contingent
fee equal to 25% of the net proceeds of any settlement with or recovery from
TD Bank. Pursuant to that agreement, the attorneys’ fees payable in
connection with the TD Bank settlement would have been approximately $300
million. At the request of the Receiver and the Examiner, the attorneys
prosecuting the litigation against TD Bank agreed to accept an attorneys’ fee
equal to $100 million for their work on the litigation against and settlement
with TD Bank. That attorneys’ fee is 1/3 of the amount called for by the
OSIC’s agreement with those attorneys and represents a contingent fee of just
over 8%.
* How do I object to the TD Bank Settlement, the HSBC Settlement, or the
Independent Settlement or the terms of those settlements?
* Any objection to the TD Bank Settlement or its terms, the HSBC Settlement or
its terms, the Independent Settlement or its terms, the Motions to Approve
the Settlements, the Bar Orders contemplated by each of the Settlements, or
the Requests for Attorneys’ Fees must be filed in writing with the Court in
the SEC Action by ECF or by mailing the objection to the Clerk of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, 1100 Commerce
Street, Dallas, Texas 75242, no later than July 18, 2023. Any objections not
filed by that date will be deemed waived and will not be considered by the
Court. Those wishing to appear and present objections at the Final Approval
Hearing must include a request to appear in their written objections. Please
refer to the Scheduling Order and Notice (available at the links above) for
additional instructions.
* When will the Court make a final determination on the Motion to Approve the
Settlement?
* The Final Approval Hearing is set for August 8, 2023 at 9:30 am. The Court
will issue its decision at the hearing or some point thereafter.
* If the Court approves the Motions, when can I expect my distribution payment?
* The TD Bank Settlement, the HSBC Settlement and the Independent Settlement
each contemplate that the Receiver will file a Motion for approval of a
distribution plan after the Court approves the settlements and the settlement
amounts have been paid to the Receiver.
The timing of the payment of the settlement amounts will depend, first, upon
when the Court enters its order approving the TD Bank Settlement, the HSBC
Settlement and/or the Independent Settlement and, second, upon whether any
objecting party pursues an appeal from the Court’s orders approving the
settlements.
The timing of the Court’s approval and any subsequent distribution has yet to
be determined. As additional information becomes available, the Receiver and
Examiner will post updates to the Stanford Financial Group Receivership
websites and to the Examiner’s website.
* I have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver. Do I need
to file another Proof of Claim form to be considered in the Distribution Plan
for the TD Bank Settlement, the HSBC Settlement or the Independent
Settlement?
* NO. If you have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver,
you DO NOT need to file another form. There is no further action required by
you at this time.
* I have not received a Notice of Determination with my claim number. How can I
be sure you received my Proof of Claim Form?
* You should contact the Receiver’s Claims Agent to request your claim number:
1. By email at info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com
2. By phone at (866) 332-3233 or (201) 222-4059.
Stanford Receiver Responds to Senator Kennedy Inquiry - On March 10, 2023, Ralph
Janvey, Receiver for the Stanford Financial Group, sent a letter to Senator John
Kennedy (R-LA) regarding the $1.6 billion in bank settlements obtained by the
Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee. Senator Kennedy had written
to SEC Chairman Gary Gensler, raising concerns over the attorneys’ fees
requested in connection with the settlements. As the Receiver explained in his
letter, the Senator’s concerns were based on inaccurate information and
assumptions. A copy of Senator Kennedy’s letter can be found here, and the
Receiver’s response can be found here.
Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with
Société Générale Private Banking (Suisse), S.A. and Blaise Friedli
On February 21, 2023, the Receiver and the Official Stanford Investors Committee
filed a Motion seeking Court approval of a settlement entered into with Société
Générale Private Banking (Suisse), S.A. (“SG Suisse”) and Blaise Friedli
(together with SG Suisse, “SG”). Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the
Receivership Estate will receive $157 million for distribution to victims of the
Stanford Ponzi scheme. On February 23, 2023, the Court entered a Scheduling
Order setting a hearing on the Motion to Approve the settlement and establishing
a schedule for the submission of objections.
The Court has set a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Settlement at 10:30
a.m. on Wednesday, June 7, 2023. Any party wishing to file an objection to the
settlement must do so no later than Wednesday, May 17, 2023.
You may access the materials pertaining to the settlement by clicking on the
links below:
* Scheduling Order, click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Motion to Approve the Settlement (English Only), click HERE
* Appendix in Support of Motion to Approve the Settlement (English Only), click
HERE
* Settlement Agreement, click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings (Exhibit A), click HERE
(English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Proposed Bar Order (SEC Action) (Exhibit B), click HERE (English) and HERE
(Spanish)
* Publication Notice (Exhibit E), click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish)
SG SETTLEMENT FAQs:
* Why did OSIC and Receiver settle with SG for $157 million?
* The reasons for the amount of the settlement are discussed at length in the
Motion to Approve the Settlement and the Declarations included in the
Appendix to the Motion. You can review the Motion to Approve the Settlement
and the supporting Appendix by clicking on the links above.
* If approved, which Stanford investors will be entitled to distributions from
the settlement?
* Proceeds available for distribution from the settlement will be distributed
on a pro rata basis to all Stanford Investors who (a) have Allowed Claim
Amounts determined by the Receiver’s claim and distribution process, and (b)
have submitted a completed Certification Notice to the Receiver (as required
by the Court’s Order approving the Receiver’s First Interim Distribution).
After the Court approves the settlement and that approval has become final,
the Receiver will file a motion proposing and asking the Court to approve a
specific distribution plan for available proceeds from the settlement.
* How do I object to the settlement or its terms?
* Any objection to the settlement or its terms, the Motion to Approve the
Settlement, the Bar Order, or the Request for Attorneys’ Fees must be filed
in writing with the Court in the SEC Action by ECF or by mailing the
objection to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas 75242, no later than
May 17, 2023. Any objections not filed by that date will be deemed waived and
will not be considered by the Court. Those wishing to appear and present
objections at the Final Approval Hearing must include a request to appear in
their written objections. Please refer to the Scheduling Order and Notice
(available at the links above) for additional instructions.
* When will the Court make a final determination on the Motion to Approve the
Settlement?
* The Final Approval Hearing is set for Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 10:30 AM.
The Court will issue its decision at the hearing or some point thereafter.
* If the Court approves the Motion, when can I expect my distribution payment?
* The settlement contemplates that the Receiver will file a Motion for approval
of a distribution plan after the Court approves the settlement and the
settlement amount has been paid to the Receiver.
The timing of the payment of the settlement amount will depend, first, upon
when the Court enters its order approving the settlement and, second, upon
whether any objecting party pursues an appeal from the Court’s order
approving the settlement.
The timing of the Court’s approval and any subsequent distribution has yet to
be determined. As additional information becomes available, the Receiver and
Examiner will post updates to the Stanford Financial Group Receivership
websites and to the Examiner’s website.
* I have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver. Do I need
to file another Proof of Claim form to be considered in the SG Distribution
Plan?
* NO. If you have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver,
you DO NOT need to file another form. There is no further action required by
you at this time.
* I have not received a Notice of Determination with my claim number. How can I
be sure you received my Proof of Claim Form?
* You should contact the Receiver’s Claims Agent to request your claim number:
1. By email at info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com
2. By phone at (866) 332-3233 or (201) 222 4059.
Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlements with
Remaining Bank Defendants, Bringing Total Bank Case Settlements to $1.6 Billion
- On the eve of a long-awaited multi-billion dollar trial over claims that three
banks helped Allen Stanford run his 20-year Ponzi scheme that victimized over
18,000 investors, Stanford Receiver Ralph Janvey and the Official Stanford
Investors Committee (“OSIC”), reached settlements totaling $1.345 billion with
the remaining defendants in the case.
In January 2023, the Receiver and OSIC agreed to settle with two
defendants—Trustmark National Bank ($100 million) and Société Générale Private
Banking (Suisse) S.A. ($157 million). On Friday, February 24, 2023, the Receiver
and OSIC agreed to settle with defendants Toronto Dominion Bank ($1.205
billion), Independent Bank/Bank of Houston ($100 million), and HSBC Bank, plc
($40 million).
Together, the five settlements total more than $1.6 billion.
The Receiver and OSIC will be working to formally document the settlement
agreements in the coming days and then will seek approval for the settlements
from the Receivership Court, the Honorable David C. Godbey, Chief Judge of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with
Trustmark National Bank - On January 19, 2023, the Receiver and the Official
Stanford Investors Committee filed a Motion seeking Court approval of a
settlement entered into with Trustmark National Bank. Pursuant to the terms of
the settlement, the Receivership Estate will receive $100 million for
distribution to victims of the Stanford Ponzi scheme. On January 20, 2023, the
Court entered a Scheduling Order setting a hearing on the Motion to Approve the
Trustmark Settlement and establishing a schedule for the submission of
objections.
The Court has set a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Trustmark Settlement at
10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 3, 2023. Any party wishing to file an objection to
the Trustmark Settlement must do so no later than Wednesday, April 12, 2023.
You may access the materials pertaining to the Trustmark Settlement by clicking
on the links below:
* Scheduling Order, click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Motion to Approve Trustmark Settlement (English Only), click HERE
* Appendix in Support of Motion to Approve Trustmark Settlement (English Only),
click HERE
* Settlement Agreement, click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings (Exhibit A), click HERE
(English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Proposed Bar Order (SEC Action) (Exhibit B), click HERE (English) and HERE
(Spanish)
* Proposed Judgment and Bar Order (Jackson Action) (Exhibit C), click HERE
(English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Publication Notice (Exhibit F), click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish)
TRUSTMARK SETTLEMENT FAQs:
* Why did OSIC and Receiver settle with Trustmark for $100 million?
* The reasons for the amount of the settlement are discussed at length in the
Motion to Approve the Settlement and the Declarations included in the
Appendix to the Motion. You can review the Motion to Approve the Settlement
and the supporting Appendix by clicking on the links above.
* If approved, which Stanford investors will be entitled to distributions from
the Trustmark Settlement?
* Proceeds available for distribution from the Trustmark Settlement will be
distributed on a pro rata basis to all Stanford Investors who (a) have
Allowed Claim Amounts determined by the Receiver’s claim and distribution
process, and (b) have submitted a completed Certification Notice to the
Receiver (as required by the Court’s Order approving the Receiver’s First
Interim Distribution). After the Court approves the Trustmark Settlement and
that approval has become final, the Receiver will file a motion proposing and
asking the Court to approve a specific distribution plan for available
proceeds from the Trustmark Settlement.
* How do I object to the Trustmark Settlement or its terms?
* Any objection to the Trustmark Settlement or its terms, the Motion to Approve
the Settlement, the Bar Order, the Judgment and Bar Order, or the Request for
Attorneys’ Fees must be filed in writing with the Court in the SEC Action by
ECF or by mailing the objection to the Clerk of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas
75242, no later than April 12, 2023. Any objections not filed by that date
will be deemed waived and will not be considered by the Court. Those wishing
to appear and present objections at the Final Approval Hearing must include a
request to appear in their written objections. Please refer to the Scheduling
Order and Notice (available at the links above) for additional instructions.
* When will the Court make a final determination on the Motion to Approve the
Settlement?
* The Final Approval Hearing is set for Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:30 AM. The
Court will issue its decision at the hearing or some point thereafter.
* If the Court approves the Motion, when can I expect my distribution payment?
* The Trustmark Settlement contemplates that the Receiver will file a Motion
for approval of a distribution plan after the Court approves the settlement
and the settlement amount has been paid to the Receiver.
The timing of the payment of the settlement amount will depend, first, upon
when the Court enters its order approving the Trustmark Settlement and,
second, upon whether any objecting party pursues an appeal from the Court’s
order approving the settlement.
The timing of the Court’s approval and any subsequent distribution has yet to
be determined. As additional information becomes available, the Receiver and
Examiner will post updates to the Stanford Financial Group Receivership
websites and to the Examiner’s website.
* I have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver. Do I need
to file another Proof of Claim form to be considered in the Trustmark
Distribution Plan?
* NO. If you have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver,
you DO NOT need to file another form. There is no further action required by
you at this time.
* I have not received a Notice of Determination with my claim number. How can I
be sure you received my Proof of Claim Form?
* You should contact the Receiver’s Claims Agent to request your claim number:
1. By email at info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com
2. By phone at (866) 332-3233 or (201) 222 4059.
Receiver files Additional Schedules of Distribution Payments to Be Made Pursuant
to the 1st through 9th Interim Plans - On September 12, 2022, the Receiver filed
with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, the following nine distribution schedules: the 22nd Schedule of
Payments to Be Made to Eligible Receivership Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to
the 1st Interim Plan; the 14th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible
Receivership Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 2nd Interim Plan; the 10th
Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible Receivership Investor CD Claimants
Pursuant to the 3rd Interim Plan; the 8th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to
Eligible Receivership Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 4th Interim Plan;
the 6th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible Receivership Investor CD
Claimants Pursuant to the 5th Interim Plan; the 5th Schedule of Payments to Be
Made to Eligible Receivership Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 6th Interim
Plan; the 4th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible Receivership Investor
CD Claimants Pursuant to the 7th Interim Plan; the 3rd Schedule of Payments to
Be Made to Eligible Receivership Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 8th
Interim Plan; and the 3rd Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible
Receivership Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 9th Interim Plan. These nine
distribution schedules will be followed by others, each of which will be
submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis. To view a copy of these schedules,
please click here.
Receiver files Additional Schedules of Distribution Payments to Be Made Pursuant
to the 1st through 9th Interim Plans - On August 3, 2022, the Receiver filed
with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, the following nine distribution schedules: the 21st Schedule of
Payments to Be Made to Eligible Receivership Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to
the 1st Interim Plan; the 13th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible
Receivership Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 2nd Interim Plan; the 9th
Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible Receivership Investor CD Claimants
Pursuant to the 3rd Interim Plan; the 7th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to
Eligible Receivership Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 4th Interim Plan;
the 5th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible Receivership Investor CD
Claimants Pursuant to the 5th Interim Plan; the 4th Schedule of Payments to Be
Made to Eligible Receivership Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 6th Interim
Plan; the 3rd Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible Receivership Investor
CD Claimants Pursuant to the 7th Interim Plan; the 2nd Schedule of Payments to
Be Made to Eligible Receivership Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 8th
Interim Plan; and the 2nd Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible
Receivership Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 9th Interim Plan. These nine
distribution schedules will be followed by others, each of which will be
submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis. To view a copy of these schedules,
please click here.
Receiver files 1st Schedule of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to 9th Interim
Distribution Plan - On July 1, 2022, the Receiver filed with the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, the 1st
Schedule of 2.71% Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant
to the 9th Interim Plan. This distribution schedule will be followed by others,
each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis. To view a
copy of this schedule, please click here.
OSIC Claims Against Foreign Banks Set for Jury Trial - The Official Stanford
Investors Committee (OSIC), in its own right and as assignee of the Receiver, is
pursuing claims against several banks—Société Générale Private Banking (Suisse)
S.A., Trustmark National Bank, HSBC Bank plc, The Toronto-Dominion Bank, and
Independent Bank f/k/a Bank of Houston—that provided services to Stanford that
aided and facilitated the Ponzi scheme. Those claims are pending in Abbott, et
al. v. Trustmark National Bank, et al., Case. No. 4:22-cv-00800 (S.D. Tex) and
could be the source of additional substantial recoveries for Stanford investors.
In total, the recovery sought from the defendants in the case exceeds $4
billion. On May 12, 2022, Judge Kenneth Hoyt entered an order setting the case
for jury trial to begin on February 27, 2023. To view the order, click here
Court Approves Receiver’s 9th Interim Distribution Plan - On April 25, 2022, the
Court approved the Receiver’s 9th Interim Distribution Plan. A copy of the order
approving the 9th Interim Distribution Plan may be found here.
Insurance Settlement Funds Paid to Receiver - The Receiver has collected the $65
million due under his settlement agreement with Stanford’s insurers. That
agreement, originally reached in 2016, became effective in August 2021,
following several years of court review. With the insurance settlement payment,
the Receiver has now recovered more than $1 billion since his appointment. The
Receiver expects to seek permission from the Court to distribute the net
proceeds from the insurance settlement (about $51 million) in the first quarter
of 2022.
Individuals who previously have waived or released their claims to insurance
coverage from Stanford’s insurers are not eligible to participate in the
distribution from this settlement and should not submit a claim.
Individuals who have not waived or released their claims to insurance coverage
may submit a claim to the Receiver not later than December 6, 2021 (see
http://www.stanfordfinancialreceivership.com/#NoticeOfClaim for details).
Stanford International Bank CD claimants with an approved CD claim do not need
to submit a new proof of claim form in order to participate in the distribution
of funds from this settlement.
Notice of Opportunity to Submit Insurance Claim - This notice is directed to the
attention of all persons who previously made a claim with Certain Underwriters
at Lloyd’s of London (which refers to Lloyd’s of London Syndicates 2987, 2488,
1084, 1886, 4000, 1183, and 1274), Arch Specialty Insurance Co., and Lexington
Insurance Company (collectively referred to as “Underwriters”) for insurance
coverage pursuant to certain insurance policies issued to the Stanford Financial
Group.
This notice is not directed to Stanford International Bank CD claimants.
The Receiver, Ralph S. Janvey, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee
have entered into a settlement agreement with Underwriters pursuant to which
Underwriters will pay the Receiver the total sum of $65 million (the “Settlement
Amount”) to resolve Underwriters’ liability for all contractual claims to
coverage under such policies. You may access a copy of the settlement agreement
and the court orders approving the settlement at the following links:
* Order
* Settlement Agreement and First Amendment
* Second Amendment to Settlement Agreement
Pursuant to the terms of the Receiver’s settlement with Underwriters, the Court
has ordered that all claims for insurance coverage shall be determined
exclusively through the Receiver’s claims process. The Court has ordered that
any individual insured under the policies who has not, as of August 20, 2021,
already submitted such a claim to the Receiver may nevertheless seek to recover
for such claims through the receipt of a share of the Settlement Amount, by
submitting to the Receiver a proof of claim form, which can be found at this
link, no later than December 6, 2021. All proofs of claim submitted on or before
December 6, 2021 shall be subject to review and determination by the Receiver,
whose determination shall be subject to Court review pursuant to the procedures
outlined in the Court’s May 4, 2012 Order establishing the Receiver’s claims
process
(http://www.stanfordfinancialclaims.com/media/572625/stanford_bar-date_order.pdf).
Your submission of a proof of claim does not guarantee that your claim will be
approved or that you will be entitled to a distribution. However, if you fail to
submit a proof of claim to the Receiver on or before December 6, 2021, you will
be forever barred from receiving any distribution from the Settlement Amount in
connection with any insurance claim you may have, and you will have no further
opportunity to recover any proceeds from the insurance policies issued by
Underwriters.
Please note that Stanford International Bank investors with an approved CD claim
do not need to submit a new proof of claim form in order to participate in the
distribution of the Settlement Amount. The new proof of claim form is intended
for use only by individuals seeking to participate in the distribution of the
Settlement Amount due to their status as insureds under the Underwriters’
insurance policies.
If you have any questions concerning this notice, please send an email to
info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com or call (866) 964-6301.
District Court Denies Motions to Dismiss Claims Against Foreign Bank Defendants
- The Official Stanford Investors Committee (OSIC), directly and as assignee of
the Receiver, is pursuing claims against several banks which provided financial
services that were essential to Allen Stanford’s Ponzi scheme. Those claims are
pending in the case styled Rotstain, et al. v. Trustmark National Bank, et al.,
Case No. 3:09-cv-02384 (N.D. Tex.), and could be the source of substantial
additional recoveries for Stanford investors. On August 3, 2021, the District
Court denied motions to dismiss filed by three defendants—HSBC Bank PLC, Société
Générale Private Banking (Suisse) S.A., and Blaise Friedli (collectively, the
“Foreign Defendants”). The Court held that the Foreign Defendants have
sufficient minimum contacts with Texas, that Plaintiffs’ claims against the
Foreign Defendants arise from those contacts, and that the exercise of personal
jurisdiction over Foreign Defendants comports with fair play and substantial
justice. The Court also denied the Foreign Defendants’ request that the decision
be certified for an interlocutory appeal. To view the decision, click here.
District Court Awards the Receiver More than $6 Million in Attorneys’ Fees - On
August 5, 2021, in the case styled Janvey v. GMAG LLC, et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-401, the Court awarded the Receiver attorneys’ fees of $5,898,402.00
plus conditional appellate attorneys’ fees that could exceed $1.7 million. The
fee award follows the Court’s entry of a $124 million final judgment for the
Receiver earlier this year. To view the order, click here.
Receiver's 21st Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities - On May 13, 2021, the Receiver filed a report
with the Court that discusses the status of the Receivership, the Receivership's
asset collection efforts and ongoing activities. To view the report, click here.
Receiver's 37th Report Regarding the Claims & Distribution Process - On April
29, 2021, the Receiver filed a report with the Court that discusses the status
of the Receivership's claim process. To view the report, click here.
Receiver files 1st Schedule of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to 8th Interim
Distribution Plan - On March 24, 2021, the Receiver filed with the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, the 1st
Schedule of 4.50% Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant
to the 8th Interim Plan. This distribution schedule will be followed by others,
each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis. To view a
copy of this schedule, please click here.
Court Approves Receiver’s 8th Interim Distribution Plan - On February 18, 2021,
the Court approved the Receiver’s 8th Interim Distribution Plan. A copy of the
order approving the 8th Interim Distribution Plan may be found here.
District Court Sentences Leroy King, Former Administrator and CEO of Antigua’s
Financial Services Regulatory Commission, to 10 Years Imprisonment - On February
24, 2021, the District Court for the Southern District of Texas sentenced Leroy
King, the former administrator and CEO of Antigua’s Financial Services
Regulatory Commission, to 10 years imprisonment followed by three years of
supervised release. In connection with his role in the Stanford Ponzi scheme,
King was charged with and pled guilty to conspiracy to commit obstruction of
justice and obstruction of justice.
$111.5 Million in Swiss Assets Released to the Receiver for Distribution to
Eligible Investor CD Claimants - In December 2020 and January 2021, Stanford
assets that had been held in Switzerland (“Swiss Assets”) totaling
$111,504,642.79 were transferred to the Receiver for distribution to eligible
Investor CD Claimants. The Swiss Assets were returned following a decision of
the Swiss Federal Criminal Court, which overruled the objections of Société
Générale (“SocGen”), one of the defendants in the Rotstain v. Trustmark
litigation. The relevant decisions that led to the release of the Swiss Assets
are summarized below.
> October 4, 2016: Federal Administrative Court Decision (click here)
>
> On August 30, 2013, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA)
> issued a decision concluding that SocGen had committed serious violations of
> Swiss anti-money laundering law. FINMA’s decision was upheld on appeal in an
> October 4, 2016 decision by the Federal Administrative Court.
>
> In relevant part, the Federal Administrative Court held that SocGen violated
> its due diligence obligations by: (1) failing to properly classify R. Allen
> Stanford and the Stanford entities as politically exposed persons; (2) failing
> to classify its business relationships with Stanford as those of a
> correspondent bank, and (3) failing to adequately identify and further
> investigate suspicious information and high-risk transactions. Among other
> things, the Court noted that SocGen disregarded information that should have
> led it to suspect a criminal source of the funds it accepted. The Court also
> noted SocGen’s failures with respect to ordinary transactions involving its
> relationship with Stanford.
> June 12, 2019: Swiss Federal Office of Justice Decision
>
> In a decision dated June 12, 2019, the Swiss Federal Office of Justice (FOJ)
> ordered that the Swiss Assets be turned over to U.S. authorities in accordance
> with the DOJ’s request for mutual assistance and applicable Swiss law. In so
> doing, the FOJ rejected SocGen’s objections, including SocGen’s assertions
> that it acted in good faith.
> October 16, 2020: Swiss Federal Criminal Court Decision (click here)
>
> On October 16, 2020, the Swiss Federal Criminal Court dismissed SocGen’s
> appeal of the June 12, 2019 decision of the Swiss Federal Office of Justice.
>
> The Court first rejected SocGen’s argument that not all the Swiss Assets are
> the direct proceeds of crime. The final forfeiture order in Stanford’s
> criminal case and DOJ’s subsequent communications contradict Soc Gen’s claim,
> and the Court found no basis to question the U.S. determination on this issue.
>
> Second, the Court held that SocGen had not demonstrated a basis for retaining
> the Swiss Assets in Switzerland. Under Swiss law, frozen assets may be
> retained if there is a reasonable claim from a person who is (1) not involved
> in the underlying offense, (2) whose claims are not guaranteed by the
> requesting State, and (3) who acquired rights to the assets in good faith.
>
> The Court found that SocGen failed to show elements two and three. As to the
> second element, the Court concluded that SocGen’s claims were guaranteed by
> the U.S., because SocGen had the opportunity and responsibility to object to
> the June 6, 2012 forfeiture order issued by the district court in Stanford’s
> criminal case. The Court noted that the forfeiture order was published with
> specific instructions on how to assert rights to the assets at issue, and that
> SocGen, who was represented by U.S. counsel and actively participated in
> mutual assistance requests, could not have been unaware of the criminal
> proceedings. As result of this finding alone, the Court concluded that SocGen
> was not entitled retention of the Swiss Assets in Switzerland.
>
> The Court also found the third element lacking, concluding that (1) SocGen
> failed to demonstrate a plausible claim to the Swiss Assets and therefore also
> does not have a right of lien, and (2) SocGen failed to show probable cause
> that it acquired rights to the Swiss Assets in good faith.
>
> The Court noted that SocGen’s only claim to the Swiss Assets is a future and
> unspecified claim, as the claim is based on SocGen’s potential liability in
> Rotstain v. Trustmark, whereas the Court held that claims secured by a pledge
> must be determinable or sufficiently determinable at the time of the pledge.
> The Court found it highly unlikely that both parties reasonably expected the
> Rotstain litigation at the time of the 2004 agreement.
>
> On the issue of good faith, the Court concluded that SocGen “should have
> presumed that the funds were criminal and should have at least been more
> careful in light of the hints of money laundering[.]” In support, the Court
> cited the DOJ’s position that Blaise Friedli could not have been ignorant that
> Stanford was most likely involved in a fraudulent money laundering scheme and
> the September 5, 2000 due diligence report prepared by Proximal Consulting,
> “which expressly mentioned [Robert Allen Stanford’s] highly dubious reputation
> and the fact that [SIBL] had been used to launder money from drug trafficking
> in Mexico[.]” The Court specifically noted that SocGen’s failure to ask for
> more details about the source of funds and the use of SIB’s assets to secure a
> $95 million loan to Stanford “appear[s] entirely unjustified.” In addition,
> the Court noted that SocGen’s serious breaches of supervisory law were
> established in FINMA’s August 30, 2013 decision and the Federal Administrative
> Court’s October 4, 2016 decision.
>
> As SocGen’s claims were determined to be unfounded, the Court rejected
> SocGen’s request for a stay pending the resolution of civil proceedings in
> Geneva relating to the validity of the asserted pledge. SocGen did not appeal
> this decision.
District Court Approves $65 Million Amended Settlement with Certain Underwriters
at Lloyd’s of London, Arch Specialty Insurance Company, and Lexington Insurance
Company - On January 22, 2021, the District Court approved an amended settlement
agreement by and among the Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee
and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, Arch Specialty Insurance Company,
and Lexington Insurance Company. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, once
the District Court’s order becomes final, the Receivership Estate will receive
$65.0 million. Following receipt of the settlement funds, the Receiver will file
a motion asking the District Court for permission to distribute the proceeds of
the settlement, net of attorneys’ fees awarded by the Court, to eligible
claimants. To view a copy of the Court’s Order approving the settlement, click
here. To view a copy of the Court’s Order approving attorneys’ fees, click here.
Receiver files Motion for Approval of $216 Million 8th Interim Distribution Plan
& Request for Expedited Consideration - On January 21, 2021, the Receiver filed
a Motion for Approval of 8th Interim Distribution Plan and requested expedited
consideration of the Motion. The Eighth Interim Plan will result in the pro rata
distribution of approximately $216 million to all eligible Investor CD
Claimants, with such distributions totaling 4.5% of the Allowed Claim Amounts
reflected in the Notices of Determination or Conditional Notices of
Determination issued to such Investor CD Claimants. To view a copy of the
Motion, click here.
Receiver and OSIC Settlements Totaling $132 Million Are Fully and Finally
Approved - On December 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certain
objectors’ petitions for writ of certiorari seeking review of the settlement
agreements of the Receiver, the Official Stanford Investors Committee, and
certain individual Investor Plaintiffs, with Willis Towers Watson Public Limited
Company (and related persons and entities) (collectively, “Willis”) and Bowen
Miclette & Britt, Inc. (and related persons) (collectively, “BMB”). The Supreme
Court’s action brings to a conclusion the last remaining challenges to the
settlements. The Willis and BMB settlements, respectively, require payments to
the Receiver of $120 million and $12.85 million. The Receiver plans to file a
motion by the second quarter of 2021 seeking approval to distribute the proceeds
of the settlements, net of attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded by the Court, to
Stanford Investors who have claims approved by the Receiver.
Receiver's 20th Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities - On November 23, 2020, the Receiver filed a
report with the Court that discusses the status of the Receivership, the
Receivership's asset collection efforts and ongoing activities. To view the
report, click here.
Receiver files Additional Schedules of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to the 1st,
2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Interim Plans - On August 10, 2020, the
Receiver filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Dallas Division, the following seven distribution schedules: the 20th
Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible Receivership Investor CD Claimants
Pursuant to the 1st Interim Plan; the 12th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to
Eligible Receivership Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 2nd Interim Plan;
the 8th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible Receivership Investor CD
Claimants Pursuant to the 3rd Interim Plan; the 6th Schedule of Payments to Be
Made to Eligible Receivership Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 4th Interim
Plan; the 4th Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible Receivership Investor
CD Claimants Pursuant to the 5th Interim Plan; the 3rd Schedule of Payments to
Be Made to Eligible Receivership Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 6th
Interim Plan; and the 2nd Schedule of Payments to Be Made to Eligible
Receivership Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 7th Interim Plan. These seven
distribution schedules will be followed by others, each of which will be
submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis. To view a copy of these schedules,
please click here.
Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Amended Settlement
with Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, Lexington Insurance Company, and
Arch Specialty Insurance Company and Seek Court Approval - On July 7, 2020, the
Receiver and the Official Stanford Investors Committee filed a Motion seeking
Court Approval of the amended settlement entered into with Certain Underwriters
at Lloyd’s of London, Lexington Insurance Company, and Arch Specialty Insurance
Company (collectively, “Underwriters”). Pursuant to the terms of the amended
settlement, the Receivership Estate will receive $65.0 million. The Amended
Agreement modifies and clarifies the Original Agreement by:
1. permitting former Stanford directors, officers, and employees an opportunity
to present a claim to the proceeds of the settlement through the Receiver’s
claims process;
2. permitting former Stanford directors, officers, and employees to continue to
assert certain types of claims against Underwriters notwithstanding the
settlement; and
3. clarifying that the settlement does not prevent Stanford Investors from
suing their former Stanford brokers.
Any party wishing to file an objection to the amended settlement must do so no
later than Tuesday, July 28, 2020. You may file an objection with the Court by
mailing the objection to the Court at the following address:
District Judge David C. Godbey
1100 Commerce Street, Room 1504
Dallas, Texas 75242-1003
You may access the materials pertaining to the Underwriters settlement by
clicking on the links below:
* Motion to Approve the Amended Settlement, click HERE
* Appendix in Support of the Motion to Approve the Amended Settlement,
including the Settlement Agreement itself and Exhibits and Amendments
thereto, click HERE
* Second Amendment to Settlement Agreement, including Exhibits, click HERE
* Notice of Amended Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings (Exhibit 4), click
HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish)
Receiver files Schedules of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th,
5th, 6th, and 7th Interim Distribution Plans - On June 30, 2020, the Receiver
filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division, the following six distribution schedules: the 11th Schedule of
0.39% Payments to Be Made to Eligible Receivership Investor CD Claimants
Pursuant to the 2nd Interim Plan; the 7th Schedule of 1.00% Payments to Be Made
to Eligible Receivership Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 3rd Interim Plan;
the 5th Schedule of 1.00% Payments to Be Made to Eligible Receivership Investor
CD Claimants Pursuant to the 4th Interim Plan; the 3rd Schedule of Additional
1.11% Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 5th
Interim Plan; the 2nd Schedule of 1.00% Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor
CD Claimants Pursuant to the 6th Interim Plan; and the 1st Schedule of 1.10%
Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 7th
Interim Plan. These six distribution schedules will be followed by others, each
of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis. To view a copy of
these schedules, please click here.
Receiver's 19th Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities - On June 18, 2020, the Receiver filed a
report with the Court that discusses the status of the Receivership, the
Receivership's asset collection efforts and ongoing activities. To view the
report, click here.
Twenty-First Joint Advisory regarding Pending Motions - On May 18, 2020, the
Receiver and the Examiner filed their twenty-first advisory to the Court
regarding fully briefed motions ripe for ruling. To view the advisory, please
click here.
Court Approves Receiver’s 7th Interim Distribution Plan - On May 7, 2020, the
Court approved the Receiver’s 7th Interim Distribution Plan. A copy of the order
approving the 7th Interim Distribution Plan may be found here.
Receiver files 1st Schedule of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to the 6th Interim
Distribution Plan - On January 9, 2020, the Receiver filed with the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, the
1st Schedule of 1.00% Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD Claimants
Pursuant to the 6th Interim Plan. This distribution schedule will be followed by
others, each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis. To
view a copy of this schedule, please click here.
Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with
Greenberg Traurig LLP and Greenberg Traurig, P.A. - On October 17, 2019, the
Receiver and the Official Stanford Investors Committee filed a Motion seeking
Court approval of a settlement entered into with Greenberg Traurig, P.A. and
Greenberg Traurig, LLP. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the
Receivership Estate will receive $65 million for distribution to victims of the
Stanford Ponzi scheme. On November 18, 2019, the Court entered a Scheduling
Order setting a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Greenberg Settlement and
establishing a schedule for the submission of objections.
The Court has set a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Greenberg Settlement at
10:30 a.m. on Friday, February 21, 2020. Any party wishing to file an objection
to the Greenberg Settlement must do so no later than Friday, January 31,2020.
You may access the materials pertaining to the Greenberg Settlement by clicking
on the links below:
* Scheduling Order, click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Motion to Approve Greenberg Settlement (English only), click HERE
* Appendix in Support of Motion to Approve Greenberg Settlement (English only),
click HERE
* Settlement Agreement, click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings (Exhibit A), click HERE
(English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Proposed Bar Order (SEC Action) (Exhibit B), click HERE (English) and HERE
(Spanish)
* Proposed Judgment and Bar Order (Receiver Action) (Exhibit C), click HERE
(English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Publication Notice (Exhibit F), click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish)
GREENBERG SETTLEMENT FAQs:
* Why did the OSIC and the Receiver settle with Greenberg for $65 million?
* The reasons for the amount of the settlement are discussed at length in the
Motion to Approve the Settlement and the Declarations included in the
Appendix to the Motion. You can review the Motion to Approve the Settlement
and the supporting Appendix by clicking on the links above.
* If approved, which Stanford investors will be entitled to distributions from
the Greenberg Settlement?
* Proceeds available for distribution from the Greenberg Settlement will be
distributed on a pro rata basis to all Stanford Investors who (a) have
Allowed Claim Amounts determined by the Receiver’s claim and distribution
process, and (b) have submitted a completed Certification Notice to the
Receiver (as required by the Court’s Order approving the Receiver’s First
Interim Distribution). After the Court approves the Greenberg Settlement and
that approval has become final, the Receiver will file a motion proposing and
asking the Court to approve a specific distribution plan for available
proceeds from the Greenberg Settlement.
* How do I object to the Greenberg Settlement or its terms?
* Any objection to the Greenberg Settlement or its terms, the Motion to Approve
the Settlement, the Bar Order, the Judgment and Bar Order, or the Request for
Attorneys’ Fees must be filed in writing with the Court in the SEC Action by
ECF or by mailing the objection to the Clerk of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas
75242, no later than January 31, 2020. Any objections not filed by that date
will be deemed waived and will not be considered by the Court. Those wishing
to appear and present objections at the Final Approval Hearing must include a
request to appear in their written objections. Please refer to the Scheduling
Order and Notice (available at the links above) for additional instructions.
* When will the Court make a final determination on the Motion to Approve the
Settlement?
* The Final Approval Hearing is set for Friday, February 21, 2020 at 10:30 AM.
The Court will issue its decision at the hearing or some point thereafter.
* If the Court approves the Motion, when can I expect my distribution payment?
* The Greenberg Settlement contemplates that the Receiver will file a Motion
for approval of a distribution plan after the Court approves the settlement
and the settlement amount has been paid to the Receiver.
The timing of the payment of the settlement amount will depend, first, upon
when the Court enters its order approving the Greenberg Settlement and,
second, upon whether any objecting party pursues an appeal from the Court’s
order approving the settlement.
The timing of the Court’s approval and any subsequent distribution has yet to
be determined. As additional information becomes available, the Receiver and
Examiner will post updates to the Stanford Financial Group Receivership
websites and to the Examiner’s website.
* I have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver. Do I need
to file another Proof of Claim form to be considered in the Greenberg
Distribution Plan?
* NO. If you have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver,
you DO NOT need to file another form. There is no further action required by
you at this time.
* : I have not received a Notice of Determination with my claim number. How can
I be sure you received my Proof of Claim Form?
* You should contact the Receiver’s Claims Agent to request your claim number:
1. By email at info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com
2. By phone at 866-964-6301 or 317-324-0757.
Objections by Former Stanford Employees Delay Distribution Payments to Victims -
On May 16, 2017, the District Court approved a $65mm settlement among the
Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee and Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd’s of London, Lexington Insurance Company, and Arch Specialty Insurance
Company. The District Court’s order approving the $65mm payment to the Receiver
for the benefit of Stanford victims was appealed to the Fifth Circuit by a
number of former Stanford employees and executives, including Eddie Rollins, a
former Executive Director of Stanford Group Company who received both
commissions and bonuses for sales of the SIBL CD, and Cordell Haymon, a former
Director of Stanford Trust Company who likewise received substantial
compensation from Stanford. On June 17, 2019, a panel of the Fifth Circuit
vacated the District Court’s order approving the settlement agreement and
remanded for further proceedings. The Receiver disagreed with this decision and
filed Petitions for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc on July 31, 2019. The
Petitions for Rehearing were denied by the Fifth Circuit on October 23, 2019.
The Receiver is considering his options with regard to the settlement, but as a
result of the Former Employee objections, distributions to investors from this
settlement will be delayed indefinitely.
Rollins is represented by:
Stephan Bruce Rogers
Rogers & Moore, PLLC
steve@rogersmoorelaw.com
830-816-5487
309 Water Street, Suite 201
Boerne, TX 78006
Michael Stanley
Stanley Law, P.C.
MStanley@stanleylaw.com
713-980-4381
230 Westcott St., Suite 120
Houston, TX 77007
Haymon is represented by:
Charles L. Babcock
cbabcock@jw.com
713-752-4210
Richard E. Griffin
rgriffin@jw.com
713-752-4212
Joel R. Glover
jglover@jw.com
713-752-4226
Jackson Walker LLP
1401 McKinney, Suite 1900
Houston, TX 77010
Adam W. Aston
aaston@jw.com
512-236-2056
Danica L. Milios
dmilios@jw.com
512-236-2346
Peter C. Hansen
phansen@jw.com
512-236-2319
Jackson Walker LLP
100 Congress Ave., Suite 1100
Austin, TX 78701
512-236-2000
To view a copy of the Fifth Circuit’s order, click here.
Court Approves Receiver's 6th Interim Distribution Plan - On October 23, 2019,
the Court approved the Receiver's 6th Interim Distribution Plan. A copy of the
order approving the 6th Interim Distribution Plan may be found here.
Receiver's 17th Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities - On May 22, 2019, the Receiver filed a report
with the Court that discusses the status of the Receivership, the Receivership's
asset collection efforts and ongoing activities. To view the report, click here.
Receiver files Additional Schedules of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to the 1st,
2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Interim Distribution Plans - On May 30, 2019, the
Receiver filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Dallas Division, the following nine distribution schedules: the 19th
Schedule of 1.00% Payments to Be Made to Eligible Receivership Investor CD
Claimants Pursuant to the 1st Interim Plan; the 10th Schedule of 0.39% Payments
to Be Made to Eligible Receivership Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 2nd
Interim Plan; the 6th Schedule of 1.00% Payments to Be Made to Eligible
Receivership Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 3rd Interim Plan; the 4th
Schedule of 1.00% Payments to Be Made to Eligible Receivership Investor CD
Claimants Pursuant to the 4th Interim Plan; the 2nd Schedule of 1.00% Catch-Up
Payments to Be Made to Eligible JL Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 1st
Interim Plan; the 2nd Schedule of 0.39% Catch-Up Payments to Be Made to Eligible
JL Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 2nd Interim Plan; the 2nd Schedule of
1.00% Catch-Up Payments to Be Made to Eligible JL Investor CD Claimants Pursuant
to the 3rd Interim Plan; the 2nd Schedule of 1.00% Catch-Up Payments to Be Made
to Eligible JL Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 4th Interim Plan; and the
2nd Schedule of 1.11% Additional Payments to Be Made to Eligible Investor CD
Claimants Pursuant to the 5th Interim Plan. These nine distribution schedules
will be followed by others, each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a
rolling basis. To view a copy of these schedules, please click here.
Receiver files 1st Set of Schedules of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to the 5th
Interim Distribution Plan - On March 1, 2019, the Receiver filed with the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, the
1st Schedule of 1.00% Catch-Up Payments to Be Made to Eligible JL Investor CD
Claimants Under the 1st Interim Plan, the 1st Schedule of 0.39% Catch-Up
Payments to Be Made to Eligible JL Investor CD Claimants Under the 2nd Interim
Plan, the 1st Schedule of 1.00% Catch-Up Payments to Be Made to Eligible JL
Investor CD Claimants Under the 3rd Interim Plan, the 1st Schedule of 1.00%
Catch-Up Payments to Be Made to Eligible JL Investor CD Claimants Under the 4th
Interim Plan, and the 1st Schedule of 1.11% Additional Payments to Be Made to
Eligible Investor CD Claimants Pursuant to the 5th Interim Plan. These Schedules
will be followed by others, each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a
rolling basis. To view a copy of these Schedules, please click here.
Court Approves Receiver's 5th Interim Distribution Plan - On November 19, 2018,
the Court approved the Receiver's 5th Interim Distribution Plan. A copy of the
order approving the 5th Interim Distribution Plan may be found here.
District Court Approves Settlement with Proskauer Rose LLP - On January 16,
2019, the District Court approved a settlement agreement by and among the
Receiver, the Official Stanford Investors Committee, and certain individual
Investor Plaintiffs, and Proskauer Rose LLP. Pursuant to the terms of the
settlement, once the District Court’s order becomes final, the Receivership
Estate will receive $63 million. The Receiver will file a motion with the
District Court asking for permission to distribute the proceeds of the
settlement after they are received, net of attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded
by the Court, to Stanford Investors who have claims approved by the Receiver. To
view a copy of the Court’s Order approving the settlement, click here.
Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with
Proskauer Rose LLP - On August 24, 2018, the Receiver, the Official Stanford
Investors Committee (“OSIC”) and certain individual Investor Plaintiffs filed a
Motion seeking Court approval of a settlement entered into with Proskauer Rose,
LLP (“Proskauer”). Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Receivership
Estate will receive $63 million. On September 11, 2018, the Court entered a
Scheduling Order setting a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Proskauer
Settlement and establishing a schedule for the submission of objections.
The Court has set a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Proskauer Settlement at
10:00 a.m. on Friday, December 14, 2018. Any party wishing to file an objection
to the Proskauer Settlement must do so no later than Friday, November 23, 2018.
You may access the materials pertaining to the Proskauer Settlement by clicking
on the links below:
* Scheduling Order, click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Motion to Approve Proskauer Settlement (English only), click HERE
* Appendix in Support of Motion to Approve Proskauer Settlement (English only),
click HERE
* Settlement Agreement, click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Proposed Bar Order (SEC Action) (Exhibit B), click HERE (English) and HERE
(Spanish)
* Proposed Judgment and Bar Order (Receiver Action) (Exhibit C), click HERE
(English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings (Exhibit A), click HERE
(English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Publication Notice (Exhibit G), click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish)
PROSKAUER SETTLEMENT FAQs:
* Why did the Plaintiffs and Receiver settle with Proskauer for $63 million?
* The reasons for the amount of the settlement are discussed at length in the
Motion to Approve the Settlement and the Declarations included in the
Appendix to the Motion. You can review the Motion to Approve the Settlement
and the supporting Appendix by clicking on the links above.
* If approved, which Stanford investors will be entitled to distributions from
the Proskauer Settlement?
* Proceeds available for distribution from the Proskauer Settlement will be
distributed on a pro rata basis to all Stanford Investors who (a) have
Allowed Claim Amounts determined by the Receiver’s claim and distribution
process, and (b) have submitted a completed Certification Notice to the
Receiver (as required by the Court’s Order approving the Receiver’s First
Interim Distribution). After the Court approves the Proskauer Settlement and
that approval has become final, the Receiver will file a motion proposing and
asking the Court to approve a specific distribution plan for available
proceeds from the Proskauer Settlement.
* How do I object to the Proskauer Settlement or its terms?
* Any objection to the Proskauer Settlement or its terms, the Motion to Approve
the Settlement, the Application for Attorneys’ Fees, or the Judgments and Bar
Orders must be filed in writing with the Court in the SEC Action no later
than November 23, 2018. Any objections not filed by that date will be deemed
waived and will not be considered by the Court. Those wishing to appear and
present objections at the Final Approval Hearing must include a request to
appear in their written objections. Please refer to the Scheduling Order and
Notice (available at the links above) for additional instructions.
* When will the Court make a final determination on the Motion to Approve the
Settlement?
* The Final Approval Hearing is set for Friday, December 14, 2018 at 10:00 AM.
The Court will issue its decision at the hearing or some point thereafter.
* If the Court approves the motion, when can I expect my distribution payment?
* The Proskauer Settlement contemplates that the Receiver will file a Motion
for approval of a distribution plan after the Court approves the settlement
and the settlement amount has been paid to the Receiver.
The timing of the payment of the settlement amount will depend, first, upon
when the Court enters its order approving the Proskauer Settlement and,
second, upon whether any objecting party pursues an appeal from the Court’s
order approving the settlement.
The timing of the Court’s approval and any subsequent distribution has yet to
be determined. As additional information becomes available, the Receiver and
Examiner will post updates to the Stanford Financial Group Receivership
websites and to the Examiner’s website.
* I have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver. Do I need
to file another Proof of Claim form to be considered in the Proskauer
Distribution Plan?
* NO. If you have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver,
you DO NOT need to file another form. There is no further action required by
you at this time.
* I have not received a Notice of Determination with my claim number. How can I
be sure you received my Proof of Claim Form?
* You should contact the Receiver’s Claims Agent to request your claim number:
1. By email at info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com
2. By phone at 866-964-6301 or 317-324-0757.
Nineteenth Joint Advisory regarding Pending Motions - On November 30, 2018, the
Receiver and the Examiner filed their nineteenth advisory to the Court regarding
fully briefed motions ripe for ruling. To view the advisory, please click here.
Receiver's 16th Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities - On November 30, 2018, the Receiver filed a
report with the Court that discusses the status of the Receivership, the
Receivership's asset collection efforts and ongoing activities. To view the
report, click here.
Receiver Files Motion for Approval of 5th Interim Distribution Plan - On
September 18, 2018, the Receiver filed a Motion for Approval of 5th Interim
Distribution Plan. To view a copy of the motion, click here.
Receiver files Additional Schedules of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to the 1st,
2nd, 3rd, and 4th Interim Distribution Plans - On August 29, 2018, the Receiver
filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division, the 18th Schedule of distribution payments under the 1st
Interim Distribution Plan, the 9th Schedule of distribution payments under the
2nd Interim Distribution Plan, the 5th Schedule of distribution payments under
the 3rd Interim Distribution Plan, and the 3rd Schedule of distribution payments
under the 4th Interim Distribution Plan. These four Schedules will be followed
by others, each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis.
To view a copy of these four Schedules, please click here.
Seventeenth Joint Advisory regarding Pending Motions - On May 18, 2018, the
Receiver and the Examiner filed their seventeenth advisory to the Court
regarding fully briefed motions ripe for ruling. To view the advisory, please
click here.
Receiver's 15th Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities - On May 18, 2018, the Receiver filed a report
with the Court that discusses the status of the Receivership, the Receivership's
asset collection efforts and ongoing activities. To view the report, click here.
District Court Denies Motions for Leave to Intervene - On May 7, 2018, the
District Court denied twelve pending motions to intervene filed by Stanford
Investors. The Court held that Movants failed to establish a right to intervene
because (1) their interests are adequately represented by the Receiver, the
Official Stanford Investors Committee, the court-appointed Examiner, and the
Securities and Exchange Commission, and (2) given the Receiver’s claims process,
disposition of the action does not impair or impede Movants’ ability to protect
their interests. To view the order, click here.
District Court Approves Settlement with Hunton and Williams LLP - On March 26,
2018, the District Court approved a settlement agreement by and among the
Receiver, the Official Stanford Investors Committee, and certain individual
Investor Plaintiffs, and Hunton and Williams LLP. Pursuant to the terms of the
settlement, once the District Court’s order becomes final, the Receivership
Estate will receive $34 million. The Receiver will file a motion with the
District Court asking for permission to distribute the proceeds of the
settlement after they are received, net of attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded
by the Court, to Stanford Investors who have claims approved by the Receiver. To
view a copy of the Court’s Order approving the settlement, click here. To view a
copy of the Court’s Order approving attorneys’ fees, click here.
Receiver's 14th Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities - On November 27, 2017, the Receiver filed a
report with the Court that discusses the status of the Receivership, the
Receivership's asset collection efforts and ongoing activities. To view the
report, click here.
Receiver files additional Schedules of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to the 1st,
2nd, 3rd, and 4th Interim Distribution Plans - On March 22, 2018, the Receiver
filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division, the 17th Schedule of distribution payments under the 1st
Interim Distribution Plan, the 8th Schedule of distribution payments under the
2nd Interim Distribution Plan, the 4th Schedule of distribution payments under
the 3rd Interim Distribution Plan, and the 2nd Schedule of distribution payments
under the 4th Interim Distribution Plan. These four Schedules will be followed
by others, each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis.
To view a copy of these four Schedules, please click here.
District Court Approves Settlement with Bowen Miclette & Britt, Inc. and Related
Persons - On August 23, 2017, the District Court approved a settlement agreement
by and among the Receiver, the Official Stanford Investors Committee, and
certain individual Investor Plaintiffs, and Bowen Miclette & Britt, Inc. (and
related persons) (“BMB”). Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, once the
District Court’s order becomes final, the Receivership Estate will receive
$12.85 million. The Receiver will file a motion with the District Court asking
for permission to distribute the proceeds of the settlement after they are
received, net of attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded by the Court, to Stanford
Investors who have claims approved by the Receiver. To view a copy of the
Court’s Order approving the settlement, click here. To view a copy of the
Court’s Order approving attorneys’ fees, click here.
District Court Approves Settlement with Willis Towers Watson Public Limited
Company and Related Persons and Entities - On August 23, 2017, the District
Court approved a settlement agreement by and among the Receiver, the Official
Stanford Investors Committee, and certain individual Investor Plaintiffs, and
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company (and related persons and entities).
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, once the District Court’s order becomes
final, the Receivership Estate will receive $120 million. The Receiver will file
a motion with the District Court asking for permission to distribute the
proceeds of the settlement after they are received, net of attorneys’ fees and
expenses awarded by the Court, to Stanford Investors who have claims approved by
the Receiver. To view a copy of the Court’s Order approving the settlement,
click here. To view a copy of the Court’s Order approving attorneys’ fees, click
here.
Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with
Hunton & Williams, LLP - On August 16, 2017, the Receiver, the Official Stanford
Investors Committee (“OSIC”) and certain individual Investor Plaintiffs filed a
Motion seeking Court approval of a settlement entered into with Hunton &
Williams, LLP (“Hunton”). Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the
Receivership Estate will receive $34 million. On August 23, 2017, the Court
entered a Scheduling Order setting a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Hunton
Settlement and establishing a schedule for the submission of objections.
The Court has set a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Hunton Settlement at
10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, November 28, 2017. Any party wishing to file an objection
to the Hunton Settlement must do so no later than Tuesday, November 7, 2017.
You may access the materials pertaining to the Hunton Settlement by clicking on
the links below:
* Scheduling Order, click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Motion to Approve Hunton Settlement, click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Appendix in Support of Motion to Approve Hunton Settlement, click HERE
(English)
* Settlement Agreement, click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Proposed Bar Order (SEC Action) (Exhibit B), click HERE (English) and HERE
(Spanish)
* Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings, click HERE (English) and HERE
(Spanish)
* Publication Notice, click HERE (English)
* Release as to Carlos Loumiet (Exhibit E), click HERE (English) and HERE
(Spanish)
HUNTON SETTLEMENT FAQs:
* Why did the Plaintiffs and Receiver settle with Hunton for $34 million?
* The reasons for the amount of the settlement are discussed at length in the
Motion to Approve the Settlement and the Declarations included in the
Appendix to the Motion. You can review the Motion to Approve the Settlement
and the supporting Appendix by clicking on the links above.
* If approved, which Stanford investors will be entitled to distributions from
the Hunton Settlement?
* Proceeds available for distribution from the Hunton Settlement will be
distributed on a pro rata basis to all Stanford Investors who (a) have
Allowed Claim Amounts determined by the Receiver’s claim and distribution
process, and (b) have submitted a completed Certification Notice to the
Receiver (as required by the Court’s Order approving the Receiver’s First
Interim Distribution). The Receiver will file a motion proposing and asking
the Court to approve a specific distribution plan for available proceeds from
the Hunton Settlement.
* How do I object to the Hunton Settlement or its terms?
* Any objection to the Hunton Settlement or its terms, the Motion to Approve
the Settlement, the Application for Attorneys’ Fees, or the Judgments and Bar
Orders must be filed in writing with the Court in the SEC Action no later
than November 7, 2017. Any objections not filed by that date will be deemed
waived and will not be considered by the Court. Those wishing to appear and
present objections at the Final Approval Hearing must include a request to
appear in their written objections. Please refer to the Scheduling Order and
Notice (available at the links above) for additional instructions.
* When will the Court make a final determination on the Motion to Approve the
Hunton Settlement?
* The Final Approval Hearing is set for Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 10:00 AM.
The Court will issue its decision at the hearing or some point thereafter.
* If the Court approves the Hunton Settlement, when can I expect my
distribution payment?
* The Hunton Settlement contemplates that the Receiver will file a Motion for
approval of a plan to distribute the net settlement proceeds after the Court
approves the settlement and the settlement amount has been paid to the
Receiver.
The timing of the payment of the settlement amount will depend, first, upon
when the Court enters its order approving the Hunton Settlement and, second,
upon whether any objecting party pursues an appeal from the Court’s order
approving the settlement.
The timing of the Court’s approval and any subsequent distribution has yet to
be determined. As additional information becomes available, the Receiver and
Examiner will post updates to the Stanford Financial Group Receivership
websites and to the Examiner’s website.
* I have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver. Do I need
to file another Proof of Claim form to be considered in the Hunton
Distribution Plan?
* NO. If you have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver,
you DO NOT need to file another form. There is no further action required by
you at this time.
* I have received a Notice of Determination with my claim number, but have not
received any distributions. Why is that?
* There are several potential reasons for why you may not have received any
distributions, including but not limited to:
First, you cannot receive distributions until you have submitted a completed
Certification Notice to the Receiver (as required by the Court’s Order
approving the Receiver’s First Interim Distribution).
Second, you will not receive distributions if you have objected to the
Receiver’s Notice of Determination and that objection has not been resolved.
If you have submitted your completed Certification Notice and have not
objected to the Receiver’s Notice of Determination, you should contact the
Receiver’s Claims Agent via email or phone as set forth below.
* I have not received a Notice of Determination with my claim number. How can I
be sure you received my Proof of Claim Form?
* You should contact the Receiver’s Claims Agent to request your claim number:
1. By email at info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com
2. By phone at 866-964-6301 or 317-324-0757.
Receiver's 13th Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities - On June 1, 2017, the Receiver filed a report
with the Court that discusses the status of the Receivership, the Receivership's
asset collection efforts and ongoing activities. To view the report, click here.
Receiver files 1st Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 4th Interim
Distribution Plan - On June 30, 2017, the Receiver filed with the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, the 1st
Schedule of distribution payments under the 4th Interim Distribution Plan. The
1st Schedule will be followed by others, each of which will be submitted by the
Receiver on a rolling basis. To view a copy of the 1st Schedule, please click
here.
Update on Receiver's Lawsuit Against Former Stanford Financial Advisors - In
March 2017, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that the Receiver is
not required to arbitrate his claims to recover payments to former Stanford
financial advisors and other Stanford employees of proceeds generated from the
sale of Stanford International Bank CDs. Following entry of judgment by the
Court of Appeals, the Receiver returned to the District Court to pursue those
claims. On June 15, 2017, the Receiver filed an amended complaint, consolidating
several previously-filed complaints and identifying newly-discovered payments
received by the defendants.
As amended, the Receiver's complaint now seeks to recover more than $289 million
from 313 former financial advisors and other Stanford employees. The Receiver
alleges that the payments the defendants received were fraudulent transfers;
that the defendants failed to provide reasonably equivalent value in exchange
for the payments; and that the defendants did not take the payments in good
faith. The Receiver also alleges that the defendants were unjustly enriched by
the payments, at the expense of Stanford investors. The lawsuit seeks return of
the payments, together with prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees.
The District Court has set the Receiver's claims for trial beginning in July
2018.
To view a copy of the amended complaint, click here. To view a copy of the
Court's scheduling order setting the Receiver's claims for trial, click here.
District Court Approves Settlement with Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of
London, Lexington Insurance Company, and Arch Specialty Insurance Company - On
May 16, 2017, the District Court approved a settlement agreement by and among
the Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee and Certain Underwriters
at Lloyd’s of London, Lexington Insurance Company, and Arch Specialty Insurance
Company. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, once the District Court’s
order becomes final, the Receivership Estate will receive $65.0 million.
Following receipt of the settlement funds, the Receiver will file a motion
asking the District Court for permission to distribute the proceeds of the
settlement, net of attorneys’ fees awarded by the Court, to Stanford Investors
who have claims approved by the Receiver. To view a copy of the Court’s Order
approving the settlement, click here. To view a copy of the Court’s Order
approving attorneys’ fees, click here.
Court Approves Receiver's 4th Interim Distribution Plan - On May 16, 2017, the
Court approved the Receiver's 4th Interim Distribution Plan. A copy of the order
approving the 4th Interim Distribution Plan may be found here.
Receiver files additional Schedules of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to the 1st,
2nd, and 3rd Interim Distribution Plans - On April 27, 2017, the Receiver filed
with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, the 16th Schedule of distribution payments under the 1st Interim
Distribution Plan, the 7th Schedule of distribution payments under the 2nd
Interim Distribution Plan, and the 3rd Schedule of distribution payments under
the 3rd Interim Distribution Plan. These three Schedules will be followed by
others, each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis. To
view a copy of these three Schedules, please click here.
Fifth Circuit Rules Receiver Not Required to Arbitrate $215 million Fraudulent
Transfer Claim Against Former Stanford Financial Advisers - On March 16, 2017,
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its mandate in Janvey v. Alguire, Case
No. 14-10857, bringing to a close a long-running dispute between the Stanford
Receiver and more than 300 former Stanford financial advisers who were trying to
compel the Receiver to assert his claims against them in arbitration.
The financial advisers had asserted that the Receiver was bound by Allen
Stanford’s agreements with them to arbitrate any disputes arising out of their
employment with Stanford. In a per curiam opinion, a panel of the Fifth Circuit
unanimously held that the Receiver was not bound to those arbitration agreements
because he was bringing his claims on behalf of Stanford International Bank
alone, a receivership entity that never had any arbitration agreement with the
former Stanford brokers.
The Receiver’s lawsuit seeks to recover more than $215 million in fraudulent
transfers made to the former Stanford brokers, all of whom profited from the
sale of fraudulent Stanford International Bank CDs. In a concurring opinion,
Judge Higginbotham colorfully summarized the Receiver’s lawsuit thusly:
“The present case concerns the proper division of illegally procured booty from
victims of a criminal enterprise—over $200 million, payable but frozen in
accounts of sales persons of the enterprise, some having earned in excess of $2
million for their role in the scheme. In short, we have in judicial control over
$200 million in booty, undisputed to be proceeds from the criminal scheme.”
Several years and thousands of miles were logged between Dallas and New Orleans
in the dispute over the arbitration issue leading up to the Fifth Circuit’s
recent ruling:
* In 2010, the District Court entered an injunction, freezing more than $25
million in assets nominally owned by the financial advisers, which assets
were subject to Stanford control at the time the Receivership was instituted
in 2009. That injunction was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit in 2010 over the
objection of the former Stanford financial advisers, who argued, among other
things, that the Receiver was required to arbitrate his claims.
* In its original 2010 opinion, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the Receiver
was not required to arbitrate his claims with the financial advisers because
the Receiver stood in the shoes of Stanford’s creditors in the assertion of
his fraudulent transfer claims, rather than in the shoes of the Stanford
entities. The Fifth Circuit later withdrew the part of its opinion concerning
arbitration, concluding that the District Court should have addressed the
arbitration issue in the first instance.
* The case then returned to the District Court, which, in 2011, decided the
arbitration issue in favor of the Receiver based on the reasoning in the
original 2010 Fifth Circuit opinion. The case then returned to the Fifth
Circuit.
* In 2013, the Fifth Circuit reversed its original reasoning on the standing
issue and remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether the
Receiver was required to arbitrate his claims in light of the Fifth Circuit’s
conclusion that the Receiver was required to stand in the shoes of the
Stanford entities.
* In 2014, the District Court concluded that the Receiver was not required to
arbitrate even acting as a representative of the Stanford entities. The
District Court rejected the Receiver’s argument that he could stand in the
shoes of Stanford International Bank alone, rather than in the shoes of the
Stanford entities that signed the arbitration agreements with the former
Stanford financial advisers. But the District Court concluded that the
arbitration agreements were unenforceable. The case then returned to the
Fifth Circuit.
* In its latest opinion on the arbitration issue, the Fifth Circuit concluded
that the Receiver was properly acting on behalf of Stanford International
Bank alone, and that Stanford International Bank had not consented to
arbitrate with the former Stanford financial advisers.
Following issuance of the mandate, the case now returns to the District Court
where the financial advisers, to avoid a judgment in favor of the Receiver, will
be required to prove both that they provided reasonably equivalent value to
Stanford International Bank in exchange for the fraudulent transfers they
received and that they took those transfers in good faith. They will have to do
so in in view of the following observation from the Fifth Circuit in its 2017
opinion:
“The defendants argue that the inflated commissions paid to them under the
contracts benefited the Bank because they induced more creditors to invest in
the Bank, but this argument conflates Stanford with his victim corporations.
Expanding the number of defrauded investors in the Bank merely expanded the
Bank’s ultimate liabilities and increased the injury to the Bank; it did not
benefit the Bank as a corporate entity distinct from the fraudster, Stanford.”
To view a copy of the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and opinion, click here.
Defendant David Nanes Arrested in Mexico City - International fugitive David
Nanes, former President of Stanford Group Mexico and a key participant in the
massive Stanford Ponzi scheme, was arrested in Mexico City on January 26, 2017.
Mr. Nanes has been sought by Mexican authorities for financial crimes relating
to his role in the Stanford Ponzi scheme. On October 5, 2016, the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, entered
judgment for the Receiver against David Nanes for more than $14 million. Click
here to view the Receiver’s report to the Court concerning the arrest.
United States Supreme Court Denies Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the
Criminal Case Against R. Allen Stanford - In 2012, a jury convicted R. Allen
Stanford of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1349; four counts of wire fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2; five counts of mail fraud in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2; one count of conspiracy to obstruct a Securities and
Exchange Commission (“SEC”) investigation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505 and
371; one count of obstruction of an SEC investigation in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1505 and 2; and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas sentenced Stanford to a term of 110 years in prison,
and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit unanimously
affirmed the District Court’s judgment. Stanford then filed a petition for writ
of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. On November 28, 2016, the
Supreme Court denied Stanford’s petition, thus upholding his 2012 conviction.
For a copy of the order denying Stanford’s petition, click here.
Receiver's 12th Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities - On December 2, 2016, the Receiver filed a
report with the Court that discusses the status of the Receivership, the
Receivership's asset collection efforts and ongoing activities. To view the
report, click here.
Receiver files the next three Schedules of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to the
1st, 2nd, and 3rd Interim Distribution Plans - On November 11, 2016, the
Receiver filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Dallas Division, the 15th Schedule of distribution payments under the
1st Interim Distribution Plan, the 6th Schedule of distribution payments under
the 2nd Interim Distribution Plan, and the 2nd Schedule of distribution payments
under the 3rd Interim Distribution Plan. These three Schedules will be followed
by others, each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis.
To view a copy of these three Schedules, please click here.
Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlements with
Stanford’s Insurance Brokers
Willis Settlement.
On September 7, 2016, the Receiver, the Official Stanford Investors Committee
(“OSIC”) and certain individual Investor Plaintiffs filed a Motion seeking Court
approval of a settlement entered into with Willis Towers Watson Public Limited
Company (and related persons and entities) (“Willis”). Pursuant to the terms of
the settlement, the Receivership Estate will receive $120 million. On October
19, 2016, the Court entered a Scheduling Order setting a hearing on the Motion
to Approve the Willis Settlement and establishing a schedule for the submission
of objections.
The Court has set a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Willis Settlement at
10:00 a.m. on Friday, January 20, 2017. Any party wishing to file an objection
to the Willis Settlement must do so no later than Friday, December 30, 2016.
You may access the materials pertaining to the Willis Settlement by clicking on
the links below:
* Scheduling Order, click HERE
* Motion to Approve Willis Settlement, click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Appendix in Support of Motion to Approve Willis Settlement, click HERE
* Settlement Agreement, click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish) (Incluyendo
Anexos)
* Proposed Bar Order (SEC Action) (Exhibit C), click HERE (English) and HERE
(Spanish)
* Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings, click HERE (English) and HERE
(Spanish)
* Publication Notice, click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish)
WILLIS SETTLEMENT FAQs:
* Why did the Plaintiffs and Receiver settle with Willis for $120 million?
* The reasons for the amount of the settlement are discussed at length in the
Motion to Approve the Settlement and the Declarations included in the
Appendix to the Motion. You can review the Motion to Approve the Settlement
and the supporting Appendix by clicking on the links above.
* If approved, which Stanford investors will be entitled to distributions from
the Willis Settlement?
* Proceeds available for distribution from the Willis Settlement will be
distributed on a pro rata basis to all Stanford Investors who (a) have
Allowed Claim Amounts determined by the Receiver’s claim and distribution
process, and (b) have submitted a completed Certification Notice to the
Receiver (as required by the Court’s Order approving the Receiver’s First
Interim Distribution). After the Court approves the Willis Settlement and
that approval has become final, the Receiver will file a motion proposing and
asking the Court to approve a specific distribution plan for available
proceeds from the Willis Settlement.
* How do I object to the Willis Settlement or its terms?
* Any objection to the Willis Settlement or its terms, the Motion to Approve
the Settlement, the Application for Attorneys’ Fees, or the Judgments and Bar
Orders must be filed in writing with the Court in the SEC Action no later
than December 30, 2016. Any objections not filed by that date will be deemed
waived and will not be considered by the Court. Those wishing to appear and
present objections at the Final Approval Hearing must include a request to
appear in their written objections. Please refer to the Scheduling Order and
Notice (available at the links above) for additional instructions.
* When will the Court make a final determination on the Motion to Approve the
Settlement?
* The Final Approval Hearing is set for Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:00 AM.
The Court will issue its decision at the hearing or some point thereafter.
* If the Court approves the motion, when can I expect my distribution payment?
* The Willis Settlement contemplates that the Receiver will file a Motion for
approval of a distribution plan after the Court approves the settlement and
the settlement amount has been paid to the Receiver.
The timing of the payment of the settlement amount will depend, first, upon
when the Court enters its order approving the Willis Settlement and, second,
upon whether any objecting party pursues an appeal from the Court’s order
approving the settlement.
* I have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver. Do I need
to file another Proof of Claim form to be considered in the Willis
Distribution Plan?
* NO. If you have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver,
you DO NOT need to file another form. There is no further action required by
you at this time.
* I have not received a Notice of Determination with my claim number. How can I
be sure you received my Proof of Claim Form?
* You should contact the Receiver’s Claims Agent to request your claim number:
1. By email at info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com
2. By phone at 866-964-6301 or 317-324-0757
BMB Settlement. On September 28, 2016, the Receiver, the OSIC and certain
individual Investor Plaintiffs filed a Motion seeking Court approval of a
settlement entered into with Bowen, Miclette & Britt, Inc. (and related persons)
(“BMB”). Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Receivership Estate will
receive $12.85 million. On October 19, 2016, the Court entered a Scheduling
Order setting a hearing on the Motion to Approve the BMB Settlement and
establishing a schedule for the submission of objections.
The Court has set a hearing on the Motion to Approve the BMB Settlement at 10:00
a.m. on Friday, January 20, 2017. Any party wishing to file an objection to the
BMB Settlement must do so no later than Friday, December 30, 2016.
You may access the materials pertaining to the BMB Settlement by clicking on the
links below:
* Scheduling Order, click HERE
* Motion to Approve BMB Settlement, click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Appendix in Support of Motion to Approve BMB Settlement, click HERE (English)
* Settlement Agreement, click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish) (including
exhibits thereto)
* Proposed Bar Order (SEC Action), click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings, click HERE (English) and HERE
(Spanish)
* Publication Notice, click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish)
BMB SETTLEMENT FAQs:
* Why did the Plaintiffs and Receiver settle with the BMB Defendants for $12.85
million?
* The reasons for the amount of the settlement are discussed at length in the
Motion to Approve the Settlement and the Declarations included in the
Appendix to the Motion. You can review the Motion to Approve the Settlement
and the supporting Appendix by clicking on the links above.
* If approved, which Stanford investors will be entitled to distributions from
the BMB Settlement?
* Proceeds available for distribution from the BMB Settlement will be
distributed on a pro rata basis to all Stanford Investors who (a) have
Allowed Claim Amounts determined by the Receiver’s claim and distribution
process, and (b) have submitted a completed Certification Notice to the
Receiver (as required by the Court’s Order approving the Receiver’s First
Interim Distribution). After the Court approves the BMB Settlement and that
approval has become final, the Receiver will file a motion proposing and
asking the Court to approve a specific distribution plan for available
proceeds from the BMB Settlement.
* How do I object to the BMB Settlement or its terms?
* Any objection to the BMB Settlement or its terms, the Motion to Approve the
Settlement, the Application for Attorneys’ Fees, or the Judgments and Bar
Order must be filed in writing, with the Court in the SEC Action no later
than December 30, 2016. Any objections not filed by that date will be deemed
waived and will not be considered by the Court. Those wishing to appear and
present objections at the Final Approval Hearing must include a request to
appear in their written objections. Please refer to the Scheduling Order and
Notice (available at the links above) for additional instructions.
* When will the Court make a final determination on the Motion to Approve the
Settlement?
* The Final Approval Hearing is set for Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:00 AM.
The Court will issue its decision at the hearing or some point thereafter.
* If the Court approves the motion, when can I expect my distribution payment?
* The BMB Settlement contemplates that the Receiver will file a Motion for
approval of a distribution plan after the Court approves the settlement and
the settlement amount has been paid to the Receiver.
The timing of the payment of the settlement amount will depend, first, upon
when the Court enters its order approving the BMB Settlement and, second,
upon whether any objecting party pursues an appeal from the Court’s order
approving the settlement.
The timing of the Court’s approval and any subsequent distribution has yet to
be determined. As additional information becomes available, the Receiver and
Examiner will post updates to the Stanford Financial Group Receivership
websites and to the Examiner’s website.
* I have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver. Do I need
to file another Proof of Claim form to be considered in the BMB Distribution
Plan?
* NO. If you have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver,
you DO NOT need to file another form. There is no further action required by
you at this time.
* I have not received a Notice of Determination with my claim number. How can I
be sure you received my Proof of Claim Form?
* You should contact the Receiver’s Claims Agent to request your claim number:
1. By email at info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com
2. By phone at 866-964-6301 or 317-324-0757.
Attorneys’ Fees Payable from the Willis and BMB Settlements. On October 5, 2016,
the Receiver, the OSIC and certain individual Investor Plaintiffs filed a Motion
for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses in connection with the settlements
with Willis and BMB. In that Motion, the Receiver, the OSIC and the Investor
Plaintiffs seek Court approval to pay a total of $30 million to Plaintiffs’
Counsel in connection with the Willis and BMB Settlements. That amount
represents 22.582% of the gross recovery expected from the Willis and BMB
Settlements and represents a discount of more than $3.3 million from the 25%
contingency fee that Plaintiffs’ Counsel was entitled to claim pursuant to
Counsel’s agreements with the Receiver, the OSIC, and the Investor Plaintiffs.
The Court has set a hearing on the Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and
Expenses at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, January 20, 2017.
You may access the materials pertaining to the Motion for an Award of Attorneys’
Fees and Expenses by clicking on the links below:
* Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, click HERE (English) and
HERE (Spanish)
* Brief in Support of Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, click
HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Appendix in Support of Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses,
click HERE
Receiver files 1st Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 3rd Interim
Distribution Plan - On September 16, 2016, the Receiver filed his 1st Schedule
of distribution payments under the 3rd Interim Distribution Plan with the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The
1st Schedule will be followed by others, each of which will be submitted by the
Receiver on a rolling basis. To view a copy of the 1st Schedule, please click
here.
Receiver files 5th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 2nd Interim
Distribution Plan - On September 2, 2016, the Receiver filed his 5th Schedule of
distribution payments under the 2nd Interim Distribution Plan with the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The
5th Schedule will be followed by others, each of which will be submitted by the
Receiver on a rolling basis. To view a copy of the 5th Schedule, please click
here.
Receiver files 4th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 2nd Interim
Distribution Plan - On August 10, 2016, the Receiver filed his 4th Schedule of
distribution payments under the 2nd Interim Distribution Plan with the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The
4th Schedule will be followed by others, each of which will be submitted by the
Receiver on a rolling basis. To view a copy of the 4th Schedule, please click
here.
Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, Lexington Insurance Company, and Arch
Specialty Insurance Company and Seek Court Approval - On June 27, 2016, the
Receiver and the Official Stanford Investors Committee filed a Motion seeking
Court Approval of a settlement entered into with Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s
of London, Lexington Insurance Company, and Arch Specialty Insurance Company
(collectively, “Underwriters”). Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the
Receivership Estate will receive $65.0 million. On July 11, 2016, the Court
entered a Scheduling Order setting a hearing on the Motion to Approve the
Settlement and establishing a schedule for the submission of objections. On July
21, 2016, the Court reset the hearing date.
The hearing on the Motion to Approve the Settlement is scheduled for Friday,
October 28, 2016 at 10:00 am. Any party wishing to file an objection to the
settlement must do so no later than Friday, September 30, 2016, and must do so
in accordance with the requirements established by the Court in its Scheduling
Order.
You may access the materials pertaining to the Underwriters settlement by
clicking on the links below:
* Scheduling Order, click HERE.
* Order Resetting Hearing on Motion to Approve Settlement, click HERE.
* Motion to Approve the Settlement, click HERE.
* Appendix in Support of the Motion to Approve the Settlement, including the
Settlement Agreement itself and Exhibits and Amendment thereto, click HERE.
* Settlement Agreement, including Exhibits and Amendment thereto, click HERE
(Spanish).
* Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings (Exhibit F), click HERE
(English) and HERE (Spanish).
* Publication Notice (Exhibit G), click HERE (English) and HERE (Spanish).
Underwriters Settlement FAQs:
* Q. Why did the Plaintiffs settle for $65 million?
* A. The reasons for the amount of the settlement are discussed at length in
the Motion to Approve the Settlement and the Declarations included in the
Appendix to the Motion, all of which are hyperlinked above.
* Q: How was the amount to be paid to the Plaintiffs’ attorneys determined?
* A: The Plaintiffs’ attorneys entered into agreements that set their fee at 33
1/3% of the Net Recovery obtained. The agreements also provided that the
Plaintiffs’ attorneys would not be paid if they were not successful. The
Plaintiffs’ attorneys have agreed to significantly reduce their fee to 21.5%
of the Net Recovery.
* Q: If approved, which Stanford investors will be entitled to distributions
from the Underwriters settlement?
* A: Proceeds available for distribution from the Underwriters Settlement will
be distributed on a pro rata basis to all Stanford investors who (a) have
Allowed Claim Amounts determined by the Receiver’s claim and distribution
process, and (b) have submitted a completed Certifications to the Receiver
(as required by the Court’s Order approving the Receiver’s First Interim
Distribution). After the Court approves the Underwriters Settlement, the
Receiver will file a motion proposing and asking the Court to approve a
specific distribution plan for available proceeds from the Underwriters
Settlement.
* Q: How do I object to the Underwriters Settlement or its terms?
* A: Any objection to the Underwriters Settlement or its terms, the Motion to
Approve the Settlement, the Application for Attorneys’ Fees, the Bar Order,
or the Judgment and Bar Order must be filed in writing, with the Court in the
SEC Action no later than September 30, 2016. Any objections not filed by that
date will be deemed waived and will not be considered by the Court. Those
wishing to appear and present objections at the Final Approval Hearing must
include a request to appear in their written objections. Please refer to the
Scheduling Order and the Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings (both
of which are hyperlinked above) for additional instructions.
* Q: When will the Court make a final determination on the Motion to Approve
the Settlement?
* A: The Final Approval Hearing is set for October 28, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. The
Court will issue its decision at the hearing or some point thereafter.
* Q: If the Court approves the motion, when can I expect my distribution
payment?
* A: The Underwriters Settlement contemplates that the Receiver will file a
Motion for approval of a distribution plan after the Court approves the
settlement. The timing of the Court’s approval and any subsequent
distribution has yet to be determined. As additional information becomes
available, the Receiver and Examiner will post updates to the Stanford
Financial Group Receivership websites and on the Examiner’s website.
* Q: I have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver. Do I
need to file another Proof of Claim form to be considered in the Underwriters
Distribution Plan?
* A: If you have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver,
you DO NOT need to file another Proof of Claim.
* Q: I have not received a Notice of Determination with my claim number. How
can I be sure you received my Proof of Claim Form?
* A: You should contact the Receiver’s Claims Agent to request your claim
number: (1) by email at info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com, or (2) by phone at
866-964-6301 or 317-324-0757.
Notice Of Public Auction Of Real Property In Union County, Mississippi - RALPH
S. JANVEY, in his capacity as the Court-appointed receiver for Stanford
International Bank, Ltd. et al., in Case No. 3:09-CV-0298-N, pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, hereby posts, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2002, this notice of his
intention to sell to the highest qualified bidder(s) the following property:
approximately two hundred twenty six and sixty-nine hundredths (226.69) acres of
real property situated in part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 10 and the
Southeast, Southwest and Northwest Quarters of Section 11, Township 6 South,
Range 5 East, of Union County, Mississippi
with a starting minimum bid of $396,550.00.
The Receiver has entered into a stalking horse contract with Mr. Robert W.
Davis, Sr. and Mr. Randy L. Hickox, a Mississippi partnership, which specifies
the starting minimum bid that will be required. Any competing offers must be
made pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Real Property Sales
Procedures approved by the Court on January 26, 2010, and should be received in
good form no later than Friday, July 29, 2016.
The property will be sold at public auction to be held on Monday, August 1, 2016
at 3:00 p.m. at 1200 Jefferson Ave, Suite 205, Oxford, MS 38655. Sales will be
for cash or cash equivalents. The Real Property Sales Procedures require bidders
to post a deposit in cash or certified funds of no less than five percent of the
bidder’s proposed purchase price bid. Sales will be “AS IS” with no
representations or warranties of any type, and will close no later than 65
calendar days after the date of entry of a final order of the Court approving
the sales.
The Receiver reserves the right to postpone or adjourn the auction, to accept
any bid or to reject any and all bids that he deems not to be in the best
interests of the Receivership Estate, or to withdraw the property at any time
prior to the announcement of the completion of the auction. The Receiver’s
acceptance of any bid is expressly conditioned on the successful bidder
executing a purchase and sale agreement in form and content satisfactory to the
Receiver and complying with the Real Property Sales Procedures.
For additional information, including a legal description for the property, a
copy of the Real Property Sales Procedures, or to make a competing offer on the
property, please contact Kimberly Schlanger by mail at Baker Botts L.L.P., One
Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana, Houston, Texas 77002, by email at
kimberly.schlanger@bakerbotts.com or by fax at (713) 229-7799.
Receiver files 14th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 1st Interim
Distribution Plan - On June 17, 2016, the Receiver filed his 14th Schedule of
distribution payments under the 1st Interim Distribution Plan with the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The
14th Schedule will be followed by others, each of which will be submitted by the
Receiver on a rolling basis. To view a copy of the 14th Schedule, please click
here.
Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with
Chadbourne & Parke, LLP and Seek Court Approval - On April 20, 2016, the
Receiver and the Official Stanford Investors Committee filed a Motion seeking
Court Approval of a settlement entered into with Chadbourne & Parke, LLP
(“Chadbourne”). Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Receivership Estate
will receive $35.0 million. On May 10, 2016, the Court entered a Scheduling
Order setting a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Settlement and establishing
a scheduling for the submission of objections.
The Court has set a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Settlement for Friday,
August 12, 2016 at 10:00 am. Any party wishing to file an objection to the
settlement must do so no later than Friday, July 22, 2016, and must do so in
accordance with the requirements established by the Court in its Scheduling
Order.
You may access the materials pertaining to the Chadbourne settlement by clicking
on the links below:
* Scheduling Order, click HERE.
* Motion to Approve the Settlement, click HERE.
* Appendix in Support of the Motion to Approve the Settlement, including the
Settlement Agreement itself and Exhibits A through G thereto, click HERE.
* Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings (Exhibit A), click HERE
(English) and HERE (Spanish)
* Publication Notice (Exhibit G), click HERE.
Chadbourne Settlement FAQs:
* Q: Why did the Plaintiffs settle for $35 million?
* A: The reasons for the amount of the settlement are discussed at length in
the Motion to Approve the Settlement and the Declarations included in the
Appendix to the Motion, all of which are hyperlinked above.
* Q: How was the amount to be paid to the Plaintiffs’ attorneys determined?
* A: The Plaintiffs’ attorneys entered into agreements that set their fee at
25% of the Net Recovery obtained. The agreements also provided that the
Plaintiffs’ attorneys would not be paid if they were not successful.
* Q: If approved, which Stanford investors will be entitled to distributions
from the Chadbourne settlement?
* A: Proceeds from the Chadbourne Settlement will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to all Stanford investors who (a) have Allowed Claim Amounts determined
by the Receiver’s claim and distribution process, and (b) have submitted a
completed Certification Notice to the Receiver (as required by the Court’s
Order approving the Receiver’s First Interim Distribution).
* Q: How do I object to the Chadbourne Settlement or its terms?
* A: Any objection to the Chadbourne Settlement or its terms, the Motion to
Approve the Settlement, the Application for Attorneys’ Fees, or the Judgment
and Bar Order must be filed in writing, with the Court in the SEC Action no
later than July 22, 2016. Any objections not filed by that date will be
deemed waived and will not be considered by the Court. Those wishing to
appear and present objections at the Final Approval Hearing must include a
request to appear in their written objections. Please refer to the Scheduling
Order and the Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings (both of which
are hyperlinked above) for additional instructions.
* Q: When will the Court make a final determination on the Motion to Approve
the Settlement?
* A: The Final Approval Hearing is set for August 12, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. The
Court will issue its decision at the hearing or some point thereafter.
* Q: If the Court approves the motion, when can I expect my distribution
payment?
* A: The Chadbourne Settlement contemplates that the Receiver will file a
Motion for approval of a distribution plan after the Court approves the
settlement. The timing of the Court’s approval and any subsequent
distribution has yet to be determined. As additional information becomes
available, the Receiver and Examiner will post updates to the Stanford
Financial Group Receivership websites and on the Examiner’s website.
* Q: I have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver. Do I
need to file another Proof of Claim form to be considered in the Chadbourne
Distribution Plan?
* A: If you have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver,
you DO NOT need to file another form. There is no further action required by
you at this time.
* Q: I have not received a Notice of Determination with my claim number. How
can I be sure you received my Proof of Claim Form?
* A: You should contact the Receiver’s Claims Agent to request your claim
number: (1) by email at info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com, or (2) by phone at
866-964-6301 or 317-324-0757.
Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with
Kroll and Seek Court Approval - On March 7, 2016, the Receiver and the Official
Stanford Investors Committee filed a Motion seeking Court Approval of a
settlement entered into with Kroll, LLC (f/k/a Kroll, Inc.) and Kroll
Associates, Inc. (collectively, “Kroll”). Pursuant to the terms of the
settlement, the Receivership Estate will receive $24.0 million. On March 23,
2016, the Court entered a Scheduling Order setting a hearing on the Motion to
Approve the Settlement and establishing a scheduling for the submission of
objections.
The Court has set a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Settlement for Friday,
July 8, 2016 at 10:00 am. Any party wishing to file an objection to the
settlement must do so no later than Wednesday, May 18, 2016, and must do so in
accordance with the requirements established by the Court in its Scheduling
Order.
You may access the materials pertaining to the Kroll settlement by clicking on
the links below:
* Scheduling Order, click HERE for English and HERE for Spanish. Click HERE for
the Exhibits to the Scheduling Order (English only).
* Settlement Agreement, click HERE for English and HERE for Spanish.
* Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings, click HERE for English and
HERE for Spanish.
* Publication Notice, click HERE for English and HERE for Spanish.
* Proposed Bar Order and Judgment, click HERE for English and HERE for Spanish.
* Proposed Antiguan Court Orders, click HERE for English and HERE for Spanish.
Kroll Settlement FAQs:
* Q: Why did the Plaintiffs settle for $24 million?
* A: The reasons for the amount of the settlement are discussed at length in
the Motion to Approve the Settlement, the Application for Attorneys’ Fees,
and the Declarations included in the Appendix to the Application. You can
review the Motion to Approve the Settlement by clicking HERE (English only).
You can review the Appendix in support of the Motion to Approve Settlement by
clicking HERE (English only). You can review the Application for Attorneys’
Fees by clicking HERE (English only). You can review the Appendix to the
Application for Attorneys’ Fees by clicking HERE (English only).
* Q: How was the amount to be paid to the Plaintiffs’ attorneys determined?
* A: The Plaintiffs’ attorneys entered into agreements that set their fee at
25% of the Net Recovery obtained. The agreements also provided that the
Plaintiffs’ attorneys would not be paid if they were not successful.
* Q: If approved, which Stanford investors will be entitled to distributions
from the Kroll settlement?
* A: Proceeds from the Kroll Settlement will be distributed on a pro rata basis
to all Stanford investors who (a) have Allowed Claim Amounts determined by
the Receiver’s claim and distribution process, and (b) have submitted a
completed Certification Notice to the Receiver (as required by the Court’s
Order approving the Receiver’s First Interim Distribution).
* Q: How do I object to the Kroll Settlement or its terms?
* A: Any objection to the Kroll Settlement or its terms, the Motion to Approve
the Settlement, or the Judgment and Bar Order must be filed in writing, with
the Court in the SEC Action no later than May 18, 2016. Any objections not
filed by that date will be deemed waived and will not be considered by the
Court. Those wishing to appear and present objections at the Final Approval
Hearing must include a request to appear in their written objections. Please
refer to the motion for additional instructions.
* Q: When will the Court make a final determination on the Motion to Approve
the Settlement?
* A: The Final Approval Hearing is set for July 8, 2016. The Court will issue
its decision at the hearing or some point thereafter.
* Q: If the Court approves the motion, when can I expect my distribution
payment?
* A: The Kroll Settlement contemplates that the Receiver will file a Motion for
approval of a distribution plan after the Court approves the settlement. The
timing of the Court’s approval and any subsequent distribution has yet to be
determined. As additional information becomes available, the Receiver and
Examiner will post updates to the Stanford Financial Group Receivership
websites and on the Examiner’s website.
* Q: I have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver. Do I
need to file another Proof of Claim form to be considered in the Kroll
Distribution Plan?
* A: If you have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver,
you DO NOT need to file another form. There is no further action required by
you at this time.
* Q: I have not received a Notice of Determination with my claim number. How
can I be sure you received my Proof of Claim Form?
* A: You should contact the Receiver’s Claims Agent to request your claim
number: (i) by email at info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com or (ii) by phone at
866-964-6301 or 317-324-0757.
Court Approves Receiver's 3rd Interim Distribution Plan - On March 22, 2016, the
Court approved the Receiver's 3rd Interim Distribution Plan. A copy of the order
approving the 3rd Interim Distribution Plan may be found here.
Receiver files 3rd Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 2nd Interim
Distribution Plan - On February 2, 2016, the Receiver filed his 3rd Schedule of
distribution payments under the 2nd Interim Distribution Plan with the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The
3rd Schedule will be followed by others, each of which will be submitted by the
Receiver on a rolling basis. To view a copy of the 3rd Schedule, please click
here.
Receiver files 13th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 1st Interim
Distribution Plan - On December 17, 2015, the Receiver filed his 13th Schedule
of distribution payments under the 1st Interim Distribution Plan with the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The
13th Schedule will be followed by others, each of which will be submitted by the
Receiver on a rolling basis. To view a copy of the 13th Schedule, please click
here.
Receiver files 2nd Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 2nd Interim
Distribution Plan - On November 19, 2015, the Receiver filed his 2nd Schedule of
distribution payments under the 2nd Interim Distribution Plan with the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The
2nd Schedule will be followed by others, each of which will be submitted by the
Receiver on a rolling basis. To view a copy of the 2nd Schedule, please click
here.
Fifth Circuit Affirms the Judgment in the Criminal Case Against R. Allen
Stanford - After a seven-week jury trial that took place in 2012, R. Allen
Stanford was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail
fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1349; four counts of wire
fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2; five counts of mail fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2; one count of conspiracy to obstruct a
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) investigation in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 1505 and 371; one count of obstruction of an SEC investigation in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505 and 2; and one count of conspiracy to commit
money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas sentenced Stanford to a term of 110
years in prison. Stanford then appealed the District Court’s judgment to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On October 29, 2015, in a
unanimous opinion, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. For
a copy of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion, click here.
Stanford Receiver Wins $50 Million Jury Verdict in First Breach of Fiduciary
Duty Case Against Stanford Insider - On October 2, 2015, a Dallas federal trial
jury found former Stanford Financial Group Treasury Manager Patricia Maldonado
liable for breach of fiduciary duty. From 2000 to 2009, Maldonado was the
Treasury Manager for the Stanford Financial Group. The Stanford Receiver, Ralph
S. Janvey, sued Maldonado, alleging that she owed fiduciary duties to Stanford
International Bank, Ltd. (“SIBL”) in her role as Treasury Manager and that she
failed to comply with those fiduciary duties in connection with numerous
improper transfers from SIBL’s customer deposit accounts, including transfers of
more than $200 million to fund a secret Swiss bank account that Allen Stanford
and James Davis ultimately used to pay bribes to auditors and regulators.
After deliberating for less than three hours, the seven-member jury found that
Maldonado owed fiduciary duties to SIBL and breached those duties. The jury also
found that Maldonado was not entitled to the protection of the business judgment
rule. Finally, the jury concluded that Maldonado’s breaches of duty caused $50
million in damages to SIBL. This was the Receiver’s first civil trial for breach
of fiduciary duty arising from the Stanford Ponzi scheme.
Fifth Circuit Vacates Golf Channel Opinion and Seeks Guidance from Texas Supreme
Court - On June 30, 2015, the Fifth Circuit vacated its March 11, 2015 opinion
in the Golf Channel case and asked the Texas Supreme Court for guidance
regarding the meaning of “reasonably equivalent value” as that term is used in
the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Briefing in the Texas Supreme Court
will begin on September 16, 2015. The Fifth Circuit case is stayed pending
completion of the proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court. For a copy of the
Fifth Circuit’s order, click here.
Receiver files 12th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 1st Interim
Distribution Plan - On July 21, 2015, the Receiver filed his 12th Schedule of
distribution payments under the 1st Interim Distribution Plan with the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The
12th Schedule will be followed by others, each of which will be submitted by the
Receiver on a rolling basis as additional responses to Certification Notices are
received and processed. To view a copy of the 12th Schedule, please click here.
Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlements and Seek
Court Approval
Partial Settlement with Attorneys and Directors of Stanford Trust Company.
On May 12, 2015, the Receiver and the Official Stanford Investors Committee
filed a Motion seeking Court approval of a settlement entered into with Adams &
Reese, LLP, Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, LLP, Robert C. Schmidt, James R. Austin,
Cordell Haymon and Lynette Frazier, both individually and as the independent
executrix of the Estate of Thomas L. Frazer. Pursuant to the terms of the
settlement, the settling defendants will pay over to the Receivership Estate
approximately $4.9 million. The Court has set a hearing on the Motion to Approve
the settlement for Friday, July 31, 2015, at 10:00 am. Any party wishing to file
an objection to the settlement must do so no later than Friday, July 10, 2015,
and must do so in accordance with the requirements established by the Court in
its Scheduling Order.
You may access the materials pertaining to this settlement by clicking on the
links below:
Settlement Agreement, click HERE.
Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings, click HERE.
Scheduling Order, click HERE.
Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement (Expedited Request for Entry of
Scheduling Order and Motion to Approve Proposed Settlement with Adams & Reese
Parties, Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, LLP, Cordell Haymon and Lynette Frazier,
Bar Order, Notice and Attorneys’ Fees), click HERE.
Appendix in Support of Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement, click HERE.
Settlement with BDO USA, LLP and related entities.
On May 15, 2015, the Receiver and the Official Stanford Investors Committee
filed a Motion seeking Court approval of a settlement entered into with BDO USA,
LLP and related BDO entities. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, BDO USA,
LLP, will pay over to the Receivership Estate $40.0 million. The Court has set a
hearing on the Motion to Approve the settlement for Friday, August 28, 2015, at
10:00 am. Any party wishing to file an objection to the settlement must do so no
later than Friday, August 7, 2015, and must do so in accordance with the
requirements established by the Court in its Scheduling Order.
You may access the materials pertaining to this settlement by clicking on the
links below:
Settlement Agreement, click HERE.
Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings, click HERE.
Scheduling Order, click HERE.
Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement (Expedited Request for Entry of
Scheduling Order and Motion to Approve Proposed Settlement with BDO USA, LLP to
Approve the Proposed Notice of Settlement with BDO USA, LLP, to Enter the Bar
Order, to Enter the Final Judgment and Bar Order, and for Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’
Fees), click HERE.
Appendix in Support of Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement, click HERE.
SPECIAL NOTICE FOR STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK CD INVESTORS WHO HAVE NOT ALREADY
FILED A CLAIM.
The terms of the BDO Settlement also provide Stanford International Bank CD
Investors who have not yet filed a claim with the Receiver or the Antiguan Joint
Liquidators with an additional opportunity to file a claim with the Receiver. IF
YOU HAVE ALREADY FILED A CLAIM WITH THE RECEIVER OR JOINT LIQUIDATORS, THIS DOES
NOT APPLY TO YOU. Stanford Investors who have not yet filed a claim with the
Receiver or the Antiguan Joint Liquidators may file a claim with the Receiver by
completing and filing a Proof of Claim on or before August 5, 2015. You may
obtain a Proof of Claim form, in English, HERE, and in Spanish, HERE.
IF YOU HAVE ALREADY FILED A CLAIM WITH THE RECEIVER, YOU DO NOT NEED TO FILE
ANOTHER ONE.
BDO Settlement FAQs:
1. Q. Why did the Plaintiffs settle for $40 million?
2. A. The reasons for the amount of the settlement are discussed at length in
the Motion for Approval and the Declarations included in the Appendix to the
Motion for Approval.
You can review the Motion for Approval by clicking HERE for English and HERE
for Spanish. You can review the Appendix in Support of the Motion for
Approval by clicking HERE (English only).
1. Q: How was the amount to be paid to the Plaintiffs’ attorneys determined?
2. A: The Plaintiffs’ attorneys entered into agreements that set their fee at
25% of the Net Recovery obtained in the BDO lawsuits. The agreements also
provided that the Plaintiffs’ attorneys would not be paid if they were not
successful in the BDO lawsuits.
1. Q: If approved, which Stanford investors will be entitled to distributions
from the BDO settlement?
2. A: Proceeds from the BDO settlement will be distributed on a pro rata basis
to all Stanford investors who (a) have Allowed Claim Amounts determined by
the Receiver’s claim and distribution process, and (b) have submitted a
completed Certification Notice to the Receiver (as required by the Court’s
Order approving the Receiver’s First Interim Distribution).
1. Q: How do I object to the BDO Settlement or its terms?
2. A: Any objection to the BDO Settlement or its terms, the Motion, the
Judgment and Bar Order, or the Final Bar Order, must be filed in writing,
with the Court in the SEC Action no later than August 7, 2015. Any
objections not filed by that date will be deemed waived and will not be
considered by the Court. Those wishing to appear and present objections at
the Final Approval Hearing must include a request to appear in their written
objections. Please refer to the motion for additional instructions.
1. Q: When will the Court make a final determination on the Motion to Approve
the Settlement?
2. A: The final hearing on the Motion to Approve is set for August 28, 2015.
The Court will issue its decision at some point in time following the
hearing.
1. Q: If the Court approves the motion, when can I expect my distribution
payment?
2. A: The BDO Settlement contemplates that the Receiver will file a Motion for
approval of a distribution plan after the Court approves the settlement.
The timing of the Court’s approval and any subsequent distribution have yet
to be determined. As additional information becomes available, the Receiver
and Examiner will post updates to the Stanford Financial Group Receivership
websites and on the Examiner’s website.
1. Q: I have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver. Do I
need to file another Proof of Claim form to be considered in the BDO
Distribution Plan?
2. A: If you have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver
you DO NOT need to file another form. There is no further action required by
you at this time.
1. Q: I filed my Proof of Claim form after the September 1, 2012 bar date. Do I
need to file another Proof of Claim form to be considered in the BDO
Distribution Plan?
2. A: If you have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver
you DO NOT need to file another form.
1. Q: I have not received a Notice of Determination with my claim number. How
can I be sure you received my Proof of Claim Form?
2. A: You should contact the Receiver’s Claims Agent to request your claim
number:
1. By email at info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com
2. By phone at 866-964-6301 or 317-324-0757.
1. Q: I have not filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver. Can I file
one now?
2. A: Under the proposed terms of the BDO Settlement, you may have an
opportunity to participate in the BDO Distribution Plan, and potentially
participate in future distributions of funds obtained by the Receivership as
a result of future litigation settlements or recoveries by filing a Proof of
Claim.
You can download a copy of the Proof of Claim Form from the following link:
http://www.stanfordfinancialclaims.com/pdf/FINAL_STANFORD_BDO%20POC_060115.pdf
You must submit your Proof of Claim Form to the Receiver by August 5, 2015
to be considered for this opportunity.
The Receiver will review and consider all Proof of Claim forms submitted
prior to August 5, 2015 and will determine each such Claim, including
whether to allow such Claim. Submitting a Proof of Claim form does not
guarantee that your Claim will be allowed or that you will receive any
funds.
Receiver Prevails in First Fraudulent Transfer Jury Trial Arising From Stanford
Ponzi Scheme - On February 13, 2015, a federal jury found former U.S. Ambassador
to Ecuador Peter Romero liable for approximately $800,000 in fraudulent
transfers he received from the Stanford Ponzi scheme in his role as a member of
the Stanford International Advisory Board. Romero is one of several former
dignitaries that Stanford recruited to lend credibility to Stanford’s fraudulent
operations and to market Stanford’s fraudulent certificates of deposit to
clients and potential clients of the Ponzi scheme.
In the first fraudulent transfer jury verdict arising from the Stanford Ponzi
scheme, the seven-member jury found that Romero did not take the advisory board
fees he received from Stanford in good faith and for reasonably equivalent
value. After deliberating for just over two hours, the jury also found that
Romero was unjustly enriched by payments he from Stanford. The jury rejected
Romero’s contention that the Receiver’s February 2011 complaint was not timely.
The favorable verdict against Romero has wide-ranging implications for the
approximately 60 other lawsuits the Receiver has filed against more than 1300
defendants to recover assets for the Receivership Estate. These lawsuits serve
as the largest source of potential recovery for the victims of the Stanford
fraud.
Fifth Circuit Orders Golf Channel to Repay Millions to Receiver - On March 11,
2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the District
Court’s summary judgment against the Receiver on his Texas Uniform Fraudulent
Transfer Act (TUFTA) claims against Golf Channel, and rendered judgment in the
Receiver’s favor on those same claims.
The Receiver was seeking repayment of nearly $6 million that had been paid to
Golf Channel from the Stanford Ponzi scheme. Stanford Financial Group paid
millions of dollars to Golf Channel as part of a strategic “co-branding”
advertising campaign that Stanford used to promote his business and attract
wealthy investors to his investment scheme. In the District Court, Golf Channel
argued that it was not liable because Stanford paid Golf Channel the market rate
for its services pursuant to a valid contract, and thus Golf Channel had
provided “reasonably equivalent value” in return for the payments. The District
Court accepted this argument and granted summary judgment against the Receiver.
The issue of reasonably equivalent value was the only disputed element of Golf
Channel’s affirmative defense to liability under TUFTA.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit rejected Golf Channel’s argument and the District
Court’s reasoning, and held that under TUFTA, the value of services must be
determined from the perspective of Stanford’s creditors, rather than based on
the abstract market value of those services to legitimate business actors. The
Court concluded that “Golf Channel’s services did not, as a matter of law,
provide any value to Stanford’s creditors.” The Fifth Circuit reversed the
summary judgment against the Receiver and rendered judgment in the Receiver’s
favor. To read a copy of the Court’s opinion, click here.
The Receiver has nearly $40 million in claims against several other defendants
who provided similar marketing or promotional services to Stanford. Those cases
have been stayed, at the Defendants’ request, pending the outcome of the Golf
Channel appeal.
Receiver files 11th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 1st Interim
Distribution Plan - On December 12, 2014, the Receiver filed his 11th Schedule
of distribution payments under the 1st Interim Distribution Plan with the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The
11th Schedule will be followed by others, each of which will be submitted by the
Receiver on a rolling basis as additional responses to Certification Notices are
received and processed. To view a copy of the 11th Schedule, please click here.
Receiver files 1st Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 2nd Interim
Distribution Plan - On November 5, 2014, the Receiver filed his 1st Schedule of
distribution payments pursuant to the 2nd Interim Distribution Plan with the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division. The 1st Schedule will be followed by others, each of which will be
submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis. To view a copy of the 1st
Schedule, please click here.
Receiver files 10th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 1st Interim
Distribution Plan - On September 5, 2014, the Receiver filed his 10th Schedule
of distribution payments with the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 10th Schedule will be followed by
others, each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis as
additional responses to Certification Notices are received and processed. To
view a copy of the 10th Schedule, please click here.
Notice of Ruling in SEC v. SIPC - the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion in SEC v. SIPC. To view a copy of
the opinion click here
Court Approves Receiver's 2nd Interim Distribution Plan - On July 2, 2014, the
Court approved the Receiver's 2nd Interim Distribution Plan. A copy of the order
approving the 2nd Interim Distribution Plan may be found here
Receiver files 9th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 1st Interim
Distribution Plan - On June 3, 2014, the Receiver filed his 9th Schedule of
distribution payments with the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 9th Schedule will be followed by others,
each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis as additional
responses to Certification Notices are received and processed. To view a copy of
the 9th Schedule, please click here.
Joint Comments by the U.S. Receiver, the Examiner and the Official Stanford
Investors Committee Concerning the Liquidators' Efforts to Recover Preference
Payments - The U.S. Receiver, the Examiner, and the Official Stanford Investors
Committee understand that certain SIBL CD investors have received letters or
emails from Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson, the Joint Liquidators appointed by the
Antiguan courts to oversee the Antiguan liquidation of SIBL, through which the
Joint Liquidators seek to recover from the investors certain amounts (referred
to as "preference payments") that the investors had withdrawn or otherwise
received from SIBL during the 6 months' prior to the failure of SIBL. We also
understand that these letters and/or emails are causing considerable distress
and concern among SIBL CD investors. We wish to clarify the following matters:
1. The U.S. Receiver, the Examiner, and the Official Stanford Investors
Committee have no involvement in the Joint Liquidators' effort to recover
these "preference payments." The Joint Liquidators are proceeding pursuant
to Antiguan law and with the approval of the Antiguan courts. Similarly, the
U.S. District Court overseeing the Stanford Receivership has no role in or
jurisdiction over the Joint Liquidators' efforts to recover these
"preference payments."
2. The Antiguan Joint Liquidators have posted a set of Frequently Asked
Questions concerning their effort to recover "preference payments" on their
website. You can review those Frequently Asked Questions at
www.sibliquidation.com
3. We understand that the Antiguan court has established a process for
objecting to the Joint Liquidators' effort to recover these "preference
payments." In the first instance, any objections must be directed to the
Joint Liquidators at Stanford.enquiries@uk.gt.com. Objections must be filed
within 120 days after the investor receives the letter or email asserting
the Joint Liquidators' claim for these "preference payments."
4. At present, the Joint Liquidators are not permitted to bring lawsuits in the
United States to recover these "preference payments," nor for any other
purpose.
Notice of Public Auction of Real Property in Harris County, Texas - RALPH S.
JANVEY, in his capacity as the Court-appointed receiver for Stanford
International Bank, Ltd.. et al., in Case No. 3:09-CV-0298-N, pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, hereby posts, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2002, this notice of his
intention to sell to the highest qualified bidder(s) the following property:
Units 404 and 405 in the Stanford, 505 Bastrop Street, and Vacant Land located
in the 500 Block of Dowling Street, Houston, Harris County, Texas (505 Bastrop
St - Res Lot A Blk), with a starting minimum bid of $453,200.00.
The Receiver has entered into a stalking horse contract with Texas Bastrop
Street LLC, which specifies the starting minimum bid that will be required. Any
competing offers must be made pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in
the Real Property Sales Procedures approved by the Court on January 26, 2010,
and should be received in good form no later than five business days prior to
the date scheduled for the public auction.
The property will be sold at public auction to be held on March 21, 2014 at
10:00 a.m. at the offices of Baker Botts L.L.P., located at One Shell Plaza, 910
Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002. Sales will be for cash or cash
equivalents. The Real Property Sales Procedures require bidders to post a
deposit in cash or certified funds of no less than five percent of the bidder’s
proposed purchase price bid. Sales will be “AS IS” with no representations or
warranties of any type, and will close no later than 65 calendar days after the
date of entry of a final order of the Court approving the sales.
The Receiver reserves the right to postpone or adjourn the auction, to accept
any bid or to reject any and all bids that he deems not to be in the best
interests of the Receivership Estate, or to withdraw the property at any time
prior to the announcement of the completion of the auction. The Receiver’s
acceptance of any bid is expressly conditioned on the successful bidder
executing a purchase and sale agreement in form and content satisfactory to the
Receiver and complying with the Real Property Sales Procedures.
For additional information, including a legal description for the property, a
copy of the Real Property Sales Procedures, or to make a competing offer on the
property, please contact Kimberly Schlanger at Baker Botts L.L.P., by email at
kimberly.schlanger@bakerbotts.com, or by fax at (713) 229-7799.
Open Letter From Stanford Receiver Dated February 14, 2014 - Click here to view
English version of the letter, and click here to view the Spanish version.
Receiver files 8th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim
Distribution Plan - On February 4, 2014, the Receiver filed his 8th Schedule of
distribution payments with the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 8th Schedule will be followed by others,
each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis as additional
responses to Certification Notices are received and processed. To view a copy of
the 8th Schedule, please click here.
Third Joint Advisory regarding Pending Motions - On January 15, 2014, the
Receiver and the Examiner filed their third advisory to the Court regarding
fully briefed motions ripe for ruling. To view the advisory, please click here.
Statement On Behalf of the Receiver Concerning Filing of Petition with the
Supreme Court of the United States - On January 22, the court-appointed Stanford
Receiver, Ralph S. Janvey, filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the
Supreme Court of the United States. Janvey is seeking the high court’s aid in
unwinding the Ponzi scheme perpetrated by R. Allen Stanford and the Stanford
entities — specifically, a holding that the Receiver can assert claims on behalf
of the Stanford victims and creditors generally.
Janvey’s petition asks the Court to reverse the decision of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Janvey v. Alguire, which adopted a rule that
imposes serious burdens on receivers. The Fifth Circuit’s judgment incorrectly
and unnecessarily limits the ability of the Receiver to fulfil his duties by
holding that the Receiver is only empowered to bring claims on behalf of the
Stanford Entities themselves. The Fifth Circuit’s decision is part of a pattern
of conflicting decisions on this issue from appellate courts across the country.
Indeed, the Fifth Circuit issued three decisions in this very case, the last of
which reversed its prior holding that the Receiver could bring claims on behalf
of victims and creditors generally.
Janvey’s petition follows a similar petition filed by Irving Picard, the
court-appointed trustee charged with unwinding the Madoff Ponzi scheme. Although
receivers and bankruptcy trustees differ in some ways, they share a common duty
based on an important legal principle — receivers and trustees have standing to
pursue claims that will benefit generally the victims and creditors whose
interests they represent. These two petitions provide an opportunity for the
Court to eliminate confusion in the courts of appeals, re-affirm this important
legal principle, and remove a serious obstacle hindering the work of the court
appointed officers who are responsible for dismantling the two largest Ponzi
schemes in history. Please click here to view the Petition.
Receiver's 7th Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset Collection
and Ongoing Activities - On January 15, 2014, the Receiver filed a report with
the Court that discusses the status of the Receivership, the Receivership's
asset collection efforts and ongoing activities. To view the report, click here.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Order Requiring Trustmark National Bank
to Turn Over Stanford Receivership Funds to Receiver. On January 8, 2014, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed an order of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas that required Trustmark
National Bank to turn over approximately $2.1 million in Stanford Receivership
funds to the Receiver. The District Court had also imposed contempt sanctions
against Trustmark based on Trustmark’s failure to timely abide by the District
Court’s turnover order. Trustmark appealed both the turnover order and the
contempt order. In a per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals rejected all of
Trustmark’s challenges and affirmed the District Court’s orders. Click here to
view the Opinion.
Receiver's Sixth Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities - On August 26, 2013, the Receiver filed a
report with the Court that discusses the status of the Receivership, the
Receivership's asset collection efforts and ongoing activities. To view the
report, click here.
Receiver files 7th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim
Distribution Plan - On December 4, 2013, the Receiver filed his 7th Schedule of
distribution payments with the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 7th Schedule will be followed by others,
each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis as additional
responses to Certification Notices are received and processed. To view a copy of
the 7th Schedule, please click here.
Receiver files 6th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim
Distribution Plan - On November 4, 2013, the Receiver filed his 6th Schedule of
distribution payments with the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 6th Schedule will be followed by others,
each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis as additional
responses to Certification Notices are received and processed. To view a copy of
the 6th Schedule, please click here.
Receiver files 5th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim
Distribution Plan - On October 25, 2013, the Receiver filed his 5th Schedule of
distribution payments with the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 5th Schedule will be followed by others,
each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis as additional
responses to Certification Notices are received and processed. To view a copy of
the 5th Schedule, please click here.
Receiver files 4th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim
Distribution Plan - On October 17, 2013, the Receiver filed his 4th Schedule of
distribution payments with the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 4th Schedule will be followed by others,
each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis as additional
responses to Certification Notices are received and processed. To view a copy of
the 4th Schedule, please click here.
Receiver files 3rd Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim
Distribution Plan - On October 4, 2013, the Receiver filed his 3rd Schedule of
distribution payments with the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 3rd Schedule will be followed by others,
each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis as additional
responses to Certification Notices are received and processed. To view a copy of
the 3rd Schedule, please click here.
Receivership Settlement Agreement Approved in Canada - The Ontario Superior
Court of Justice and the Quebec Superior Court have both approved a settlement
agreement by and among the Receiver, the Interim Receiver appointed for Stanford
International Bank in Quebec, the Ontario attorney general, and others. The
settlement agreement addresses the disposition of Stanford assets in Canada that
had been frozen by the Ontario attorney general. The approval of both the Quebec
and Ontario courts was required because both courts had asserted jurisdiction
over the Stanford assets in Canada. Pursuant to the Canadian settlement,
approximately $18 million will be turned over to the United States Department of
Justice by the Ontario attorney general. Pursuant to the separate Settlement
Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol, entered into by and among the Receiver, the
United States Department of Justice, and others, the United States Department of
Justice will then turn the funds over to the Receiver for distribution to the
victims of the Stanford fraud. Additional amounts may be returned to the United
States for distribution by the Receiver following further proceedings in
Ontario. Please click here to view copies of the Canadian orders.
Receiver files 2nd Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim
Distribution Plan - On September 16, 2013, the Receiver filed his 2nd Schedule
of distribution payments with the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 2nd Schedule will be followed by others,
each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis as additional
responses to Certification Notices are received and processed. To view a copy of
the 2nd Schedule, please click here.
Receiver files 1st Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim
Distribution Plan - On August 20, 2013, the Receiver filed his 1st Schedule of
distribution payments with the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 1st Schedule will be followed by others,
each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis as additional
responses to Certification Notices are received and processed. To view a copy of
the 1st Schedule, please click here.
The Receiver and Examiner file Joint Advisory to the Court Regarding Pending
Motions - In the filing, the Receiver and Examiner advise the Court of the
motions that are pending in cases filed by the Receiver or the Official Stanford
Investors and that are fully briefed and awaiting ruling by the Court. Click
here to view a copy of the Advisory.
Court Approves Receiver’s Interim Distribution Plan - On May 30, 2013, the Court
approved the Receiver’s interim distribution plan. A copy of the order approving
the interim distribution plan may be found here.
The Court’s order states that the distribution process will begin within 90 days
of the date of the order. That process, which includes sending out collateral
source certification requests to claimants, will actually begin the week of June
3, 2013. Specifically, the Receiver expects to send out the requests for
certification concerning collateral source recovery within 10 business days
after the order was entered to all claimants who have been issued notices of
determination. The requests are being sent in both English and Spanish, are
pre-populated with claimant names and claim numbers, and require the signatures
of the claimants. The certification forms are being sent by e-mail (if e-mail
addresses were provided) to all claimants within a claim group or, if no e-mail
address was provided, are being sent via physical mail. Claimants will have 60
days to return the certifications to the Receiver. For those claimants who have
not yet received notices of determination, their certification requests will be
sent after their notices of determination are issued.
Please note that payments will not be made immediately upon receipt of each
signed certification. Once the Receiver has obtained the requisite
certifications for a sufficient number of claim groups, he will file with the
Court his schedule of proposed payments to those groups at least 10 days before
the payments are made. The schedules will include claim ID numbers and the
amounts of payments but will not include claimant names or other identifying
information. Schedules will be filed with the Court on a rolling basis. After
each particular schedule has been on file for at least 10 days, the Receiver
will begin sending payments to applicable claim groups. As additional
certifications are received, this process will continue until all payments
required under the order approving the interim distribution plan are complete.
Based on the above procedures, the Receiver expects to begin making payments in
approximately 90 days. Please understand that not everyone will receive payments
within 90 days, and payments to additional groups will be made on a rolling
basis through the process described above.
Status of Political Contribution Returns - To view information on political
campaign contributions that have been returned to the Receivership Estate, click
here.
Notice of Public Auctions of Personal Property in Dallas County, Texas - RALPH
S. JANVEY, in his capacity as the Court-appointed receiver for Stanford
International Bank, Ltd. (SIBL), et al., in Case No. 3:09-CV-0298-N, pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, hereby posts, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2001, 2002 and 2004, this
notice of his intention to sell to the highest qualified bidder(s) certain
personal property located at 1518 Slocum St., Dallas, Dallas County, TX 75207,
including a Dale Chihuly chandelier and Terrance Main sculpture (collectively,
the “Personal Property”).
All interested and qualified purchasers are invited to attend and bid at the
auctions. The Personal Property is owned by the Receiver in his capacity as
Receiver for R. Allen Stanford and affiliated companies. The Stanford Property
will be sold without recourse to R. Allen Stanford, any affiliated entity or the
Stanford Financial Group Receivership. Neither the Receiver nor any of his
representatives makes any representation or warranty, express or implied
(including, without limitation, title) with respect to any item of the Stanford
Property.
The Personal Property will be sold at public auction to be held on Wednesday,
May 22, 2013 at 10:00 AM at 1518 Slocum St. Dallas, Dallas County, TX 75207. Any
successful bid shall be subject to a 25% buyer’s premium on the first $50,000,
20% of any amount between $50,000 and $1,000,000 and 12% of any amount over
$1,000,000 and shall be paid in cash, check, or certified funds in accordance
with the auctioneers terms and conditions of auction.
The Receiver reserves the right to postpone or adjourn any of the auctions, to
accept any bid or to reject any and all bids that he deems not to be in the best
interests of the Receivership Estate, or to withdraw any of the personal
property at any time prior to the announcement of the completion of any of the
auctions in accordance with the Receiver’s agreement with the auctioneer.
For additional information, including descriptions of the Personal Property,
please contact Heritage Auctions at (800) 872-6467.
Inquiries Concerning Prior Investigation by SEC OIGThe Receiver has been made
aware of recent inquiries concerning a prior investigation by the Office of
Inspector General of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
("OIG"). The Receiver is aware that the OIG opened an investigation in 2011
concerning the SEC's retention and oversight of the Receiver.
The Receiver received an inquiry in early 2012 from the OIG, to which he
responded by letter dated March 9, 2012. A copy of the Receiver's response to
the OIG inquiry can be found at the following link.
The Receiver also received an inquiry, covering topics similar to those
addressed in the OIG's inquiry, from Senator David Vitter and Representative
Bill Cassidy, on May 24, 2012. The Receiver responded to the inquiry from
Senator Vitter and Representative Cassidy by letter dated June 22, 2012, and a
copy of the response can be found at the following link.
After providing the above responses, the Receiver received no further inquiries
from the OIG, Senator Vitter or Representative Cassidy.
The Receiver understands that the OIG investigation concerning the SEC's
retention and oversight of the Receiver was closed in late 2012 and that no
final report was issued or published. See November 30, 2012 memo from the
Interim Inspector General to the SEC, which can be found at the following link.
Receiver's Fifth Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities - On February 7, 2013, the Receiver filed a
report with the Court that discusses the status of the Receivership, the
Receivership's asset collection efforts and ongoing activities. To view the
report, click here.
US District Court approves Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol -
Click here to download the Order.
Antigua and Barbuda High Court of Justice approves Settlement Agreement and
Cross-Border Protocol - Click here to download the Order.
Court Sets Hearing on Receiver's Motions to Approve Distribution and Settlement
Concerning Foreign Assets - The Court will hold a hearing on the Receiver's
motion for approval of interim distribution plan [1766] and the SEC, Receiver,
Examiner, and Official Stanford Investors Committee's joint motion to approve
settlement agreement and cross-border protocol (the "Joint Motion") [Doc. 1793
in SEC v. Stanford, 09-CV-298, Doc. 189 in In re: Stanford International Bank,
09-CV-721] on Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1505. The time
for parties to these actions to respond to the Receiver's motion for approval of
interim distribution plan has lapsed, see N.D. TEX. R. CIV. P. 7.1(e), and the
Court will not entertain any further responses or objections from those parties.
Parties who wish to file a response to the Joint Motion must do so no later than
March 28, 2013 at 5:00. Nonparties, including but not limited to investors or
other potential claimants, may file written comments or objections to either
motion, also no later than March 28, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. The Receiver may file a
reply to those responses, comments, or objections no later than April 5, 2013 at
5:00 PM. During the hearing, the Court will not entertain comments, objections,
or argument from parties or nonparties that failed to file written responses,
comments, or objections.
Receiver, SEC, Examiner, and Official Stanford Investors Committee file Joint
Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol - Click here to
view a copy of the Motion, which includes a copy of the Settlement Agreement and
Cross-Border Protocol. The deadline to file responses to the Motion is March 28,
2013 at 5:00 p.m.
Stanford International Bank Joint Liquidators, U.S. Stanford Receiver, Examiner,
Official Stanford Investors Committee, DOJ, and SEC Sign Settlement Agreement
and Cross-Border Protocol - DALLAS, TX, March 12, 2013 - The Joint Liquidators
(JLs) Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson of the Stanford International Bank, Ltd.
(SIB) and the U.S. Receiver for Stanford Financial Group and all related
entities (Receiver), announced today that they have entered into a Settlement
Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol (Settlement Agreement) with one another, the
U.S. Examiner, John Little, the Official Stanford Investors Committee (OSIC),
the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC). The Advisory Creditors Committee of the Liquidation of SIB has also voted
to give its approval to the Settlement Agreement.
Among many other benefits, the Settlement Agreement resolves litigation over
approximately $300 million in assets frozen in Canada, Switzerland and the
United Kingdom, and creates a unified plan among the JLs, the Receiver, and the
DOJ to expedite the handling and distribution of those assets to
creditor-victims.
The Settlement Agreement will only become effective after it has been approved
by courts in the US, Antigua, and the U.K. When the Agreement is presented to
the US court and the Antiguan court for approval, victims will have the
opportunity to appear and express their views concerning the Settlement
Agreement. After all three courts have approved the Settlement Agreement, it
will become effective and pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement the
parties will pursue the release of funds via appropriate legal processes in the
respective countries, including Canada and Switzerland.
The Settlement Agreement has several benefits, including that it:
* creates a plan for the distribution of almost 90% of the frozen assets from
the U.K., Canada, and Switzerland pursuant to which distributions will be
made as soon as the necessary approvals are obtained from the pertinent
authorities in those countries;
* allocates $36 million of the funds in the U.K. to the JLs’ estate in order to
pursue additional funds for the estate, to be released over time under the
supervision of the U.K. Central Criminal Court, which the JLs expect to
significantly enhance amounts available for distribution because those funds
will be used to further additional asset recovery efforts. The remaining $44
million of the funds in the U.K. will be distributed to creditor-victims by
the JLs;
* allocates in Canada all $23 million to the DOJ to be transferred to the
Receiver to be distributed to creditor-victims;
* allocates in Switzerland $132.5 million to be forfeited to the DOJ and
transferred to the Receiver to be distributed to creditor-victims and $60.5
million to be transferred to the JLs for distribution to victims;
* provides that distribution of the frozen funds shall be made to
creditor-victims of SIB and not to other claimants such as the Internal
Revenue Service or the Antiguan government;
* provides a framework for the sharing of information among the JLs, the
Receiver, and OSIC to achieve efficiencies, minimize burdens, and maximize
recoveries in Stanford-related litigation;
* facilitates cooperation and coordination of efforts with respect to
litigation and recovery and monetization of Stanford assets;
* provides for coordination of claims and distribution processes between the
JLs and the Receiver; and
* terminates the substantial expense of competing legal claims to, and
proceedings relating to, the frozen assets in Canada, the U.K., Switzerland,
and the US.
The Settlement Agreement is a product of the parties’ common goal of optimizing
and enlarging the overall recovery for creditor-victims as quickly and
cost-effectively as possible. The parties to the Agreement all believe that the
Agreement is in the best interests of the victims of the Stanford fraud.
Further information, including a copy of the Agreement, will be posted on the
U.S. Receiver’s website at http://stanfordfinancialreceivership.com, on the JLs
official website at http://www.sibliquidation.com, and on the Examiner’s website
http://www.lpf-law.com/. Persons who believe they were victims of this fraud
scheme should visit those sites for additional information.
Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol Q and A
When will money be distributed?
The date when distributions will be made is presently unknown. Although the
Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, and the Department of Justice have reached
agreement regarding the disposition of the international Stanford assets, the
assets remain in control of authorities in the U.K., Switzerland, and Canada.
The parties will work together to encourage these authorities to release the
assets quickly upon approval of the agreement so that money may be distributed
to creditor-victims as soon as possible.
What was the cause for the delay in reaching a final agreement after the
agreement in principle was announced?
The settlement agreement is a six-party agreement that deals with assets and
related litigation in five different jurisdictions. As a result, the drafting of
the agreement was a lengthy process, requiring consultation with attorneys and
authorities in numerous jurisdictions. Once the agreement was drafted, all
parties to the agreement carefully evaluated the agreement, considering all
possible implications of finally approving its terms. Because of the importance
of the issues covered by the settlement agreement, the final deliberative phase
of the process was necessarily lengthy. The length of time needed to complete
the settlement agreement is ultimately a reflection of the degree of care all
parties exercised in preparing and finalizing the agreement.
Why is $36 million being reserved for working capital?
The settlement agreement allocates $18 million to the Antiguan liquidation
estate primarily to fund litigation that the parties believe will have a
substantially positive return for the Antiguan liquidation estate. An additional
$18 million may also be allocated for working capital, including litigation
funding, if necessary. This working capital cannot be used to fund any
litigation adverse to any other party to the definitive agreement. Further,
every effort will be made to minimize the amount actually used for working
capital, and any funds not actually used for working capital will be released
for distribution to creditor-victims.
What is the status of the $20 million that was previously loaned to the Antiguan
liquidation estate from the U.K. Central Criminal Court?
The $20 million, which came from Stanford assets in the U.K., was advanced to
the Antiguan liquidation estate during the pendency of the dispute over control
of those assets. The funds have been spent to cover expenses of the Antiguan
liquidation estate, which was the purpose for which they were advanced by the
Central Criminal Court. Because the Settlement Agreement places control of the
U.K. assets with the Antiguan Joint Liquidators, the Settlement Agreement
extinguishes the obligation to repay the loan.
Who will receive money from the distribution?
The international assets covered by the settlement agreement will be released
only to creditor-victims of the Stanford fraud scheme. No other claimant will
receive a distribution from the pool of international assets. Therefore,
claimants such as the United States Internal Revenue Service and the Government
of Antigua and Barbuda will be excluded from the distribution of the
international Stanford assets.
What do claimants need to do to become eligible for a distribution by the
Receiver from the international assets covered by the settlement agreement?
The Receiver will distribute funds from the international assets to eligible
claimants who submitted claims to the Receiver on or before September 1, 2012,
which was the deadline set by the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas for submitting claims to the Receiver. Claimants do not need
to take any further action at this time to become eligible for a distribution of
funds from the international assets.
Why aren't the Joint Liquidators and the Receiver making a single, joint
distribution?
The Receiver and the Joint Liquidators are each charged by their appointing
courts with making a distribution of assets from their respective estates. The
laws applicable to their respective distributions are similar but not identical.
Therefore, it is impractical to have a single, joint distribution. However, the
Joint Liquidators and the Receiver have agreed to coordinate their efforts to
the maximum extent possible to minimize duplication.
Will this agreement end all litigation between the Receiver and the Joint
Liquidators?
The agreement will resolve all current disputes between and among the Receiver,
the Joint Liquidators, and the Department of Justice concerning the
international Stanford assets. It is anticipated that further court proceedings
may be required before all international assets are released for distribution.
However, the Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, and the Department of Justice have
agreed to work in concert in any such proceedings to ensure that assets are
released for distribution as quickly and expeditiously as possible.
What has to happen before the settlement agreement is fully and finally
approved?
The settlement agreement will be presented to the US federal court in Dallas,
the court in Antigua and Barbuda, and to the Central Criminal Court in London.
Once all of those courts have approved the settlement agreement, the agreement
will become effective.
Will creditors be permitted to state their views concerning the settlement
agreement prior to review of the agreement by the courts?
Yes. The Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, the Examiner, and the Official
Stanford Investors Committee each invite Stanford creditors to contact them and
express their views, whether favorable or unfavorable, concerning the settlement
agreement. Creditors are also encouraged to file any objections to the
settlement agreement with the courts in the United States and Antigua and to
attend the hearings regarding approval of the settlement agreement. The
Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, and the Examiner will post notice on their
respective websites regarding the date and locations of those hearings, as well
as the deadlines for filing objections to settlement approval. Creditors
considering filing an objection or appearing in court should consult with their
own legal counsel.
How will the Receiver, the Joint Liquidators, and the Official Stanford
Investors Committee handle asset recovery litigation in the future?
In general, the Receiver, the Official Stanford Investors Committee, and the
Joint Liquidators will continue to handle litigation in the jurisdictions where
they have already been recognized. The Receiver, the Official Stanford Investors
Committee, and the Joint Liquidators will share information and coordinate their
efforts when possible in an effort to maximize recoveries for victims of the
Stanford fraud.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court Rules in Favor of the Receiver in His Claim to Recover Net
Winnings Paid to Stanford "Net Winner" Investors - On January 23, 2013, the
District Court entered a summary judgment order in favor of the Receiver finding
that the Receiver is entitled to recover from Stanford investors any funds they
were paid in excess of the principal they deposited in the Stanford fraud
scheme. The Court ruled that the net winner investors' contracts with Stanford
are void and unenforceable and that the investors did not provide value for
amounts they received from Stanford in excess of the amounts they deposited. As
a result, the Court held that that allowing the net winner investors "to keep
their fraudulent above-market returns in addition to their principal would
simply further victimize the true Stanford victims, whose money paid the
fraudulent interest." Although the District Court's order is not a final
judgment, the District Court certified the order for appeal, which means that it
will likely be appealed in the near future to the US Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.
The Receiver is pleased with the Court's ruling today that those investors who
profited from the Stanford ponzi scheme do not have the right to retain those
profits. This decision represents an important milestone in the very long and
difficult process of unwinding the massive Stanford ponzi scheme. In his ruling,
Judge Godbey agreed with the Receiver's position that the fictitious interest
payments that Stanford made to investors on their Stanford International Bank
certificates of deposit simply represented money taken from one set of investors
and paid to another; it was just part of Stanford's efforts that kept the ponzi
scheme going for well over a decade.
Based on his investigation, the Receiver identified over $220 million in net
winnings or fictitious interest that was paid to over 800 investors. The
Receiver intends to use this ruling to pursue recovery of these funds for the
benefit of the thousands of investors who sustained significant losses on their
Stanford CDs. Once recovered, these funds can be distributed to the victims of
the Stanford fraud, which would be in addition to the $55 million that the
Receiver has already proposed for distribution. Click here to view the Order.
The Receiver is continuing to pursue recovery through litigation of other funds
that can be distributed to victims, and he continues to work cooperatively with
the U.S. Department of Justice and the Antiguan-appointed Liquidators to reach a
final agreement to make available for distribution approximately $300 million in
funds and assets currently frozen in foreign countries.
The Receiver Files Motion for Approval of Interim Distribution Plan - The
Receiver filed a motion with the US District Court on Friday, January 11, 2013
seeking authorization to make an interim distribution to Stanford CD investors.
The filing of the motion is a significant milestone in the Stanford
Receivership. Once the motion is granted, the Receiver will be authorized to
distribute approximately $55 million to Stanford CD investors to compensate them
on a pro rata basis for their respective net losses. The net loss for each
investor is calculated as the difference between the amount the investor
deposited with Stanford and the amount the investor withdrew, without respect to
any fictitious interest that may have been credited to the investor by Stanford.
The Receiver is continuing his work to marshal the assets of the Receivership
estate, and he anticipates making additional distributions in the future, which
may be supplemented by Stanford assets overseas if the Receiver is able to
conclude an agreement with the Antiguan Joint Liquidators and the Department of
Justice concerning those assets. Click here to view the Motion.
Joint Press Release and Statement of the U.S. Receiver (Ralph Janvey), the Joint
Liquidators (Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson), and the U.S. Examiner (John
Little)After extensive negotiations, and with the input of United States DOJ and
SEC representatives, the U.S. Receiver (Ralph Janvey), the Joint Liquidators
(Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson), and the U.S. Examiner (John Little) have reached
an agreement, in principle, that, if finalized and approved by the relevant
authorities, would result in (a) coordination between the U.S. Receiver and the
Joint Liquidators concerning their respective claim processes, (b) increased
sharing of information, (c) cooperation with respect to the asset recovery and
some of the other litigation efforts, (d) a resolution of pending disputes
concerning funds now frozen in the United Kingdom, Canada and Switzerland, and
(e) a release of funds for distribution to Stanford’s investor-victims.
We are working on finalizing a definitive settlement agreement, which we hope to
be able to present in the near future for public comment and court approval. To
facilitate their discussions, all of the participants have agreed to keep these
negotiations confidential until definitive agreement is reached or the parties
conclude that no agreement will be possible. The U.S. Receiver, the Joint
Liquidators and the U.S. Examiner have agreed to release this statement so that
Stanford victims know that the various participants are continuing to work to
reach an agreement that will achieve the goals set forth above. We continue to
have your interests at the forefront and we understand the very difficult
circumstances you face as victims.
Antiguan Joint Liquidators File Motion to Extend Briefing Deadlines in Fifth
Circuit Based on Successful Negotiation of Confidential Settlement Term Sheet -
Click here for the Motion.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment Ordering National Political
Committees to Repay $1.6 Million in Stanford Contributions- On October 23, 2012,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a summary and final
judgment in favor of the Receiver that ordered five Democratic and Republican
national political committees to repay more than $1.6 million in Stanford
political contributions. The judgment in the case also requires the defendants
to pay more than $500,000 in attorneys' fees, costs, and interest thereby
resulting in a total award that may exceed $2.2 million. In a unanimous opinion,
the Court affirmed the long-standing principle that federal equity receivers are
permitted to recover fraudulent transfers made by the individuals and entities
over whom they are appointed. Click here to view the Opinion.
Notice of Public Auctions of Miscellaneous Assets - The Receiver hereby posts
this notice of his intention to sell to the highest qualified bidder(s) certain
personal property including (i) certain personal property located at 4200
Blaffer St., Houston, Harris County, TX 77026, including household items,
furniture, bookcases, light fixtures, household appliances and equipment,
bathroom fixtures and accessories, golf carts, 18 foot Nautica rigid inflatable
boat, with a 90 horse power Yamaha motor and trailer, kitchenware, clocks, a
piano, liquor, mirrors, artwork, men’s and women’s clothing, audio visual
equipment, commemorative items, memorabilia, linens, blankets, lamps, books, and
other amenities and decorations, gym equipment, and other sundry items of
personalty (collectively, the “Personal Property”); (ii) five automobiles,
including a 2001 Ford F-150, a 2000 Ford Expedition XLT, a 2003 Honda Pilot and
two 2007 Jeep Commanders (the “Personal Automobiles”); (iii) three automobiles,
including a 2006 Nissan Frontier, a 2005 Chevrolet Trailblazer and a 2003 Saturn
Vue (the “Company Automobiles”); and (iv) two automobiles, including a 1975
Chevy Corvette Stingray and a 1937 Chevrolet sedan (the “Davis” Automobiles).
The Personal Property will be sold at public auction to be held on Saturday,
October 6, 2012 at 10:00 AM at 4200 Blaffer St. Houston, Harris County, TX
77026. Any successful bid shall be subject to a 10% buyer’s premium and shall be
paid in cash, check, major credit cards, or certified funds. The Personal
Automobiles, the Company Automobiles and the Davis Automobiles will be sold at
public auction to be held on Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 9:00 am at 14450 West
Road, Houston, Harris County, TX 77041. Any successful bid shall be subject to a
2% buyer’s premium and shall be paid in cash or certified funds.
For additional information, including descriptions of the Personal Property,
please contact Seth Worstell Auction Company at (713) 670-7776 or (713)
670-7740. For additional information, including descriptions of the Personal
Automobiles, the Company Automobiles and the Davis Automobiles, please contact
Jay Rogers at (281) 953-8858. To see a copy of the notice, click here.
Receiver's Statement Regarding IRS Notice of Claim - On August 31, 2012, the
Receiver made the following statement regarding the Internal Revenue Service's
"notice of claim" filed with the Court on August 30, 2012:
The Internal Revenue Service filed a "notice of claim" yesterday with the US
District Court advising the Court that it is IRS's view that Allen Stanford is
indebted to the United States for approximately $432 million in personal tax
liability. The IRS intervened in the SEC's lawsuit against Allen Stanford three
years ago and asserted the existence of a claim against Allen and Susan
Stanford, which at that time was for approximately $226 million in personal tax
liability. The U.S. District Court permitted the intervention and retained the
authority to adjudicate all aspects of the IRS claim.
It has been the Receiver's consistent position that the IRS claim for Mr.
Stanford's personal tax liability cannot take priority over the claims of
investors who were victimized by the Stanford Ponzi scheme. Any assets of the
Receivership acquired by Mr. Stanford were acquired through fraud and as a
result of fraudulent transfers. Accordingly, it is the Receiver's position that
there are no assets available to satisfy the IRS's tax claim. Indeed, as Judge
Godbey ruled in refusing to allow Mr. Stanford to obtain receivership assets to
fund his criminal defense, Mr. Stanford has no assets that are untainted by
fraud. The Receiver understands, based on his discussions with Department of
Justice officials, that the IRS is of the same view and that the purpose of the
IRS claim is simply to ensure that, in the unlikely event that there is any
money left after Stanford victims' claims are fully satisfied, such money might
be used to satisfy a claim that the IRS may establish against Mr. Stanford,
rather than being returned to Mr. Stanford himself. Consistent with this
understanding, the Receiver is aware that the IRS has communicated in writing to
the US DOJ that the IRS does not intend to pursue a claim against any of the
funds that the DOJ, with the assistance of the Receiver, is working to return to
the United States from Switzerland, Canada, and the UK.
If the IRS were to take a contrary position and were to attempt to claim
priority over victims with respect to funds marshaled by the Receiver or funds
the Receiver receives from the DOJ for distribution, the Receiver would contest
vigorously any such claim of priority by the IRS. The Receiver believes that
under both applicable state and federal law, monies that SIBL received from
investors through fraud, which were later fraudulently transferred to Mr.
Stanford personally, cannot be used to satisfy any personal federal tax
obligation of Mr. Stanford. Particularly in light of Mr. Stanford's criminal
conviction and a jury finding that Mr. Stanford's assets were procured by fraud,
the Receiver does not believe the IRS has any factual or legal basis to assert a
claim of priority over defrauded Stanford investors.
Receiver's Interim Report Regarding Claims Process - On August 29, 2012, the
Receiver filed a report with the Court that discusses the status of the
Receivership's claim process. To view the report, click here.
Court Issues Order Directing the Antiguan Liquidators to Cooperate with the US
Receiver and Denies the Antiguan Liquidators' Request to have the Antiguan
Proceeding Recognized as the Foreign Main Proceeding for Stanford International
Bank Ltd. - On July 30, 2012, the Court issued an order in response to the Joint
Liquidators’ petition for recognition, holding that the Stanford International
Bank, Ltd. liquidation proceeding in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court is not
a foreign main proceeding under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. (click here
to view a copy of the order).
Notice of Ruling in SEC v. SIPC - On July 3, 2012, the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia issued a memorandum of opinion and order in
SEC v. SIPC. To view a copy of the opinion and the order, click here.
Receiver's Fourth Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities - On June 22, 2012, the Receiver filed a
report with the Court that discusses the status of the Receivership, the
Receivership's asset collection efforts and ongoing activities. To view the
report, click here.
Receiver's First Monthly Report Regarding Fees and Expenses Incurred as a Result
of the Claims Process - On June 8, 2012, the Receiver filed a report with the
Court reflecting the fees and expenses incurred by the Receiver as a result of
the claims process. To view a copy of this report, click here.
Second Joint Report Regarding Pending Litigation - On June 1, 2012, the
Receiver, the Examiner and the Investors Committee filed a comprehensive, joint
report addressing the status (as of March 31, 2012) of all pending litigation
brought by the Receiver, the Committee, and by Committee members as class
counsel. The report details the status of the 63 different lawsuits that have
been brought by the Receiver and/or the Committee for the benefit of the
Receivership Estate, as well as the 15 different class actions in which members
of the Committee are serving as class counsel. To view a copy of the Joint
Report, click here.
Notice of Private Equity Auction - The Receiver has entered into a stalking
horse contract for the sale of Stanford Venture Capital Holdings, Inc.'s (SVCH)
(i) 4,535,890 shares of KineMed, Inc. (KineMed) common stock; (ii) warrants to
purchase up to 303,030 shares of KineMed common stock, and (iii) warrants to
purchase up to 50,000 shares of KineMed common stock. Pursuant to the Private
Equity Sales Procedures adopted by the Receiver, the Receiver is required to
provide notice of the proposed sales on the Receivership website for at least
four weeks prior to the sale. To see a copy of the notice, click here.
Notice of Change of Plea in United States v. Laura Pendergest-Holt - On June 18,
2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas issued
a Notice of Setting indicating that on June 21, 2012, at 11:00 a.m., the
defendant Laura Pendergest-Holt is expected to plead guilty to resolve the
pending charges against her in the above-referenced case. At that time, Holt
will enter into a plea agreement with the government pursuant to Rule
11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under that rule, the
government agrees that a specific sentence or sentencing range is the
appropriate disposition of the case, or that a particular provision of the
Sentencing Guidelines, or policy statement, or sentencing factor does or does
not apply. Such a recommendation or request binds only the court once the court
accepts the plea agreement at sentencing. To resolve the pending charges against
her, the defendant Laura Pendergest-Holt is expected to plead guilty to Count
Twenty of the Indictment, charging Obstruction of Justice, and the government
has agreed that a sentence of 36 months of imprisonment, followed by a
three-year term of supervised release, is the appropriate disposition of the
case. She will also be subject to a fine, to be determined by the Court.
In light of this recent development, and in order for us to learn if you have
any views in regard to any such plea, please submit your views to the
prosecutors handling this investigation, by providing comments to Pam Washington
at 1-888-549-3945 or via email at victimassistance.fraud@usdoj.gov, no later
than 5:00 p.m. EST on June 20, 2012. Also, in accordance with the Order
Authorizing Compliance with the Justice for All Act issued in this case on June
16, 2010, any victim wishing to appear and to be heard by the Court at the plea
hearing must notify Pam Washington at victimassistance.fraud@usdoj.gov by the
same June 20 deadline. However, as the defendant Laura Pendergest-Holt is
pleading guilty under Rule 11 (c)(1)(C), and her plea agreement will not be
accepted until the time of sentencing, the government will continue to accept
comments concerning the plea after the June 20 deadline and up until 30 days
before sentencing. The Court will later rule on whether, and the manner in
which, victims may be heard at the sentencing proceeding. Lastly, because this
plea agreement was reached recently, and because the precise language of the
plea agreement is still being finalized, the executed plea agreement will be
filed publicly following the June 21, 2012 hearing.
Please visit the Department of Justice's website at
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/vns/caseup/holt-lopez-kuhrt.html to obtain
details about the upcoming June 21, 2012 change of plea hearing in United States
v. Laura Pendgergest-Holt which will be held at 11 a.m. in Courtroom 8A before
Judge David Hittner.
Notice of Sentencing in United States v. Robert Allen Stanford - On June 14,
2012, Robert Allen Stanford, the former Chairman of Stanford International Bank
(SIB), was sentenced to 110 years in prison for orchestrating a 20 year
investment fraud scheme in which he misappropriated $7 billion from SIB to
finance his personal businesses and lifestyle. Stanford was convicted on March
6, 2012, following a six week trial and approximately three days of deliberation
on 13 of 14 counts in the indictment. Stanford was convicted of one count of
conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, four counts of wire fraud, five counts
of mail fraud, one count of conspiracy to obstruct a U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation, one count of obstruction of an SEC
investigation and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The jury
also found that 29 financial accounts located abroad and worth approximately
$330 million were proceeds of Stanford’s fraud and should be forfeited.
After considering all the evidence, including more than 350 victim impact
letters that were sent to the court, U.S. District Judge Hittner sentenced
Stanford to 20 years for conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, 20 years on
each of the four counts of wire fraud as well as five years for conspiring to
obstruct a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation and five
years for obstruction of an SEC investigation. Those sentences will all run
consecutively. He also received 20 years for each of the five counts of mail
fraud and 20 years for conspiracy to commit money laundering which will run
concurrent to the other sentences imposed for a total sentence of 110 years.
As part of Stanford’s sentence, the court also imposed a personal money judgment
of $5.9 billion, which is an ongoing obligation for Stanford to pay back the
criminal proceeds. The court found that it would be impracticable to issue a
restitution order at this time. However, all forfeited funds recovered by the
United States will be returned to the fraud victims and credited against
Stanford’s money judgment.
Please visit the Department of Justice's website at
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/vns/caseup/stanfordr.html to obtain additional
details about the June 14, 2012 hearing in United States v. Robert Allen
Stanford at which he was sentenced.
Sentencing Hearing Scheduled in Stanford Criminal Case - On March 6, 2012,
Robert Allen Stanford, the former Board of Directors Chairman of Stanford
International Bank (SIB), was found guilty of orchestrating a 20-year investment
fraud scheme in which he misappropriated $7 billion to finance his personal
businesses and lifestyle. Following a six-week trial, the jury found Stanford
guilty on 13 of 14 counts in the indictment. Stanford was convicted of one count
of conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, four counts of wire fraud, five
counts of mail fraud, one count of conspiracy to obstruct a U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation, one count of obstruction of an SEC
investigation and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. Stanford
was acquitted on one count of wire fraud (Count 2: 18 U.S.C. § 1343).
Mr. Stanford is scheduled to be sentenced on June 14, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in
Courtroom 8A, 8th Floor, before U.S. District Court Judge David Hittner, United
States Courthouse, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas. Mr. Stanford faces a maximum
prison sentence of 20 years for each of the following counts: conspiracy to
commit wire and mail fraud, wire and mail fraud, and conspiracy to commit money
laundering, and five years for each of the following counts: conspiracy to
obstruct an SEC investigation and obstruction of an SEC investigation.
** If you have suffered losses as a result of the crimes committed by Mr.
Stanford, you have the right to submit a Victim Impact Statement or letter in
aid of sentencing to explain how the crimes affected you. Victim impact includes
physical, emotional and/or financial loss. Victims who wish to submit a Victim
Impact Statement and be heard in writing should do so by completing a Victim
Impact Form (or a letter addressed to Judge David Hittner) and mailing it to
Judge David Hittner at: Chambers, United States District Court, 515 Rusk Street,
Room 8509, Houston TX 77002-2600. To be considered by the Court, the
correspondence must be received by Judge Hittner’s Chambers no later than June
1, 2012. The Court will provide the Government and defense attorneys with copies
of the Victim Impact Forms and victim letters.
Victims who wish to speak in person at the sentencing should contact Ellen
Alexander with the United States Clerk's Office for the Southern District of
Texas at (713) 250-5511 by June 1, 2012. Due to the number of victims in this
case, the Court cannot guarantee that every victim who wishes to speak will be
provided an opportunity to do so. The Court will decide which organizations will
be permitted to speak in coordination with the Probation Office and notify them
by June 7, 2012. To view a copy of the Court's Order regarding victims'
statements, click here.
Notice of Bar Date and Procedures for Submitting Proofs of Claims - On May 4,
2012, the Court issued an order granting the Receiver’s Amended Motion for Entry
of an Order Establishing a Bar Date for Claims. The Receiver has begun accepting
Proofs of Claims from those persons and entities that believe they possess a
potential or claimed right to payment, or a potential claim of any nature,
against Stanford International Bank, Ltd., Stanford Group Company, Stanford
Capital Management, LLC, Robert Allen Stanford, James M. Davis, Laura
Pendergest-Holt, Stanford Financial Group and the Stanford Financial Group Bldg
Inc. and all the entities they own or control. To view a copy of the Notice of
Bar Date and Procedures for Submitting Proofs of Claim being sent to potential
claimants, click here.
Court Issues Order Granting Receiver's Motion to Establish Bar Date for Claims
and Procedures for Submitting Proofs of Claim - On May 4, 2012, the Court issued
an order granting the Receiver’s Amended Motion for Entry of an Order
Establishing a Bar Date for Claims. To view a copy of the Court's order, click
here. The Court's order established September 1, 2012, at 11:59 p.m. (prevailing
Central Time) as the deadline for certain claimants to submit a completed and
signed Proof of Claim Form under penalty of perjury, together with supporting
documentation (a "Proof of Claim Form"), against the Defendants in the Stanford
Receivership case. To view a copy of the Receiver's press release regarding the
claims process, click here. For more information regarding the claims process or
to submit a Proof of Claim Form, click here.
Notice of Public Auctions of Miscellaneous Assets - The Receiver hereby posts
this notice of his intention to sell to the highest qualified bidder(s) certain
personal property including (i) a Cartier watch and household items, including
gym equipment; furniture, lamps, and other amenities and decorations; musical
instruments, including a guitar and a piano; a telescope; and other sundry items
of personalty (collectively, the “Personal Property”); (ii) certain office
furniture, including desks, chairs and other office furniture (the “Stanford
Property”); (iii) two automobiles, including a 2003 BMW Mini Cooper and a 1998
BMW Z3 Convertible (the “Davis Automobiles”); (iv) a 2000 COBIA open hull boat
(the “Boat”); and (v) three automobiles, including a 2006 Nissan Frontier, a
2005 Chevrolet Trailblazer, and a 2003 Saturn Vue (the “Stanford Automobiles”).
The Personal Property and the Stanford Property will be sold at public auction
to be held on Saturday, May 12, 2012 at 10:00 AM at 4200 Blaffer St. Houston,
Harris County, TX 77026. The Davis Automobiles will be sold at public auction to
be held on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 at 9:00 am at Manheim, 14450 West Road,
Houston, Harris County, TX 77041. The Boat will be sold at public auction to be
held on Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 9:00 am at Copart Auto Auction, 5545 Swinnea
Rd, Memphis, Shelby County, TN 38118. The Stanford Automobiles will be sold at
public auction to be held on Tuesday, June 5, 2012 at 9:00 am at Manheim, 14450
West Road, Houston, Harris County, TX 77041. The Receiver is required to provide
notice of the proposed sale on the Receivership website for four weeks prior to
the sale. To see a copy of the notice, click here.
Notice of Public Auction of Real Property in Harris County, Texas - On April 5,
2012, the Receiver entered into a stalking horse contract for the sale of 5476
Holly Spring Drive in Houston, Texas. Pursuant to the Order Approving Procedures
for Sales of Real Property by the Receiver, entered by the Court on January 26,
2010, the Receiver is required to provide notice of the proposed sale on the
Receivership website for at least four weeks prior to the sale. To see a copy of
the notice, click here.
Sentencing Hearing Scheduled in Stanford Criminal Case - On March 6, 2012,
Robert Allen Stanford, the former Board of Directors Chairman of Stanford
International Bank (SIB), was found guilty of orchestrating a 20-year investment
fraud scheme in which he misappropriated $7 billion to finance his personal
businesses and lifestyle. Following a six-week trial, the jury found Stanford
guilty on 13 of 14 counts in the indictment. Stanford was convicted of one count
of conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, four counts of wire fraud, five
counts of mail fraud, one count of conspiracy to obstruct a U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation, one count of obstruction of an SEC
investigation and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. Stanford
was acquitted on one count of wire fraud (Count 2: 18 U.S.C. § 1343).
Mr. Stanford is scheduled to be sentenced on June 14, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in
Courtroom 8A, 8th Floor, before U.S. District Court Judge David Hittner, United
States Courthouse, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas. Mr. Stanford faces a maximum
prison sentence of 20 years for the count of conspiracy to commit wire and mail
fraud, each count of wire and mail fraud, and the count of conspiracy to commit
money laundering, and five years for the count of conspiracy to obstruct an SEC
investigation and the count of obstruction of an SEC investigation.
> ** If you have suffered losses as a result of the crimes committed by Mr.
> Stanford, you have the right to submit a Victim Impact Statement or letter in
> aid of sentencing to explain how the crimes affected you. Victim impact
> includes physical, emotional and/or financial loss. Victims who wish to submit
> a Victim Impact Statement and be heard in writing should do so by completing a
> Victim Impact Form (or a letter addressed to Judge David Hittner) and mailing
> it to Judge David Hittner at: Chambers, United States District Court, 515 Rusk
> Street, Room 8509, Houston TX 77002-2600. To be considered by the Court, the
> correspondence must be received by Judge Hittner’s Chambers no later than May
> 25, 2012. The Court will provide the Government and defense attorneys with
> copies of the Victim Impact Forms and victim letters.
> Victims who wish to speak in person at the sentencing should mail their
> request to Judge Hittner’s Chambers, Attn: Stanford Case. The Court will
> permit two or three victims to speak and the Probation Office will notify the
> victims who will be permitted to speak. Also, if any group or organization
> would like to be heard at sentencing, they must also submit a written request
> to Judge Hittner’s Chambers. The Court will decide which organizations will be
> permitted to speak in coordination with the Probation Office and notify them
> closer to the sentencing date.
A copy of a Victim Impact Form can be found by clicking on the attached link
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/vns/forms/victim-impact-statement-06.pdf .
For further details on this case or the case against Laura Pendergast-Holt,
Gilberto Lopez and Mark Kuhrt, which will be tried before Judge Hittner on
September 10, 2012, please go to
www.justice.gov/criminal/vns/caseup/stanfordr.html .
Examiner's Comment Concerning Frozen Stanford Funds - On March 19, 2012, the
Court-appointed Examiner posted a comment concerning the release of
approximately $330 million of Stanford funds that have been frozen in Canada,
the United Kingdom and Switzerland at the request of the Department of Justice.
To view the Examiner's comment, click here.
Receiver Files Amended Motion To Establish Bar Date for Claims and Procedures
for Submitting Proofs of Claim - The Receiver filed his First Motion for Entry
of an Order Establishing a Bar Date on November 16, 2011 (“First Bar Date
Motion”). Since that time, the Receiver has received comments, objections and
other input from the Examiner, Investors Committee, and counsel for potential
claimants concerning specific aspects of the proposed order and related notices
submitted with the First Bar Date Motion. Additionally, the Examiner, Investors
Committee and SEC have participated and consulted with the Receiver in
interviewing various professional firms with specific expertise and experience
in handling claims processing and validation in similar cases. That process has
resulted in the Receiver’s decision, with which the SEC, Examiner, and Investors
Committee concur, to select, and seek Court approval to retain, two firms to
assist him in the claims and distribution process. As a result of this process,
the Receiver filed his Amended Motion for Entry of an Order Establishing a Bar
Date for Claims on March 16, 2012. The motion also seeks approval of the form
and manner of notice of claims as well as the proof of claim form and procedures
for submitting proofs of claim. To view a copy of the Receiver's amended motion,
click here.
Once the Court rules on the amended motion establishing a bar date and approving
the proof of claim form, the Receiver will provide notice on the Receivership
website as well as through other methods approved by the Court. At that time,
victims seeking to make a claim against the Receivership may complete and submit
a proof of claim. Until the Court makes a decision regarding this motion, there
is no action required on your part and the Receiver is not accepting proofs of
claims.
The Receiver can not forecast when the Court will rule on this motion. Briefing
on the Amended Motion should be complete in early April 2012, and the Receiver
will move the Court to act on the Amended Motion as soon as possible thereafter.
We recommend that you check the website, www.stanfordfinancialreceivership.com
periodically for communication updates.
Court Issues Order Granting Attorneys' Fees in Political Campaign Committee
Cases - On March 6, 2012, the Court issued an order granting the Receiver's
motion for attorneys' fees in his cases against the Democratic Senatorial
Campaign Committee, Inc. and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee,
Inc. as well as the National Republican Congressional Committee, the National
Republican Senatorial Committee and the Republican National Committee. The Court
previously granted the Receiver's motion for summary judgment on claims for
recovery of all amounts paid to the Committees by R. Allen Stanford, James M.
Davis, and Stanford Financial Group Company. (Click here to view a copy of the
order).
District Court Order in Case Regarding SIPC Coverage - A federal court in the
District of Columbia has entered an order granting the SEC's motion for SIPC to
show cause why it should not be ordered to file an application to commence a
liquidation proceeding with respect to Stanford in the Northern District of
Texas pursuant to the Securities Investor Protection Act. The case will be
handled as a "summary proceeding" pursuant to procedures that the Court will
determine at a later time. To view a copy of the Court's memorandum and order,
click here.
Receiver Files Complaint Against Thomas Sjoblom, Proskauer Rose, LLP and
Chadbourne & Parke, LLP - On January 27, 2012, the Receiver, along with the
Stanford Investors Committee, filed a complaint against Thomas Sjoblom,
Proskauer Rose, LLP and Chadbourne & Parke, LLP in Federal District Court in
Washington, D.C. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants
committed legal malpractice and aided and abetted Stanford Financial Group in
the operation of a Ponzi scheme. To view a copy of the complaint, click here.
Trial Date Set in Stanford Criminal Case - On November 29, 2011, Judge Hittner
issued a scheduling order as to Robert Allen Stanford. Jury Selection and trial
are now set for January 23, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8A. A final
pre-trial conference is set for January 17, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. A competency
hearing has also been set for December 20, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. The purpose of
this hearing will be for the Court to address Robert Allen Stanford’s claim that
due to various circumstances he is incompetent to stand trial in January.
Receiver Motion To Establish Bar Date for Claims and Procedures for Submitting
Proofs of Claim - On November 16, 2011, the Receiver filed a motion with the
District Court seeking an order establishing a bar date for claims against the
Receivership Estate. In addition, the motion seeks approval of the form and
manner of notice of claims as well as the proof of claim form and procedures for
submitting proofs of claim. To view a copy of the Receiver's motion, click here.
Once the Court rules on the motion establishing a bar date and approving the
proof of claim form, the Receiver will provide notice on the Receivership
website as well as through other methods approved by the Court. At that time,
victims seeking to make a claim against the Receivership may complete and submit
a proof of claim. Until the Court makes a decision regarding this motion, there
is no action required on your part and the Receiver is not accepting proofs of
claims.
The Receiver does not expect a decision on this motion by the Court until later
this year. We recommend that you check the website,
www.stanfordfinancialreceivership.com periodically for communication updates.
Court Issues Order Denying Motion to Intervene - On November 14, 2011, the Court
issued an order denying a motion by four former Stanford investors to intervene
and for appointment to the Official Stanford Investors Committee. (click here to
view a copy of the order).
Receiver's Third Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities - On November 11, 2011, the Receiver filed a
report with the Court that discusses the status of the Receivership, the
Receivership's asset collection efforts and ongoing activities. To view the
report, click here.
Notice of Public Auction of Miscellaneous Assets - The Receiver hereby posts
this notice of his intention to sell to the highest qualified bidder(s) a 2007
Mercedes S600. The Mercedes S600 will be sold at public auction to be held on
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. CST at Manheim Houston located at 14450
West Rd, Houston, Harris County, TX 77041. The Receiver is required to provide
notice of the proposed sale on the Receivership website for four weeks prior to
the sale. To see a copy of the notice, click here.
Notice of Public Auction of Miscellaneous Assets - The Receiver hereby posts
this notice of his intention to sell to the highest qualified bidder(s) certain
personal property, including (i) a 1974 178 foot CD Holmes Rescue Tug known as
the Robust Eagle and (ii) certain other miscellaneous assets located on the
Robust Eagle. The miscellaneous assets will be sold at public auction to be held
on Tuesday, September 6, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. EST at 1065 Bulkhead Road, Green
Cove Springs, Clay County, Florida 32043.. The Receiver is required to provide
notice of the proposed sale on the Receivership website for four weeks prior to
the sale. To see a copy of the notice, click here.
Notice of Public Auction of Real Property in Baldwyn, Lee and Prentiss Counties,
Mississippi - On July 26, 2011, the Receiver entered into a stalking horse
contract for the sale of 101 & 103 West Main Street, 111 & 113 West Main Street,
107 East Main Street, 112 East Main Street and 108 Front Street, all in the Town
of Baldwyn, Mississippi. Pursuant to the Order Approving Procedures for Sales of
Real Property by the Receiver, entered by the Court on January 26, 2010, the
Receiver is required to provide notice of the proposed sale on the Receivership
website for at least four weeks prior to the sale. To see a copy of the notice,
click here.
Court Issues Order Granting Summary Judgment - On June 22, 2011, the Court
issued an order granting the Receiver's motion for summary judgment against the
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Inc. and the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee, Inc. as well as the National Republican Congressional
Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Republican
National Committee on the Receiver's claims for recovery of all amounts paid to
the Committees by R. Allen Stanford, James M. Davis, and Stanford Financial
Group Company. (Click here to view a copy of the order).
Opinion of Appeals Court from Hearing Regarding Motion to Intervene - On June
20, 2011, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the
District Court's denial of Stanford Condominium Association's motion to
intervene in the receivership litigation or, alternatively, to proceed with
arbitration. Click here for a copy of the opinion.
SEC Determination Regarding SIPC Coverage - The Receiver has received a copy of
the SEC's Determination concerning SIPC coverage concerning the Stanford Ponzi
Scheme. The Receiver is studying the determination and anticipates meeting with
SEC and SIPC Representatives to discuss the details of assistance and
coordination that the Receiver stands ready to provide concerning this matter.
To view a copy of the analysis upon which the SEC's determination was made,
click here.
Notice of the Status of United States v. Robert Allen Stanford - On May 10,
2011, Judge Hittner entered a scheduling order in U.S. v. Stanford, setting the
trial date for Robert Allen Stanford for September 12, 2011. The other
defendants are set to be tried following Stanford's trial. To view a copy of the
scheduling order, click here.
For further details on United States v. Robert Allen Stanford, please go to
www.justice.gov/criminal/vns/caseup/stanfordr.html.
Superseding Federal Criminal Indictment Against Robert Allen Stanford - On May
4, 2011, a grand jury returned a superseding indictment against Robert Allen
Stanford. The superseding indictment adds to the notice of forfeiture additional
bank accounts that have been uncovered in the criminal investigation. Adding
these accounts to the forfeiture notice allows the United States to seek an
order forfeiting these accounts (and repatriating the foreign funds to the
United States) upon a conviction in Stanford's case. Any such forfeited funds
would then be applied to a restitution order in favor of Stanford victims. In
addition, since the district court severed Stanford's case from that of his
codefendants, the superseding indictment focuses on Stanford's conduct that will
be the focus of his trial. To view a copy of the indictment, click here.
Notice of Public Auction of Miscellaneous Assets - The Receiver hereby posts
this notice of his intention to sell to the highest qualified bidder(s) certain
personal property. The miscellaneous assets will be sold at public auction to be
held on Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 10:00 AM at 4200 Blaffer St. Houston, Harris
County, TX 77026. The Receiver is required to provide notice of the proposed
sale on the Receivership website for four weeks prior to the sale. To see a copy
of the notice, click here.
Notice of Adjournment of Private Equity Auction - The Receiver previously
announced the proposed sale on March 30, 2011 (subsequently adjourned to April
20, 2011) of Stanford Financial Group Company's 49,000 shares of common stock,
par value $0.01, of Oasis Bank, S.S.B., a Texas-chartered savings bank with its
main office in Houston, Texas. Pursuant to the Private Equity Sales Procedures
adopted by the Receiver, the Receiver has again adjourned the proposed sale of
shares of Oasis Bank and announced his intention to conduct the sale at 10:00
a.m. on April 27, 2011 at 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2600, Dallas, Texas 75201. To
see a copy of the notice of public auction of private equity investments
relating to the investment in Oasis Bank, click here.
Notice of Public Auction of Miscellaneous Assets - The Receiver has entered into
a stalking horse contract for the sale of the following miscellaneous assets:
(1) gym equipment (the “Gym Equipment”) and (ii) airplane parts, equipment and
other related assets (the “Airplane Parts”). The Gym Equipment and the Airplane
Parts will be sold at public auction to be held on Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 10:00
a.m. at 100 Jim Davidson Drive, Sugar Land, Fort Bend County, Texas 77498.
Pursuant to the Bidding Procedures adopted by the Receiver, the Receiver is
required to provide notice of the proposed sales on the Receivership website for
four weeks prior to the sale. To see a copy of the notice, click here.
Notice of Public Auction of Remaining St. Croix Properties - On March 29, 2011,
the Receiver entered into a stalking horse contract for the sale of Royal Strand
(Plots 2, 3, 4-A & B Strand Street & 43 B & C Queen Cross Street), Kings Alley
(Plot Nos. 55 and 55-A King Street), Moonraker Building (Plot 43-A Queen Cross
Street), and Plot 36-C Strand Street, Town of Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S.
Virgin Islands. Pursuant to the Order Approving Procedures for Sales of Real
Property by the Receiver, entered by the Court on January 26, 2010, the Receiver
is required to provide notice of the proposed sale on the Receivership website
for at least four weeks prior to the sale. To see a copy of the notice, click
here.
Notice of Private Equity Auction - The Receiver has entered into stalking horse
contracts for the sale of the following private equity interests: (1) Stanford
Venture Capital Holdings, Inc.'s (SVCH) 2.99% limited partner interest in
ACON-Bastion Partners II, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; (2) SVCH's
23.33% limited partner interest in ACON Investment Partners I, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership, and 11.09% limited partner interest in ACON Investment
Partners II, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; (3) SVCH's 50% ownership
interest in ACON Triple Play Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
(4) Stanford Financial Group Company's 49,000 shares of common stock, par value
$0.01, of Oasis Bank, S.S.B., a Texas-chartered savings bank with its main
office in Houston, Texas; and (5) SIBL's 289,587 shares of Common Stock of
WorthPoint Corporation, a Delaware corporation. Pursuant to the Private Equity
Sales Procedures adopted by the Receiver, the Receiver is required to provide
notice of the proposed sales on the Receivership website for at least four weeks
prior to the sale. To see a copy of the notice, click here.
Notice of Public Auction - Forefront Golf Facility, Baldwyn, MS - On February
24, 2011, the Receiver entered into a stalking horse contract for the sale of
309 Robert M. Coggins, Jr. Drive, Baldwyn, Prentiss County, Mississippi.
Pursuant to the Order Approving Procedures for Sales of Real Property by the
Receiver, entered by the Court on January 26, 2010, the Receiver is required to
provide notice of the proposed sale on the Receivership website for at least
four weeks prior to the sale. To see a copy of the notice, click here.
Receiver's Second Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset
Collection and Ongoing Activities - On February 11, 2011, the Receiver filed a
report with the Court that discusses the status of the Receivership, the
Receivership's asset collection efforts and ongoing activities. To view the
report, click here.
Notice of the Status of United States v. Robert Allen Stanford et al. - On
January 6, 2011, Judge Hittner held a hearing in U.S. v. Stanford that covered a
defense request for a continuance and defendant Stanford's competency to stand
trial. Stanford's new attorney was seeking a two-year delay to prepare for
trial. Citing, among other things, the interest of the victims in a speedy
disposition of the hundreds of millions of dollars of investor funds currently
frozen, the government opposed the defendant's motion for a two year
continuance. The court granted a continuance of unspecified duration and issued
an order finding that Stanford is currently incompetent to stand trial. Stanford
was remanded by the court to the custody of the Attorney General for an
undetermined period to undergo further psychiatric evaluation and testing at a
medical facility within the Federal Bureau of Prisons. As a result, no new trial
date has been set for Stanford. The other defendants are set to be tried
following Stanford's trial.
For further details on United States v. Robert Allen Stanford, please go to
www.justice.gov/criminal/vns/caseup/stanfordr.html
Notice of Public Auction - Collierville, TN - On January 25, 2011, the Receiver
entered into a stalking horse contract for the sale of 1169 Oak Timber Circle,
Unit 39, in The Oaks at Schilling Farms Condominiums, Shelby County,
Collierville, Tennessee. Pursuant to the Order Approving Procedures for Sales of
Real Property by the Receiver, entered by the Court on January 26, 2010, the
Receiver is required to provide notice of the proposed sale on the Receivership
website for at least four weeks prior to the sale. To see a copy of the notice,
click here.
Notice of Public Auction - Tupelo, MS - On January 14, 2011, the Receiver
entered into a stalking horse contract for the sale of 110 East Main Street,
Tupelo, Lee County, Mississippi. Pursuant to the Order Approving Procedures for
Sales of Real Property by the Receiver, entered by the Court on January 26,
2010, the Receiver is required to provide notice of the proposed sale on the
Receivership website for at least four weeks prior to the sale. To see a copy of
the notice, click here.
Notice of Huntingdon Property Sale - On January 5, 2011, the Receiver entered
into a stalking horse contract for the sale of 2121 Kirby Drive, Unit 16NE in
The Huntingdon, Houston, Texas. Pursuant to the Order Approving Procedures for
Sales of Real Property by the Receiver, entered by the Court on January 26,
2010, the Receiver is required to provide notice of the proposed sale on the
Receivership website for at least four weeks prior to the sale. To see a copy of
the notice, click here.
Notice of Private Equity Auction - The Receiver has entered into stalking horse
contracts for the sale of the following private equity interests: (1) 19.79%
limited partner interest in Louisiana Ventures, L.P., (2) 10,000,000 Series E
Preferred Shares and 5,000,000 Series E Preferred Warrants of Gigamedia Access
Corporation and (3) 4,000 shares of stock of Mountain Partners AG, 2,120,635
shares of Mountain Super Angel, 2,226,666 shares of Cleantech Invest AG and
2,226,666 shares of Bluehill ID AG. Pursuant to the Private Equity Sales
Procedures adopted by the Receiver, the Receiver is required to provide notice
of the proposed sales on the Receivership website for at least four weeks prior
to the sale. To see a copy of the notice, click here.
Notice of Anchor Inn Public Auction - On December 29, 2010, the Receiver entered
into a stalking horse contract for the sale of Anchor Inn, Plot Rem. 58 and 58A
King Street, Town of Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Pursuant to
the Order Approving Procedures for Sales of Real Property by the Receiver,
entered by the Court on January 26, 2010, the Receiver is required to provide
notice of the proposed sale on the Receivership website for at least four weeks
prior to the sale. To see a copy of the notice, click here.
Notice of Bjerget House Public Auction - On December 20, 2010, the Receiver
entered into a stalking horse contract for the sale of Bjerget House and Solhoj
House (Plot Nos. 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 and Lot X of Hill Street and Plot Nos. 3 and
4 Queen Street and Plot Nos. 3 and 4 Hill Street and Remainder Plot No. 64 and
Plot No. 64-A East Street), Town of Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin
Islands. Pursuant to the Order Approving Procedures for Sales of Real Property
by the Receiver, entered by the Court on January 26, 2010, the Receiver is
required to provide notice of the proposed sale on the Receivership website for
at least four weeks prior to the sale. To see a copy of the notice, click here.
Opinion of Appeals Court from Hearing Regarding Frozen Financial Advisor
Accounts - On December 15, 2010, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its
opinion affirming the preliminary injunction against certain former financial
advisors and employees of SGC, freezing over $24 million in assets in the
accounts of those individuals pending the outcome of trial. Click here for a
copy of the opinion.
Receiver Files Complaint Against Susan Stanford — On November 15, 2010, the
Receiver filed a complaint against R. Allen Stanford's wife Susan Stanford.
Specifically, the Receiver asserted fraudulent-transfer and, in the alternative,
unjust-enrichment claims against Susan Stanford to recover more than $2.9
million in CD proceeds that she received. Moreover, the Receiver asserted an
unjust-enrichment claim against Mrs. Stanford for her occupation of, access to,
and use of a mansion and other property owned by the Stanford Parties. To see a
copy of the complaint, click here.
Receiver Files Complaint Against Juan Rodriguez-Tolentino, Sonia G. Velez, and
Wilfrido Velez — On November 12, 2010, the Receiver filed a complaint against
SIBL President Juan Rodriguez-Tolentino, his wife Sonia G. Velez, and their
relative Wilfrido Velez. Specifically, the Receiver asserted fraudulent-transfer
and, in the alternative, unjust enrichment claims against Tolentino and the
Velezes to recover over $2.3 million in CD proceeds that they received. To see a
copy of the complaint, click here.
Receiver Files Complaint Against Dillon Gage — On September 30, 2010, the
Receiver filed a complaint against Dillon Gage Inc. of Dallas and Dillon Gage
Inc. (collectively, "Dillon Gage"). Specifically, the Receiver asserted
fraudulent-transfer and, in the alternative, unjust-enrichment claims against
Dillon Gage for the recovery of CD proceeds that Dillon Gage received and that
total over $5 million. To see a copy of the complaint, click here.
Receiver Files Complaint Against Oreste Tonarelli — On September 29, 2010, the
Receiver filed a complaint against Oreste Tonarelli. Tonarelli is a former
managing director of Stanford Group Company's Private Clients Group in Miami. He
was also a Training Director for Stanford Financial Group Company tasked with,
among other things, training SIBL CD salespersons on how best to sell the SIBL
CD. Tonarelli played a vital role in expanding and perpetuating the Stanford
Ponzi scheme by both pushing sales of SIBL CDs and by training others to sell
SIBL CDs to investors in existing and untapped markets, including Latin America.
The Receiver has asserted fraudulent-transfer and, in the alternative,
unjust-enrichment claims against Tonarelli to recover the more than $3.1 million
in CD proceeds he received. To see a copy of the complaint, click here.
Receiver Files Complaint Against Andrea M. Stoelker — On June 28, 2010, the
Receiver filed a complaint against Andrea M. Stoelker, who is the former
president of Stanford Financial Group Management LLC and Stanford 20/20, as well
as R. Allen Stanford's girlfriend and/or fiancée. Specifically, the Receiver
asserted fraudulent-transfer and, in the alternative, unjust-enrichment claims
against Stoelker to recover over $560,000.00 in SIBL CD proceeds that she
received. To see a copy of the complaint, click here.
Notice of Public Auction of Real Property in Fort Bend County, Texas - On July
23, 2010, the Receiver entered into a stalking horse contract for the sale of
100 Jim Davidson Drive, Sugar Land, Texas. Pursuant to the Order Approving
Procedures for Sales of Real Property by the Receiver, entered by the Court on
January 26, 2010, the Receiver is required to provide notice of the proposed
sale on the Receivership website for at least four weeks prior to the sale. To
see a copy of the notice, click here.
Stanford Receiver, Examiner and Victims Announce Formation of Official Committee
to Represent Victims' Interests - On August 30, 2010, the Stanford Receiver,
Examiner and victims of the Stanford "ponzi" scheme announced the formation of
an official committee to represent victims' interest. To see a copy of the joint
statement, click here.
Receiver Files Complaint Against Merge Healthcare, Inc. — On July 26, 2010, the
Receiver filed a complaint against Merge Healthcare, Inc (“Merge”). The Receiver
asserted fraudulent-transfer and, in the alternative, unjust-enrichment claims
against Merge to recover $9 million that the Stanford Defendants transferred to
Merge in February 2009. The see a copy of the Complaint, click here.
Stanford International Bank, Ltd. formerly held a substantial majority interest
in an entity named Health Systems Solutions, Inc. and, since 1998, had invested
approximately $40 million in HSS and its predecessor company Provider Solutions
Corp. SIBL’s interest in HSS was just one of many illiquid private equity
investments that were funded through the use of proceeds from the sale of
fraudulent SIBL CDs.
In October 2008, HSS entered into an agreement to purchase Emageon, Inc.
Stanford used SIBL to provide financing for the purchase and caused SIBL to
divert $9 million in SIBL CD proceeds to fund an escrow account pursuant to a
financing agreement related to the purchase. Up until a few days before the
Receiver was appointed, that $9 million was still held in the escrow account.
But when the purchase did not close by February 11, 2009, the $9 million held in
escrow was released to Emageon per HSS's and Emageon's agreement. The failure to
close, which occurred immediately prior to the Receiver’s appointment, was most
likely due to the Stanford enterprise’s illiquid assets, lack of money, and
insolvency. In 2009, the Court approved the Receiver’s sale of SIBL’s interests
in HSS for $700,000.
On April 2, 2009, Emageon was acquired by Amicas, Inc.; on February 28, 2010,
Amicas merged with Merge Healthcare Incorporated. The Receiver has asserted a
fraudulent-transfer claim against Merge to recover the $9 million it received
from SIBL. The Receiver has not alleged that Merge committed fraud. Rather, in
this fraudulent-transfer action, the Receiver need only allege and prove that
Merge received the funds from a Ponzi scheme. Payments from a Ponzi scheme are
by definition payments made with intent to defraud other creditors, which is the
essence of a fraudulent-transfer claim. The burden is on Merge to show that it
both received the funds in good faith and that it provided reasonably equivalent
value in exchange for the funds. In return for the $9 million payment, Stanford
received nothing that is of any value to the creditors of the Stanford entities
or the victims of the Stanford fraud. Because Merge cannot show that it provided
any value — let alone reasonably equivalent value — in exchange for the $9
million, the Receiver is entitled to the return of such funds as a matter of
law, irrespective of good faith.
On July 16, 2010, the Receiver filed a Complaint against certain former Stanford
employees who invested in Stanford International Bank, Ltd. (“SIBL”) CDs.
Specifically, the Receiver asserted fraudulent-transfer and, in the alternative,
unjust-enrichment claims against 77 former employee investors whom he has
identified as having received CD proceeds from SIBL. Collectively, these 77
former employee investors received over $27 million in such CD proceeds. To see
a copy of the Complaint, click here.
Receiver's Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset Collection and
Ongoing Activities - On July 1, 2010, the Receiver filed a report with the Court
that discusses the status of the Receivership, the Receivership's asset
collection efforts and ongoing activities. To view the report, click here.
Court Issues Order Granting Preliminary Injunction - On June 10, 2010, the Court
issued an order granting the Receiver’s application for a preliminary injunction
that enjoins certain former Stanford employees from removing approximately $24
million in funds currently frozen in Stanford brokerage accounts located at
Pershing LLC and JP Morgan Clearing Corp., unless funds in the accounts exceed
the total of: (1) commissions earned from the sale of Stanford International
Bank, Ltd. (SIB) certificates of deposit; (2) SIB quarterly bonuses; and (3)
branch managing-director quarterly compensation. The Receiver is currently
pursuing fraudulent transfer claims against these former employees and, if
successful, would use such frozen accounts to satisfy any settlements reached or
judgments rendered in the Receiver’s favor. (Click here to view the order.)
Receiver Files Additional Complaint Against Certain Stanford Investors - On May
18, 2010, the Receiver filed an additional Complaint Against Certain Stanford
Investors. Specifically, the Receiver asserted fraudulent-transfer and, in the
alternative, unjust-enrichment claims against an additional 65 investors whom he
has identified as having received CD Proceeds from Stanford International Bank,
Ltd. (SIBL) in excess of their total investments — that is, investors who
received not only amounts equal to their principal investment, but also
additional amounts in the form of purported interest or other payments.
Collectively, these 65 investors received over $41.8 million in total CD
Proceeds, with over $6.9 million of the total representing amounts they received
in excess of their investments. To see a copy of the Complaint, click here.
In total, the Receiver has sued 844 investors who received funds in excess of
their SIBL investments. All combined, these 844 investors received over $1.23
billion from SIBL, with over $216.1 million of the total representing amounts
they received in excess of their investments. The Receiver continues to
encourage all investors who are interested in discussing settlement to contact
the Receiver's counsel to arrange for the return of the funds they received in
excess of their investments.
Thus far, the Receiver has finalized 57 settlements totaling over $3.7 million
and is in discussions with other investors or their counsel to achieve further
settlements. The investor funds that the Receiver recovers in these settlements
will help provide compensation to investors who suffered significant or total
losses of their SIBL CD investments.
Notice of Public Auction for Sale of 5050 Westheimer, Houston, Texas - On May
18, 2010, the Receiver entered into a stalking horse contract for the sale of
5050 Westheimer, Houston, Texas. Pursuant to the Order Approving Procedures for
Sales of Real Property by the Receiver, entered by the Court on January 26,
2010, the Receiver is required to provide notice of the proposed sale on the
Receivership website for at least four weeks prior to the sale. To see a copy of
the notice, click here.
Receiver Files Additional Complaint Against Certain Stanford Investors - On May
7, 2010, the Receiver filed an additional Complaint Against Certain Stanford
Investors. Specifically, the Receiver asserted fraudulent-transfer and, in the
alternative, unjust-enrichment claims against an additional 41 investors whom he
has identified as having received CD Proceeds from Stanford International Bank,
Ltd. (SIBL) in excess of their total investments Ñ that is, investors who
received not only amounts equal to their principal investment, but also
additional amounts in the form of purported interest payments. Collectively,
these 41 investors received over $18.3 million in total CD Proceeds, with over
$3.2 million of the total representing amounts they received in excess of their
investments. To see a copy of the Complaint, click here.
In total, the Receiver has sued 784 investors who received funds in excess of
their SIBL investments. All combined, these 784 investors received over $1.2
billion from SIBL, with over $209.6 million of the total representing amounts
they received in excess of their investments. The Receiver's investigation is
ongoing, and he expects to identify additional investors who received excess
SIBL funds. The Receiver continues to encourage all investors who are interested
in discussing settlement to contact the Receiver's counsel to arrange for the
return of the funds they received in excess of their investments.
Thus far, the Receiver has finalized 52 settlements totaling over $3.5 million
and is in discussions with other investors or their counsel to achieve further
settlements. The investor funds that the Receiver recovers in these settlements
will help provide compensation to investors who suffered significant or total
losses of their SIBL CD investments.
Receiver Files Additional Complaint Against Certain Stanford Investors - On
April 27, 2010, the Receiver filed an additional Complaint Against Certain
Stanford Investors. Specifically, the Receiver asserted fraudulent-transfer and,
in the alternative, unjust-enrichment claims against an additional 34 investors
whom he has identified as having received CD Proceeds from Stanford
International Bank, Ltd. (SIBL) in excess of their total investments — that is,
investors who received not only amounts equal to their principal investment, but
also additional amounts in the form of purported interest payments.
Collectively, these 34 investors received over $15.1 million in total CD
Proceeds, with over $2.3 million of the total representing amounts they received
in excess of their investments. To see a copy of the Complaint, click here.
In total, the Receiver has sued 745 investors who received funds in excess of
their SIBL investments. All combined, these 745 investors received over $1.18
billion from SIBL, with over $206.4 million of the total representing amounts
they received in excess of their investments. The Receiver's investigation is
ongoing, and he expects to identify additional investors who received excess
SIBL funds. The Receiver continues to encourage all investors who are interested
in discussing settlement to contact the Receiver's counsel to arrange for the
return of the funds they received in excess of their investments.
Thus far, the Receiver has finalized 50 settlements totaling over $3.3 million
and is in discussions with other investors or their counsel to achieve further
settlements. The investor funds that the Receiver recovers in these settlements
will help provide compensation to investors who suffered significant or total
losses of their SIBL CD investments.
Receiver Files Complaint Against Interim Executive Management, Inc. - On April
23, 2010, the Receiver filed a complaint against Interim Executive Management,
Inc. (IEM), a management consulting company with offices in Germantown,
Tennessee. The Receiver asserted fraudulent-transfer and, in the alternative,
unjust-enrichment claims against IEM to recover over $4 million that the
Stanford Defendants transferred to IEM between 2006 and 2009. To see a copy of
the Complaint, click here.
Receiver Files Application for TRO, Preliminary Injunction, and Writ of
Attachment Concerning Accounts of Former Stanford Employees - On April 19, 2010
the Receiver filed an Application which seeks to prevent the withdrawal or
transfer of assets held in accounts owned by the former Stanford employees named
in the Receiver's Second Amended Complaint Against Former Stanford Employees.
Those accounts, which are held at Pershing, SEI, JPMCC, and Stanford Coins &
Bullion, hold assets worth over $24 million, and represent the Receiver's best
chance to recover on his fraudulent-transfer and unjust-enrichment claims
against the former employees who own the accounts; those claims are worth more
than $139 million. As set forth in the Application, the Receiver is likely to
recover on his claims against these former employees--all of whom profited
directly from the sale of SIBL CDs to investors -- and recovering these funds
from the former employees will assist in the Receiver's efforts to provide
compensation to the victims of the Stanford fraud and others with claims against
the Estate. To view a copy of the Application, click here.
Receiver files additional Complaint Against Certain Stanford Investors - On
April 8, 2010, the Receiver filed an additional Complaint Against Certain
Stanford Investors. Specifically, the Receiver asserted fraudulent-transfer and,
in the alternative, unjust-enrichment claims against an additional 43 investors
whom he has identified as having received CD Proceeds from Stanford
International Bank, Ltd. (SIBL) in excess of their total investments — that is,
investors who received not only amounts equal to their principal investment, but
also additional amounts in the form of purported interest payments.
Collectively, these 43 investors received over $19.6 million in total CD
Proceeds, with over $4 million of the total representing amounts they received
in excess of their investments. To see a copy of the Complaint, click here.
In total, the Receiver has sued 715 investors who received funds in excess of
their SIBL investments. All combined, these 715 investors received over $1.17
billion from SIBL, with over $204.4 million of the total representing amounts
they received in excess of their investments. The Receiver's investigation is
ongoing, and he expects to identify additional investors who received excess
SIBL funds. The Receiver continues to encourage all investors who are interested
in discussing settlement to contact the Receiver's counsel to arrange for the
return of the funds they received in excess of their investments.
Thus far, the Receiver has finalized 46 settlements totaling over $3.14 million
and is in discussions with other investors or their counsel to achieve further
settlements. The investor funds that the Receiver recovers in these settlements
will help provide compensation to investors who suffered significant or total
losses of their SIBL CD investments.
Notice of Public Auction for Sale of 20 Casuarina, Coral Gables, Florida - On
March 29, 2010, the Receiver entered into a stalking horse contract for the sale
of 20 Casuarina, Coral Gables, Florida. Pursuant to the Order Approving
Procedures for Sales of Real Property by the Receiver, entered by the Court on
January 26, 2010, the Receiver is required to provide notice of the proposed
sale on the Receivership website for at least four weeks prior to the sale. To
see a copy of the notice, click here.
Receiver files additional Complaint Against Certain Stanford Investors - On
March 29, 2010, the Receiver filed an additional Complaint Against Certain
Stanford Investors. Specifically, the Receiver asserted fraudulent-transfer and,
in the alternative, unjust-enrichment claims against an additional 36 investors
whom he has identified as having received CD Proceeds from Stanford
International Bank, Ltd. (SIBL) in excess of their total investments — that is,
investors who received not only amounts equal to their principal investment, but
also additional amounts in the form of purported interest payments.
Collectively, these 36 investors received over $15.8 million in total CD
Proceeds, with over $3.6 million of the total representing amounts they received
in excess of their investments. To see a copy of the Complaint, click here.
In total, the Receiver has sued 674 investors who received funds in excess of
their SIBL investments. All combined, these 674 investors received over $1.153
billion from SIBL, with over $200.5 million of the total representing amounts
they received in excess of their investments. The Receiver's investigation is
ongoing, and he expects to identify additional investors who received excess
SIBL funds. The Receiver encourages all investors who are interested in
discussing settlement to contact the Receiver's counsel to arrange for the
return of the funds they received in excess of their investments.
Thus far, the Receiver has finalized 44 settlements totaling over $3.07 million
and is in discussions with other investors or their counsel to achieve further
settlements. The investor funds that the Receiver recovers in these settlements
will help provide compensation to investors who suffered significant or total
losses of their SIBL CD investments.
Stanford Receiver and Victims Announce Agreement on Formation of Official
Committee to Represent Victims' Interests - On March 30, 2010, the Stanford
Receiver and victims of the Stanford "ponzi" scheme announced an agreement to
form an official committee to represent victims' interest. To see a copy of the
press release, click here.
Receiver files additional Complaint Against Certain Stanford Investors - On
March 15, 2010, the Receiver filed an additional Complaint Against Certain
Stanford Investors. Specifically, the Receiver asserted fraudulent-transfer and,
in the alternative, unjust-enrichment claims against an additional 36 investors
whom he has identified as having received CD Proceeds from Stanford
International Bank, Ltd. (SIBL) in excess of their total investments – that is,
investors who received not only amounts equal to their principal investment, but
also additional amounts in the form of purported interest payments.
Collectively, these 36 investors received over $17.3 million in total CD
Proceeds, with over $3.6 million of the total representing amounts they received
in excess of their investments. To see a copy of the Complaint, click here.
In total, the Receiver has sued 645 investors who received funds in excess of
their SIBL investments. All combined, these 645 investors received over $1.144
billion from SIBL, with over $197.4 million of the total representing amounts
they received in excess of their investments. The Receiver's investigation is
ongoing, and he expects to identify additional investors who received excess
SIBL funds. The Receiver encourages all investors who are interested in
discussing settlement to contact the Receiver's counsel to arrange for the
return of the funds they received in excess of their investments.
Receiver files Complaints Against Wealth Management Services, Ltd. and
additional Stanford Investors - On March 8, 2010, the Receiver filed a Complaint
Against Wealth Management Services, Ltd. (WMSL), a consulting company owned and
operated by David Nanes, a former Stanford financial advisor. The Receiver
asserted fraudulent-transfer and, in the alternative, unjust-enrichment claims
against WMSL to recover over $9.8 million in bonus payments and consulting,
marketing, branding, and other fees that the Stanford Defendants transferred to
WMSL. To see a copy of the Complaint, click here.
On the same day, the Receiver filed an additional Complaint Against Certain
Stanford Investors. Specifically, the Receiver asserted fraudulent-transfer and,
in the alternative, unjust-enrichment claims against an additional 62 investors
whom he has identified as having received CD Proceeds from Stanford
International Bank, Ltd. (SIBL) in excess of their total investments — that is,
investors who received not only amounts equal to their principal investment, but
also additional amounts in the form of purported interest payments.
Collectively, these 62 investors received over $38 million in total CD Proceeds,
with over $5.6 million of the total representing amounts they received in excess
of their investments. To see a copy of the Complaint, click here.
In total, the Receiver has sued 612 investors who received funds in excess of
their SIBL investments. All combined, these 612 investors received over $1.1
billion from SIBL, with over $193 million of the total representing amounts they
received in excess of their investments. The Receiver's investigation is
ongoing, and he expects to identify additional investors who received excess
SIBL funds. The Receiver encourages all investors who are interested in
discussing settlement to contact the Receiver's counsel to arrange for the
return of the funds they received in excess of their investments.
Thus far, the Receiver has finalized 37 settlements totaling over $2.7 million
and is in discussions with other investors or their counsel to achieve further
settlements. The investor funds that the Receiver recovers in these settlements
will help provide compensation to investors who suffered significant or total
losses of their SIBL CD investments.
Receiver files additional Complaint Against Certain Stanford Investors - On
March 1, 2010, the Receiver filed an additional Complaint Against Certain
Stanford Investors. Specifically, the Receiver asserted fraudulent-transfer and,
in the alternative, unjust-enrichment claims against an additional 54 investors
whom he has identified as having received CD Proceeds from Stanford
International Bank, Ltd. (SIBL) in excess of their total investments Ñthat is,
investors who received not only amounts equal to their principal investment, but
also additional amounts in the form of purported interest payments.
Collectively, these investors received over $30 million in total CD Proceeds,
with over $5.9 million of the total representing amounts they received in excess
of their investments. To see a copy of the Complaint, click here.
Judge Orders Carlos Loumiet and Hunton & Williams to Produce Information to
Receiver - On March 1, 2010, today, the Court entered an order compelling Mr.
Carlos Loumiet and the law firm of Hunton & Williams LLP to deliver to the
Receiver all files and billing records related to the legal services rendered on
behalf of various foreign Stanford entities including, among others, Stanford
International Bank, Ltd. The Receiver believes that the information contained
within such records may assist with asset identification and recovery efforts.
To view a copy of the order, click here.
Status Gagosian Litigation - Based on the orders issued on February 26, 2010,
the Court will address the substantive claims of each of the affected parties in
due course and in the separate lawsuit filed by Gagosian Gallery. The Court
denied the requests for interim or expedited relief made by the Gallery and the
Receiver in the SEC action, indicating that multiple factual issues need to be
resolved before final rulings can be made. The Court determined that there is no
immediate threat of irreparable harm that would justify granting emergency
relief before the factual disputes are resolved.
United Kingdom Court Order - On February 25, 2010, the English Court of Appeal
ruled that the Antiguan Liquidators are the recognized foreign representatives
of Stanford International Bank (SIB) in the United Kingdom, but that SIB funds
located in the United Kingdom are subject to a restraint order obtained by the
UK Serious Fraud Office at the request of the United States Department of
Justice.
Ralph Janvey, the US court-appointed Receiver, agrees with the Court of Appeal’s
decision upholding the restraint order. That order preserves the UK funds,
subject to further legal proceedings, so that the funds ultimately can be
transferred to the US Department of Justice and distributed to SIB investors.
The US Receiver disagrees with the English Court of Appeal’s decision to
recognize the Antiguan Liquidators but not the US Receivership. The Court of
Appeal declined to recognize the US Receiver as a foreign representative of SIB
because, it concluded, the US receivership is not an insolvency proceeding. The
Court's conclusion is wrong because the US Receivership clearly is an insolvency
proceeding. SIB is dramatically insolvent, it is being liquidated for the
benefit of creditors under the supervision of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, and a distribution ultimately will be made
pursuant to a court-approved distribution plan.
The US Receiver also disagrees with the English Court of Appeal’s ruling that
SIB’s “center of main interests” is Antigua, not the United States. In arriving
at this conclusion, the Court of Appeal incorrectly declined to consider that
SIB was one of many Stanford entities used in the perpetration of a massive
Ponzi scheme that was orchestrated from the United States and US territories.
Indeed, under US law an entity’s principal place of business (equivalent to
“center of main interests”) is where its “nerve center” is. The US Supreme Court
reiterated that rule just this week. SIB’s nerve center was the United States.
The US District Court appointed the US Receiver to take possession of all SIB
assets wherever situated, and the US Receiver became involved in the UK
litigation only after the Antiguan Liquidators sought recognition in the UK so
as to obtain more than $100 million in SIB funds that are on deposit in the UK.
In order to preserve this large sum for distribution in a US-administered
proceeding, it was necessary for the U.S. Receiver to oppose the Antiguan
Liquidators’ application for recognition and to present the US Receivership as
the appropriate vehicle for winding-up SIB’s affairs and fairly distributing its
assets.
The US Receiver hopes that on-going discussions with the Antiguan Liquidators
will lead to a resolution of the various disputes concerning SIB’s assets. A
resolution would benefit investors.
Receiver files Complaint Against Certain Stanford Investors - On February 23,
2010, the Receiver filed a Complaint Against Certain Stanford Investors. The
Stanford Investors named in the Complaint were previously named in the
Receiver's February 18th and February 22nd supplemental complaints. To see a
copy of the Complaint, click here.
Receiver Files Lawsuit to Enforce Return of Political Contributions - In
furtherance of his court-ordered duty to take control of all assets of the
Receivership Estate, the Receiver filed a lawsuit on Friday, February 19, 2010
against the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Inc.; the National
Republican Congressional Committee; the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee, Inc.; the Republican National Committee; and the National Republican
Senatorial Committee (collectively, the “Committee Defendants”).
While operating a massive Ponzi scheme, Allen Stanford, James Davis, and the
Stanford Financial Group contributed more than $1.8 million of their ill-gotten
gains to a variety of political organizations and candidates. The Committee
Defendants received more than $1.6 million in funds that were ultimately
traceable to money that investors paid for the purchase of fraudulent Stanford
CDs. The Committee Defendants furnished no consideration for the funds they
received. Consequently, they have no legitimate right to retain the funds, and
the Receiver is entitled to the return of the funds for the benefit of claimants
injured by the fraud orchestrated by Stanford, Davis, and others.
Before filing the lawsuit, the Receiver had made written requests to the
Committee Defendants for return of the funds, first in February 2009, and again
in February 2010. The Committee Defendants, however, ignored the Receiver’s
requests, and, as a result, the Receiver was forced to file the lawsuit to
obtain the return of the funds for the benefit of claimants. To view a copy of
the complaint, click here.
Receiver files Supplemental Complaints Against Certain Stanford Investors and
Former Stanford Employees -- On February 18, 2010, the Receiver filed a
Supplemental Complaint Against Certain Stanford Investors, in supplement to the
Receiver’s First Amended Complaint Against Certain Stanford Investors. Like the
First Amended Complaint, the supplemental complaint asserts claims against the
investors under fraudulent-transfer law and equitable principles of unjust
enrichment. Specifically, the Receiver has asserted claims against 257
additional investors whom he has identified as having received CD Proceeds from
Stanford International Bank, Ltd. (SIBL) in excess of their total investments —
that is, investors who received not only amounts equal to their principal
investment, but also additional amounts in the form of purported interest
payments. Collectively, these investors received over $508 million in total CD
Proceeds, with over $87 million of the total representing amounts they received
in excess of their investments. To see a copy of the supplemental complaint
against the investors, click here.
On the same day, the Receiver also filed a Supplemental Complaint Against Former
Stanford Employees. This supplemental complaint was filed in supplement to the
Receiver’s Second Amended Complaint Against Former Stanford Employees. Like the
Second Amended Complaint, the supplemental complaint asserts fraudulent-transfer
and unjust-enrichment claims against the former employees. In particular, the
supplemental complaint seeks to recover from 99 former Stanford employees
Proceeds they received from CDs in which they invested, in addition to the other
categories of CD Proceeds identified in the Second Amended Complaint — namely
Loans, SIBL CD Commissions, SIBL Quarterly Bonuses, PARS Payments, Branch
Managing Director Quarterly Compensation, and Severance Payments. All combined,
these 99 employees received over $51 million in Proceeds from their CDs, and 26
of them collectively received over $1 million in Proceeds in excess of their
total CD investments. To see a copy of the supplemental complaint against the
former employees, click here.
Receiver Sends Settlement Offers to Additional Stanford Investors – The Receiver
has identified 185 additional investors who received CD proceeds from Stanford
International Bank, Ltd. (SIBL) in excess of their total investments. Like the
defendants the Receiver sued in his December 7, 2009 First Amended Complaint
Against Certain Stanford Investors, these 185 investors received not only
amounts equal to their principal investment, but also excess amounts in the form
of purported interest payments. The funds used to make payments to these
investors came from investments made by other investors.
Before filing a lawsuit against these 185 investors, the Receiver has sent them
correspondence offering to settle the claims in exchange for return of the
payment of the amounts they received in excess of their investments in SIBL CDs.
Investors who intend to accept the Receiver’s proposal should contact the
Receiver’s counsel to arrange for settlement.
Thus far, the Receiver has finalized 34 settlements totaling approximately $2.6
million, is in the process of finalizing additional settlements for over
$500,000, and is in discussions with other investors or their counsel to achieve
further settlements. The investor funds that the Receiver recovers in these
settlements will help provide compensation to investors who suffered significant
or total losses of their SIBL CD investments.
The Receiver's investigation is ongoing, and he expects to identify other
investors who received from SIBL amounts in excess of their investments. The
Receiver encourages all investors who received proceeds in excess of their CD
investments and who are interested in discussing settlement to contact the
Receiver's counsel, regardless of whether they have received settlement
correspondence from the Receiver.
Court Approves Agreement Amongst SEC, Receiver and Examiner regarding All
Outstanding Fee Applications - On February 3, 2010, the Court approved a
proposed order submitted by the SEC, the Receiver and the Examiner with regard
to all fee applications pending, by both the Receiver and the Examiner. Click
here for a copy of the order.
Process for Release of Coins and Bullion - On January 19, 2010, the Receiver
posted information regarding the release of coins and bullion held by the
Receivership to Stanford Coins and Bullion (SCB) customers in accordance with
the recent Court order granting in part the Receiver and Examiner’s joint motion
regarding coin and bullion assets. To review a copy of this information, click
here.
2009 W-2 forms for Employees - W-2 forms representing wages/income earned in
2009 for current and former Stanford employees are expected to mail no later
than the end of January, 2010. If your address has changed, please contact the
Receivership at 713.964.6301 or toll free at 866.964.6301.
Transfer of Remaining Brokerage Accounts Not Subject to Court Freeze - On
November 13, 2009, the Court entered an Order granting the Receiver’s Motion
seeking approval to transfer any remaining Stanford Group Company brokerage
accounts that are no longer subject to the Court's freeze order to Dominick &
Dominick LLC. Both Stanford Group Company and Dominick and Dominick LLC use
Pershing, LLC as their clearing agent.
The transfer applies to Stanford Group Company brokerage accounts that have been
released but that have not been transferred away from Stanford Group Company. On
November 27, 2009, the Receiver sent a notice to all customers whose accounts
were subject to this transfer. These Stanford Group Company customers were
advised that if they did not transfer their accounts to a firm of their choice
by January 13, 2010 , their accounts would be transferred to Dominick and
Dominick LLC, effective January 20, 2010.
Customer transactions and other account servicing needs should be directed to
Dominick and Dominick at 800-221-2869 beginning Wednesday, January 20, 2010. In
addition, Dominick and Dominick LLC will be contacting each customer to assist
in the transition.
Settlements of Claims Against Certain CD Investors - The Receiver is currently
pursuing fraudulent-transfer and unjust-enrichment claims against 198 Stanford
investors who received over $93.3 million in proceeds in excess of their SIBL CD
investments. In November 2009, the Receiver began contacting numerous Stanford
investors with offers to settle the claims against them in exchange for payment
of the amounts they received in excess of their SIBL CD investments. Thus far,
the Receiver has finalized more than 30 settlements totaling over $1.8 million,
is in the process of finalizing additional settlements for over $1 million, and
is in discussions with many other investors or their counsel to achieve further
settlements. The investor funds that the Receiver recovers in these settlements
will help provide compensation to investors who suffered significant or total
losses of their SIBL CD investments. The Receiver encourages all investors who
received proceeds in excess of their CD investments and who are interested in
discussing settlement to contact the Receiver's counsel.
Cancellation of Chapter 15 Hearing (Vantis) - The District Court has cancelled
the previously scheduled hearing on the motion of Peter Wastell and Nigel
Hamilton-Smith, Antiguan-appointed liquidators of Stanford International Bank,
Ltd. (“SIBL”), for recognition, under Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy
Code, as SIBL’s representatives in the United States. The hearing had been
scheduled to take place on January 21, 2010. To view a copy of the Court's
order, click here.
Order Regarding Coins and Bullion - On January 5, 2010, the Court granted in
part the Receiver and Examiner's joint motion regarding coin and bullion assets.
To review a copy of the order, click here. The Receiver is preparing for the
release of coins and bullion held by the Receivership to Stanford Coins and
Bullion (SCB) customers in accordance with the order. Additional information
regarding this process will posted on the Receiver's website as soon as it is
available. Please do not contact the Court for information with respect to the
return of your coins or bullion.
Cooperation Offer - On December 11, 2009, the Receiver sent a counter-offer to
Vantis regarding cooperation in order to resolve ongoing disputes over assets
worldwide for the benefit of claimants against Stanford International Bank, Ltd.
Vantis’ proposal and the Receiver’s responsive proposal can be found here and
here.
Receiver Files Amended Complaint as to Certain Stanford Investors - On Monday,
December 7, 2009, the Receiver filed his First Amended Complaint as to Certain
Stanford Investors. This amended complaint is in response to the Fifth Circuit's
ruling on November 13 that the Receiver cannot pursue claims against investors
under a relief defendant theory. The amended complaint asserts claims against
certain Stanford investors under fraudulent transfer law and equitable
principles of unjust enrichment. Specifically, the Receiver has asserted claims
against investors whom he has identified have received CD proceeds from Stanford
International Bank, Ltd. (SIBL) in excess of their total investments -- that is,
investors who received not only amounts equal to their principal investment, but
additional amounts in the form of purported interest payments. The funds used to
make payments to these investors simply came from investments made by other
investors. The Receiver's investigation is on-going and he expects to identify
other investors who received from SIBL amounts in excess of their investments.
Prior to filing this amended complaint, the Receiver contacted those investors
named in the complaint and offered to settle the claims against them in exchange
for the return of the payment of the amounts they received in excess of their
investments in SIBL CDs. Some investors accepted the Receiver’s proposal prior
to the filing of the amended complaint, and the Receiver is in discussions with
many other investors, or their counsel, and expects to conclude additional
settlements with a number of the Stanford investors named in the amended
complaint. Any investor with whom the Receiver concludes a settlement will be
dismissed from the complaint.
The Receiver encourages any investor named as a defendant who is interested in
discussing settlement to contact the Receiver's counsel if the investor has not
already done so.
The funds obtained from these settlements will be an important source of
compensation to those investors who have incurred significant losses, and in
thousands of cases a total loss, of their investment in SIBL CD's.
To see a copy of the amended complaint, click here.
Order Regarding IRS's "John Doe" Summons - On December 3, 2009, the Court
granted the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") permission to serve the Receiver
with a "John Doe" summons seeking information about U.S. investors in Stanford
CDs, stating that there is a reasonable basis for the IRS to believe that
Stanford investors may fail or may have failed to comply with tax laws. To view
a copy of the Order, click here.
Chapter 15 Hearing (Vantis) -- The District Court has scheduled a hearing on the
motion of Peter Wastell and Nigel Hamilton-Smith, Antiguan-appointed liquidators
of Stanford International Bank, Ltd. (“SIBL”), for recognition, under Chapter 15
of the United States Bankruptcy Code, as SIBL’s representatives in the United
States. Mr. Wastell and Mr. Hamilton-Smith seek to have SIBL removed from the
US-administered receivership and instead liquidated through a proceeding
administered by the Antiguan judiciary. The US Receiver, Mr. Janvey, opposes the
motion, as does the Securities Exchange Commission. The hearing is scheduled for
two days beginning at 9 AM, Thursday, January 21, 2010, in the courtroom of
Judge David Godbey, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX 75242. To view a copy of
the Court's order, click here.
Release of Remaining Frozen Investor Accounts Following Fifth Circuit Ruling
Regarding Claw Backs - Following the ruling of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
on Friday, November 13, 2009, investor accounts, previously subject to the
Freeze Order, are now available for release. The ruling does not affect the
freeze which remains in effect as to accounts held by former Stanford employees
and brokers.
Stanford Group Company (SGC) Accounts - To transfer an eligible brokerage
account away from Stanford Group Company, you need to contact a new brokerage
firm and open a new account with them. You will need to verify that the new firm
can take all of the positions in your account, including mutual funds and
annuities, you wish to transfer. As part of the account opening process, one of
the forms you will be asked by your new firm to fill out is a transfer form
referred to as an ACATS form. Once that has been completed, your new firm may
begin the account transfer process by presenting the completed ACATS form to
Pershing or J.P. Morgan through the ACATS system. If your account is an IRA,
please contact your new firm regarding advice as to how to set up a new IRA
account so that you may effect the transfer without incurring penalties. The
Receivership Estate will absorb the fees associated with the ACATS transfer
process, as well as any maintenance and termination fees associated with the
transfer of any IRAs. However, the Receivership will not pay any fees charged by
your new financial institution.
Stanford Trust Company (STC) – IRA/Brokerage/Agency/Custody Accounts - To
transfer such an account you must contact a new trust company, brokerage firm or
other financial institution and open a new account with them. As part of the
account transfer process, one of the forms your new firm may ask you to fill out
is a transfer form referred to as an ACATS form. Once that has been completed,
your new firm may begin the account transfer process by presenting the completed
ACATS form to SEI Private Trust Company (“SEI” is a private trust company not
affiliated with the Stanford companies that acts as the STC asset custodian)
through the ACATS system. If your account is an IRA account, please contact your
new firm regarding the procedures for opening a new IRA to ensure that when you
transfer your STC IRA you will not trigger any tax penalties related to an
inadvertent early withdrawal.
Stanford Trust Company (STC) and other Fiduciary Accounts - To transfer your STC
trust or other fiduciary account for which STC served as a trustee or other
fiduciary, whether sole or joint, you should contact a new trust company or
other financial institution you wish to serve as successor trustee or fiduciary.
You should confirm that the new entity is authorized to serve as a trustee or
fiduciary and discuss with its representatives the documents required to
transfer your trust or other fiduciary account. You may also want to discuss
with your attorney the documents required to appoint a successor trustee or
other fiduciary and the procedures necessary to transfer your account. A
successor trustee or fiduciary must be appointed in accordance with the
provisions of the governing trust or fiduciary instrument, which often expressly
grants the power to appoint a successor to certain individuals. In some cases,
if the trust instrument does not address the power to appoint a successor
trustee or fiduciary, court approval will be necessary to transfer your trust or
other fiduciary account to a successor trustee or fiduciary. As part of the
account transfer process, your new trust company, or, if applicable, your legal
counsel, should prepare the necessary documentation required to appoint a
successor trustee or fiduciary and to transfer your assets to such institution.
All signatures must be notarized by a notary public, and transfer requests
involving account assets must be signature guaranteed with a Medallion Stamp.
Once these documents are complete, they should be sent to the following address:
Stanford Trust Company
5050 Westheimer
Houston, TX 77056
This documentation will be reviewed, and if proper authority and notarized
signatures are present as required by the individual trust document, the
Receiver will instruct SEI Private Trust Company (“SEI” is a private trust
company not affiliated with the Stanford companies that acts as the STC asset
custodian) to transfer the assets to your new account at your new financial
institution.
If you wish to close your account (as opposed to moving it to a new institution)
you should contact the Receiver’s representatives and inform them that you wish
to close your account and receive a distribution of your account.
If you require further assistance, please call the numbers established by the
Receivership (1-866-964-6301 or 713-964-6300).
Opinion of Appeals Court from Hearing Regarding Claw Backs - On November 13,
2009, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion from the hearing
regarding clawbacks. Click here for a copy of the opinion.
Transcript of Appeals Court Hearing Regarding Claw Backs -- The Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals held a hearing on November 2, 2009. Click here for a transcript
of such hearing. When a decision has been issued a notice of such decision will
be posted on the website.
Receiver’s Interim Report on Assets and Cost Reductions - On October 28, 2009,
the Receiver filed a report with the Court that discusses the Receivership's
asset collection efforts to date. To view the report, click here.
Stanford University Trademark Litigation - On September 24, 2009, the Receiver
entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release with The Board of
Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University, pursuant to which the parties
settled and resolved all disputes, differences, claims and counterclaims
asserted in trademark infringement litigation pending between the parties.
Stanford Financial Group Company, Stanford Group Company, their entity
affiliates, parent and subsidiary companies, including, but not limited to,
Stanford Investment Bank and Stanford Trust Company, are not, and have never
been, related or affiliated in any way with Stanford University.
Canadian Court Replaces Vantis with US Receiver and Rebukes Antiguan Liquidators
for Misconduct - On September 11, 2009, the Superior Court in Montreal, Quebec
issued an order recognizing the U.S. Receivership as the appropriate legal
insolvency proceedings for Stanford entities including SIB and recognizing Ralph
Janvey as the foreign representative for those persons and entities. As part of
Mr. Janvey’s recognition and as required by Canadian law, the court appointed a
firm with insolvency practitioners licensed in Canada, Ernst & Young, to serve
as ancillary receiver in Canada for these entities and to work in coordination
with Mr. Janvey.
The Canadian court also revoked the prior recognition of Nigel Hamilton-Smith
and Peter Wastell of Vantis PLC (“Vantis”). The prior recognition of Vantis was
revoked in part because of various improper acts that the court found to have
been undertaken by or on behalf of Vantis including acts taken without prior
approval from the court or notifying the Quebec financial regulator.
The judgments recognizing the US Receiver and revoking Vantis’ appointment have
now been translated and were filed with the U.S. District Court with a request
for judicial notice. You can access the order revoking Vantis’ appointment here
and you can access the order recognizing the US receivership here.
Applications by Receiver for Fees and Expenses -- On May 15, 2009 and August 4,
2009, the Receiver filed with the Court applications for approval of payment of
fees and expenses to 14 firms that have rendered professional services on behalf
of the Estate through May 31, 2009. On June 19, 2009 and September 1, 2009, the
Receiver filed replies in response to objections to the fee applications. To
view copies of these filings, click here. On September 10, 2009, the Receiver's
applications were granted in part and denied in part. To view a copy of the
Minute Entry in the Court's records, click here.
Superseding Criminal Indictment in Florida Obstruction Case - On September 10,
2009, a superseding indictment was filed in the Southern District of Florida
against Bruce Perraud, a former global security specialist at the Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida, office of Stanford Financial Group (SFG), headquartered in
Houston, Texas, and against Thomas Raffanello, the former global director of
security at SFG’s Ft. Lauderdale office, adding defendant Raffanello and two
charges to the original May 2009 indictment of Perraud. Perraud and Raffanello
each are charged with one count of conspiracy to obstruct a Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) proceeding and to destroy documents in a federal
investigation (Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 371), one count of obstruction of a
proceeding before the SEC (Count 2: 18 U.S.C. § 1505), and one count of
destruction of records in a federal investigation (Count 3: 18 U.S.C. § 1519).
The case is pending before Judge William J. Zloch, United States District Court
Judge for the Southern District Florida, 299 East Broward Boulevard, Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida. To view a copy of the superseding indictment, click here.
For further details on this case or any of the Stanford-related cases, please go
to www.usdoj.gov/criminal/vns.
Lawsuit Against Financial Advisors -- On August 26, 2009, the Receiver filed a
supplemental complaint in his previously filed lawsuit that seeks to recover
commissions, front-end loans and other CD-related compensation that Stanford
Group Company paid to certain former financial advisors. These amounts were paid
to the financial advisors as compensation for soliciting their clients to
purchase certificates of deposit from Stanford International Bank, Ltd. As
supplemented, the complaint now seeks to recover approximately $134 million from
253 former financial advisors.
The lawsuit alleges that the brokerage services performed by the financial
advisors in exchange for the compensation payments were not legitimate and did
not confer any benefit on their customers, and therefore that the financial
advisors have no rightful ownership interest that could justify their retaining
possession of the funds.
The lawsuit seeks recovery of the funds for the benefit of the Receivership
Estate on the basis that the amounts were fraudulently transferred, as well as
on the relief defendant theory previously asserted. The 253 financial advisors
named in the lawsuit each received $50,000 or more in compensation related to CD
sales over the two-year period prior to the Receivership.
To view a copy of the supplemental complaint, click here.
Unavailability of SIPC Coverage for SIB CDs -- The Receiver has had discussions
with the Securities Investor Protection Corporation to determine whether SIPC
coverage is available for Stanford International Bank Ltd. CDs. Unfortunately,
no such coverage is available. To view a copy of the August 14, 2009 letter from
SIPC to the Receiver explaining why coverage is not available, click here. To
view the Receiver's letter to SIPC requesting a statement of its position, click
here. To view FAQs on this subject and on related issues, such as why no
coverage is available from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and how the
Madoff situation differs from Stanford, click here.
Fifth Circuit Grants Receiver's Motions To Extend Asset Freeze During Appeal of
Claw Back Decision -- On August 11, 2009, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals granted the Receiver's motions to extend the asset freeze over certain
Stanford Group Company and Stanford Trust Company customer accounts that remain
frozen. The extension maintains the asset freeze during the Receiver's appeal of
the July 31 District Court determination that claw backs for CD principal are
not allowed under the law. See the discussion of the District Court's decision
set forth below. Final briefing on the Receiver's appeal is due on October 14,
2009, and oral argument has tentatively been scheduled for November 2, 2009. To
view a copy of the Fifth Circuit's orders, click here.
Receiver Motion To Extend Asset Freeze During Appeal of Claw Back Decision -- On
August 7, 2009, the Receiver filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals in order to try to overturn the District Court’s
determination that claw backs for CD principal are not allowed under the law.
The Receiver also filed a motion to extend, during the time the appeal is being
considered, the asset freeze over certain Stanford Group Company and Stanford
Trust Company customer accounts that remain frozen. The District Court had
determined that the Receiver could pursue claw backs for CD interest payments
but not for CD principal amounts that had been previously paid out, as described
below. If the appellate court does not extend the freeze, then the frozen
accounts must be released effective August 13, 2009, except that accounts owned
by Stanford related persons and amounts in investor accounts related to clawback
claims for CD interest would continue to be frozen under the District Court’s
order. To view a copy of the Receiver's motion, click here.
Receiver Statement Regarding Court Hearing Addressing Clawbacks -- The Court
held a hearing at 5:00 pm, on Friday, July 31, 2009 regarding: (1) the
Receiver's July 28 motion to establish expedited and summary proceedings for
consideration of the Receiver's amended complaint regarding claw backs, (2) the
Receiver's related motion to extend the account freeze on certain customer
accounts and (3) the SEC's motion to amend the Receiver's Order of Appointment
to prohibit the Receiver from pursuing claw backs.
The Court denied the SEC's motion to prohibit the Receiver from pursuing claw
back claims. Although the Court also denied the Receiver's motion for an
extension of the freeze (except with regard to interest payments that may be
held), the Court temporarily stayed (suspended) its previous order vacating the
freeze (i.e. mandating the automatic release of all frozen accounts on August 3,
2009) for a ten day period following the entry of an order reflecting his
intentions as articulated at the hearing so that the Receiver could appeal the
order if he so chose. The freeze with respect to former Stanford financial
advisors, certain former Stanford employees and persons indebted to the Stanford
entities which was continued in the June 29 Order was not affected by the
Court's ruling.
The Court essentially ruled that it would allow claw back claims against
investors only for purported interest payments. The Court stated that the law as
to the ability to bring claw back claims against innocent investors for
principal was arguably unclear but that the appellate court may have a different
view as to the proper interpretation of the law in these circumstances. The
Court remarked that, if the Fifth Circuit agreed with the Receiver's
interpretation of the law, then the pursuit of such claims is necessary in order
to meet the Receiver's duty to maximize the assets for distribution to Stanford
victims. Accordingly, the Receiver will file an appeal with the Fifth Circuit on
an expedited basis regarding the ability to pursue claw back claims for
principal.
Activities regarding the pursuit of claw back claims against investors for
principal will cease until such time as the Fifth Circuit provides its guidance
with regard to whether or not these claims may be pursued through treatment of
such investors as relief defendants.
To view the Court's order regarding the account freeze in general, click here.
Motion Regarding Coin and Bullion Claims and Assets -- On July 29, 2009, the
Receiver and the Examiner filed a joint motion seeking authority for the
Receiver to take certain actions regarding coin and bullion claims and assets.
The motion identifies six different categories of coin and bullion claims and
assets, and requests authority to address each category. The proposed actions to
be taken depend on the category of assets, as described in the motion. To view a
copy of the motion, click here.
Receiver Files Amended Complaint To Recover $925 Million of CD Related Funds --
On July 28, 2009, the Receiver filed papers with the Court seeking the return to
the Receivership Estate of approximately $925 million of funds related to
Stanford International Bank Ltd. certificates of deposit. The Receiver’s goal in
pursuing these claims is to achieve equity for all investors by maximizing the
assets of the Estate.
The $925 million consists of (1) approximately $40 million of fees, commissions
and loans related to CDs from 66 former Stanford financial advisors, (2)
approximately $373 million of purported CD redemption or interest payments from
more than 500 SIB account holders who have Stanford Group Company or Stanford
Trust Company accounts that are frozen under the Court's February 2009 order
(these frozen accounts contain approximately $300 million of assets that would
be available to satisfy the claims against these account holders), (3)
approximately $18 million of such funds from 40 account holders who have signed
agreements with the Receiver regarding release of their accounts and have wired
funds into the Receiver's escrow account and (4) approximately $494 million from
the 49 other SIB account holders that received the largest amounts of purported
CD redemption or interest proceeds after January 1, 2008 that are not covered by
one of the categories above (these defendants do not have frozen accounts at
Stanford Group Company or Stanford Trust Company). The 66 former financial
advisors and certain of the other relief defendants were named as defendants in
prior complaints, which are superseded by the amended complaint filed July 28.
The persons listed in the amended complaint are a very small percentage of the
more than 20,000 investors who have thus far received little or nothing from
their investment in SIB CDs. Upon recovery, these funds will be shared by all CD
investors, including those from whom the funds are recovered.
Many people say they do not understand why the Receiver would seek to recover
funds from persons who may have been victims themselves of the Stanford fraud.
As explained in the filings, the Receiver believes the redemption, interest and
other payments were made with money stolen by the Stanford entities from other
CD holders and therefore should be equitably distributed among all the victims.
CD customers who received redemptions or interest payments may believe the
proceeds were a return of an investment placed with what they thought was a
legitimate bank, Stanford International Bank Ltd. In reality, the money that CD
customers received was not their money, was not a return of their investment,
and was not generated by any of SIB’s other business ventures. The funds used to
pay purported CD interest and redemptions were simply money that was stolen from
the thousands of CD holders who were deceived into purchasing CDs and who, by
chance, or as the result of sales tactics by brokers, had not withdrawn funds
from SIB as of the date the Receivership was put in place.
If recovered in full, the $925 million in the aggregate would represent the
Estate’s largest single asset, significantly greater in size than the amount
likely to be recovered from all other assets of the Estate combined, based on
information currently available to the Receiver. The Receiver believes the
Court’s order requires the claims to be pursued in order to maximize assets
available for distribution to all victims of the fraud.
The Receiver intends to evaluate and pursue other similar claims based on a
cost/benefit analysis, in which the costs to the Estate of pursuing a claim are
compared to the benefits to be achieved (considering both the likelihood of
recovery and the amount to be recovered if successful).
As detailed in the filings, the claims for the return of funds are fully
supported by case law and have been upheld under the established legal principle
of “equality is equity."
To view the amended complaint, click here.
In many cases, the funds sought to be recovered are held in customer accounts
that are subject to the current account freeze; in other cases, the funds are
not held in frozen accounts. The Receiver also filed related papers with the
Court seeking to extend the account freeze on all currently frozen accounts that
are the subject of the amended complaint until the Court determines whether the
funds should be returned to the Estate. The account freeze would otherwise
expire on August 3, 2009. To view the Receiver's motion to extend the account
freeze on these accounts, click here.
To view the Receiver's motion seeking expedited and summary consideration of the
issues involved in the filings, click here.
Notice of the Status of United States v. Robert Allen Stanford et al. and United
States v. James M. Davis -- At the request of the Department of Justice and as a
courtesy to investors, we have added a link on our website to the Department of
Justice’s Victim Witness website so that you can receive case updates and
information about future court proceedings in United States v. Robert Allen
Stanford et al. and United States v. James M. Davis, including the dates of
public court proceedings that either have or will occur in the near future.
Please access the link or visit the Department of Justice's website
at www.usdoj.gov/criminal/vns to obtain details about the upcoming August 6,
2009 change of plea hearing in United States v. James M. Davis, which will be
held in Courtroom 8A before Judge David Hittner.
If you have any views about the upcoming plea and/or wish to appear and be heard
at the plea hearing, you must submit your views to the prosecutors handling this
investigation, by providing comments to Pam Washington at 1-888-549-3945 or via
email at victimassistance.fraud@usdoj.gov, no later than Friday, July 31, 2009.
Receiver Report on Status of Frozen Accounts -- The latest report by the
Receiver on the status of the account freeze and release process regarding
Stanford Group Company and Stanford Trust Company accounts, dated as of July 8,
2009, reflects the following:
* An estimated 20,597 customers of Stanford Group Company and Stanford Trust
Company (Louisiana) have had their accounts at Pershing, J.P. Morgan or SEI
released from the Court-ordered freeze;
* 225 customers of Stanford Group Company and Stanford Trust Company have
brokerage or other accounts that remain subject to the account freeze because
the owners are former senior management of the Stanford companies, former
financial advisors who appear to owe amounts to the Estate or customers who
have not taken any action to repay an outstanding loan or debit balance owed
to the Estate;
* An additional 481 customers of Stanford Group Company have brokerage accounts
at Pershing or JP Morgan that remain subject to the account freeze because
they contain or appear to contain CD proceeds;
* 232 of the 481 Stanford Group Company customers noted above have submitted
applications for review and possible release and the resolution of those
applications is in progress;
* 95 customers of Stanford Trust Company have accounts at SEI that remain
subject to the account freeze because they contain or appear to contain CD
proceeds;
* $17.9 million in CD proceeds is being held by the Receiver in escrow pursuant
to stipulations with account holders; and
* An estimated $251 million of the funds that remain frozen at Pershing, JP
Morgan and SEI, plus an additional amount not yet determined, are proceeds
related to CDs which the Receiver believes are funds that should be part of
the Receivership Estate.
To see a copy of the full report, click here.
For further information about procedures available to transfer accounts that
have been released from the freeze and procedures that apply to review of
accounts that remain frozen, please see “Customer Account Review and Release
Information” below.
U.K. Court Orders Regarding Estate Assets in the U.K. -- On July 3, 2009, a
trial court in the United Kingdom issued a decision that recognized the Antiguan
Liquidators as “foreign representatives” in the U.K. for Stanford International
Bank Limited, and recognized the Antiguan liquidation proceeding for SIB as the
“foreign main proceeding” for SIB, at least so far as UK law goes. In the same
decision, the court also recognized, as a matter of U.K. law, the Receiver as
the receiver for the other defendants in the U.S. receivership. If the decision
is not reversed on appeal, and ignoring any asset freezes, the decision would
give the Antiguan Liquidators powers over assets of SIB that are located in the
United Kingdom.
However, all assets of SIB located in the United Kingdom have been frozen under
two separate orders issued by U.K. courts. As a result, the cash of SIB in the
United Kingdom is required to remain in place unless and until a UK court lifts
or modifies the freeze, or the requesting party agrees to a lifting or
modification of the freeze. One of these was issued at the request of the SEC,
and the other at the request of the U.K. Serious Fraud Office (which in turn
acted at the request of the U.S. Department of Justice). The order issued at the
request of the UK Serious Fraud Office was issued in April 2009, but was not
publicly disclosed until after the criminal indictments of Allen Stanford and
others were returned in June 2009.
To the extent the U.K. decision recognizes the Antiguan Liquidators and the
Antiguan liquidation proceeding as superior to the Receiver and the U.S.
receivership, the Receiver believes it is wrongly decided and should be
reversed. The Receiver will appeal the decision so it can be reviewed by a
higher court.
Court Order Regarding Account Freeze -- On June 29, 2009, the Court issued an
order that sets a deadline of August 3, 2009 for the Receiver to complete his
review of frozen customer brokerage accounts at Stanford Group Company and
frozen accounts at Stanford Trust Company. During that time, the Receiver is to
assess whether to assert “claw back” claims against individual investors and to
assert any such claims in a proceeding ancillary to the Receivership case,
together with claims for prejudgment attachment. Any Stanford Group Company and
Stanford Trust Company accounts as to which no such claim has been asserted by
noon on August 3, 2009 will be unfrozen and released. With respect to Stanford
Group Company and Stanford Trust Company accounts as to which any such claim is
filed by the Receiver before that time, the Receiver will request the Court to
continue the freeze until the claim is resolved.
The Order states that it does not affect accounts frozen because the owners are
former senior management of Stanford companies, former financial advisors who
appear to owe amounts to the Estate, or customers who have not taken any action
to repay an outstanding loan or debit balance owed to the Estate.
Additional information about the impact of the Court’s order on the ongoing
account review process for Stanford Group Company accounts will be posted on
this website as it is developed by the Receiver.
To view a copy of the order, click here.
Filing of Additional Clawback Claims - The Receiver has filed additional
"clawback" claims relating to more than $20 million of CD related proceeds. To
view a statement regarding these claims, click here.
Federal Criminal Indictments Against Allen Stanford and Others - On June 19,
2009, a federal criminal indictment was unsealed that charges Allen Stanford and
others of fraud, obstruction and other crimes related to the Stanford Financial
companies. Also charged in the indictment were Laura Pendergest-Holt, the former
chief investment officer of Stanford Financial, Gilberto Lopez, the former chief
accounting officer, Mark Kurht, the former global controller, and Leroy King,
the former administrator and CEO of Antigua's Financial Services Regulatory
Commission. A separate federal criminal information was unsealed charging James
Davis, the former chief financial officer of Stanford Financial, with fraud and
conspiracy. A separate federal criminal indictment was unsealed that charges
Bruce Perraud, a former Stanford Financial security specialist, with destruction
of records related to a federal investigation. To view copies of the indictments
and the information, click here.
SEC Files Second Amended Complaint in Civil Case - On June 19, 2009, the SEC
filed a Second Amended Complaint in its civil lawsuit against the Defendants.
The amended complaint adds allegations that Mark Kurht and Gilbert Lopez, former
accounting officers of Stanford Financial, and Leroy King, the former
administrator and CEO of Antigua's Financial Services Regulatory Commission,
aided and abetted the alleged fraud. To view a copy of the amended complaint,
click here.
Allen Stanford Motion to Disqualify Baker Botts – On June 16, 2009, Allen
Stanford filed a Motion to Disqualify Baker Botts L.L.P. as lead counsel to the
Receiver based on allegations of a conflict of interest arising out of the
purported prior representation of Mr. Stanford by Baker Botts L.L.P. in
organizing Guardian International Bank or Stanford International Bank. Mr.
Stanford based his claim on the contents of a Baker Botts file that the firm
produced to Mr. Stanford's lawyers in response to a request from James Stanford
(Allen Stanford’s father), who is a former client of the firm. Allen Stanford
also filed a related Emergency Motion to Stay Receivership Pending Defendants'
Motion to Disqualify Baker Botts L.L.P., to which the Receiver will be
responding shortly.
On June 30, 2009, the Receiver filed a response to the motion to disqualify. The
response states that Baker Botts’ records do not show that Allen Stanford was
ever a client of the firm, nor do they show that the firm formed, established or
approved Stanford International Bank or its structure. What Baker Botts did do,
between October 1985 and February 1986, was to perform $850 worth of legal
services for James Stanford. The Baker Botts associate who did the work left the
firm in 1987. The prior work bore no relationship to the work the firm is now
engaged in on behalf of the Receiver, and no conflict of interest exists.
The Receiver's response was filed under seal at the request of Allen Stanford’s
lawyers and because James Stanford may assert that the contents of the file are
subject to the attorney client privilege. The Receiver also delivered a copy of
the law firm's file, together with copies of the time records that the firm has
of the matter, to the Court for in camera inspection.
The Receiver fully expects that both motions will be denied.
In the meantime, the Receivership will continue to work to preserve assets,
liquidate assets into cash for future distribution, and prepare and categorize
claims for development of a distribution plan for the Court's consideration.
Sale of Building by Swiss Entity - Questions have been raised in the press
recently, apparently quoting allegations by Allen Stanford, regarding the sale
by Stanford Group Suisse AG ("Stanford AG") of its office building in Zurich.
The following describes the sale process and corrects inaccuracies in some press
reports. Stanford AG was engaged in the investment management business on behalf
of customers. After the institution of the Receivership, Stanford AG faced a
severe liquidity crisis, as its customers withdrew the assets the entity had
been managing. The withdrawals deprived the entity of its only significant
source of revenue. As a result, Stanford AG was behind in payments to creditors
and employees, creating a substantial risk it would be placed imminently into a
forced liquidation under Swiss law.
To address the liquidity issue, the board and management of Stanford AG made an
urgent request to the Receiver for a substantial cash infusion, but the Receiver
concluded that that was not a good use of Estate funds. The board and management
then decided to seek a buyer for the Zurich office building, Stanford AG’s only
significant asset. After receiving several offers, they chose the highest offer,
for 24 million Swiss francs (approximately $22 million). In addition to being
the highest offer, that offer was also from a bidder who could act quickly and
who was willing to invest 5 million Swiss francs in Stanford AG upon signing the
purchase agreement, which would allow Stanford AG to avoid a forced liquidation.
Avoiding a forced liquidation was desirable because a sale of the building in
liquidation, where the principal focus would simply be to satisfy creditors,
likely would have generated a lower sales price. The sales price received by
Stanford AG exceeded the appraised value under both a recent appraisal and a
year-old appraisal.
The sale transaction was initiated, authorized and implemented by the directors
and management of Stanford AG. Representatives of the Receiver were consulted
regarding the transaction, and they reviewed and commented on the related
documents and on the sale process. Approval of the sale by the Dallas Federal
Court was not necessary, because Stanford AG, not the Receiver, controlled the
transaction. In light of Swiss legal requirements and other reasons, the
Receiver concluded it was not possible in the short time available for the
Receiver to take control of the board of directors of Stanford AG. in a timely
enough fashion in order to avoid liquidation. Further, the Receiver concluded
that the actions taken by the board and management were reasonable and proper
and that such actions maximized the return to the estate.
After the agreement was signed, Stanford AG entered a voluntary, and orderly,
liquidation to wind up its affairs. The Estate is entitled to receive the net
proceeds remaining after liquidation of assets and satisfaction of claims of
creditors as required by Swiss law.
Status of Stanford International Bank, Ltd. CDs - The Receiver has continued to
receive many inquiries from investors who purchased certificates of deposit
("CDs") issued by Stanford International Bank, Ltd. ("SIB"). Unfortunately, as
the Receiver has said since early in the case, the news for CD investors is not
good. Both the Receiver and the liquidators appointed by the Antiguan court have
concluded that SIB does not have the assets required to redeem any significant
portion of the CDs it sold, nor to pay interest on those CDs. Investors in CDs
will likely recover only a fraction of the amounts invested in those CDs, and
the Receiver cannot predict what that recovery might be nor when investors might
receive that recovery.
A number of CD investors have contacted the Receiver to ask when their CDs will
be "released." Many of these investors appear to believe that the reason they
cannot access their money is that the Receiver has frozen their CD accounts.
Those requests have often been accompanied by accounts of the hardships that
investors are suffering because they cannot access the funds they paid to
purchase CDs. The Receiver recognizes that investors are suffering through
hardships because of their investment in SIB CDs.
However, in the case of CDs, there is no account to “release.” Put simply, the
problem is that the assets available to SIB are not sufficient to pay any
significant portion of the amount owed on the outstanding CDs.
Unlike funds put into brokerage accounts, the funds that were transferred by
investors to SIB to purchase CDs were not held, and are not held, in segregated
accounts for the individual investors. Instead, the CDs were simply debt
obligations on the part of SIB (to pay interest and, upon redemption, principal)
to the CD holders. SIB cannot meet those obligations. It appears that funds paid
to purchase CDs were used by SIB and other Stanford entities to buy other assets
and/or for other purposes. The SEC has alleged that CDs were sold in a Ponzi
scheme through which the proceeds of newer CD sales were used to make payments
on older CDs or diverted to other uses unrelated to the CDs.
The Receiver is working to identify and secure assets that can be applied to the
claims of CD holders and other creditors. That process will likely take a
considerable period of time, and is unlikely to result in anything approaching a
complete recovery for CD holders.
For more information about SIB CDs, click here.
Response to Bukrinsky Motion Regarding Bankruptcy – On June 1, 2009, the
Receiver filed a response in opposition to a motion by Samuel Bukrinsky and
other CD holders requesting the Court to permit them to file an involuntary
bankruptcy petition against SIB or any of the other Defendants. The Receiver
believes that a bankruptcy proceeding at this time would be counterproductive
and not in the best interests of Stanford investors and creditors.
The following are among the reasons a bankruptcy at this time would be an
inferior vehicle for addressing the many complex issues involved in untangling
the massive fraud that lies at the heart of this case:
* Receivership generally is more efficient and cost-effective than bankruptcy
because, among other things, receiverships are not subject to the bankruptcy
practice of the creation of multiple creditor committees, each with its own
counsel and other professionals charging fees to the estate.
* The particular circumstances of this Receivership would add even more costs
to a bankruptcy filed at this time. Bankruptcy now would result in
substantial transition costs associated with the turnover of assets and
information from the Receiver to a potential superseding trustee.
* The Receivership’s cost and efficiency advantages over bankruptcy do not
sacrifice the due process rights of investors and other creditors. For
example, they will be given notice of, with an opportunity to object to, the
distribution plan that the Receiver will ultimately propose.
* Receivership provides needed flexibility in formulating a plan of
distribution that is fair and equitable for all stakeholders. Unlike
bankruptcy, receivers can take into account relative fault within a class of
creditors, and fashion an equitable plan of distribution that does not treat
all creditors within a class identically if they are not deserving of equal
treatment.
* Additionally, the Bankruptcy Code’s rigidity can have negative consequences
for investors, including CD holders. Because their claims are related to the
sale or purchase of a security, the Bankruptcy Code mandates that their
claims be subordinated to those of other creditors. This likely would result
in a much lower recovery for SIB CD investors in bankruptcy than they can
achieve in a distribution by the Receiver outside of bankruptcy.
To view a copy of the response filed by the Receiver, click here.
Court Agrees to Consider Chapter 15 Request - On May 15, 2009, the Court agreed
to consider whether the U.S. courts should recognize, under Chapter 15 of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the proceedings for the liquidation of Stanford
International Bank, Ltd. (“SIB”) that are pending in the Antiguan courts. The
Court’s May 15 ruling was requested by Messrs. Nigel Hamilton-Smith and Peter
Wastell, who were recently appointed by the Antiguan court to serve as
liquidators in that proceeding (the “Antiguan Liquidators”).
The May 15 ruling neither accepted nor rejected the Antiguan Liquidators’
request for recognition under Chapter 15; it provided only that the request
would be considered and that the District Court would consider it instead of a
U.S. bankruptcy court. The Amended Receivership Order dated March 12, 2009 had
precluded anyone other than the Receiver from making a filing under any
provision of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code covering SIB or any other Defendant
without approval of the Court.
Chapter 15 is a provision in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, added in 2005, that
applies to bankruptcy or other insolvency proceedings in multiple countries. It
provides for U.S. court recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings under
certain circumstances, in order to promote cooperation among countries, so long
as neither the recognition nor the proceeding is manifestly contrary to U.S.
public policy.
The May 15 ruling directed the Antiguan Liquidators, the Receiver and the other
parties to the Receivership case to confer regarding what process the Court
should follow in considering the Antiguan Liquidators’ request for recognition
of the Antiguan proceeding under Chapter 15. All are to advise the Court of
their positions regarding that process by May 29, 2009. The Court will then
decide when and how to consider the request for recognition.
When the Court addresses the Antiguan Liquidators’ request for recognition under
Chapter 15, it will determine first whether to recognize the Antiguan
Liquidators as “foreign representatives.” If it does so, it will then determine
whether the Antiguan proceeding is a “foreign main proceeding” or a “foreign
non-main proceeding.” The Court’s decisions on these issues will then determine
— for purposes of U.S. law — which of the two proceedings, the U.S. Receivership
proceeding or the Antiguan liquidation proceeding, will be considered the
primary proceeding regarding SIB and how the two proceedings will relate to one
another.
The Antiguan legal system has no method for recognition of insolvency
proceedings in other countries (i.e., no counterpart to the U.S. Chapter 15),
and to date the Antiguan courts have refused to recognize the validity of the
U.S. Receivership Order.
A detailed statement of the Receiver’s position on the Antiguan Liquidators’
request for recognition will be set forth in papers to be filed with the Court
at the appropriate time.
To view the Court’s May 15, 2009 order, click here.
Account Management Fees - For information on the status of account management
fees regarding certain customer accounts at Stanford Group Company (Pershing
LLC), Stanford Capital Management (Pershing LLC) and Stanford Trust Company,
click here.
Customer Account Review and Release Information – Important information about
the status of released customer accounts and a June 29, 2009 Court order
regarding the account freeze is set forth above under "Court Order Regarding
Account Freeze" and "Receiver Report on Status of Frozen Accounts". The
paragraphs below describe procedures available to transfer accounts that have
been released from the freeze and procedures that apply to review of accounts
that remain frozen.
* Transfer of Released Stanford Group Company Accounts. Under the Court’s March
5 and March 12, 2009 orders, as requested by the Receiver, 28,452 Stanford
Group Company customer brokerage accounts (which had aggregate assets of
approximately $4.6 billion) became eligible for transfer to a new firm. The
transfer process now has been initiated by the customer and completed with
respect to the large majority of these accounts, but a significant number
have not yet been transferred due to inaction by the customer.
Holders of the remaining such released accounts may transfer their accounts
at any time, and they are encouraged to do so promptly. For information
regarding the applicable transfer procedures, click here. Any of these
accounts that are not transferred to a new firm by the customer may be
transferred in the near future by the Receiver in bulk to a new firm selected
by the Receiver in order to reduce Estate expenses.
* Account Review Process for Stanford Group Company Accounts That Remain
Frozen. On April 6, 2009, the Receiver established a process, which had been
approved by an order of the Court, addressing the 3,988 Stanford Group
Company customer brokerage accounts that remained frozen. These accounts,
which had aggregate assets of approximately $1.7 billion, were made eligible
for an account review process that permits holders of the accounts to provide
information that may lead to the release of their accounts. Most of these
accounts remained frozen because data available to the Receiver indicated
that the accounts may be associated with proceeds of the allegedly fraudulent
products or activities; others remained frozen because they are owned by
certain Stanford related persons; and others remained frozen because the
accounts were associated with outstanding non-purpose loans or other customer
debit balances.
The Receiver, in consultation with the Examiner, has implemented three
procedures to expedite the review and release of customer accounts that have
been determined to hold proceeds related to SIB CDs:
* First, under a Court order issued May 22, 2009 at the request of the
Receiver and the Examiner, the Receiver is able to release a portion of the
assets in a customer's account without Court approval, if the Receiver and
the customer agree. This is being done in situations where a portion of the
account assets would continue to be held in an amount that would be
sufficient to satisfy certain claims that may be brought by the Receiver to
recover proceeds relating to SIB CDs. The Receiver has contacted or is in
the process of contacting the relevant customers.
* Second, as further provided in the Court's May 22 order, the Receiver is
also releasing additional accounts where the Receiver determines in his
sole discretion that the account holder has received only de minimis
proceeds from SIB CDs.
* Third, with respect to many of the accounts that continue to be held
because the customer received proceeds related to SIB CDs, a single
customer owns multiple such accounts. If the amount sufficient to satisfy
the potential claims against the customer's account is contained in fewer
than all of a customer's accounts, the Receiver will release the other
accounts to the customer. In some cases this will require consultation with
the customer to assure that the account that remains frozen contains
sufficient cash, rather than securities whose value may vary, to cover the
potential claims. This may require the liquidation of securities, which
will be at the discretion of the customer. If desired, the customer may
also provide other funds to avoid liquidation of holdings. The Receiver is
in the process of contacting the relevant customers. Releases of this type
do not require Court approval.
To date, the Receiver has given priority in the review process to accounts
that are owned by persons who are not Stanford related and whose owners
certified in their review applications that they had not received proceeds of
redemption of Stanford International Bank Ltd. certificates of deposit, as
well as to those with demonstrated medical or financial emergencies. Upon
completion of the review of an account, the Receiver notifies the account
owner of the result of the review. Released accounts either have been
transferred or are eligible to be transferred by the owner to a new firm as
described under “Transfer of Released Stanford Group Company Accounts” above.
For information about how to request that a frozen Stanford Group Company
brokerage account be released, click here.
* Stanford Group Company Accounts with Outstanding Loans or Debit Balances. A
number of Stanford Group Company customer accounts remain frozen solely
because the accounts have outstanding non-purpose loans or other customer
debit balances. The owners of these accounts may obtain release and transfer
of the net assets in their accounts at any time by paying off the debit
balances. For information about how to pay off such an account balance and
obtain release of the accounts, click here (FAQ 15).
* Stanford Trust Company Accounts -- On May 27, 2009, the Court issued an order
granting the Receiver’s request to, among other things, release Stanford
Trust Company accounts where the Receiver determines in his sole discretion
that the accountholder has received only a de minimis amount of proceeds from
SIB CDs. On June 5, 2009, pursuant to the May 27 order, the Receiver released
1,142 Stanford Trust Company accounts. These 1,142 accounts are in addition
to the 174 Stanford Trust Company accounts previously released under the
Court’s order issued on April 23, 2009. Any of these released accounts that
have not yet been transferred by the customer to a new financial institution
may be transferred by the customer to a new institution at any time.
The remaining Stanford Trust Company accounts that continue to be frozen hold
approximately $35 milliion in proceeds related to SIB CDs. Under the May 27
order, the Receiver may now release a portion of the assets in these 122
customer accounts without Court approval, if the Receiver and the customer
agree on certain actions. This will be done in situations where a portion of
the account assets (or assets in a related account) would continue to be held
in an amount that would be sufficient to satisfy certain claims that may be
brought by the Receiver to recover proceeds relating to SIB CDs. The Receiver
has contacted or is in the process of contacting the relevant Stanford Trust
Company customers.
For information on how to transfer a Stanford Trust Company account that has
been released, click here to view the FAQs regarding Procedures for Transfer
of Certain Stanford Trust Company Accounts. (Click here to view the April 23
order and here to view the May 27 order.)
Report of the Receiver - On April 23, 2009, the Receiver filed a report with the
Court that discusses numerous topics regarding the Estate and related
proceedings, including activities, findings, accomplishments and conclusions to
date. (Click here to view a copy of the report.)
Redirection of Client Online Account Access - As of April 24, 2009, all former
Stanford Financial Group websites that were in operation prior to the
commencement of the Receivership were shut down and redirected to this website.
Clients with online account access can still access their accounts online by
clicking here.
Court Issues Order Denying Interventions - On April 20, 2009, the Court issued
an order denying motions filed by certain account holders and others to
intervene in the case. In so doing, the Court found that the freeze of customer
accounts at the outset of the Receivership "properly applied to the movants'
accounts." The Court also found that the SEC and the Receiver adequately
represent the interests of the movants in the pending lawsuit and that, in any
event, the Court has appointed "an examiner to present the collective interests
of Stanford investors to the Court." The Court further referenced the account
review process established by the Receiver and held that movants could not show
that they have an inability to protect their interests. (Click here to view the
order.)
Court Issues Order Appointing Examiner - Also on April 20, 2009, the Court
issued an order appointing John J. Little, of the Dallas, Texas law firm of
Little Pedersen Fankhauser LLP, as Examiner in the case. The order directs the
Examiner to convey to the Court such information as the Examiner, in his sole
discretion, shall determine would be helpful to the Court in considering the
interests of the investors in any financial products, accounts, vehicles or
ventures sponsored, promoted or sold by any of the Defendants. The order also
sets forth the Examiner's authority. The Receiver looks forward to working with
the Examiner to maximize the recovery of assets for the benefit of Stanford
claimants, world-wide. (Click here to view the order.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL INFORMATION
On February 16, 2009, the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Dallas Division, signed an order appointing a Receiver for all the
assets and records (the “Receivership Estate”) of Stanford International Bank,
Ltd., Stanford Group Company, Stanford Capital Management, LLC, R. Allen
Stanford, James M. Davis and Laura Pendergest-Holt ("Defendants") and of all
entities they own or control. The February 16 order, as amended March 12, 2009
(as so amended, the "Amended Receivership Order"), directs the Receiver to,
among other things, take control and possession of and to operate the
Receivership Estate, and to perform all acts necessary to conserve, hold, manage
and preserve the value of the Receivership Estate. In addition, the Amended
Receivership Order restrains and enjoins, without prior approval of the Court,
creditors and all other persons from the following:
* any act to obtain possession of the Receivership Estate assets;
* any act to create, perfect, or enforce any lien against the property of the
Receiver, or the Receivership Estate;
* any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the Receiver or that
would attach to or encumber the Receivership Estate;
* the set off of any debt owed by the Receivership Estate or secured by the
Receivership Estate assets based on any claim against the Receiver or the
Receivership Estate; and
* the filing of any case, complaint, petition, or motion under the Bankruptcy
Code (including, without limitation, the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy
petition under chapter 7 or chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, or a petition
for recognition of foreign proceeding under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy
Code).
(Click here to view the Amended Receivership Order.)
On February 16, 2009, the Court also signed a Temporary Restraining Order
(“TRO”) that temporarily enjoined the Defendants from committing certain
violations of law. The order containing the TRO also contains an Order Freezing
Assets and Order Requiring Preservation of Documents ("Freeze Order"). The
Freeze Order contains certain provisions that continue in full force and effect
until further order by the Court, including, among other things:
* provisions that freeze the assets of the Receivership Estate and prohibit the
destruction of records,
* a provision that enjoins any financial or depository entities that hold one
or more accounts in the name, on behalf or for the benefit of the Defendants
or subsequently added relief defendants from engaging in any transaction in
securities or any disbursement of funds or securities pending further
instructions of the Receiver, and
* a provision that enjoins all other entities and individuals from disbursing
any funds, securities or other property obtained from the Defendants or
subsequently added relief defendants without adequate consideration.
On March 2 and March 12, 2009, the Court entered preliminary injunctions against
the Defendants to substantially the same effect as the TRO and the Freeze Order.
(Click here to view the preliminary injunctions.)
The Amended Receivership Order, the TRO, the Freeze Order and the preliminary
injunctions were issued in connection with a lawsuit brought by the Securities
and Exchange Commission against the Defendants. (Click here to view the amended
complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2009.)
(Click here to view the website of the Securities and Exchange Commission.)
Additional information will be posted on this website as available.
To open the links above you will need Adobe Reader.