Samstag, 30. Juli 2011

Response and Objection to the KLS Motion to Intervene

July 30, 2011
The Motion to Intervene filed by the KLS Stanford Victims should be denied. While styled as a Motion to Intervene (and for the appointement of four additional Stanford investors to the Committee), the Motion is little more than an attempt by one lawyer - Gaytri Kachroo ("Kachroo") - to belatedly insert herself into these proceedings, principally in order to influence defrauded Stanford investors to hire her firm to sue the United States government, but also in an effort to circumvent prior orders of this Court which established and govern the conduct of the Committee.

The Motion should be denied for at least each of the following reasons (any one of which would alone support denial):

A. This Court has uniformly denied all of the numerous previous requests (during this two-and-a-half-year old case) by individual Stanford investors, and groups of investors, to intervene, and instead determined to appoint the Examiner and the Committee to represent the interests of investors in these proceedings, all through carefully crafted orders entered after notice and an opportunity to be heard by Movants and all other Stanford investors and their representatives. Neither Kachroo nor any member of the KLS Group (nor any other Stanford investor for that matter) filed any objections to, or appeals from, any of the relevant orders about which she now belatedly complains, but all of which became final and non-appealable long ago. In fact, no investors filed objections to entry of any of the orders which established the Committee, entrusted it with broad powers to investigate and prosecute claims on behalf of investors and the Receivership estates, and named the Examiner;

B. Even considering Kachroo's request for appointment of her firm's clients to the Committee would be premature and inappropriate unless this Court were to reverse its previous practice and grant her intervention motion;

C. Granting the Motion and/or other motions to intervene at this stage of the proceedings would create chaos, delay and increase the costs of administering these cases;

D. The requested intervention would be futile because the alleged and limited grounds for which the intervention is purportedly sought have either been addressed already, or would be unaffected by the requested intervention;

E. The putative intervenors, all of whom appear to be Stanford investors, are already fully and adequately represented in these proceedings; and

F. The requested intervention is untimely.

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


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE! Source.


Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/

Donnerstag, 21. Juli 2011

SEC Inspector General to Investigate Stanford Texas Receivership

July 21, 2011
By KACHROO LEGAL SERVICES, P.C.
We have learned today that SEC Inspector General David Kotz will begin an investigation of the Texas Receivership of Allen Stanford, pursuant to a request by Kachroo Legal Services, P.C.

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

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

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


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE! Source.


Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/

Freitag, 8. Juli 2011

Stanford Victims Complain About Receiver's Spending

Janvey Overspending July 8, 2011

A motion has been filed in the US District court to protect Stanford Victims from what they view as the overspending by the court-appointed receiver and the negligence of the Stanford Investor Committee.

Acting on their behalf, Kachroo Legal Services, PC has filed a motion to intervene, and for appointment to the Committee.

The motion said KLS Stanford Victims are "dissatisfied with the actions and omissions of the Receiver and believe their interests are not adequately represented in the receivership."

It also said the receiver has failed in his directive to "minimize expenses in furtherance of maximum and timely disbursement thereof to claimants," as ordered by the court.
Investors state that Ralph Janvey has taken all US$120 million of the assets thus far collected by him and already existing in the estate.
A release from the Victims' group is reprinted here, along with a copy of the motion.

Source.
Stanford victims say they're being defrauded again
A motion filed on behalf of the investors who lost money in Allen Stanford's alleged Ponzi scheme two years ago claims the man overseeing the recovery of assets is using up the money instead of helping the victims.

They say that since the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) shut down Stanford's investing and banking operations in 2009 the money collected, which were intended to help them recover their losses, has mostly been used to pay expenses.

According to the motion filed yesterday by Kachroo Legal Services, P.C. and its principal, Gaytri Kachroo, out of the US$7 billion which investors were allegedly defrauded out of through the sale of certificates by the Antigua-based Stanford International Bank (SIB), court-appointed receiver Ralph Janvey has collected – minus expenses – US$1.5 million.

"Whereas, through January 2011 the receivership estate has paid out a massive US$118.2 million in expenses, but none to the investors. As a result, there remains only US$1.5 million for the Stanford victims from the efforts of the receiver. This equates to US$71.42 per investor, but even this small amount will likely be consumed by the receiver," the Stanford International Victims Group said in a statement issued after the motion was filed.

"It is clear that the receiver has not added any substantial value to the estate, and failed in his directive."

In the motion, led by Catherine Burnell of Antigua and the U.K., Ursula Mesa of Florida and Peru, Marcelo Avila of Ecuador, and Steven Graham of Louisiana - representative of the international breadth of investment into the alleged Ponzi scheme - investors state that Janvey has taken all US$120 million of the assets thus far collected by him and already existing in the estate.

The investors also claim that the attorneys who were installed on the Stanford Investors Committee which is responsible for holding the receiver accountable, had struck a deal to make themselves a preapproved 25 percent on all the fraudulent conveyance cases launched by the receivership.

The Committee was set up in August last year, after a judge granted a request by the victims, to look out for the investors' interest and give them a say in the recovery of assets.

However, the investors say "no party to the receivership is acting as a check on the excessive fees and expenses compared to the minimal recovery, challenging the contingency fee arrangement, the operation of the receivership, and otherwise voicing concern over the ineffectiveness of this receivership".

Janvey has not yet responded to the allegations.


Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/

Stanford Victims Refuse to be defrauded by Texas Receiver

July 8, 2011
Released by Kate Freeman
Since the SEC shut down Allen Stanford's investing and banking operations over two years ago, the receivership to help the victims recover their losses has been consuming all the assets, reveals a motion filed today by Kachroo Legal Services, P.C. and its principal, Gaytri Kachroo.

Out of a $7 billion Ponzi scheme, the receiver has collected, net of expenses just $1.5m. Whereas through January 2011 the receivership estate has paid out a massive $118.2m in expenses – but none to the investors. As a result, there remains only $1.5 million for the Stanford victims from the efforts of the Receiver, this equates to $71.42 per investor, but even this small amount will likely be consumed by the Receiver. It is clear that the Receiver has not added any substantial value to the estate, and failed in his directive.

The Stanford Investors Committee (FIC) attorneys have substantial interests in the fees they generate through contingency actions. Almost no party to this action sits completely independent of and disinterested in the assets that are recovered in this receivership. And when those assets are scarce, as in this case, their interest is sharply at odds with that of the investors.

In the motion, led by Catherine Burnell of Antigua and the U.K., Ursula Mesa of Florida and Peru, Marcelo Avila of Ecuador, and Steven Graham of Louisiana - representative of the international breadth of investment into this alleged Ponzi scheme of some $7 billion - investors state that the Receiver has taken all $120 million of the assets thus far collected by him and already existing in the estate. What is more, the attorneys who were installed on the Stanford Investor Committee and responsible for holding the Receiver accountable had in fact done a deal to make themselves a preapproved 25% on all the fraudulent conveyance cases launched by the Receivership!

To date little objection has been filed against the receivership, and finally the KLS group of investors have voiced the dissatisfaction of thousands of investors with the current Texas receiver, Janvey and the Stanford Investor Committee appointed by the courts. No party to the receivership is acting as a check on the excessive fees and expenses compared to the minimal recovery, challenging the contingency fee arrangement, the operation of the receivership and otherwise voicing concern over the ineffectiveness of this receivership. The only person objecting is Alan Stanford — the person who allegedly committed the fraud.

The motion was filed on the heels of a change in the Antiguan liquidation, which had come under similar complaint and attack and lead to the removal of the previous receivers and their substitution by Grant Thornton.
KLS STANFORD VICTIMS' MOTION TO INTERVENE AND FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE OFFICIAL STANFORD INVESTOR COMMITTEE
Movants file this motion to intervene in this proceeding and for appointment to the Committee on behalf of themselves and as representatives for investors with over 500 Stanford accounts that are part of the receivership (the "KLS Stanford Victims").

The payments provided to attorneys and the Receiver in this case do not appear to reflect any reasonable compensation for the services provided nor appear in the best interest of the receivership or the victims, upon whose behalf the receivership should benefit. Moreover, the Receiver's contingency agreements with the attorneys on the Committee create a substantial and disabling self-interest that precludes adequate, independent representation of the investors by the Committee and in this proceeding.
DECLARATION OF DR. GAYTRI D. KACHROO
In connection with the Motion to Intervene, KLS diligently reviewed the filings in this action, and other actions taken on behalf of the receivership, including the fee applications and reports by the Receiver. It appears on the basis of the pleadings and documents in this action, that the receiver has failed in his directive to "minimize expenses in furtherance of maximum and timely disbursement thereof to claimants," as ordered by the Court. The payments provided to attorneys, consultants and the Receiver in this case do not appear to reflect any reasonable compensation for the services provided nor appear in the best interests of the receivership or the victims.

The issues of the exorbitant fees and the operation of the estate, which have drained substantial recovered assets, do not appear to be adequately raised or addressed by the Official Stanford Investor Committee nor any other party to this proceeding.

As part of the Official Stanford Investor Committee, the Movants would raise these and other related issues to adequately represent the interests of Stanford investors worldwide.


Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/