tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39740255272636340602024-02-08T02:46:30.136-08:00Stanford International Victims Group - SIVGWelcome to the SIVG official Blog!<br>
(Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG <a href="http://sivg.org/">http://sivg.org</a>)Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.comBlogger170125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-38416679415531338482014-10-06T04:35:00.000-07:002014-10-16T04:38:16.136-07:00Announcement from Allen Stanford <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
To the Stanford International Bank depositors, and clients of the global Stanford Financial Group<br />
<br />
As this is the first statement from me since the February 17, 2009 destruction of the global Stanford companies, and my imprisonment for allegedly operating a fraud that has been referred to as a "Ponzi scheme", I want to be direct, clear and emphatic. The actions taken by the U.S. government against me and my companies and that resulted in such harm to so many of you, was baseless, opportunistically contrived and, most importantly, unlawful. To many of you, and especially those of you who believe in and trust the accuracy and veracity of the American media machine, for now I will simply advise you of the series of legal actions taken by me in recent months and ask that you look at them on line, read them carefully and then follow their progress through the American legal system. In the coming days and weeks, as these legal initiatives make their way through the courts I will be posting a daily message on this site to keep informed those of you who have been harmed.<br />
Meanwhile, I want all of you to know, the many of you around the world who entrusted me and my companies with your investment monies, that it is my intent, and in fact my mission in this life, to restore my good reputation as an honest man, and to personally repay each and every one of you... in full ...each and every dollar that was so wrongfully taken from you by the Securities and Exchange Commission.<br />
The manner in which I intend to achieve this will be made clear in the coming weeks.<br />
<br />
Thank you,<br />
<br />
R. Allen Stanford<br />
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=esp&id=100" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=esp&id=100</a><br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-33541714189332046092014-10-06T04:31:00.000-07:002014-10-16T04:34:28.215-07:00Anuncio de Allen Stanford<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<strong>A los depositantes de Stanford International Bank y clientes del global Stanford FinancialGroup</strong></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Como éste es la primera declaración de mí parte desde la destrucción de 17 de febrero de 2009 de las empresas mundiales de Stanford, y mi encarcelación por presuntamente operar un fraude que se ha referido como un "esquema Ponzi", quiero ser directo, claro y enfático. Las medidas adoptadas por el gobierno de Estados Unidos contra mí y mis empresas y que dio lugar a un daño para tantos de ustedes, fue infundada, oportunamente ideado y, lo más importante fue ilegal. A muchos de ustedes y especialmente aquellos de ustedes que creen en y confían en la exactitud y veracidad de la maquinaría de los medios estadounidenses, por ahora simplemente le aconsejaréque revisen una serie de acciones legales tomadas por mí en los últimos meses, y lean atentamente y luego sigan su progreso a través del sistema legal estadounidense. En los próximos días y semanas, a medida que estas iniciativas legales hacen su camino a través de los tribunales, voy a publicar un mensaje diario en este sitio para mantener informado a aquellos que han sido perjudicados.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Mientras tanto, quiero que sepan,a todos ustedesalrededordel mundo quienes confiaron en mí y mis empresas con sus fondos de inversión, que es mi intención y de hecho mi misión en esta vida, restaurar mi buena reputación como un hombre honrado y para personalmente pagar todos y cada uno de ustedes... en su totalidad.. .cada y todo dólar que tan injustamente le fue quitado por la Securities and Exchange Commission.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
La manera en la cual tengo la intención de lograr este objetivo se realizará en las próximas semanas.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Gracias</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
R. Allen Stanford</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
</div>
<h2 data-mce-style="text-align: center;" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; line-height: 19px; text-align: center;">
Leer mas: <a data-mce-href="http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=esp&id=100" href="http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=esp&id=100" target="_blank" title="http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=esp&id=100">http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=esp&id=100</a></h2>
<h2 data-mce-style="text-align: center;" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; line-height: 19px; text-align: center;">
Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum <a data-mce-href="http://sivg.org/forum/" href="http://sivg.org/forum/">http://sivg.org/forum/</a></h2>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-29281728157392848652014-09-28T04:10:00.000-07:002014-09-28T04:10:02.719-07:00Una breve descripción de cada punto en la apelación de Stanford<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span lang="ES-TRAD">I. si la
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) tenía jurisdicción y autoridad
reguladora sobre Stanford International Bank Limited (SIB), o sus certificados
de depósito (CD). Y si, después de la acción civil de la SEC, la acusación
penal del Departamento de Justicia (DOJ) era defectuoso.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">No creemos que el gobierno puso en evidencia
o demostró que la SEC tenía autoridad para investigar Stanford International
Bank, que era un banco offshore.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">En primer lugar, la SEC no tiene la autoridad
para investigar los bancos en general, mucho menos un banco offshore [extranjero].
Así que no tuvieron ninguna autoridad legal para exigir al Sr. Stanford para
participar o colaborar con una investigación de su banco, para lo cual no
tenían ninguna autoridad legal para investigar.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">El 18 de julio de 2014, en la 'Securities and
Exchange Commission v. Securities Investor ProtectionCorporation'. (SEC v.
SIPC) (caso Nº 12-5286) el D.C. circuito determinó concluyentemente y ordenó
concluyente, que los CDsofrecidos por el Banco extranjeroInternacional de
Stanford fueron; (a) no "valores" como definición por, o regulación
bajo las leyes federales de valores de Estados Unidos y en cambio eran; (b) “obligaciones
de deuda"del banco, que eran; (c) no "vendido" a través de, o
por Stanford Group Company y por lo tanto; (d) los compradores de esos CDs no
fueron "clientes" del SGC y por lo tanto nunca estaban bajo la
jurisdicción o sujetos a la autoridad reguladora de la U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">El 05 de septiembre de 2014 la Securities and
Exchange Commission concedió a los hechos antes mencionados como lo decidió el
Tribunal de circuito de D.C. y decidió que no apelaría dicha decisión.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">Más allá de la cuestión de la
extraterritorialidad - que es que Estados Unidos nunca tuvo jurisdicción ni
autoridad reguladora sobre el Stanford International Bank - el Departamento de
justicia amplió su nueva acusación reemplazando las fechas de las supuestas
ofensas desde 1999-2009 (en su acusación del 18 de junio de 2009)(Doc. 1) hasta
1990-2010 (doc. 422). Este incremento (desde el año 1990hasta el año 2010) no
sólo ocasiona que esta acusación sea "defectuosa", sino que también
representa otro objetivo del DOJ que es el "fraude a la corte".<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">Para comenzar con - y más allá del hecho de
que en febrero de 2010 el acusado Stanford había estado bajo custodia federal
un total de ocho meses - en 1990 el estadounidense (Broker/Dealer) Stanford
Group Company aun no existía.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">Contrariamente a sus afirmaciones en la nueva
acusación, AUSA Costa sabía que los CD emitidos por SIB no fueron
"ofrecidos" por SIB ni "sugeridos" por SGC a ciudadanos
estadounidenses o residentes hasta el año 1998 - un completo ocho años más allá
del marco de tiempo alegado en la acusación.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">En la elaboración de su nueva acusación, el
Departamento de justicia se dio cuenta que una gran cantidad de riqueza del
demandado Stanford fue creada a través de empresas de bienes raíces antes de
1998-el año de su presentación "Reglamento D" ante la SEC y mucho
antes de que SIB comenzara a "ofrecer" y la SGC comenzaraa "sugerir"
los CDs a los ciudadanos estadounidenses.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">Al expandir el año del "esquema
fraudulento" desde 1990, el Departamento de justicia entonces fue capaz de
afirmar que esa riqueza pre-1998, "justifica" su liquidación ilegal por
parte del receptor y evita que el acusado Stanford pueda acceder a cualquiera
de esos activos para utilizarlos en su defensa. Y lo más importante, al expandirse
el año del "esquema fraudulento" adelante a 2010, pudieron crear la
apariencia que el acusado era culpable por las pérdidas que se produjeron un
año después de la fecha de la TRO (Orden de restricción temporal) - un momento
cuando el receptor designado por el Tribunal estaba en control, y cuando
Stanford era incapaz (prohibido por el gobierno) de honrar las obligaciones de
SIB.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span lang="ES-TRAD">II. si los
simultáneos juicios civiles y penales (y sanciones), basado en los mismos
eventos subyacentes, eran violaciones de la cláusula de debido proceso de la
Quinta y Octava enmiendas, y de la protección del acusado Stanford debido a
doble juzgado.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">El 16 de febrero de 2009 la Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) presentó una denuncia civil en el distrito norte de
Texas (División de Dallas) y solicitó una orden de restricción temporal (TRO)
para hacerse con el control de todos los activos globales del demandado
Stanford, tanto personales como corporativos. La SEC solicitó el nombramiento
de un síndico/receptor Ralph S. Janvey.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">El receptor fue específicamente dirigido y
autorizado para:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">"Realizar todos los actos necesarios
para conservar, mantener, administrar y preservar el valor del Banco, con el
fin de evitar cualquier irreparable pérdida, daños o lesiones al Banco".<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">Antes de cualquier hallazgo de
irregularidades, ya sea civil o criminal, en febrero 24 del 2010, el Tribunal
Civil de Dallas había aprobado la venta de dos buques propiedad del acusadoStanford.
En la aprobación de esta venta, juez Godbey ordenó al receptor "secuestrar”
la mitad del producto de ambas ventas.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">Esto y otras prematuras ventas y desembolsos
de sus activos, fueron una presunción de culpabilidad, un verdadero hecho
consumado inconstitucional.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">"Este receptor y su equipo han pasado
importantes cantidades de tiempo en estas actividades, las principales
actividades han sido coordinación con la SEC, el FBI y el Departamento de
justicia en la identificación y reuniendo grandes cantidades de documentos e
información relevante para sus investigaciones en curso y responder a numerosas
y extensas solicitudes de la SEC, el FBI y el Departamento de justicia para
analizar y proporcionar información y documentos."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">"Una parte importante del trabajo de FTI
(Karyl Van Tassel) involucró la recopilación de información a petición de la
SEC, el FBI y el Departamento de justicia en relación con sus investigaciones,
utilizando numerosas bases de datos complejas, correos electrónicos, registros
contables, documentos financieros y archivos encontrados".<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">De hecho, los informes de investigación
generados por esta firma FTI, y financiado por la administración judicial de
Stanford, fueron utilizados por el gobierno como la Fundación de todo su caso.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">El acusado Stanford presentaría que esto es
sin lugar a dudas "apoyo" de su argumento de que las investigaciones
civiles y criminales fueron efectivamente una acción concertada y llevado a cabo
como uno solo.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">Janvey y FTI en realidad estaban realizando
"una parte significativa" de lasinvestigaciones del SEC, el FBI y el
Departamento de justicia.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">En Estados Unidos v. Kordel, 397 US 1, 11
(1970), el Tribunal Supremo citó cinco situaciones en las que puede resultar
una constatación de una violación del debido proceso. En el caso de Stanford
encontramos tres de ellos:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">1). Si el Gobierno realiza una acción civil
únicamente para la obtención de pruebas para su enjuiciamiento penal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">2). Considerando que el acusado
razonablemente teme perjuicio adverso de publicidad previa al juicio u otra
lesión injusta.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">3). Considerando que existe cualquier otra
circunstancia especial que podría sugerir la inconstitucionalidad, o incluso la
inconveniencia de un proceso penal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span lang="ES-TRAD">III. si el
Tribunal violó la Cuarta enmienda del demandado Stanford contra cateos ilegales
y búsquedas al:<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span lang="ES-TRAD"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="ES-TRAD">a)</span></b><span lang="ES-TRAD">PERMITIENDO QUE LA ORDEN (CIVIL)
DEL RECEPTOR FUERA UTILIZADO COMO UN "RECURSO DE ASISTENCIA"<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">El 17 de febrero de 2009, el receptor
designado en materia civil, entró en las oficinas de Stanford FinancialGroup
(en Houston y en otros lugares), con el propósito de agarrar el control de todoslos
papeles y documentación electrónica indicados en la orden del receptor (vol. 6)
(USCA5 1478-1488). Este receptor fue acompañado por U.S. Marshals, policías y
agentes del FBI que, basado en la invitación aparente del receptor, eran libres
para llevar a cabo un registro sin orden judicial e incautación de varios
elementos en las instalaciones, de los cuales el Departamento de justicia
utilizaría más adelante en la subsecuente investigación criminal y el
enjuiciamiento.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="ES-TRAD">El Tribunal (juez
Hittner) -</span></b><span lang="ES-TRAD"> pero
usted dice fue confiscado... se han incautado en una acción civil y el receptor
en la acción civil entregó al gobierno.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="ES-TRAD">Sr. Fazel -</span></b><span lang="ES-TRAD"> correcto. Pero estamos diciendo
que la cuarta enmienda se aplica porque la acción del estado se produjo cuando
los oficiales - oficiales de policía fueron interactuando con el receptor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="ES-TRAD">El Tribunal -</span></b><span lang="ES-TRAD"> cómo puedes volver y limpiarlo
en una situación como ésta? Creo que es imposible, porque no tenían ninguna
orden, eso es seguro.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="ES-TRAD">Sr. Fazel -</span></b><span lang="ES-TRAD"> eso es seguro.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">En violación de los derechos del acusado
Stanford bajo la cuarta enmienda, la objeción del abogado fuéDENEGADA y la
prueba 1500 (agenda de RAS con números telefónicos) - obtenida sin la orden de
registro requerida - fue admitido como evidencia.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">Más evidencia de que la orden de receptor fue
utilizada como una orden general o "recurso de asistencia" puede
encontrarse en el acceso y admisión de la prueba 616 del gobierno (2006 faxes y
cartas entre Sr. King y Alvarado Re: proyecto de respuesta a ECCB).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">"El baluarte de la protección de la
cuarta enmienda" requiere que la "policía obtenga una orden de un
magistrado neutral y desinteresado antes de embarcarse en una búsqueda"
Franks v. 438 de Delaware, Estados Unidos 154 (1978). No importa si estos
artículos fueron "puntualmente proporcionados" a las agencias
gubernamentales o recogidos por ellos de manera independiente, ellos accedieron
<b><u>sin una orden judicial</u></b>
mediante la utilización de la orden del receptor como un "recurso de
asistencia".<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="ES-TRAD">b)</span></b><span lang="ES-TRAD">PERMITIENDO QUE EL RECEPTOR
DESIGNADO ACTUARA FUERA DEL ALCANCE DE LA ORDEN DE RECEPTORIA.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">El 06 de enero de 2012, el defensor Stanford
presentó una "Moción para suprimir" y solicitar una audiencia
probatoria. (vol. 5)(USCA5 1435-1474) Este movimiento también fue negado por el
Tribunal (juez Hittner), y no se llevó a cabo ninguna audiencia probatoria.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">Específicamente, la cuestión en este asunto
preocupa al receptor por acceso no autorizado y difusión de información completa
de las cuentas del cliente de Stanford International Bank que estaban
almacenadas en las bases de datos 'Datos Pro' y 'Temenos' ubicado en Antigua y
protegido por las leyes de secreto y privacidad de banco de Antigua y Barbuda
(Bus Intl. 244(1)) CorpAct. Lo que supera el alcance de la orden del receptor y
por lo tanto su autoridad, este acceso ilegal y no autorizado de información sobre
las cuentas del cliente del SIB fue alcanzado por una "carta de
autorización" por Ralph S. Janvey (receptor) al Sr. Sohil Merchant, el
empleado de Stanford que había diseñado las bases de datos y por lo tanto sabía
eludir el sistema de seguridad de las computadoras del banco.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">Cuando esta información inesperadamente falló
en producir una sola "víctima" y en cambio sirvió para desmentir
completamente estas acusaciones de esquema Ponzi y exonerar al demandado
Stanford, la compañía de contabilidad forense (FTI) secuestró esas
Temenos/DataPro bases de datos en un almacén controlado por FTI y lejos de la defensa
de Stanford -inaccesibles en Washington, D.C.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">El acceso (ilegal) fue completado y como
admitió el Director Gerente de FTI (Karyl Van Tassel), estas dos DataPro y
Temenos bases de datos habían sido trasladados desde Houston a Washington,
D.C., fuera de capacidad en presupuesto restringido de la defensa para accederlas.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="ES-TRAD">Karyl Van Tassel:</span></b><span lang="ES-TRAD">Nosotros tenemos una base de
datos con la información del CD de SIB, Temenos y DataPro.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="ES-TRAD">Michael Stanley
(abogado):</span></b><span lang="ES-TRAD"> está
bien. ¿Dónde están localizados?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="ES-TRAD">Karyl Van Tassel:</span></b><span lang="ES-TRAD">Yo diría que el Temenos y
DataPro están en la oficina de Washington...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">Con respecto al caso de Stanford, el 26 de
febrero de 2009, y previo a este acceso ilegal de información de privacidad
protegida por ley, el Tribunal superior de Antigua y Barbuda emitió una orden
(vol. 6) (USCA5 1727-1750) en la que explícitamente dice:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">"(1) no divulgación de información
específica del cliente está autorizada sin más, o de otro, orden de la corte; y
(2) No divulgación de información está permitida bajo esta orden a cualquier
gobierno extranjero o un organismo regulador a menos que dicha divulgación está
sujeta a obligacionesde divulgación mutuas. Para los propósitos de esta orden,
información específica del cliente significa información suficiente de detalle
para permitir identificar el cliente en cuestión, la dirección del cliente o el
monto de tales créditos saldos u otras inversiones de las cuentas." (vol.
6)((JSCA5 1729-1730)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">El Departamento de justicia estadounidense
reconoce que búsquedas hechas en otro país y llevadas a cabo por 'estatales'
(americanos) (o Ralph Janvey, actuando como un "oficial" de la corte
del juez Godbey) deben realizarse con el consentimiento de los locales del país
y sus leyes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">En este caso ninguno de estas instrucciones
de la Corte Suprema o garantías relacionadas con los tratados o protocolos se
adhirieron. Como es evidente, el receptor (Ralph Janvey) esgrimió la orden civil
como un "recurso de asistencia" y superaba con creces su alcance.
Además de su amplia investigación asistencia y coordinación con los
investigadores (penales), mediante la emisión de esta "carta de
autorización" para el acceso de datos, protegidos por la ley de privacidad,
ubicados en Antigua, violó las leyes de la nación soberana de Antigua y Barbuda
tanto las leyes del Tratado de los Estados Unidos.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">Finalmente y lo más importante en estos
procesos, como este ilegal acceso, (justificativo) Temenos y DataPro base de
datos, se prestó al FBI y muy claramente y de forma selectiva fue utilizado por
el gobierno en el juicio, bajo Brady v. Maryland Estados Unidos (1963) <b><u>debería haber sido</u></b>, <u>pero
nunca fue</u>, proporcionado a la defensa.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">Por lo tanto, en su semblante de este acto,
seguido por el uso de esta información y fallapara ser proporcionada a la
defensa, los fiscales de Estados Unidos violaron, de la manera más atroz, tanto
la normativa de los descubrimientos y la cuarta enmienda del demandado Stanford
al debido proceso y protección desde cateos ilegales y confiscaciones.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<br />
Leer mas: <a href="http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=esp&id=99" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=esp&id=99</a><br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-86975016941140932882014-09-12T13:16:00.000-07:002014-09-15T13:22:21.138-07:00Appeal of Robert Allen Stanford - Sep. 10, 2014<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span lang="EN-US">Following
part of the appeal of Stanford.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">STATEMENT OF
ISSUES<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">I.</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Whether the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) had jurisdiction and regulatory authority over
Stanford International Bank Limited (SIB), or its Certificates of Deposit
(CDs). And whether, following the SEC's civil action, the Department of Justice's
(DOJ) criminal Indictment was defective.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">II.</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Whether the
simultaneous civil and criminal prosecutions (and sanctions imposed), based on
the same underlying events, were violations of the DueProcess Clause of the
Fifth and Eighth Amendments, and defendant Stanford's protection from Double Jeopardy.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">III.</span></b><span lang="EN-US">Whether the Trial
Court violated defendant Stanford's Fourth Amendment protection from illegal searches
and seizures.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">IV.</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Whether the District
Court abused its discretion when it failed to hold a pre-trial Hearing to
determine whether defendant Stanford had any "untainted" funds that
could be used to pay for his defense.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">V.</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Whether the Trial Court
abused its discretion by (a) disqualifying defendant Stanford's competent
counsel of choice, and; (b) forcing ill-prepared appointed counsel to proceed
to trial.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">VI.</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Whether the Trial
Court violated defendant Stanford's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial, by
failing to provide appropriate responses to Jury Notes Two and Three.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">VII.</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Whether defendant
Stanford was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial, because
pre-trial publicity precluded the assembly of an impartial jury.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">VIII.</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Whether the Trial
Court abused its discretion by first deeming defendant Stanford competent, and
then failing to grant him adequate time to prepare an effective defense, assist
his counsel, or prepare to testify on his own behalf; in violation of the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as his Fifth and Sixth
Amendment rights to a fair trial.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">IX.</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Whether the Trial
Court abused its discretion by denying defendant Stanford adequate time to
prepare an effective defense.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">X.</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Whether the Trial Court
violated defendant Stanford's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by failing
to provide the jury with a "unanimity of theory" instruction specific
to which "misrepresentation" (element), on each of the mail fraud
and/or wire fraud Counts constituted the overall "scheme to defraud."
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">XI.</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Whether the Trial
Court violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, by
proceeding with evidence which was insufficient to prove the essential elements
of the mail fraud statute.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">XII.</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Whether the Trial
Court violated defendant Stanford's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by
issuing a modified "Allen charge" that was coercive. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">XIII.</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Whether the Trial
Court abused its discretion by enhancing defendant Stanford's sentence based on
information not found in any Count of the Indictment, and that was neither
entered into evidence, nor submitted to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">XIV.</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Whether the Trial
Court, through its rulings, demonstrated a partiality in favor of the
Government that denied defendant Stanford an opportunity to present an adequate
defense, in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to Due Process, and his
Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">XV.</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Whether under the
Cumulative Error Doctrine the issues presented here amount to a denial of
defendant Stanford's Constitutional right to a fair trial, and thus undermined
the reliability of the verdict.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">STATEMENT I</span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">Mr. McGuire</span></b><span lang="EN-US">: <i>Specifically, as to Count 12, which is the
Conspiracy to Obstruct the SEC Investigation; we don't believe the Government
put on any evidence or showed that the SEC had authority to investigate
Stafford International Bank, which was an offshore bank. <o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-US">First of all, the SEC does not have the authority to
investigate banks in general, much less an offshore [foreign] bank. So, they
had no lawful authority to require Mr. Stanford to participate in or cooperate
with an investigation of his bank, for which they had no lawful authority to
investigate... (vol. 56)(USCA5 11534-11535)<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">For instance, at
a pre-trial Hearing where the Government was requesting a Motion in Limine,
barring any discussion about SIB's eligibility or ineligibility to access
federal bailout money (TARP Funds), the prosecution pointed out the following: </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">AUSA Stellmach</span></b><span lang="EN-US">: <i>There are two points, Judge; one, we just
want to preclude any suggestion that the SIB was ever eligible. Foreign banks
only received funds if they had U.S. subsidiaries, which Mr. Stanford's bank
did not, because he didn't want to subject it to U.S. regulations. So it was
never eligible for the TARP or any bailout funds. So it would be misleading to
the jury to suggest otherwise... (vol. 36)(USCA5 15453)</i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Ultimately, the
Trial Judge (Hittner) would grant this Motion in Limine (vol. 5)(USCA5
1381-1392)(Doc. 585) and, in the process, would further confirm the SEC's lack
of jurisdiction over the bank by stating: </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-US">"[T]he allegation about TARP funds which foreign
banks like SIB was not eligible to receive, is GRANTED at this time..."
(vol. 36)(USCA5 15469)<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">AUSA Costa</span></b><span lang="EN-US">: [w]ho directly
regulated Stanford International Bank throughout its histories? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">Mr. Young</span></b><span lang="EN-US">: The FSRC. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">AUSA Costa</span></b><span lang="EN-US">: Which is just
in Antigua? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">Mr. Young</span></b><span lang="EN-US">: Yes. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">(vol. 50)(USCA5 7697-7698)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">The most
definitive proof of all, however, is found in the Superseding Indictment
itself, under Section (5), which states: <i>Although
SIB marketed and sold its CDs within the United States, SIB was an
Antiguan-based bank, and was not regulated by any United States banking
authority. Instead, SIB was regulated by an agency of the Antiguan Government
known as the Financial Services Regulatory Commission (the "Antiguan
Regulatory Commission") which claimed to conduct inspections to determine
the solvency of banks, to review the quality of bank's investments, and to
confirm the accuracy of bank's reported returns. (Doc. 422)</i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">In a related case, the Fifth Circuit has concluded
that the Certificates of Deposit offered by SIB were not "covered
securities" within the meaning of the preclusion provisions to the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standard Act (SLUSA), specified in 15 U.S.C. §
78bb(F)(1)(A).<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">In yet another
Stanford related case (Chadbourne& Parke, LLP v. Samuel Troice, et. al. 134
S.Ct. 1058 (2014) - recently before the Supreme Court), on theissue of "in
connection with" and "covered securities", Justices Scalia,
Kagan and Breyer noted the following:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">JUSTICE SCALIA <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">"I had
assumed that the purpose of the securities laws was to protect the purchasers
and sellers of covered securities. There is no purchaser - or seller of a
covered security involved here. It's.. .it's a purchaser of not-covered
securities who is being defrauded, if anyone...why...why would the Federal
Securities Laws protect that person?"</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">JUSTICE KAGAN <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">"In all our
cases, there's been something to say when somebody asks the question: how has
this affected a potential purchaser or seller in the market for the relevant
securities?" "And here there's nothing to say."</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">On July 18,
2014, in 'Securities and Exchange Commission v. Securities Investor Protection
Corporation'. (SEC v. SIPC) (case no. 12-5286) the D.C. Circuit conclusively
determined, and conclusively ruled, that the CDs offered by the
foreign-incorporated and foreign-domiciled Stanford International Bank were;
(a) not "securities" as defined by, or regulated under, the federal
securities laws of the United States, and instead were; (b) "debt
obligations" of the Bank, which were; (c) not "sold" through, or
by, Stanford Group Company, and thus; (d) the purchasers of those CDs were not
"customers" of SGC, and were therefore never under the jurisdiction
or subject to the regulatory authority of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">"The
[District] Court reasoned that the investors obtained the Antiguan bank's CDs
by depositing funds with the bank itself, not with SGC, and they thus cannot be
considered customers of the latter. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">We agree that
the CD investors do not qualify as customers of SGC under the operative
statutory definition."</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-US">On September 5, 2014 the Securities and Exchange
Commission conceded to the aforementioned facts as found by the D.C. Circuit
Court, and decided that they would not appeal the decision any further.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Beyond the
extraterritoriality issue - which is that the United States never had
jurisdiction nor regulatory authority over the foreign-incorporated and
foreigndomiciled Stanford International Bank - in their new Superseding
Indictment the DOJ broadened the dates of the alleged offenses from 1999-2009
(in their June 18, 2009 Indictment)(Doc. 1) to 1990-2010 (Doc. 422). This
reach-back (to the year 1990) and forward (to the year 2010) not only renders
the Indictment "defective", it is representative of another DOJ goal,
and is a "fraud upon the Court".</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">To begin with -
and beyond the fact that by February of 2010 defendant Stanford had been in
federal custody a full eight months - in 1990 the U.S.-based (Broker/Dealer)
Stanford Group Company did not yet exist.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Contrary to his
assertions in the Superseding Indictment, AUSA Costa knew that the CDs issued
by SIB were neither "offered" by SIB nor "suggested" by SGC
to any American citizens or residents until the year 1998 - a full eight years
beyond the time frame alleged in the Indictment.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">In crafting
their new Superseding Indictment, the DOJ realized that a vast amount of
defendant Stanford's wealth was created through real estate ventures prior to
1998- the year of his "Regulation D" filing with the SEC, and long
before SIB began "offering" and SGC began "suggesting" the
CDs to U.S. citizens. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">By their
expanding the year of the "fraudulent scheme" back to 1990, the DOJ
was then able to lay claim to that pre-1998 wealth, "justify" the
Receiver's unlawful liquidations of pre-1998 assets, and thereby prevent
defendant Stanford from accessing any of these assets to utilize in his
defense. And more importantly, by expanding the year of the "fraudulent
scheme" forward to 2010, they were able (as detailed in ISSUE XIII) to
create the appearance that defendant Stanford was culpable for losses which
occurred a full year beyond the date of the TRO - a time when the
Court-appointed Receiver was in control, and when Stanford was incapable
(prohibited by the Government) of honoring SIB 's obligations.</span></div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
Read more: <a href="http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=264" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=264</a><br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-46772212957975204912014-09-11T13:10:00.000-07:002014-09-15T13:15:15.628-07:00Apelacion de Robert Allen Stanford - Sep. 10, 2014<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">A continuación parte de la apelación de
Stanford.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD" style="font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: ES-TRAD;">DECLARACIÓN
DE TEMAS<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">I. si la Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) tenía jurisdicción y autoridad reguladora sobre Stanford International
Bank Limited (SIB), o sus certificados de depósito (CD). Y si, después de la
acción civil de la SEC, la acusación penal del Departamento de Justicia (DOJ)
era defectuoso.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">II. si los simultáneos juicios civiles y
penales (y sanciones), basado en los mismos eventos subyacentes, eran
violaciones de la cláusula de debido proceso de la Quinta y Octava enmiendas, y
de la protección del acusado Stanford debido a doble juzgado.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">III. si el Tribunal violó la Cuarta enmienda
del demandado Stanford contra cateos ilegales y búsquedas.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">IV. si el Tribunal de distrito abusó de su
discreción al no celebrar una audiencia previa al juicio para determinar si el
acusado Stanford tenía fondos "no relacionados con el caso" que
podrían utilizarse para pagar su defensa.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">V. si el Tribunal abusó de su discreción por
(a) descalificación del demandado Stanford para elegir a un Asesor competente,
y; (b) obligando al nombrado abogado para preparar yproceder con el juicio.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">VI. si el Tribunal violó el derecho de
enmienda Sexta del acusado Stanford a un juicio justo, por no dar respuestas
apropiadas a jurado notas 2 y 3.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">VII. si demandado Stanford fue privado de su derecho
a la Sexta enmienda a un juicio justo, porque la publicidad previa al juicio
imposibilitó el montaje de un jurado imparcial.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">VIII. si el Tribunal abusó de su discreción
por primero atribuiral demandado Stanford competente y luego al no concederle
el tiempo adecuado para preparar una defensa eficaz, ayudar a su abogado, o
preparar a testificar en su propia defensa; en violación de la cláusula de
debido proceso de la Decimocuarta Enmienda, así como sus Quinta y Sexta
enmienda de los derechos a un juicio justo.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">IX. si el Tribunal abusó de su discreción al
negar al demandado Stanfordun tiempo adecuado para preparar una defensa
efectiva.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">X. si el Tribunal violó el derecho de
enmienda Sexta del acusado Stanford a un juicio justo por no proporcionar al
jurado con una instrucción de "unanimidad de teoría" específica para la
"tergiversación" (elemento), en cada uno delos fraude que constituyeron
en general el "esquema para defraudar".<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">XI. si el Tribunal violó la cláusula de
debido proceso de la Decimocuarta Enmienda, procediendo con la evidencia que
era insuficiente para probar los elementos esenciales de la ley de fraude de
correo.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">XII. si el Tribunal violó el derecho de
enmienda Sexta del acusado Stanford a un juicio justo mediante la emisión de
una modificada"acusaciónpara Allen" que fue coercitivo.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">XIII. si el Tribunal abusó de su discreción
mejorando la frase del acusado Stanford en base a información no encontrada en
ningún cargo de la acusación, y que ni siquiera entró en evidencia, ni fue presentada
al jurado y probado más allá de una duda razonable.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="ES-TRAD">XIV. si el Tribunal, a través de sus
resoluciones, demostró una parcialidad a favor del gobierno que negó al acusado
Stanford una oportunidad para presentar una defensa adecuada, en violación de
su Quinta Enmiendade derecho al debido proceso y su Sexta enmienda de derecho a
un juicio justo.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span lang="ES-TRAD" style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: ES-TRAD; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span>
<span lang="ES-TRAD" style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: ES-TRAD; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="text-align: justify;">XV</span>. ya sea bajo la doctrina de Error acumulado sobre
los temas presentados aquí,entre otros a una negación del derecho
constitucional del acusado Stanford a un juicio justo, y de esta manera minó la
fiabilidad del veredicto.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
Leer mas: <a href="http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=esp&id=99" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=esp&id=99</a><br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-27312935670309256542014-08-09T03:08:00.000-07:002014-09-13T03:12:18.688-07:00The "Conclusion", "Requested Relief" and the "Restitution" (part of the appeal)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b>The appeal will be filed in a matter of just a few days. All of us involved in its development agree that all of the victims should see the "Conclusion", "Requested Relief" and the "Restitution" part of the appeal before it's printed and presented in court.</b><br /><br /><span style="background-color: white;">CONCLUSION<br /><br />"When the law has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has beenused to destroy its own objective; it has been applied to annihilating the justicethat it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense."<br />- Frederic Bastiat,1850<br />As if this French philosopher was prophesying 164 years into the future, this is precisely what was done in and through the collective and unscrupulous actions against Robert Allen Stanford and his companies. In short, in the annals of American jurisprudence, it is doubtful that any individual has suffered (and lived to talk about) a greater injustice than this appellant.<br />At the Stanford trial, when faced with a ruling on just one of the irrefutable violations of this appellant's rights under the U.S. Constitution, the Trial Judge (David Hittner) posed the question:<br /><br />-How can you go back and clean it up in a situation like this?<br />(vol.46.)(USCA5 6865-6866)<br /><br />The answer to that question, which has been passed on to this Honorable Court, is as clear now as it was at the time of the Stanford trial.<br /><br />REQUESTED RELIEF<br /><br />Based on the lawless and life-ruining actions of both the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice, followed by the foregoing violations to this appellant's rights under the U.S. Constitution, Robert Allen Stanford prays that this Court will acquit him of all charges in this matter, and vacate his March 6, 2012 conviction in its entirety.<br /><br />RESTITUTION<br /><br />Further, and in addition to a total acquittal and vacating his March 6, 2012 conviction in its entirety, Robert Allen Stanford prays that this Honorable Court will send a message to the "collective force" (the Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice) and hold them publicly accountable, and monetarily liable, for their lawless and life-ruining actions. Collectively, these actions have resulted in the total destruction of the global group of Stanford companies, ruined both the personal and professional reputation of Robert Allen Stanford, and brought unimaginable and unquantifiable grief and hardship to his family. And not to mention, caused this appellant to be unjustly charged, convicted, and sentenced to an unprecedented 110 years in a maximum security federal penitentiary.<br />Additionally, these lawless and unscrupulous actions on the part of this "collective force" caused unquantifiable losses and (continue to cause) untold hardship to the thousands of dedicated Stanford employees throughout the United States and around the world.<br />And, lastly, and most importantly for this Honorable Court to never forget, as Mr. Stanford himself never has, is the fact that the "collective force" of these two agencies of the United States Government have caused the many thousands of depositors in Stanford International Bank, in the United States and around the world, to lose virtually every dollar entrusted to it, and to its owner, this appellant, Robert Allen Stanford.<br /><br />More precisely, appellant Robert Allen Stanford now prays that this Honorable Court will Order the full monetary restoration of every asset which was caused to be lost or destroyed by this "collective force", a restitution he very conservatively calculates at $15 billion.<br />Following his acquittal, and immediate release from prison, Stanford prays that this Honorable Court will begin this restoration process by Ordering the rightful return of the Stanford International Bank's 'Temenos and DataPro' customer account information (which was illegally accessed by the Receiver and is now being used in his insidious "clawback" actions), which precisely identifies each depositor and the amount currently owed to them - as it is this appellant's desire, and full intent, to quickly return to Stanford International Bank in Antigua with this information and personally present a check in the full amount owed to each and every of these depositors, with 5% interest calculated from February 17,2009.<br /><br />Respectfully submitted,</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Robert Allen Stanford</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=262" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=262</a><br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-26450645883523715412014-04-25T02:59:00.000-07:002014-09-13T03:06:20.968-07:00Allen Stanford filed on 24 April 2014 a Motion to Vacate<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Motion to Vacate filed on 24 April 2014, based on:<br />1) SEC lack of jurisdictional or regulatory authority over SIB<br />2) Denial of Due Process, and improper venue for their complaint<br />3) Blatant violation of Stanford’s Fourth Amendment right to protection from illegal search and seizure<br />4) Fraud upon de Court in this matter<br /><br />Janvey did not have warrants to seize all documents found in Stanford’s office.<br /><br />Violation of the U.S. Computer and Wire Act. Janvey hired the FTI consulting, who got access illegally to the database located in Antigua. Once it was discovered, the access was shut off.</b><br />
<br />
<b>Stanford was denied to access some documents for his defense. In addition the denied access to the “select” material which was “mysteriously” relocated to a warehouse in Washington D.C. (there was enough room in Houston to store all the material, why did they move it to Washington?).<br /><br />Stanford alleges that “select” material was the detailed customer account records of SIB obtained by Janvey illegally via “hacking”, and that the Government, through the Receiver, had very purposefully places well out of defense counsel’s reach.<br /><br />Davis quickly pled to, for two reasons (a) he had embezzled vast amounts of money from the company, and (b) he was offered a deal that would allow him to avoid prosecution on the embezzling...</b><br />
<br />
<b>Reading the Motion to Vacate; the oral deposition of Karyl Van Tassel, who (unlicensed) firm (FTI) was being paid tens of millions of dollars to produce a certain result:<br /><br />Attorney Matthew Nielson:<br />Q. Who prepared the Declaration?<br />A. (Van Tassel) The Declaration was prepared between FTI and Baker Botts.<br />Q. Okay. Who did the initial drafting?<br />A. Baker Botts did.<br />Q. The entire thing?<br />A. Yes.<br /><br />Attorney Michael Stanley:<br />Q. you mentioned how a database had been compiled that had over 40 terabytes of information and 2.5 million documents.<br />A. (Van Tassel) Yes.<br />Q. Where do those documents come from?<br />A. Well, we talked about the Temenos database.<br />Q. It is fair to say that there have always been investments made with SIB money? I’ll make it a little more clear. When money came in from the depositors, this didn’t sit in a big burlap bag under Allen Stanford’s desk, did it?<br />A. No.<br />Q. Okay. It was actually put into banks and investments were made with that money, right?<br />A. That’s correct.<br />Q. Okay. Now, when the depositors wanted to redeem their CD’s, sometimes those redemptions would come from available cash, right?<br />A. Yes.<br />Q. Okay. Did it - it came from cash they had in the accounts that had not been invested in private equity, right?<br />A. Or otherwise disseminated throughout the organization, yes.</b><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: #dee3e7;">Stanley started asking about the accounts located in other banks and Van Tassel could not answer how many accounts are, how much money was deposited, how much money is currently available... </span></div>
<br />
<span style="background-color: #dee3e7;">Stanley also asked about how many companies received money from SIB (as investment from Stanford). Van Tassel could not exactly answer that question.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: #dee3e7;">Stanley asked her why she said it was a Ponzi scheme from the beginning. Van Tassel said she got that information from Davis’s testimony. Van Tassel did not make any research or looked at the balance sheets to confirm whether SIB was solvent or not.</span><br />
<br />
<b>Attorney Mark Goranson to Van Tassel:<br />Q. I want to talk a little bit about, you had experience, excluding the Stanford matter, on two other matters that involved Ponzi schemes; is that correct?<br />A. (Van Tassel) Yes.<br />Q. Okay. And one involved, I think you said, a computer reseller; is that right?<br />A. Yes.<br />Q. And who were you retained by?<br />A. A law firm and I can’t recall the name.<br />Q. And did you issue a written report in that case?<br />A. No.<br />Q. And the second matter, I believe you said, was a real estate matter.<br />A. Yes.<br />Q. And the name of the lawsuit?<br />A. I don’t recall.<br />Q. And who retained you?<br />A. I don’t remember the name of the law firm</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Jim Davis was an admitted “crook”, “coward”, “fraudster”, “liar” and “thief” who, to avoid 30 years of hard time would have said and admitted to anything asked of him - up to an including, if necessary, the Kennedy assassination. Though not yet faced with prison time, Karyl Van Tassel, Senior Managing Director of FTI Consulting, had an equally compelling reason to “find”, “declare” and provide “attestations” consistent with the predeterminations contained in the SEC’s complaint...<br /><br />In other words, in all of her “Declarations” in the Stanford matter, Ms. Van Tassel, CPA, was attesting to work performed by a firm that had no license to perform such work - and nowhere in any of the required locations did she or her firm (FTI) indicate by way of disclaimer that “This firm is not a CPA firm”, and that the forensic accounting and investigatory work they were performing was being done with total disregard to the applicable laws in Texas.<br /><br />FTI aided and abetted the SEC and DOJ in their fraudulent pursuit of SIB, the concealment of an international crime, and ultimately, the purposeful denial of information that would have proven the solvency of SIB; and thus the innocence of RAS. Additional evidentiary support for this conclusion is found in the Receiver’s decision to employ both the unlicensed FTI, and the more widely known and reputable (and appropriately licensed) accounting firm Ernst & Young. As there can be no other reason for retaining both of these firms, and it is thus abundantly clear that the more accommodating and less reputable FTI was needed here to attest to the financial manipulations necessary to corroborate the SEC’s allegation of a Ponzi scheme.<br /><br />Attorney Dick DeGuerin asked FTI’s lead forensic auditor, Jeffrey Ferguson the following question:<br />Q. This isn’t a Ponzi scheme, is it?<br />A. (Mr Ferguson FTI) I haven’t formulated an opinion on that.<br />(Mr. DeGuerin to the Court): “This is a gentleman who’s a certified fraud examiner, whose firm has [already] been paid $6 million dollars to look at records, and he cannot say under oath that this is a Ponzi scheme.<br /><br />And then, 3 years later, after the thousands of media slanderings and the total destruction of his global company, his life and an untold number of other lives, based on Karyl Van Tassel’s findings of a “Ponzi scheme”...</b><br />
<br />
<u>BUT Van Tassel said she got that information</u><span style="background-color: #dee3e7;"> (that it was a Ponzi scheme) </span><u>from Davis’s testimony</u><span style="background-color: #dee3e7;">. Van Tassel did not make any research or looked at the balance sheets to confirm whether SIB was solvent or not.</span><br />
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=255" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=255</a><br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-70868436249060354182013-06-30T10:16:00.000-07:002013-07-04T10:23:55.650-07:00Investors plan appeal of Stanford lawsuit dismissal<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
By JOE GYAN
JR.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">A federal
appeals court will be asked to reverse a </span><st1:city><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB">Baton Rouge</span></st1:place></st1:city><span lang="EN-GB"> federal judge's dismissal of a
lawsuit that claims the Securities and Exchange Commission and a former
official knew of Robert Allen Stanford's $7 billion fraud scheme but failed to
investigate and stop it, an attorney for some victims said Friday.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">The suit,
filed in July by seven </span><st1:city><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB">Baton Rouge</span></st1:place></st1:city><span lang="EN-GB"> residents and firms, was thrown out
June 21 by U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick at the request of the federal
government, which argued the SEC enjoys complete discretion in deciding what
matters to investigate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">The suit
alleges that Spencer Barasch, a former SEC regional enforcement director in </span><st1:place><st1:city><span lang="EN-GB">Fort Worth</span></st1:city><span lang="EN-GB">, </span><st1:state><span lang="EN-GB">Texas</span></st1:state></st1:place><span lang="EN-GB">, was negligent and engaged in
deliberate misconduct in failing to investigate the scheme before investors
suffered losses. The suit contends Barasch knew of the Stanford scheme but
refused to probe it, allowing the continued defrauding of investors.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">In his
written ruling, Dick called Barasch's alleged conduct "disturbing" but
said the law supports the government's position that there was no statute,
regulation or policy that required Barasch to make an enforcement referral to
either the National Association of Securities Dealers or the Texas State
Securities Board.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">"While
the court sympathizes with the losses suffered by the plaintiffs in this
matter, plaintiffs have failed to identify any mandatory obligations violated
by SEC employees in the performance of their discretionary duties," the
judge wrote.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">Ed
Gonzales, an attorney for the seven </span><st1:city><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB">Baton Rouge</span></st1:place></st1:city><span lang="EN-GB"> residents and firms who filed suit
in federal district court in </span><st1:city><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB">Baton Rouge</span></st1:place></st1:city><span lang="EN-GB">, said an appeal will be filed at
the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in </span><st1:city><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB">New Orleans</span></st1:place></st1:city><span lang="EN-GB">. Those plaintiffs say they lost
roughly $3.5 million to the scheme.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">Dick's
ruling described the suit's plaintiffs as victims of a Ponzi scheme who lost
their investments in Stanford International Bank Ltd.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">The suit
alleges the SEC knew in 1997 that Stanford was operating a fraudulent scheme
and failed to stop him until February 2009.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">Robert
Stanford, 63, of </span><st1:city><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB">Houston</span></st1:place></st1:city><span lang="EN-GB">, is serving a 110-year prison sentence for a
fraud conviction that followed estimated worldwide losses of approximately $7
billion. About $1 billion of those losses were from about 1,000 investors in
the </span><st1:city><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB">Baton
Rouge</span></st1:place></st1:city><span lang="EN-GB">, </span><st1:city><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB">Lafayette</span></st1:place></st1:city><span lang="EN-GB"> and </span><st1:city><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB">Covington</span></st1:place></st1:city><span lang="EN-GB"> areas, according to estimates by
state Sen. Bodi White, R-Central, and </span><st1:city><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB">Baton Rouge</span></st1:place></st1:city><span lang="EN-GB"> attorney Phil Preis, who represents
numerous Stanford victims in another lawsuit.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">A Ponzi
scheme is a fake investment program. Illegal operators skim most of the money
provided by people who believe they are investors.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">Early
investors receive dividends that actually are small portions of their personal
funds and those of later investors. Stanford's Ponzi scheme attracted
investment money for his Stanford International Bank on the </span><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB">Caribbean</span></st1:place><span lang="EN-GB"> </span><st1:place><st1:placetype><span lang="EN-GB">island</span></st1:placetype><span lang="EN-GB"> of </span><st1:placename><span lang="EN-GB">Antigua</span></st1:placename></st1:place><span lang="EN-GB">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">There are
more than 20,000 Stanford victims across more than 100 countries.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://sivg.org/article/2013_Investors_plan_appeal_of_Stanford_lawsuit_dismissal.html" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/article/2013_Investors_plan_appeal_of_Stanford_lawsuit_dismissal.html</a><br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-16620971959062714612013-06-21T10:11:00.000-07:002013-07-04T10:14:38.325-07:00SEC Escapes Stanford Victims' Suit Over $7B Ponzi Scheme<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
By Law360,
New York</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">A Louisiana
judge Friday threw out a putative class action alleging the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission facilitated Robert Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi
scheme, finding the agency was shielded by a law barring suits over federal
officials' discretionary choices.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">U.S. District
Shelly D. Dick said the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort
Claims Act applied to the case brought by victims of Stanford in part because
the alleged refusal of former official Spencer Barasch in the SEC's Fort Worth,
Texas, office to investigate the Ponzi scheme was a matter of choice.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">"While
the Court sympathizes with the losses suffered by the plaintiffs in this
matter, plaintiffs have failed to identify any mandatory obligations violated
by SEC employees in the performance of their discretionary duties," Judge
Dick concluded in granting the government's motion to dismiss.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">"Plaintiff[s]
have also failed to allege facts demonstrating that the challenged actions are
not grounded in public policy considerations," she said.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">The
plaintiffs argued that Barasch's alleged conduct did not fall under the discretionary
function exception because the SEC has a policy of making enforcement referrals
to the National Association of Securities Dealers and the Texas State
Securities Board. Therefore, if a decision was made to refer Stanford, and then
not followed, that decision falls outside the discretionary function exception.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">But Judge
Dick rejected that argument, saying that while "the alleged conduct of
Barasch is disturbing... the FTCA clearly states that the discretionary
function exception applies 'whether or not the discretion involved be abused.'"<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">The suit,
which was filed in July under the FTCA, alleged that SEC employees in Fort
Worth knew as early as 1997 - only two years after Stanford Group Co. registered
with the agency - that the company was likely operating a Ponzi scheme and did
nothing about it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">Former SEC
regional enforcement director Barasch, now an attorney with Andrews Kurth LLP,
was singled out in the complaint for failing in his duties.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">"In 1998
[to NASD] and again in 2002 [to TSSB] the SEC - through enforcement director
Barasch and others - reached the conclusion that referrals should be made. Barasch
himself was designated to perform these tasks," the complaint said. "But,
in fact, these referrals were not made, with the effect that Stanford escaped
scrutiny by other agencies for years, thus facilitating Stanford's scheme to
defraud."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">In
dismissing the case, Judge Dick cited a similar decision by a Texas federal
judge in another case brought against the SEC over Stanford's scheme. The plaintiffs
in Dartez v. U.S. had argued that Barasch's decisions and the negligent
supervision of his superiors were not protected policy considerations.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">"While
the [Dartez] decision is not binding on this Court, the Court can find no flaw
in [its] reasoning," Judge Dick said.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">The
plaintiffs are represented by C. Frank Holthaus, Scott H. Fruge, Michael C. Palmintier
and John W. DeGravelles of DeGravelles Palmintier Holthaus & Fruge and
Edward J. Gonzales III.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">The case is
Anderson et al. v. </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span lang="EN-GB">United States of America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span lang="EN-GB">, number </span><st1:time hour="3" minute="12"><span lang="EN-GB">3:12</span></st1:time><span lang="EN-GB">-cv-</span><st1:metricconverter productid="00398, in"><span lang="EN-GB">00398,
in</span></st1:metricconverter><span lang="EN-GB">
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://sivg.org/article/2013_SEC_Escapes_Stanford_Victims_Suit_Over_7B_Ponzi_Scheme.html" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/article/2013_SEC_Escapes_Stanford_Victims_Suit_Over_7B_Ponzi_Scheme.html</a><br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-26285630487678554912013-06-04T08:46:00.000-07:002013-06-07T08:47:22.871-07:00$83.5M Suit Says Willis Group Aided Stanford Fraud<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
<b>By Law360</b>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
A group of holders of Stanford Financial Group CD accounts
claims that Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Co. helped
perpetuate Robert Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme,
according to an $83.5 million class action removed from
Florida state court Monday.<br /><br />
The plaintiffs, 64 citizens of El Salvador, Nicaragua,
Panama, the United States and Spain who claim combined losses
of more than $83.5 million, say that when they made their
investments in Stanford Financial CDs, they relied on "safety
and soundness" letters issued by Willis asserting that
Stanford International Bank and its products were protected by
certain insurance policies and were highly liquid.<br /><br />
"In fact, the Stanford Financial CDs were not CDs at all, but
unregistered, unregulated securities sold illegally from
Stanford Financial's home base in the United States," the
plaintiffs say in their complaint. "These investments had no
insurance and were fraught with risk."<br /><br />
The case is not the first to lay such accusations against
Willis. In 2009, a class of between 1,200 and 5,000 Venezuelan
clients sought $1.6 billion over claims they were allegedly
lured into the scheme by the insurance brokers' assurance
that Stanford CDs were sound, insured investments. And in
another suit that year, Mexican investors implicated Willis,
claiming the defendants contributed to a fraud that cost them
roughly $1 billion.<br /><br />
Stanford was sentenced in June 2012 to 110 years in prison
after being convicted on charges he misappropriated billions
of dollars in investor funds, including some $1.6 billion he
allegedly moved to a personal account. His $7 billion Ponzi
scheme was second only to Bernie Madoff's record-setting
scam.<br /><br />
From about August 2004 through 2008, Willis provided Stanford
Financial with an undated form letter that said Willis was
the insurance broker for Stanford International Bank and had
placed directors and officers liability insurance and a
bankers blanket bond with Lloyds of London, according to the
current complaint.<br /><br />
The letters played a crucial role in Stanford's fraud because
Stanford Finanical was an offshore bank and thus not insured
by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Willis' letters helped
Stanford get around that obstacle by claiming the CDs "were
even safer than U.S. Bank-issued CDs because of the unique
insurance policies Willis had obtained," the complaint says.<br /><br />
"The Willis letters were specifically designed to win
investors' trust and confidence in Stanford Financial's fraudulent
scheme," the plaintiffs say in their complaint, noting that
for investors with more than $1 million in their accounts,
Stanford Financial advisors could get personally addressed
letters from Willis.<br /><br />
"Willis' message to potential investors was this: Trust us, you can invest with confidence and security in Stanford
Financial CDs," they add.<br /><br />
All of the plaintiffs in the current case made their purchases through Stanford Financial's Miami office, which the
complaint says accounted for more than $1 billion in CD sales.<br /><br />
Willis of Colorado Inc. filed the notice of removal of the
class action on the grounds of diversity between plaintiffs
and defendants, of the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act of 1998 and that the Northern District of Texas has
exclusive jurisdiction in Stanford receivership cases.<br /><br />
The notice of removal also claims that defendants Willis
Group Holdings Public Limited Co. and Willis Ltd., which are
based in Ireland and the United Kingdom, respectively, have
been fraudulently joined in an effort to defeat diversity
jurisdiction. It says that the plaintiffs' claims are on
letters issued only by the subsidiary Willis of Colorado and
"no reasonable possibility" exists of the plaintiffs
recovering damages from the other entities.<br /><br />
Counsel for both sides could not be reached for comment late Tuesday.<br /><br />
The plaintiffs are represented by Luis Delgado and
Christopher King of Homer & Bonner PA and Ervin Gonzalez of Colson
Hicks Eidson PA.<br /><br />
Willis is represented by Edward Soto of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP.<br /><br />
The case is Nuila de Gadala-Maria et al. v. Willis Group
Holdings Public Limited Co., case number 1:13-cv-21989, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
</div>
<div align="justify">
<a href="http://www.sivg.org/resources/WillisGroup_NoticeOfRemoval.pdf" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
Read the Willis Group NOTICE OF REMOVAL.</a>
</div>
<div align="justify">
<a href="http://www.sivg.org/resources/WillisGroup_ExhibitA.pdf" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
Read the Willis Group Exhibit A.</a>
</div>
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://sivg.org/article/2013_64_victims_Say_Willis_Group_Aided_Stanford_Fraud.html" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/article/2013_64_victims_Say_Willis_Group_Aided_Stanford_Fraud.html</a><br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:ApplyBreakingRules/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-55337733697880194492013-05-31T02:02:00.000-07:002013-06-04T09:25:20.208-07:00Stanford Judge Approves Interim Distribution to Victims<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
<b></b>
<b>By Tom Korosec & Andrew Harris</b>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
A plan by a court-appointed receiver to distribute assets recovered from R. Allen Stanford's Ponzi scheme
to investors was approved by a federal judge in Dallas.<br />
<br />
U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey accepted the plan by Ralph Janvey, the receiver appointed in 2009 to
marshal and liquidate Stanford's personal and business assets, to make a $55 million interim distribution
to about 17,000 claimants, or about 1 cent for each of the $5.1 billion lost in the fraud scheme.<br />
<br />
"We will follow it up in a subsequent distribution as the money comes in," Janvey's attorney, Kevin Sadler
of Baker Botts LLP, told Godbey at a court hearing in April.<br />
<br />
Ponzi scheme victims of Bernard L. Madoff, who was arrested in December 2008, recovered more than $5.4
billion. Clients of the MF Global Inc. brokerage were paid about $4.9 billion after its parent, MF Global
Holdings Ltd., failed in October 2011. Victims of a scheme by Peregrine Financial Group Inc. founder Russell
Wasendorf, who prosecutors last year said stole $215 million, received an interim distribution of $123
million.<br />
<br />
A federal jury in Houston last year found Stanford, 63, guilty of lying to investors about the nature and
oversight of certificates of deposit issued by his Antigua-based bank. The jurors decided he must forfeit
$330 million in accounts seized by the U.S. government.<br />
<br />
The SEC case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank, 09-cv-00298, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The criminal case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09-cr-00342,
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).<br />
<br />
To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Harris in the Chicago federal courthouse at aharris16@bloomberg.net<br />
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net
</div>
<div align="justify">
<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-31/stanford-judge-approves-interim-distribution-to-victims.html" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
Source.</a>
</div>
<div align="justify">
</div>
<div align="justify">
<a href="http://www.sivg.org/resources/Order_ApprovingDistributionMotion_Janvey.pdf" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">Read the ORDER APPROVING RECEIVER'S INTERIM DISTRIBUTION PLAN.</a>
</div>
<div align="justify">
<br /></div>
<div align="justify">
<br /></div>
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
<b style="color: #780000;">STANFORD RECEIVERSHIP CERTIFICATION NOTICE</b><br /><br />
Before making distribution payments under the Interim Plan,
the Receiver is required to send a Certification Notice to the
Investor CD Claimants. This Certification Notice must ask
each Investor CD Claimant for certification regarding whether they
have applied for or received compensation for their claimed
losses from sources other than the Receivership and, if so, the
amount of such compensation. <b>Investor CD Claimants must timely respond to this Certification Notice as a condition of
receiving payment under the Interim Plan</b>.<br />
<a href="http://www.sivg.org/resources/Receiver_Certification_Notice_Exhibit_B.pdf" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
EXHIBIT B: CERTIFICATION NOTICE</a>
</div>
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://sivg.org/article/2013_Stanford_Judge_Approves_Interim_Distribution_to_Victims.html" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/article/2013_Stanford_Judge_Approves_Interim_Distribution_to_Victims.html</a><br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:ApplyBreakingRules/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-67583163429920253792013-05-24T12:13:00.000-07:002013-05-27T12:14:45.412-07:00INITIAL REPLY BRIEF OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, APPELLANT<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
<b>By Michael L. Post</b>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
In its opening brief, the Securities and Exchange Commission established that the district court erred both in
incorrectly applying a preponderance standard of proof in this preliminary, summary proceeding and in applying
an unduly narrow construction of the statutory term "customer" to preclude the possibility of coverage under
the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 ("SIPA" or the "Act") for investors in the Stanford Ponzi scheme.
The arguments made by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation ("SIPC") in response are based on an incorrect
view of the nature of this proceeding and a misreading of the relevant statutory scheme, applicable case law, and
underlying facts.<br /><br />
Contrary to SIPC's contention, this proceeding will not lead
to a final determination of the key question at
issue-whether any of the Stanford victims qualify as
"customers" under SIPA. Nor did Congress confer greater
discretion on SIPC than on the Commission to make the
determination whether to seek to initiate a SIPA liquidation
proceeding. Given the preliminary nature of the proceeding
here, and the statutory relationship between the parties,
a probable cause standard of proof is appropriate. Moreover,
SIPC's formalistic construction of the term "customer"
to preclude the potential for SIPA coverage here erroneously
gives effect to both the fraudulent corporate boundaries
designed by Allen Stanford to USCA Case #12-5286 Document
#1437933 Filed: 05/24/2013 Page 9 of 40 facilitate his
scheme and the illegitimate securities sent to investors in
furtherance of that scheme.<br /><br />
Nor will the Commission's interpretation of the statutory definition of a "customer" undermine the statutory scheme
as SIPC and its amici contend. The Commission is not advocating that every customer of every Stanford entity would
have customer status under SIPA. See Brief of the SEC at 49 ("SEC __"). Rather, its position is that in the rare
circumstances presented here-where the Stanford entities (including Stanford International Bank, Ltd. ("SIBL") and
Stanford Group Company ("SGC")) were operated as a single fraudulent enterprise ignoring corporate boundaries, SGC
accountholders who purchased SIBL CDs were solicited by SGC and dealt substantially with SGC employees, and the
purported securities issued by SIBL were in reality interests in a Ponzi scheme-SGC accountholders who purchased
SIBL CDs through SGC should be deemed to have deposited funds with SGC. This interpretation is the correct one;
and it is at least a reasonable one that is entitled to deference.<br /><br />
<b style="color: #780000;">Even apart from the lack of separateness of SGC and SIBL, the Commission's application
should be granted under the Old Naples and Primeline cases.</b><br /><br />
The Commission's position here is also supported by two court of appeals cases expressly holding that customer
status under SIPA "does not … depend simply on to whom the claimant handed her cash or made her check payable, or
even where the funds were initially deposited." Old Naples, 223 F.3d at 1302; see Primeline, 295 F.3d at 1107.
Relying on a different opinion's erroneous description of those cases, SIPC argues that the customers in those
case provided money "to an ostensible agent of a broker-debtor." Br. 50 (quoting In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv.
Secs., LLC, 708 F.3d 422, 428 (2d Cir. 2013)). In fact, the claimants in Old Naples provided money to a "separate
company" that was owned by the same person who owned the SIPC-member introducing broker. 223 F.3d at 1299-1300.
And in Primeline, at least some of the claimants provided money directly to companies separately owned by a sales
representative of the broker-dealer. See 295 F.3d at 1104.<br /><br />
SIPC also argues that Old Naples and Primeline are distinguishable because they involved a broker that failed to
clear a transaction with its clearing broker. Br. 50. But this is a distinction without a difference. As the
Commission concluded, what matters is that depositing money with SIBL was "in reality no different than depositing
it with SGC." Analysis at 8-9; see SEC 51-54.<br /><br />
Similarly unpersuasive is SIPC's attempt to distinguish Old Naples and Primeline on the ground that the investors
there "never received the securities they intended to purchase." Br. 50. The court in Primeline expressly noted
that some investors "received fraudulent 'Debenture Certificates'" "[i]n exchange for their cash." 295 F.3d at
1109. Moreover, the physical CDs should be disregarded here. See SEC 54.<br /><br />
Finally, SIPC urges this Court to reject Old Naples and
Primeline as being against the supposed "weight of authority."
Br. 51. But those cases involved facts most similar to those
presented in this case, and SIPC points to no contrary
authority in analogous circumstances. For example, in Aozora
Bank Ltd., 480 B.R. 117 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), aff'd, 708 F.3.
422 (2d Cir. 2013), cited by SIPC, the investors at issue
did not have accounts with the broker-dealer, and did not
intend to open accounts with the broker-dealer. See 480 B.R.
at 123-24, 128. Rather, their dealings were with
independent entities which were not under common ownership
and control with the broker-dealer. See id. at 121; see
also SEC v. Kenneth Bove & Co., Inc., 378 F. Supp. 697,
698-99 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) (claimants, allegedly at debtor's
direction, sent shares of stock to an independent,
third-party broker). The Ninth Circuit's decision in Brentwood
Securities-which both Old Naples (223 F.3d at 1300) and
Primeline (295 F.3d at 1106) cited-is similarly far afield.
Unlike here, the investor funds in Brentwood Securities did
not get funneled back to the broker-dealer and "[n]othing
in the record establishe[d]" that the broker-dealer "had any
role at all" in the transactions at issue. 925 F.2d at
328.<br /><br />
SIPC and its amici argue that ruling in the Commission's
favor would "transform SIPC into an insurer against every
fraudulent scheme implicating a broker-dealer." Br. 47; see
SIFMA Br. 20-21; Law Professors Br. 19-20. But the
Commission's position depends on the rare factual situation
where, among other circumstances, there is a sufficient
basis both (1) to disregard the corporate form of the
broker-dealer and (2) to disregard the issuance of the purported
security to the investor. Moreover, this scenario is
substantially similar to recognized "customer" situations, such
as where a broker-dealer misappropriates cash deposited with
the broker-dealer or takes a deposit of cash but does
not purchase any securities for the depositor. See, e.g., In
re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Secs. LLC, 654 F.3d 229, 236
(2d Cir. 2011). Amicus Financial Services Institute ("FSI")
contends that covering "all" of the SIBL CD investors'
losses would exhaust SIPC's reserve fund (FSI Br. 5), but
FSI fails to take account of the facts that (1) many investors
did not buy SIBL CDs through SGC and (2) the statute caps at
$500,000 each customer's potential SIPC advancement
(see 15 U.S.C. 78fff-3(a)).
</div>
<div align="justify">
<a href="http://www.sivg.org/resources/143516837_SEC_Reply_to_SIPC_in_SEC_vs_SIPC_May_24_2013.pdf" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
Read the complete SEC Reply to SIPC in SEC vs SIPC.</a>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
Related article (<b>Nonmember affiliate company were also granted with SIPC cover</b>):
<a href="http://sivg.org/article/SGC_Forensic_Accounting_Van_Tassel.html" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
Forensic accountant gives Stanford investors a little hope</a>
</div>
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://sivg.org/article/2013_SEC_Reply_to_SIPC_in_SEC_vs_SIPC.html" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/article/2013_SEC_Reply_to_SIPC_in_SEC_vs_SIPC.html</a><br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:ApplyBreakingRules/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-8913816962807213392013-05-16T10:35:00.000-07:002013-05-23T10:37:57.503-07:00Political Contributions<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
<b>By U.S. Receiver Ralph Janvey</b>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
As part of the Receiver's efforts to recover assets for the Receivership Estate, the Receiver analyzed political
contributions made by Stanford International Bank, Ltd., Stanford Group Company, Stanford Capital Management, LLC,
R. Allen Stanford, James M. Davis and Laura Pendergest-Holt and certain entities they own or control.<br />
<br />
As a result of that effort, shortly after the inception of the Receivership, the Receiver sent letters to each
recipient of these political contributions requesting that they be returned to the Receiver.<br />
<br />
The Receiver has also pursued litigation to recover certain
political contributions. As of May 16, 2013, the Receiver
had received $1.8M in returned contributions. A list of
contributions returned voluntarily or as a result of litigation
is below:
</div>
<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1" style="width: 90%px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th width="84%">Source</th>
<th>Amount</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Shelby for US Senate</td>
<td align="right">$ 14,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Barney Frank for Congress Committee</td>
<td align="right">$ 1,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Arcuri for Congress</td>
<td align="right">$ 4,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Neugebauer Congressional Committee</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Marsha Blackburn for Congress</td>
<td align="right">$ 1,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Friends for Harry Reid</td>
<td align="right">$ 8,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>David Scott for Congress</td>
<td align="right">$ 1,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Freedom Funds - Mike Crapo, Honorary Chairman</td>
<td align="right">$ 1,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Chris Dodd for President</td>
<td align="right">$ 11,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Friends of Chris Dodd</td>
<td align="right">$ 16,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Friends of Mark Warner</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Minnick for Congress</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,300</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Lloyd Doggett for Congress</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Alexander for Senate 2014, Inc.</td>
<td align="right">$ 3,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Collins for Senator</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Friends of Jay Rockefeller</td>
<td align="right">$ 5,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Campaign Account of Robert Wexler</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mel Watt for Congress</td>
<td align="right">$ 3,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Friends of John Boehner</td>
<td align="right">$ 5,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Pete Olson for Congress</td>
<td align="right">$ 3,300</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Charles Boustany Jr. MD for Congress</td>
<td align="right">$ 1,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>People for Patty Murray</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Dave Camp for Congress</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Wicker for Senate</td>
<td align="right">$ 8,800</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Tiberi for Congress</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Friends of Max Baucus</td>
<td align="right">$ 1,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>McCaul for Congress</td>
<td align="right">$ 1,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Boccieri for Congress</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,300</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Every Republican is Crucial-ERIC PAC</td>
<td align="right">$ 3,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>John McCain 2008, Inc</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,300</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Friends of Bennie Thompson</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Friends of John Tanner</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Evan Bayh Committee</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Friends of Mary Landrieu</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Bachus Reelection</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Friends of Senator Schumer</td>
<td align="right">$ 4,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Halvorson for Congress</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,300</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Putnam for Congress</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mike McMahon for Congress</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,550</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Hatch Election Committee</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,100</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Bill Nelson for U.S. Senate</td>
<td align="right">$ 9,100</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Friends for Gregory Meeks</td>
<td align="right">$ 6,600</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Charles A. Gonzalez Congressional Campaign</td>
<td align="right">$ 5,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Democratic Senatorial Congressional Committee</td>
<td align="right">$ 950,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>National Republican Congressional Committee</td>
<td align="right">$ 238,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee</td>
<td align="right">$ 202,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Republican National Committee</td>
<td align="right">$ 128,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>National Republican Senatorial Committee</td>
<td align="right">$ 83,345</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Total</td>
<td align="right">$ 1,764,995</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
<br />
In February 2010 and May 2011, the Receiver sent letters to those recipients of political contributions who had
yet to return them, requesting that they return an aggregate of $1.3 million in contributions as soon as possible.
A list of the contributions that still remain outstanding is below:<br />
</div>
<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1" style="width: 90%px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th width="84%">OUTSTANDING REQUESTED AMOUNTS AS OF MAY 2013</th>
<th>Amount</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>New Jersey Democratic State Committee</td>
<td align="right">$ 10,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX)</td>
<td align="right">$ 10,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Senator John Cornyn (R-TX)</td>
<td align="right">$ 6,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Americans for a Republic Majority PAC</td>
<td align="right">$ 5,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Delegate Donna Christensen (D-USVI)</td>
<td align="right">$ 5,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>KPAC (affiliated with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas)</td>
<td align="right">$ 5,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Lone Star Fund</td>
<td align="right">$ 5,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) (presidential campaign)</td>
<td align="right">$ 4,600</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Representative Dan Maffei (D-NY)</td>
<td align="right">$ 4,550</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Representative Richard Neal (D-MA)</td>
<td align="right">$ 4,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Greg Davis for Congress</td>
<td align="right">$ 3,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Leadership PAC 2006</td>
<td align="right">$ 3,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Representative James E. Clyburn (D-SC)</td>
<td align="right">$ 3,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)</td>
<td align="right">$ 3,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Representative Eric Massa (D-NY)</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,550</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Former Senator John Sununu (R-NH)</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Representative John Lewis (D-GA)</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Representative Paul Kanjorski (D-PA)</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Representative Timothy Johnson (R-IL)</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR)</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY)</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Senator Richard J. Durbin (D-IL)</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>LEADPAC</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Representative Donald Payne (D-NJ)</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Representative Kevin Brady (R-TX)</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL)</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Senator Jack Reed</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Senator Patty Murray (D-WA)</td>
<td align="right">$ 2,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Representative Kendrick Meek (D-FL)</td>
<td align="right">$ 1,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Representative Peter King (R-NY)</td>
<td align="right">$ 1,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Representative Sam Johnson (R-TX)</td>
<td align="right">$ 1,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN)</td>
<td align="right">$ 1,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Former Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)</td>
<td align="right">$ 1,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Representative Joe Barton (R-TX)</td>
<td align="right">$ 1,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Representative Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)</td>
<td align="right">$ 1,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Senator Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND)</td>
<td align="right">$ 1,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA)</td>
<td align="right">$ 1,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS)</td>
<td align="right">$ 1,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Total Campaign Contributions Requested Be Returned</td>
<td align="right">$ 117,700</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div align="justify">
<a href="http://www.sivg.org/resources/Political_Contributions_05162013.pdf" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
Source.</a>
</div>
<div align="justify">
<a href="http://sivg.org/article/Stanford_US-Congress.html" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
Related article.</a>
</div>
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://sivg.org/article/2013_Political_Contributions.html" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/article/2013_Political_Contributions.html</a><br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:ApplyBreakingRules/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-479679120592752572013-05-07T13:13:00.000-07:002013-05-08T13:14:04.699-07:00Canadian lawyer sues U.S. government over Allen Stanford ponzi scheme<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" style="width: 100%px;"><tbody>
<tr align="justify"><td height="225px" width="300px"><img alt="Todd Weiler" border="0" height="225px" src="http://sivg.org/article/media/toddweiler.jpg" title="Todd Weiler" width="300px" />
</td>
<td rowspan="2">
<span style="color: black;">
<b>May 7, 2013</b><br />
<b>By Drew Hasselback</b><br /><br />
Investors lost billions in the ponzi scheme orchestrated by Texas tycoon Allen Stanford, and now a Canadian
lawyer believes he has an innovative legal strategy to recover funds for victims of the fraud who reside outside
the United States.<br /><br />
Todd Weiler, who specializes in international law, believes
that "unconscionable negligence and/or manifest incompetence"
on the part of U.S. regulators may have breached the
foreign investor protection provisions of several international trade
treaties signed by the U.S. government.
</span>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center" style="font-size: 10px;">
Todd Weiler claims the U.S. government breached
international trade treaties by failing to protect foreign investors
from Allen
Stanford's $7-billion ponzi scheme. Peter J.
Thompson/National Post
</td>
</tr>
<tr align="justify">
<td colspan="2">
<span style="color: black;">
<b style="color: #780000;"><i>If this had happened to Americans in Mexico, there'd be no doubt that those Americans would be
bringing a NAFTA claim against Mexico</i></b><br /><br />
A request for arbitration and statement of claim the
London, Ont. lawyer has delivered to the U.S. Department of State
alleges that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
was aware of problems at the Stanford Group of Companies (SGC)
and at Stanford Financial Group (SFG) as early as 1997.
Yet in a "shocking and egregious failure," SEC officials failed
to shut Stanford down until 2009, the claim alleges.<br /><br />
Mr. Weiler alleges that the U.S. refused to take steps to
shut Stanford down earlier because U.S. officials believed the
majority of Stanford's victims were not U.S. nationals.
The Canadian lawyer argues that international trade treaties, among
them the North American Free Trade Agreement, require that
the U.S. government treat investors from all signatory countries
equally, regardless of their residency.<br /><br />
"If this had happened to Americans in Mexico, there'd be
no doubt that those Americans would be bringing a NAFTA claim
against Mexico, and that they would deserve to win," Mr.
Weiler said in an interview. "The Americans have for 100 years
used these agreements and other policies to bring other
governments to heel and make sure they get this kind of protection
and legal security."<br /><br />
The U.S. State Department web site shows that it has
received notice of legal actions Mr. Weiler has filed on behalf of
Stanford victims from Guatemala, Costa Rica, Dominican
Republic, Uruguay, Chile and Peru, and which are brought under various
trade agreements the U.S. has signed with those countries.
However, the U.S. government has not yet acknowledged on the web
site that it has received the NAFTA claim that Mr. Weiler
has filed on behalf of Mexican and Canadian residents. All the
claims contain allegations that have yet to be proven at a
hearing.<br /><br />
A high-flying Texas businessman who built a series of
financial institutions in the United States and the Caribbean, Stanford
was eventually arrested and charged with fraud in 2009. He
had been known as "Sir Allen Stanford" in recognition of his services
to the government of Antigua and Barbuda. He was tried in
U.S. federal court and sentenced to 110 years in prison upon his
conviction for fraud in 2012. His knighthood was revoked
in 2010.<br /><br />
Investors who placed funds with Stanford International
Bank received "certificates of deposit" or CDs that were supposed to
be low risk investments that offered generous returns. The
scheme took in more than US$7-billion. Some 21,000 investors from
around the world were taken in.<br /><br />
<b style="color: #780000;"><i>SEC officials, who are responsible for protecting the investments of investors, acted with
unconscionable negligence</i></b>
</span>
</td>
</tr>
<tr align="justify">
<td height="225px" width="300px">
<img alt="Stanford trial" border="0" height="225px" src="http://sivg.org/article/media/stanford_trial.jpg" title="Stanford trial" width="300px" />
</td>
<td rowspan="2">
<span style="color: black;">
Stanford's activities caught the attention of U.S.
regulators as early as 1997, a mere two years after the Stanford Group
of Companies registered with the SEC in 1995, according to a
report completed in 2010 by David Kotz, who was at the time
the SEC's inspector general. The NAFTA claim filed by Mr.
Weiler relies on that report, which concluded that the SEC could
have sought legal action to shut down Stanford years
earlier than it did.
</span>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center" style="font-size: 10px;">
A high-flying Texas businessman who built a series of
financial institutions in the United States and the Caribbean,
Stanford was eventually arrested and charged with fraud in
2009. Aaron M. Sprecher/Bloomberg
</td>
</tr>
<tr align="justify">
<td colspan="2">
<span style="color: black;">
"SEC officials, who are responsible for protecting the
investments of investors such as the claimants against criminal
enterprises such as SFG, acted with unconscionable
negligence and or manifest incompetence, causing millions of dollars
of losses to the claimants as a result," the claim states.<br /><br />
Because Mr. Weiler's claim is structured as a proposed
international arbitration, the legal action is open only to
non-U.S. residents from countries with which the U.S. has
signed trade agreements. Mr. Weiler says the action, which
he is bringing in conjunction with several other lawyers
from the United States, could include "several thousand"
clients.<br /><br />
Other third parties have been targeted for their connection
to Stanford. Liquidators of Stanford International Bank have
sued Toronto-Dominion bank in Quebec and other
jurisdictions on the theory that, as Stanford's banker, TD should have
known the Texan businessman was up to no good. TD denies
the allegation.
</span>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div align="justify">
<a href="http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/legal-post/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com/2013/05/07/canadian-lawyer-sues-u-s-government-over-allen-stanford-ponzi-scheme" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
Source.</a>
</div>
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://sivg.org/article/2013_Canadian_lawyer_sues_US_government_Stanford.html" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/article/2013_Canadian_lawyer_sues_US_government_Stanford.html</a><br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:ApplyBreakingRules/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-22704412672135797612013-04-26T23:41:00.000-07:002013-05-04T23:41:50.276-07:00Allen Stanford Told to Disgorge $6.7 Billion in SEC Case<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
<b>April 26, 2013</b><br />
<b>By Andrew Harris</b>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
R. Allen Stanford, the Texas financier convicted last year of leading an investment fraud scheme, was ordered to
disgorge more than $6.7 billion by the judge in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit.<br /><br />
U.S. District Judge David Godbey in Dallas issued the order yesterday against Stanford, his Stanford Group Co. and
the Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd.<br /><br />
The order may clear the way for Godbey to grant a court- appointed receiver's request to make an interim $55 million
payout to investors who lost money after buying certificates of deposit issued by the Stanford Bank.<br /><br />
"The fraud perpetrated was obviously egregious, was done with a high degree of scienter, caused billions in losses
and occurred over the course of a decade," Godbey said, using the legal term to describe the mental state of intent
to deceive.<br /><br />
A federal jury in Houston convicted Stanford of lying to investors about how their money was being handled.<br /><br />
"The truth is that he flushed it away," Justice Department lawyer William Stellmach told jurors in his closing
arguments at the March 2012 trial. "He told depositors he was using their money in one way and the truth was
completely different."<br /><br />
Stanford, 63, was sentenced to 110 years in prison. Maintaining his innocence, he has appealed the verdict.<br /><br />
<b style="color: #780000;">Parallel Judgment</b><br /><br />
Godbey referred to the jury's guilty finding in granting the SEC's request he render a parallel judgment in their
case filed in February 2009, four months before the financier was indicted. The judge also cited the August 2009
guilty plea by Stanford Group Chief Financial Officer James Davis.<br /><br />
"The court finds that $5.9 billion is a reasonable approximation of the gains connected to Stanford's fraud," Godbey
said of the sum he would order disgorged. He then added more than $861 million in interest for a total of $6.76
billion. Davis too is jointly liable.<br /><br />
Finally the judge imposed a $5.9 billion penalty on Stanford and a $5 million assessment against Davis, who received
a five-year prison sentence.<br /><br />
The court-appointed receiver, Ralph Janvey, asked Godbey this
month for permission to begin repaying some of the
losses incurred by the more than 17,000 claimants. At an
April 11 hearing, the judge told Janvey's lawyer, Kevin Sadler,
he was concerned about doing so before a final order had been
entered against Stanford.<br /><br />
<b style="color: #780000;">Societe Generale</b><br /><br />
In a separate filing today, a group of Stanford investors
asked Godbey to grant them a judgment of at least $95 million
in a lawsuit against a unit of Paris-based Societe Generale
SA. (GLE)<br /><br />
The lender's Societe Generale Private Banking (Suisse) unit took the money from a Stanford bank account with his
permission in December 2008 to repay a loan made to him four years earlier, according to court papers.<br /><br />
The financier had caused a business funded by Stanford
investor-depositor money to guarantee the loan in 2007, the
investors alleged, while those depositors received no
benefit. The transfer of that money to Societe Generale just two
months before the SEC sued Stanford and shut down his
businesses was a fraudulent transfer, the investors claimed in
today's filing.<br /><br />
Ken Hagan and Jim Galvin, New York-based spokesman for the
French bank, did not immediately reply to voicemail messages
seeking comment on the allegations.<br /><br />
<b style="color: #780000;">Slush Fund</b><br /><br />
Davis, the CFO, testified at Stanford's trial that the
financier maintained a Societe Generale Swiss bank account, funded
by investor deposits.<br /><br />
"It was a slush fund, just used for whatever the holder
wanted to use it for," Davis said during the Houston federal court
trial in February 2012.<br /><br />
The SEC case is Securities and Exchange Commission v.
Stanford International Bank, 09-cv-00298, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The criminal case is
U.S. v. Stanford, 09-cr-00342, U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Texas (Houston).<br /><br />
The investors' case is Rotstain v. Trustmark National Bank,
09-cv-02384, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas
(Dallas).<br /><br />
To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Harris in the Chicago federal courthouse at aharris16@bloomberg.net<br />
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net
</div>
<div align="justify">
<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-26/allen-stanford-ordered-to-disgorge-6-7-billion-in-sec-case-1-.html" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
Source.</a>
</div>
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://sivg.org/article/2013_Stanford_Disgorge_6Billion.html" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/article/2013_Stanford_Disgorge_6Billion.html</a><br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:ApplyBreakingRules/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-90075581759894451132013-04-25T13:14:00.000-07:002013-05-08T13:15:29.306-07:00SEC Order Against Stanford<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
<b>April 25, 2013</b><br />
<b>By U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey</b>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
Securities and Exchange Commission, Plaintiff, vs. Stanford International Bank LTD., et al. Defendants. Civil
Action No. 3:09-CV-0298-N<br /><br />
This Order addresses Plaintiff Security and Exchange Commission's ("SEC") motion for partial summary judgment
[1779]. The Court grants the motion. The Court also denies Defendant R. Allen Stanford's motion for extension
of time [1807].<br /><br />
The Court grants the SEC's motion for summary judgment. The Court enjoins Stanford from violating the Exchange
Act § 10(b), Rule 10b-5, the Securities Act § 17(a), and the Advisers Act § 206(1) and (2), enjoins Davis
violating the Exchange Act § 10(b), Rule 10b-5, the Securities Act § 17(a), and enjoins SGC and SIB from
violating the Exchange Act § 10(b), Rule 10b-5, the Securities Act § 17(a), the Advisers Act § 206(1) and (2),
and the Investment Company Act § 7(d). The Court finds Stanford, Davis, SGC, and SIB jointly and severally
liable to disgorge the $5.9 billion fraudulently acquired by Stanford's scheme. The Court adds $861,189,969.06
of prejudgment interest to this total, for a total disgorgement liability of $6,761,189,969.06. Finally, the
Court imposes a civil penalty of $5.9 billion on Stanford and $5 million on Davis.
</div>
<div align="justify">
<a href="http://www.sivg.org/resources/25042013_Order_SEC_Against_Stanford.pdf" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
Read the complete Order of U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey.</a>
</div>
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://sivg.org/article/2013_SEC_Order_Against_Stanford.html" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/article/2013_SEC_Order_Against_Stanford.html</a><br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:ApplyBreakingRules/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-8235226661574428562013-04-22T23:42:00.000-07:002013-05-04T23:42:52.830-07:00Louisiana officials want release of SEC report in Stanford case<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
<b>April 22, 2013</b><br />
<b>By BILL LODGE</b>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
A Louisiana senator told officials of the Securities and
Exchange Commission Friday that he wants immediate release of a
year-old report by the commission's inspector general on
efforts to recover money for victims of a multibillion-dollar fraud.<br /><br />
U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., described as incompetent
efforts by a court-appointed receiver to find and distribute assets of
convicted con man Robert Allen Stanford.<br /><br />
Stanford, 63, of Houston, is serving a 110-year prison
sentence for a fraud conviction that followed estimated worldwide losses
of approximately $7 billion. About $1 billion of those losses
were from about 1,000 investors in the Baton Rouge, Lafayette and
Covington areas, according to estimates by state Sen. Bodi
White, R-Central, and Baton Rouge attorney Phillip W. Preis.<br /><br />
"The fraud caused an absolute tragedy for many Louisiana
families who invested their hard-earned retirement savings in good
faith that it would be there for them when they retired,"
Vitter said Friday in a letter to Mary Jo White, who chairs the SEC.<br /><br />
Vitter said the receiver in the case, Dallas attorney Ralph
Janvey, spent $100 million to collect $55 million for Stanford's
victims.<br /><br />
"In the best light, Janvey's actions can only be seen as
incompetent," Vitter told White in that letter. He urged White to
release
the SEC inspector general's report on Janvey, noting that it
was completed in March 2012.<br /><br />
There are more than 20,000 Stanford victims across more than 100 countries.<br /><br />
A retired Zachary couple, Louis and Kathy Mier, saw $240,000 of their savings stolen by Stanford's fraudulent scheme.<br /><br />
"Whatever any of our congressmen do to shed light on the
truth of what happened, and whatever they can do to help us get our
money
back and be whole again, would make Louis and me very, very
happy," Kathy Mier said Friday.<br /><br />
John J. Nester, a spokesman for the SEC, said in an email
Friday that neither he nor other SEC officials would comment on Vitter's
request before White issues a response to the senator's
letter.<br /><br />
U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., released a statement through
her staff: "The Stanford victims deserve answers, and the immediate
release of the IG's report is the very least the SEC can do."<br /><br />
U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy, R.-Baton Rouge, said through his
staff: "I strongly urge the SEC … to release the full results of the
inspector general's report. The victims of this crime were
hard working Louisiana families, and they are entitled to see the
details of the report."<br /><br />
Vitter noted that Janvey, against the SEC's wishes,
unsuccessfully sued some Stanford victims in an effort to seize money
those
victims retrieved before Stanford's operations were shut down
in February 2009.<br /><br />
"Given the demonstrated incompetence of the court-appointed
receiver, it makes you wonder how bad this (inspector general's)
report gets," Vitter added. "The Stanford victims deserve to
see."
</div>
<div align="justify">
<a href="http://theadvocate.com/home/5757488-125/louisiana-officials-want-release-of" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
Source.</a>
</div>
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://sivg.org/article/2013_Louisiana_want_release_SEC_report_Stanford_case.html" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/article/2013_Louisiana_want_release_SEC_report_Stanford_case.html</a><br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:ApplyBreakingRules/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-63028401907997492292013-04-12T23:43:00.000-07:002013-05-04T23:43:51.989-07:00SEC Can't Force Help For Stanford Victims, DC Circ. Told<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
<b>April 12, 2013</b><br />
<b>By Counsel for Appellee SIPC</b>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
The Securities Investor Protection Corp. asked the D.C.
Circuit on Monday to affirm a landmark district court ruling declaring
it doesn't owe compensation to victims of Robert Allen
Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme, suggesting the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission succumbed to political pressure in
bringing the suit.<br /><br />
The SIPC asked the appeals court to affirm U.S. District
Judge Robert L. Wilkins' decision dismissing the agency's application
to compel the SIPC to pay the fraud victims' claims through a
liquidation proceeding.<br /><br />
A top agency official had originally agreed that the SIPC did
not owe funds under the Securities Investor Protection Act, SIPC
claims, but that changed after U.S. Senator David Vitter,
R-La., threatened to block the nominations of two SEC officials in
June 2011, the SIPC said.<br /><br />
"The record shows that the SEC's general counsel agreed that
SIPA did not apply to the Stanford case," the SIPC said. "It was
only two years later that the SEC sought to force SIPC's
hand, apparently bowing to pressure from a U.S. senator," referencing
a June 14, 2011, press release from Vitter.<br /><br />
The corporation, funded by the brokerage industry to cover
investors who lose money in failing firms, also claims the SEC didn't
seek a liquidation until two years after its 2009 case
against Stanford.<br /><br />
"If the SEC had thought the Stanford fraud was within the
scope of what SIPA protects, it was under a legal obligation to notify
SIPC immediately," the SIPC said. "The SEC did not do so,
even though it filed an enforcement action against Stanford and secured
the appointment of a receiver over U.S. Stanford assets in
February 2009."<br /><br />
On July 3, Judge Wilkins ruled that Stanford's U.S.-based
Stanford Group Co. was a member of the SIPC, but that the Antigua-based
Stanford International Bank was not. Stanford International
Bank Ltd. was an offshore bank, not a registered broker-dealer, which
is what the SIPC oversees, Judge Wilkins said.<br /><br />
Judge Wilkins' decision was a major blow to victims of the
Ponzi scheme, who together lost upwards of $7 billion in certificates
of deposit administered by Stanford International Bank. It
also carried broader legal significance, marking the first time since
the enactment of SIPA 42 years ago that a federal court had
ruled on how much power the SEC has to command a SIPC liquidation.<br /><br />
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that brokerage customers
cannot force such proceedings, but that the SEC has the authority to do
so.<br /><br />
Because of its precedential nature, a key issue in the
Stanford dispute was the standard of proof required of the SEC. The
agency
argued for a more lenient standard than the SIPC did,
describing its burden as merely probable cause supported by hearsay.
Judge
Wilkins ultimately chose the higher standard requested by the
SIPC: a preponderance of the evidence. In an SIPC liquidation, an
investor must meet a preponderance standard to prove the
validity of his or her claim.<br /><br />
In its appellate brief filed in January, the SEC said Judge
Wilkins had taken a too-narrow view of the term "customer." The agency
argued that transactions with both Stanford entities should
be treated the same way under SIPA because the company operated "as a
single fraudulent enterprise that ignored corporate
boundaries."<br /><br />
"This interpretation of the statute to allow for flexibility
in certain circumstances is the correct one, and it is at least a
reasonable one that was entitled to deference by the district
court," the SEC said.<br /><br />
The SEC added that it was not seeking customer status for all
Stanford investors, but only for those who held accounts with Stanford
Group Co., purchased fraudulent certificates of deposit
through SGC and deposited funds with Stanford International Bank Ltd.<br /><br />
But SIPC said Monday that the terms of its mission were
clear: to protect investors when a member brokerage fails, adding that
Judge
Wilkins' purportedly narrow view of the term 'customer' was
appropriate.<br /><br />
"By its terms, the statute does not insure against fraud or
investment losses, instead protecting only the 'customer' property that
an SIPC-'member' brokerage firm holds in custody when the
brokerage fails," the corporation added.<br /><br />
The corporation also said the SEC's case was unprecedented
because it has not made similar requests in proceedings related to the
downfall of a major financial institution.<br /><br />
"In 40 years and over 300 liquidation proceedings — including
the recent liquidations ofLehman Brothers Inc., Madoff Investment
Securities LLC, and MF Global Inc. — this is the first the
the SEC had ever tried to compel a liquidation."<br /><br />
Stanford was sentenced in June to 110 years in prison for his role in the fraud.<br /><br />
SIPC is represented by Edwin John U, Eugene F. Assaf Jr.,
John C. O'Quinn, Michael W. McConnell and Elizabeth M. Locke of
Kirkland & Ellis LLP.<br /><br />
The case is U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v.
Securities Investor Protection Corp., case number 12-5286, in the U.S.
Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
</div>
<div align="justify">
<a href="http://www.sivg.org/resources/SIPC-Response-to-SEC-Appeal-Brief-April-12-2013.pdf" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
SIPC Response to SEC Appeal Brief.</a>
</div>
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://sivg.org/article/2013_SEC_Cant_Force_Help_For_Stanford_Victims.html" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/article/2013_SEC_Cant_Force_Help_For_Stanford_Victims.html</a><br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:ApplyBreakingRules/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-48325376933889565442013-04-01T10:33:00.000-07:002013-05-23T10:34:42.976-07:00SIPC: $5.44 BILLION NOW DISTRIBUTED TO MADOFF VICTIMS<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
<b>April 1, 2013</b><br />
<b>By Ailis Aaron Wolf</b>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
Madoff Trustee's Third Distribution Sends Approximately $506.2 Million to Customers With Allowed Claims.<br /><br />
With the distribution of approximately $506.2 million to victims in the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment
Securities LLC (BLMIS), a total of $5.44 billion will now have been distributed to BLMIS customers with allowed
claims. The Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) today applauded the hard work of Trustee Irving H.
Picard and his attorneys in their continued efforts to recover and return funds to BLMIS customers.<br /><br />
When combined with the funds already returned to BLMIS customers from the Customer Fund and advances from SIPC,
more than 50 percent of the total Madoff accounts with allowed claims will be fully satisfied following the third
interim pro rata distribution. A total of 1,106 accounts will be fully satisfied following the third interim
distribution out of a total of 2,178 accounts with allowed claims.<br /><br />
Since December 2008, $9.32 billion has either been recovered or agreements reached to recover funds to return to
BLMIS customers. This amount is more than 53 percent of the approximately $17.5 billion in principal estimated to
have been lost by BLMIS customers who filed allowed claims. The Trustee's recovery of more than $9.32 billion has
been made possible through advances provided by SIPC, which is funded by the securities industry. <b>To date, SIPC
has committed approximately $807 million to pay customer claims and over $718 million to fund the liquidation
proceeding. <u>No monies recovered by the Trustee have been used to pay any administrative expenses. All recoveries
made by the Trustee benefit customers</u></b>.<br /><br />
SIPC President Stephen Harbeck said: "Thanks to the
significant Tremont Funds settlement, which allocated more than
$1 billion to the BLMIS Customer Fund, and additional funds
recovered by Trustee Picard and his team since last fall,
additional distributions continue to be made in an effort to
fully satisfy as many BLMIS allowed claims as possible.
We applaud the hard work Trustee Picard has undertaken to
recover monies and distribute them to customers at the
failed BLMIS brokerage. His successful efforts have resulted
in the ability to fully satisfy more than half of the
BLMIS accounts with allowed claims, a significant
achievement. SIPC is pleased to continue to facilitate the work of
the Trustee to make possible the maximum recovery and return
of funds to customers."<br /><br />
<b style="color: #780000;">ABOUT SIPC</b><br /><br />
The Securities Investor Protection Corporation is the U.S.
investor's first line of defense in the event of the failure
of a brokerage firm owing customers cash and securities that
are missing from customer accounts. SIPC either acts as
trustee or works with an independent court-appointed trustee
in a brokerage insolvency case to recover funds.<br /><br />
The statute that created SIPC provides that customers of a
failed brokerage firm receive all non-negotiable securities -
such as stocks or bonds -- that are already registered in
their names or in the process of being registered. At the same
time, funds from the SIPC reserve are available to satisfy
the remaining claims for customer cash and/or securities held
in custody with the broker for up to a maximum of $500,000
per customer. This figure includes a maximum of $250,000 on
claims for cash. From the time Congress created it in 1970
through December 2011, SIPC has advanced $ 1.8 billion in
order to make possible the recovery of $ 117.5 billion in
assets for an estimated 767,000 investors.
</div>
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://sivg.org/article/2013_SIPC_6_BILLION_DISTRIBUTED_TO_MADOFF_VICTIMS.html" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/article/2013_SIPC_6_BILLION_DISTRIBUTED_TO_MADOFF_VICTIMS.html</a><br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:ApplyBreakingRules/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-72500755355015394762013-03-14T23:44:00.000-07:002013-05-04T23:44:55.273-07:00KLS Stanford Update - SEC Litigation<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
<b>March 14, 2013</b><br />
<b>By KACHROO LEGAL SERVICES, P.C.</b>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
In our last update, we notified you that the magistrate judge
in our SEC class action denied the Government's request
to stay all discovery. We are summarizing here the outcome of
the discovery hearing which was held in Miami on February
14, 2013. One of the key hurdles to overcome in an action
against the Government is the discretionary function exception.
The magistrate made clear that this hurdle has been overcome
and the court had already ruled on the sovereign immunity
issue. The magistrate also held that "it is not obvious that
[the Government's second motion to dismiss] will succeed."
A copy of this ruling is attached for your review. Following
this ruling, we have moved forward with discovery and we
continue to wait for the district court to rule on the
Government's second motion to dismiss.<br /><br />
In view of the delays caused by the Government's motion to
stay discovery, we requested that the Court push back certain
pre-trial and trial deadlines to allow us adequate time to
pursue the discovery required to prove our case. We are happy
to report that the Court granted our request and pushed back
discovery deadlines to afford us this opportunity, which
also resulted in a <b><u>new trial date set for April 7, 2014</u></b>.<br /><br />
In accordance with the foregoing and the undersigned's rulings in open Court, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:<br />
1.- The Motion to Stay Discovery [D.E. 50] is <b>DENIED</b>.<br /><br />
2.- The Motion to Compel [D.E. 51] is <b>DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE</b>
as to Request No. 1 and Interrogatory No. 6 based
on Defendant's agreement to supply the names and contact
information of the SEC Fort Worth District Office staff members
in response to Interrogatory No. 1. Such information is
hereby designated as "CONFIDENTIAL, FOR ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY",
and shall be provided to Plaintiff's counsel by February 19,
2013.<br /><br />
3.- The Motion to Compel [D.E. 51] is <b>DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE</b>
as to Request Nos. 2, 13-16 and Interrogatory Nos.
1-5, 7-8 subject to the following terms. Plaintiffs may
notice a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the SEC, designating as
categories the information sought in their discovery
requestes, but narrowed in terms of time, entity and scope as more
fully explained at the February 14, 2013 hearing. Within one
week of receipt of the Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition,
Defendant may submit a letter to the undersigned setting
forth any objections to the designated categories at the
undersigned's e-file address, otazo-reyes@flsd.uscourts.gov.
Plaintiffs may respond to any such objections, by the same
means, within one week. Thereafter, the undersigned will rule
on the objections or, if necessary, set a telephonic hearing
to address them. The parties' letters will be appended to the
Order on the objections.<br />
The Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the SEC shall be scheduled on
a date that is mutually agreeable to the parties, and at a
time when the undersigned will be available to rule on any
disputes that may arise regarding its scope. To this end, counsel
may contact Chambers to coordinate the deposition date.
Further, the parties may submit a proposed confidentiality order
prior to the deposition.
</div>
<div align="justify">
<a href="http://www.sivg.org/resources/Zelaya_Order_on_Motion_to_Stay_and_Motion_to_Compel.pdf" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
Zelaya Order on Motion to Stay and Motion to Compel.</a>
</div>
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://sivg.org/article/2013_KLS_Stanford_Update_SEC_Litigation.html" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/article/2013_KLS_Stanford_Update_SEC_Litigation.html</a><br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:ApplyBreakingRules/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-78995390040819302282013-03-13T23:45:00.000-07:002013-05-04T23:45:52.307-07:00Stanford U.S. Receiver Has Deal With Antigua Counterpart<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
<b>March 13, 2013</b><br />
<b>By Laurel Brubaker Calkins</b>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
R. Allen Stanford's Antiguan- appointed liquidators agreed to stop seeking control of the convicted financier's
assets in a deal that may allow defrauded investors to recover some of the $300 million Stanford stashed in
accounts outside the U.S.<br /><br />
Receivers appointed by the U.S. and the Antiguan courts have battled for four years to control assets recovered
from Stanford's financial-services empire. Stanford, 62, was convicted last March of leading a $7 billion
investment fraud based on bogus certificates of deposit at his Antigua-based bank. He was sentenced to 110 years
in prison.<br /><br />
"The funds that are the subject of this agreement represent the largest available source of investor money that
Allen Stanford had not already spent by the time his Ponzi scheme collapsed," Kevin Sadler, lead attorney for
U.S. receiver Ralph Janvey, said in an e-mail today. "In the absence of this agreement, these funds would remain
out of reach of the Stanford victims for years to come."<br /><br />
For dropping their dispute with Janvey and the U.S. Justice Department, the Antiguan liquidators will receive fees
of $36 million from Stanford's frozen funds in the U.K., according to a statement jointly released by both
receivers today.<br /><br />
<b style="color: #780000;">Professional Fees</b><br /><br />
The Antiguan liquidators have already received $20 million from the U.K. accounts, so the additional payment will
boost their professional fees to $56 million -- almost as much as Janvey's receivership team has been paid since
U.S. securities regulators seized Stanford's operations in February 2009.<br /><br />
Janvey's professionals had been paid $63.3 million in fees and expenses as of Feb. 7, according to his latest
status report. That represents about a quarter of the $230.2 million Janvey has recovered for the estate. He has
paid out an additional $53.3 million in costs to wind up Stanford's business interests.<br /><br />
Janvey recently proposed a $50 million interim distribution be paid to investors, pending court approval.<br /><br />
Angie Shaw, a founder of the Stanford Victims Coalition, denounced the agreement as "ransom" that rewards the
Antiguan liquidators at the investors' expense.<br /><br />
"While the agreement does end a four-year international turf war that has cost the victims untold millions of
dollars, the only true beneficiary of the agreement is the Antiguan liquidators," Shaw said in an e-mail today.
"The Antiguan liquidators are essentially getting a ransom fee in exchange for dropping their litigation for
control over the frozen foreign accounts holding what is left of the victims' life savings."<br /><br />
<b style="color: #780000;">Dallas Judge</b><br /><br />
While Janvey was awarded control over all Stanford assets by the Dallas judge in charge of the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission case against Stanford, courts in the U.K., Switzerland and Canada initially awarded control
of about $320 million in foreign accounts to Antiguan court-appointed liquidators Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson of
Grant Thornton.<br /><br />
The Justice Department placed an administrative hold on the European funds, and it has been trying to repatriate
the money since Stanford and his co-conspirators were convicted last year.<br /><br />
The Antiguan liquidators have fought to retain control and have filed some asset-recovery lawsuits that duplicate
actions already initiated by Janvey, according to court filings. Wide and Dickson haven't publicly stated how much
they've been able to recover for Stanford's investors.<br /><br />
<b style="color: #780000;">Stanford Victims</b><br /><br />
Edward H. Davis Jr., one of the Antiguan liquidators' attorneys, said in an e-mail today that Dickson and Wide have
already recovered and frozen more than $227 million in Stanford assets "independent of the amounts recovered by
Janvey and in addition to the approximately $300 million frozen" in overseas accounts.<br /><br />
"The joint liquidators have conducted intensive investigations and lodged claims and are in the process of launching
additional lawsuits that have the potential to yield billions of dollars in recoveries to pay the victim creditors,"
Davis said. "To suggest that the joint liquidators held the estate for ransom demonstrates a fundamental
misunderstanding about how a liquidation process maximizes recoveries for victim creditors."<br /><br />
Peter Morgenstern, a lawyer who sits on the Official Stanford
Investors Committee, said the investors should be allowed
to decide whether the Antiguan liquidators receive more fees
or whether the U.S. government should continue fighting
to recover Stanford's frozen European funds through
international accords designed to recover criminal proceeds.<br /><br />
<b style="color: #780000;">Significant Assets</b><br /><br />
"The issue is how significant assets recovered by the U.S.
government for the benefit of Stanford victims should be
spent," Morgenstern said in an e-mail. Much as creditors have
a say in how bankruptcy proceeds are distributed, he said,
the defrauded investors should also be consulted before such a
large part of the estate is paid in professional fees.<br /><br />
Janvey has asked U.S. District Judge David Godbey in Dallas to hold a hearing at which investors can express their
opinions of the deal. No hearing has been set.<br /><br />
Under terms of the agreement announced today, the Antiguan
liquidators will distribute the $44 million remaining in
the U.K. accounts to investors after the liquidators have
received their $36 million in working capital. Wide and Dickson
will also distribute about $60.5 million of the funds
currently frozen in Switzerland, according to the joint statement.<br /><br />
<b style="color: #780000;">Fund Transfers</b><br /><br />
About $23 million in Canadian funds and $132.5 million in
Swiss funds will be transferred to the Justice Department and
Janvey for distribution to investors through a system the
U.S. receiver is establishing, according to the joint statement.<br /><br />
The agreement "creates a plan for the distribution of almost
90 percent 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," the Antiguan
liquidators said in the joint statement.<br /><br />
Courts in the U.S., Antigua and the U.K. must still sign off on the deal before any funds are transferred, according
to the statement.<br /><br />
Sadler, the U.S. receiver's attorney, said the deal was the result of months of negotiations involving officials
in five nations.<br /><br />
"This agreement is one of the most complex undertakings of its kind," he said in an e-mail. "This was no easy task."
</div>
<div align="justify">
<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/allen-stanford-s-receivers-reach-deal-to-repay-investors.html" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
Source.</a>
</div>
<div align="justify">
<a href="http://sivg.org/resources/xdoc/Press_re_settlement_SP.pdf" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
Press release settlement (Spanish version).</a>
</div>
<div align="justify">
<a href="http://sivg.org/resources/xdoc/Press_re_settlement_eng.pdf" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
Press release settlement (English version).</a>
</div>
<div align="justify">
<a href="http://sivg.org/resources/xdoc/2013_Agreement_Janvey_JLs.pdf" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
Agreement Janvey - JLs (English version).</a>
</div>
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://sivg.org/article/2013_Stanford_Receiver_Deal_With_Antigua.html" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/article/2013_Stanford_Receiver_Deal_With_Antigua.html</a><br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:ApplyBreakingRules/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-88174432925345572542013-03-12T23:47:00.000-07:002013-05-04T23:48:28.677-07:00Stanford investors' lawsuit heads to federal court<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
<b>March 12, 2013</b><br />
<b>By Bill Lodge</b>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
Eighty-nine investors defrauded by now-imprisoned Houston financier Robert Allen Stanford want $115 million
from seven insurance companies in addition to claims that could total as much as $1 billion against the
Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions and SEI Investments Co.<br /><br />
But six of the insurers responded Monday by transferring the investors' 4-year-old state court suit to Baton
Rouge federal court, action the investors have fought hard in the past.<br /><br />
"We feel confident that this case should not be removed to federal court, because the state court has already
ruled on it" and granted the investors class-action status, said Phillip W. Preis, Baton Rouge attorney for
the investors.<br /><br />
Telephone and email requests for comment from three New Orleans attorneys for the insurance companies were
not returned.<br /><br />
The investors sued OFI and Pennsylvania-based SEI in 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge in 2009. That
was soon after the Securities and Exchange Commission shut down Stanford's worldwide operations and alleged
his investment program was nothing more than a fraudulent scheme.<br /><br />
But a federal judge in Dallas, where the SEC had filed its complaint, yanked the Louisiana investors' suit into
his Texas court and then dismissed the case.<br /><br />
The Dallas judge ruled in 2011 that the Baton Rouge investors suit violated a Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act prohibition against state court litigation that could negatively affect the nation's financial
markets.<br /><br />
Last year, however, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the Dallas judge and
concluded that investors could pursue recovery of their losses in Baton Rouge state court.<br /><br />
That returned the investor claims to state District Judge Michael Caldwell, who held hearings on disputed
allegations that OFI knew of Stanford's misdeeds and should have warned investors, as well as a complaint that
SEI ignored a duty to tell investors that Stanford's assets were grossly overvalued. SEI's services were
contracted by Stanford.<br /><br />
Caldwell issued a judgment last year that certified the investors' suit as a class action, meaning that all
people who lost investments at Stanford Trust Co.'s Baton Rouge office could join the suit as plaintiffs
against SEI, OFI and now SEI's seven insurers.<br /><br />
Caldwell has not yet scheduled a trial for the case.<br /><br />
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on appeals of related Stanford investor cases in October.<br /><br />
In Baton Rouge, attorneys for both SEI and OFI repeatedly have denied all allegations that their clients failed
any responsibility to alert investors about Stanford's frauds.<br /><br />
"The role of the OFI is to regulate, not to ensure that those who invest in companies subject to OFI regulation
will never lose money as a result of criminal behavior," OFI attorney David Latham told Caldwell in one court filing.<br /><br />
"SEI did not make any false statements" to Stanford investors, SEI attorney J. Gordon Cooney Jr. told Caldwell in
September. Cooney later added: "SEI has not violated Louisiana securities law."<br /><br />
Court records show the investors added SEI's insurers to its list of defendants in an amended complaint that was
filed Feb. 13 under seal.<br /><br />
Preis said Monday the amended complaint was filed under a nonpublic seal because it contains information related
to OFI's exam reports on Stanford Trust, which Caldwell ruled earlier must remain confidential.<br /><br />
The six insurers that transferred the dispute Monday to U.S.
District Judge James J. Brady are Allied World Assurance
Co. (U.S.) Inc., Continental Casualty Co., Arch Insurance
Co., Indian Harbor Insurance Co., Nutmeg Insurance Co. and
certain underwriters at Lloyd's of London.<br /><br />
Those insurers told Brady a seventh firm — Endurance
Specialty Insurance Ltd., of Bermuda — did not join their motion
because Endurance officials had not yet been served with a
copy of the investors' suit.<br /><br />
Stanford has been in federal custody since June 2009, when he was indicted by a federal grand jury in Houston for
worldwide frauds alleged to exceed $7 billion. He was convicted on fraud charges last year and sentenced to a prison
term of 115 years.
</div>
<div align="justify">
<a href="http://theadvocate.com/home/5409909-125/stanford-investors-lawsuit-heads-to" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
Source.</a>
</div>
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://sivg.org/article/2013_Stanford_investors_lawsuit_heads_to_federal_court.html" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/article/2013_Stanford_investors_lawsuit_heads_to_federal_court.html</a><br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:ApplyBreakingRules/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-6679145838880199682013-03-12T23:46:00.000-07:002013-05-04T23:46:55.179-07:00OPEN LETTER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="center" style="color: black;">
<b>It is very important that you participate in this action.</b>
You should decide how your money is spent, and whether
all available funds should be distributed to you, or should
be fund ongoing efforts by the receivership and/or the joint
liquidators. <b>Don't let few persons decide for you!</b> Please read carefully the letter, proposed by one victim, and
provide your acceptance in case you agree. <b>We need as much victims as possible supporting this letter in order to make
enough pressure to achieve a prompt distribution</b>.
</div>
<div align="center" style="color: #400000; font-size: 18px;">
<b>OPEN LETTER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE</b>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
<b>March 12, 2013</b><br />
<b>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE</b>
</div>
<div style="color: black;">
<b>TO:</b><br />
Mr. Ralph Janvey<br />
Mr. Marcus Wide<br />
Mr. Hugh Dickson<br /><br />
<b>CC:</b><br />
Mr. John Little<br />
Mr. Edward C. Snyder<br />
Mr. Kevin M. Sadler<br />
Mrs. Jennifer Ambuehl<br /><br />
Dear Mr. Janvey, Mr. Wide and Mr. Dickson,<br />
Months have gone, it is March 2013 and the real victims of the Stanford fraud (hereinafter "we", "us") have
not yet received any information about the distribution of our money located in the USA and abroad.<br /><br />
So far we have suffered from lack of information and transparency. However this should not happen because you are
working for us.<br /><br />
As it was mentioned by the OSIC in January 22, 2013: "<b><u>We (the OSIC) strongly believe that you, the victims
of this horrible crime, should decide how your money is spent, and whether all available funds should be distributed
to you, or to fund ongoing efforts by the receivership or the joint liquidators</u></b>"<br /><br />
We demand that <b><u>all the money</u></b> collected so far <b><u>to be immediately distributed to us</u></b>.<br /><br />
We agreed all together with this petition and as both of you are working for us (and both of you have being paid so
far with our money), you must listen to our petition. We have taken this decision, so please inform us as soon as
possible:<br />
1- how much money there is for distribution so far identified in the USA and abroad<br />
2- how the complete distribution will be effectively implemented and how all the money will be paid to us.<br /><br />
We cannot keep waiting and waiting.<br /><br />
Sincerely,<br />
The real victims of the Stanford fraud
</div>
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
<a href="http://sivg.org/forum/survey.php?fs=10l3zAH01m2013x1" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
Sign the open letter to Janvey and JLs</a>.
(<a href="http://sivg.org/forum/survey.php?fs=10l3zAH01m2013x1" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
View how many victims have accepted this letter</a>)
<br /><br /><br />------------ Versión en español ------------<br /><br />
</div>
<div align="center" style="color: maroon;">
<b>Es muy importante que participen en esta acción.</b> Usted debe decidir cómo se gasta su dinero, y si todos los
fondos disponibles deberían distribuirse a usted, o deberían financiar los esfuerzos en curso por la receptoría de
Janvey y/o los liquidadores conjuntos. <b>No dejes que pocas personas decidan por usted!</b> Por favor lea
cuidadosamente la carta, propuesta por una victima, y proporcione su aceptación en caso de que usted acepta.
<b>Necesitamos a tantas víctimas como sea posible para apoyar esta carta a fin de hacer suficiente presión y lograr
una rápida distribución</b>.
</div>
<div align="center" style="color: maroon; font-size: 18px;">
<b>CARTA ABIERTA PARA SU DIFUSIÓN INMEDIATA</b></div>
<div align="justify" style="color: maroon;">
<b>Marzo 12, 2013</b><br />
<b>PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA</b>
</div>
<div style="color: maroon;">
<b>PARA:</b><br />
Sr. Ralph Janvey<br />
Sr. Marcus Wide<br />
Sr. Hugh Dickson<br /><br />
<b>CC:</b><br />
Sr. John Little<br />
Sr. Edward C. Snyder<br />
Sr. Kevin M. Sadler<br />
Sra. Jennifer Ambuehl<br /><br />
Estimado Sr. Janvey, Sr. Wide y Sr. Dickson,<br />
Ya han pasado meses, estamos en Marzo del 2013 y las verdaderas víctimas del fraude de Stanford (en adelante
"nosotros", "nos") aun no han recibido ninguna informacion respecto a la distribucion de nuestro dinero ubicado en
USA y en el exterior.<br /><br />
Hasta ahora hemos sufrido por falta de información y transparencia. Sin embargo esto no deberia ocurrir ya que
ustedes estan trabajando para nosotros.<br /><br />
Como fué mencionado por el OSIC el 22 de Enero del 2013: "<b><u>Creemos firmemente que, las víctimas de este horrible
crimen, deben decidir cómo se gasta su dinero, y si todos los fondos disponibles deberían distribuirse a usted, o
deberían financiar los esfuerzos en curso por la receptoría o los liquidadores conjuntos</u></b>"<br /><br />
Nosotros exigimos que <b><u>todo el dinero</u></b> recogido hasta ahora <b><u>sea distribuido inmediatamente</u></b>
a nosotros.<br /><br />
Nosotros estamos todos de acuerdo con esta petición y como
ustedes trabajan para nosotros y ambos se han pagado hasta
ahora con nuestro dinero, ustedes deben escuchar nuestra
petición. Nosotros hemos tomado esta decisión, así que por
favor infórmenos lo antes posible:<br />
1 - Cuánto dinero ha sido identificado hasta ahora en los Estados Unidos y en el extranjero para ser distribuido<br />
2 - Cómo se implementará con eficacia la distribución completa y cómo se pagará todo el dinero a nosotros.<br /><br />
Nosotros no podemos seguir esperando y esperando.<br /><br />
Sinceramente,<br />
Las verdaderas víctimas del fraude de Stanford
</div>
<div align="justify" style="color: maroon;">
<a href="http://sivg.org/forum/survey.php?fs=10l3zAH01m2013x1" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
Firmar la carta abierta para Janvey y JLs</a>.
(<a href="http://sivg.org/forum/survey.php?fs=10l3zAH01m2013x1" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
Ver cuantas víctimas han aceptado esta carta</a>)
</div>
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://sivg.org/article/2013_OPEN_LETTER_TO_JANVEY_AND_JLs.html" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/article/2013_OPEN_LETTER_TO_JANVEY_AND_JLs.html</a><br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:ApplyBreakingRules/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-5806950845136000572013-02-28T23:48:00.000-08:002013-05-04T23:49:25.374-07:00Cassidy, Deutch Introduce Improving SIPC Act of 2013<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
<b>February 28, 2013</b><br />
<b>By Dr. Bill Cassidy</b>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
WASHINGTON, D.C. - This week, Congressman Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) and Congressman Ted Deutch (D-FL)
re-introduced the Improving Security for Investors and Providing Closure Act, or Improving SIPC Act
of 2013. The legislation would provide victims of Ponzi schemes a quicker path to financial restitution,
including those harmed by R. Allen Stanford and the Stanford Financial Group.<br /><br />
"It has been four years since the Stanford Financial Group was placed in receivership and its victims
learned their savings were gone," said Congressman Bill Cassidy. "Yet there are still victims who have
not been given financial restitution. These are working men and women who cannot wait for the conclusion
of a long, drawn-out legal process. This bill allows them to quickly recoup some of their losses. This
is a common-sense plan which should be enacted."<br /><br />
"Every victim of the despicable Ponzi scheme orchestrated by the Stanford Financial Group of course has
the right to pursue any and all litigation in this case," said Congressman Ted Deutch. "Yet those who
cannot afford to continue this lengthy legal battle or simply want to move on with their lives deserve
the opportunity to recoup some of their losses. This is a commonsense, bipartisan bill and I look forward
to working with Congressman Cassidy to advance it in the 113th Congress."<br /><br />
This legislation creates an avenue for SIPC to offer individual Stanford victims a one-time payment of
up to $500,000.00, to at least partially recoup them of their losses. Stanford victims who accept the
offer would consequently exclude themselves from any further claims against the SIPC fund. Stanford
victims who wish to continue their lawsuits against SIPC can bypass this option and continue those suits.
In summary, this legislation allows both parties to settle on existing claims for a negotiated amount,
as both SIPC and countless victims reportedly hoped to do as early as 2011.<br /><br />
Additionally, since all settlements for Stanford victims would come from the SIPC fund, no taxpayer money
will be required to fund this legislation and no increase to the national debt will occur if enacted.
</div>
<div align="justify">
<a href="http://cassidy.house.gov/press-release/cassidy-deutch-introduce-improving-sipc-act-of-2013" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
Source.</a>
</div>
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://sivg.org/article/2013_Cassidy_Deutch_Improving_SIPC.html" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/article/2013_Cassidy_Deutch_Improving_SIPC.html</a><br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:ApplyBreakingRules/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3974025527263634060.post-80616033287226295582013-02-28T08:44:00.000-08:002013-06-07T08:46:04.732-07:00KRCL Stanford Ponzi Scheme Litigation Update<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
<b>By David M. Clem</b>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="color: black;">
It has been more than four years since the District Court for
the Northern District of Texas appointed Ralph Janvey
as Receiver for the Stanford Entities-shutting down what the
SEC alleged to be a $7 billion Ponzi scheme. In that
time, R. Allen Stanford and some of his associates have been
tried and convicted in criminal courts, while hundreds
of civil lawsuits continue to creep forward. Most of the
civil suits are consolidated for pretrial purposes into MDL
2099, in the Northern District of Texas. This litigation
alert will briefly address the criminal convictions, followed
by an update on the SLUSA appeal that KRCL wrote about in
April.[1] Lastly, this alert will report on some of the new
complaints filed by the Receiver and the Official Stanford
Investors Committee in February.<br /><br />
<b style="color: #780000;">The Criminal Trials</b><br /><br />
On June 14, 2012, Judge Hittner of the Southern District of
Texas sentenced R. Allen Stanford to 110 years in federal
prison for various counts of fraud, conspiracy, and
obstruction. The court also imposed a $5.9 billion judgment against
Stanford individually. Stanford has appealed the conviction
to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.<br /><br />
Stanford's conviction and judgment followed a six-week trial
at which his former chief financial officer, James Davis,
testified against Stanford as part of a plea agreement. The
court sentenced James Davis to five years in prison and
imposed a $1 billion money judgment.<br /><br />
Laura Pendergest-Holt, Stanford's former chief investment
officer, plead guilty to obstruction and received a sentence
of 36 months in prison and no monetary judgment.<br /><br />
On February 14, 2013, the court sentenced Gilbert Lopez, Stanford's former chief accounting officer, and Mark Kuhrt,
the former controller, to 20 years in prison. These defendants have signaled their intentions to appeal.<br /><br />
The Lopez and Kuhrt sentences bring an end to the criminal
trial proceedings, other than those related to Leroy King,
an Antiguan banking regulator whom prosecutors are attempting
to extradite to the United States for trial.<br /><br />
<b style="color: #780000;">The SLUSA Appeal</b><br /><br />
As we have previously written, the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA") prohibits state-based
securities class actions if the claims allege "a
misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with
the purchase of a covered security." Judge Godbey in the
Northern District of Texas previously ruled that the
plaintiffs' claims, which related to CDs issued by Stanford
International Bank, were sufficiently related to "covered
securities" to warrant SLUSA preemption.<br /><br />
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court, holding that SLUSA preemption does not apply and breathing
life back into the plaintiffs' claims.<br /><br />
Last month, the United States Supreme Court granted
certiorari to review the SLUSA issue.[2] The Supreme Court granted
certiorari in spite of opposition from the Solicitor General,
who wrote in an amicus brief that the facts presented
are too peculiar to provide any assistance to lower courts
that may later face SLUSA preemption issues.<br /><br />
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the October 2013
Term. If the high court reverses the Fifth Circuit, the
plaintiffs' claims that are based on state law securities
violations will be dismissed, significantly diminishing the
plaintiffs' ability to recover against financial services
defendants.<br /><br />
<b style="color: #780000;">The February 15 Lawsuits</b><br /><br />
The Official Stanford Investors Committee is a court-appointed group consisting of seven members that purportedly
represent a "cross-section of the Stanford victims' community." The Receiver assigned certain of its claims to the
Committee, which has brought suits in its own name and has also intervened in some lawsuits.<br /><br />
Despite the uncertainty created by the pending SLUSA appeal, the Committee has recently increased its litigation
activity. On February 15, 2013, the Committee filed three complaints with the MDL Court-a complaint in intervention
and two original complaints.<br /><br />
The Committee filed the complaint in intervention in Rotstain
v. Trustmark National Bank, HSBC Bank PLC, The
Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Bank of Houston, No. 3:09-cv-2384.
Rotstain is a purported class action brought by victims
of Stanford's purported Ponzi scheme. The Receiver and the
Committee had previously intervened, but had not alleged
claims directly against the defendant banks until this
filing. The Committee alleges various claims related to
fraudulent transfers, conversion, and conspiracy. The
Committee also seeks punitive damages for the banks' alleged
participation or abetting of Stanford's fraudulent scheme.<br /><br />
On the same day, the Committee filed an original complaint
styled The Official Stanford Investors Committee v. Bank of
Antigua, et al., No. 3:13-cv-0762. In this action, the
Committee seeks recovery from eight foreign banks for claims
similar to those alleged in the Rotstain matter. The
Committee alleges that the Antiguan government and its monetary
regulator, the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank, were complicit
in and integral to Stanford's fraud. According to the
complaint, the Antiguan government's seizure of the Bank of
Antigua (a Stanford-controlled entity) resulted in the
dissemination of Stanford assets to various Caribbean-based
banks. The Committee seeks to recover these assets, alleged
to be in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, under
theories of fraudulent transfer and conversion.<br /><br />
In addition, the Committee filed suit directly against the
nation of Antigua and Barbuda, in a case styled The Official
Stanford Investors Committee v. Antigua and Barbuda, No.
3:13-cv-0760. In this Complaint, the Committee levies its most
serious accusations against the Antiguan government, alleging
that the country "became a 'blood brother' to Stanford"
and that key government officials "were literally Stanford's
partners in crime." By this action, the Committee seeks to
recover almost one hundred million dollars in unpaid loans
made by Stanford to the government of Antigua and Barbuda.<br /><br />
The Receiver also filed a new lawsuit on February 15, 2013.
In Janvey v. Pablo M. Alvarado, et al., No. 3:13-cv-0775,
the Receiver seeks to recover from 23 former directors and
officers of various Stanford entities for breach of fiduciary
duty. The suit essentially alleges that the directors and
officers either knew of the fraud or facilitated the fraud by
ignoring numerous "red flags." Laura Pendergest-Holt, Mark
Kuhrt, and Gilberto Lopez are among the defendants.<br /><br />
KRCL will continue to monitor the Stanford litigation closely.<br /><br />
[1]<a href="http://www.krcl.com/index.php?src=gendocs&ref=Litigation-Alert%202012%200404" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Revives Securities Fraud Claims in Stanford Entities Securities Litigation</a><br />
[2]The consolidated cases are Chadbourne & Park LLP v.
Troice, No. 12-79; Willis of Colorado, Inc. v. Troice, No. 12-86;
and Proskauer Rose LLP v. Troice, No. 12-88.
</div>
<div align="justify">
<a href="http://www.krcl.com/index.php?src=news&refno=418&category=LITIGATION%20ALERT" style="color: blue;" target="_blank">
Source.</a>
</div>
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://sivg.org/article/2013_krcl_Stanford_Ponzi_Scheme_Litigation_Update.html" target="_blank">http://sivg.org/article/2013_krcl_Stanford_Ponzi_Scheme_Litigation_Update.html</a><br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:ApplyBreakingRules/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;">Visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;"><a href="http://sivg.org/forum/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB">http://sivg.org/forum/</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></div>
</div>
Stanford Victimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08774708944382724110noreply@blogger.com0