Complaint against PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP, CHADBOURNE & PARKE, LLP, and THOMAS V. SJOBLOM

August 8, 2012
By ATTORNEYS FOR THE OSIC

Ralph S. Janvey, in his capacity as the Court-Appointed Receiver for the Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee file this First Amended Complaint (the "Complaint") against Defendants PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP, CHADBOURNE & PARKE, LLP, and THOMAS V. SJOBLOM (collectively, the "Defendants").

Defendant Proskauer Rose, LLP ("Proskauer") is a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of New York. Defendant Proskauer has already appeared in this action.

Defendant Chadbourne & Parke, LLP ("Chadbourne") is a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of New York. Defendant Chadbourne has already appeared in this action.

Together, Defendants Proskauer and Chadbourne are collectively referred to as the "Law Firm Defendants".

Defendant Thomas V. Sjoblom ("Sjoblom") is an individual who currently resides in the State of Virginia. Defendant Sjoblom has already appeared in this action.

Defendants Proskauer and Chadbourne are liable for the tortious acts of their employee, Defendant Sjoblom. From the time that Sjoblom joined the conspiracy described herein in June 2005 until sometime in August 2006, Sjoblom was employed by Chadbourne. Thereafter, from August 2006 through late 2009, Sjoblom was an employee of Proskauer. Sjoblom was acting within the course and scope of his respective employments with Proskauer and Chadbourne, and in furtherance of said law firms' respective businesses, when he engaged in the wrongful conduct described herein.

The Stanford Financial companies, and therefore the Receiver and/or the Committee, have suffered the loss of billions of dollars in assets that were proximately caused by the wrongful conduct of Defendants and their conspiracy with Allen Stanford and others as described herein. In the alternative, Defendants Chadbourne, Proskauer and Sjoblom are liable for all damages caused to Stanford Financial, and therefore to the Receiver and/or the Committee, during the time period from 2005 to 2009 when the Defendants participated in the conspiracy to obstruct the SEC investigation of Stanford Financial's, SIBL's, and SGC's fraudulent sales practices. In addition, the Receiver and/or the Committee are entitled to recover their just and reasonable attorneys' fees, subject to Court approval, for it would be inequitable not to award such fees to them. The Receiver and/or the Committee have retained the undersigned attorneys and have agreed to pay them a reasonable attorneys' fee for their work.

The Receiver and the Committee request that the Defendants be summoned to answer this Complaint, that the case be tried before a jury, and that upon final judgment the Receiver and the Committee recover their damages as alleged herein, including their actual damages, punitive damages, and their costs and expenses of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees. The Receiver and the Committee pray for such other relief to which they may be justly entitled.

Source.

Related article:
Stanford Investors Accuse Lawyer, Law Firm of Aiding Fraud

Insight: How Allen Stanford kept the SEC at bay

More Info: http://sivg.org/article/2012_Lawsuit_PROSKAUER_ROSE_CHADBOURNE_and_THOMAS_SJOBLOM.html

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

US-Committee in opposition to Grant Thornton

December 5, 2011
By the US-Committee

The Official Stanford Investors Committee (the "Investors Committee") submits this brief in opposition to the Petition for Recognition of Foreign Main Proceeding Pursuant to Chapter 15 of Bankruptcy Code (the "Petition"). The Petition was originally filed by former liquidators, Nigel Hamilton-Smith and Peter Wastell, and is now championed by Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson (the "Joint Liquidators").

The Investors Committee respectfully urges the Court to deny the Joint Liquidators any form of recognition under Chapter 15. Any recognition of these Joint Liquidators would be "manifestly contrary to the public policy of the United States". That is so for at least four separate reasons.

First, the appointment of the Joint Liquidators (and their predecessors) was pursued and obtained in violation of this Court's Orders. Granting these Joint Liquidators any form of Chapter 15 recognition, under these circumstances, would undermine fundamental regulatory and jurisdictional policies of the United States.

Second, there are significant conflicts of interest raised by the Joint Liquidators's request for recognition as the "foreign main" proceeding. The Receivership Estate has significant claims against the Antiguan government that will likely be frustrated (or abandoned) if the Joint Liquidators achieve "foreign main" recognition. The Investors Committee believes those conflicts are exacerbated by the multiple representations that have been undertaken in this proceeding by counsel for the Joint Liquidators.

Third, the recognition sought by the Joint Liquidators should be denied because it is very much a "one-way street." The Antiguan courts have already refused to recognize this Court's Receiver, finding both that the Receiver has "no legal entitlement to standing in Antigua and Barbuda" and that this Court's Order appointing the Receiver and taking sole possession of the assets of the various Stanford entities, including SIBL, was "unenforceable."

Fourth, recognition should be denied because it has become painfully obvious that the Antiguan government and the Antiguan judicial system have no real interest in prosecuting the individuals responsible for the Stanford fraud, nor in recovering assets for the benefit of Stanford's investor-victims.

Source.

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