Stanford investors' lawsuit heads to federal court

March 12, 2013
By Bill Lodge

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.

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.

"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.

Telephone and email requests for comment from three New Orleans attorneys for the insurance companies were not returned.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Caldwell has not yet scheduled a trial for the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on appeals of related Stanford investor cases in October.

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.

"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.

"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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Source.

Read more: http://sivg.org/article/2013_Stanford_investors_lawsuit_heads_to_federal_court.html

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

Stanford Investors Sue Antigua, Caribbean Central Bank

February 18, 2013
By Laurel Brubaker Calkins

R. Allen Stanford's receiver and investors' committee sued Antigua, the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank and 23 former Stanford Financial Group Co. executives over allegations they aided the financier's $7 billion fraud.

The Official Stanford Investors Committee seeks repayment of at least $90 million in documented loans Stanford made to the dual-island nation of Antigua and Barbuda and accuses its elected officials of having been "Stanford's partners in crime." The nation's leaders shielded Stanford's scheme and traded choice real estate for as much as $230 million in loans that haven't been repaid, according to the lawsuit.

"Antigua knowingly provided necessary assistance to Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme and, in exchange, received millions of dollars in loans whose repayment terms Stanford did not enforce," the committee said in a complaint filed in Dallas federal court on Feb. 15. "For well over a decade, Antigua was a prime participant in, and beneficiary of, the Stanford Ponzi scheme, and actively protected and shielded Stanford's criminal enterprise from real regulatory scrutiny."

Stanford, 62, was convicted in March of masterminding a Ponzi scheme that defrauded investors through the sale of bogus certificates of deposit at his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd. He is serving a 110-year sentence in a Florida federal prison as he appeals his verdict and sentence.

Falsified Audits
Evidence at Stanford's trial showed he bribed Antiguan banking regulator Leroy King to falsify audits certifying the bank's investment returns and mislead U.S. securities regulators investigating the former Texas billionaire's operations. Stanford was also allowed to underwrite and participate in banking reform legislation that Antigua claimed had cleaned up its corrupt offshore banking industry, according to trial evidence. Antigua has so far failed to extradite King to face criminal charges in the U.S.

The investors on Feb. 15 separately sued the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank, which nationalized Stanford's other island financial institution, the Bank of Antigua, after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission seized Stanford's enterprise on suspicion of fraud in February 2009.

The ECCB in turn parceled out ownership in the bank to the government of Antigua and to other Caribbean banks in what the investors called "a second act of brazen thievery." The head of ECCB's monetary council at the time was Antiguan Minister of Finance Errol Cort, who was both King's supervisor and one of Stanford's personal attorneys, according to court papers.

Rightful Owners
"The considerable value of the Bank of Antigua, believed to be in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, should be distributed as compensation to its rightful owners, Stanford's victims and creditors," the committee said in court papers.

Recent comments by Antiguan elected officials indicate the country intends to repay the bank instead of the defrauded investors, Peter D. Morgenstern, a lawyer for the investors' committee, wrote, meaning that "in essence, Antigua intends to use CD investors' money to pay itself."

Tom Bayko, Antigua's attorney, didn't immediately respond to voice or e-mail messages seeking comment on the lawsuit. In an earlier suit, Bayko said Antigua was protected from such litigation by foreign sovereign immunity.

Officials at the ECCB didn't immediately return telephone or e-mail messages seeking comment on the lawsuit.

Ralph Janvey, Stanford's court-appointed receiver, filed another lawsuit on Feb. 15 claiming breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit by 23 former directors and officers of Stanford's operations, including three executives convicted of furthering the fraud scheme. The suit seeks return of all compensation from these individuals, some of whom have been previously sued by the receiver on similar claims.

"Many directors and officers simply looked the other way, while others actively assisted Stanford in defrauding thousands of people out of billions of dollars," Kevin Sadler, Janvey's lead lawyer, said in the filing in Dallas federal court. They "put their continued employment and substantial compensation ahead of the best interests of the entities they were hired to serve," he said.

The cases are The Official Stanford Investors Committee v. Antigua and Barbuda, 3:13-cv-0760; The Official Stanford Investors Committee v. Bank of Antigua, 3:13-cv-0762; Janvey v. Alvarado, 3:13-cv-0775. All are in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).

The main criminal case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09-cr-342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).

Source.

Read more: http://sivg.org/article/2013_Stanford_Investors_Sue_Antigua_Caribbean_Central_Bank.html

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

Ex-Stanford Executives Get 20-Year Sentences

February 14, 2013
By DEBBIE CAI

Two former Stanford Financial Group executives were each sentenced to 20 years in prison for aiding convicted financier Robert Allen Stanford in perpetuating a massive Ponzi scheme, the Department of Justice said.

Gilbert T. Lopez Jr., former chief accounting officer of Stanford Financial Group Co., and Mark J. Kuhrt, former global controller of Stanford Financial Group Global Management, were convicted by a Houston federal jury in November of last year.

The men, both from Houston, were convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and nine counts of wire fraud, the DOJ said.

Judge David Hittner of the Southern District of Texas, who presided over the trial, sentenced Mr. Lopez and Mr. Kuhrt to serve three years of supervised release and ordered Mr. Lopez to pay a $25,000 fine, along with the prison terms. He also found that both men committed perjury at trial.

Evidence presented at the trial showed that Mr. Lopez and Mr. Kuhrt were aware of and tracked Stanford's misuse of Stanford International Bank's assets, kept the misuse hidden from the public and from almost all of Stanford's other employees, and worked behind the scenes to prevent the misuse from being discovered, the DOJ said.

Jack Zimmermann, lead counsel for Mr. Lopez, told Dow Jones Newswires that he is "very disappointed." The sentence was expected to be closer to that of James Davis, former finance chief of Stanford Financial who last month was given five years in jail for his role in the scheme. Mr. Zimmermann described Mr. Davis as the architect of the fraud. He plans to appeal the conviction.

Lawyers for Mr. Kuhrt weren't immediately available for comment.

Former Texas businessman Mr. Stanford is serving a 110-year sentence for stealing billions of dollars in investors' money and investing much of it in unprofitable private businesses he controlled. Laura Pendergest-Holt, Stanford's former chief investment officer, is serving a three-year sentence.

Source.

Read more: http://sivg.org/article/2013_ExStanford_Executives_Get_20Year_Sentences.html

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

The District Court Rules in Favor of the Receiver in His Claim to Recover Net Winnings Paid to Stanford "Net Winner" Investors

January 23, 2013
By U.S. Receiver (Ralph Janvey)

On January 23, 2013, the District Court entered a summary judgment order in favor of the Receiver finding that the Receiver is entitled to recover from Stanford investors any funds they were paid in excess of the principal they deposited in the Stanford fraud scheme. The Court ruled that the net winner investors' contracts with Stanford are void and unenforceable and that the investors did not provide value for amounts they received from Stanford in excess of the amounts they deposited. As a result, the Court held that that allowing the net winner investors "to keep their fraudulent above-market returns in addition to their principal would simply further victimize the true Stanford victims, whose money paid the fraudulent interest." Although the District Court's order is not a final judgment, the District Court certified the order for appeal, which means that it will likely be appealed in the near future to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The Receiver is pleased with the Court's ruling today that those investors who profited from the Stanford ponzi scheme do not have the right to retain those profits. This decision represents an important milestone in the very long and difficult process of unwinding the massive Stanford ponzi scheme. In his ruling, Judge Godbey agreed with the Receiver's position that the fictitious interest payments that Stanford made to investors on their Stanford International Bank certificates of deposit simply represented money taken from one set of investors and paid to another; it was just part of Stanford's efforts that kept the ponzi scheme going for well over a decade.

Based on his investigation, the Receiver identified over $220 million in net winnings or fictitious interest that was paid to over 800 investors. The Receiver intends to use this ruling to pursue recovery of these funds for the benefit of the thousands of investors who sustained significant losses on their Stanford CDs. Once recovered, these funds can be distributed to the victims of the Stanford fraud, which would be in addition to the $55 million that the Receiver has already proposed for distribution.

The Receiver is continuing to pursue recovery through litigation of other funds that can be distributed to victims, and he continues to work cooperatively with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Antiguan-appointed Liquidators to reach a final agreement to make available for distribution approximately $300 million in funds and assets currently frozen in foreign countries.

Click here to view the Order.

Read more: http://sivg.org/article/2013_Claim_Net_Winnings_Investors.html

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

Ex-Stanford executive gets 5 years in $7B swindle

January 22, 2013
By JUAN A. LOZANO

The star prosecution witness in the trial of convicted Texas financier R. Allen Stanford was sentenced Tuesday to five years in prison for helping to bilk investors out of more than $7 billion in one of the biggest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history.

James M. Davis had faced up to 30 years in prison after pleading guilty in 2009 to three fraud and conspiracy charges as part of an agreement with prosecutors.

"I am ashamed and I'm embarrassed," Davis said at the sentencing hearing at Houston federal court. "I've perverted what was right and I hurt thousands of investors. I betrayed their trust and also associates and neighbors and friends and my family."

Prosecutors say Stanford persuaded investors to buy certificates of deposit from his Caribbean bank, then used that money to bankroll a string of failed businesses and his own lavish lifestyle, including a fleet of private jets and yachts.

At Stanford's trial last year, Davis - the former chief financial officer of Stanford's companies - portrayed his ex-boss as the leader of the fraud who burned through billions of CD deposits. He testified that he and Stanford faked the bank's profits and fabricated documents to hide the fraud.

Stanford, a one-time billionaire, was convicted in March on 13 of 14 fraud-related counts. He was sentenced to 110 years in prison and is serving his sentence in a Central Florida prison.

Many of the dramatic details at Stanford's fraud trial - including testimony about bribes and blood oaths - came from Davis.

Stanford's defense attorneys accused Davis of being behind the fraud and tried to discredit him by calling him a liar and tax cheat. Davis, who was Stanford's roommate at Baylor University for a semester in 1973, said he realized he was party to fraud when he was asked to lie to a potential investor to say the bank had insurance.

Davis said he was "one of those liars" who faked the bank's numbers but that Stanford was "the chief faker."

Another top executive in Stanford's now-defunct empire - former chief investment officer Laura Pendergest-Holt - was sentenced to three years in prison in September after pleading guilty to one count of obstruction of a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission proceeding.

Two other ex-executives - Gilbert Lopez, the ex-chief accounting officer, and Mark Kuhrt, the ex-global controller - were convicted in November of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and nine counts of wire fraud. They are set to be sentenced Feb. 14.

A former Antiguan financial regulator was also indicted and awaits extradition to the U.S.

Source.

Read more: http://sivg.org/article/2013_ExStanford_executive_gets_5_years.html

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

STANFORD PONZI SCHEME VICTIMS TO RECOVER ONE PERCENT OF LOSSES

January 11, 2013
By U.S. Receiver (Ralph Janvey)

The Receiver requests that the Court order a first interim distribution of funds from the Receivership Estate for the benefit of defrauded investors in certificates of deposit ("CDs") issued by Stanford International Bank, Ltd. ("SIB"). These investors were the primary source of both the funds that fueled the Stanford Ponzi scheme and the funds recovered by the Receiver. They are also the primary victims of the Stanford fraud by both value and number of claims.

Treatment of Claims under the Interim Plan.

1. The Interim Distribution Amount shall be apportioned among Investor CD Claimants on a pro rata basis. Such Investor CD Claimants shall receive payments equal to a percentage (the "Distribution Percentage") of their Allowed Claim Amounts as reflected in their Notices of Determination. The Allowed Claim Amounts shall be based on the Investor CD Claimants' Net Losses. Any future distributions to Investor CD Claimants shall likewise be pro rata based on Investor CD Claimants' Allowed Claim Amounts.

2. The Distribution Percentage equals the Interim Distribution Amount divided by the sum of: (a) all Allowed Claim Amounts for non-deficient Investor CD Claims as of the filing of the Motion (the "Investors' Allowed Claim Amounts"), and (b) the Receiver's estimate of the Allowed Claim Amounts for all Investor CD Claims that are deficient (the "Investors' Deficient Claim Amounts"). The Distribution Percentage can be represented mathematically as:

Interim Distribution Amount
____________________________________________________________
(Investors' Allowed Claim Amounts) + (Investors' Deficient Claim Amounts)

3. As of January 2, 2012, the aggregate of the Investors' Allowed Claim Amounts equaled $4,237,737,851.75, and the aggregate of the Investors' Deficient Claim Amounts equaled $893,487,080.90. The Distribution Percentage, therefore, is calculated as follows:

$55,000,000.00
________________________ = 1%
$5,131,224,932.65

4. Investor CD Claimants will receive distributions under the Interim Plan equal to their Allowed Claim Amounts as reflected in their Notices of Determination multiplied by the Distribution Percentage. The amount of a given Investor CD Claimant's interim distribution can be represented mathematically as:

(Particular investor's Allowed Claim Amount) x (Distribution Percentage)

5. If an Investor CD Claimant serves and files a timely objection to a Notice of Determination, the Investor CD Claimant is not disqualified from receiving a distribution under the Interim Plan. However, the Investor CD Claimant shall participate in this interim distribution based initially on the original Allowed Claim Amount in the Notice of Determination. If the Investor CD Claimant ultimately succeeds in increasing the Allowed Claim Amount (either by stipulation with the Receiver or by Court order sustaining the Investor CD Claimant's objection), the claimant shall receive a supplemental payment representing 1% of the difference between the Allowed Claim Amount in the Notice of Determination and the Allowed Claim Amount after final resolution of the claimant's objection.

6. To the extent a claimant receives one or more collateral recoveries, the Receiver will reduce payments to such a claimant to the extent necessary to ensure that all the Investor CD Claimants are treated equally with respect to the percentage of their Allowed Claim Amounts they recover from all sources as of the date of the payments.

7. Each Investor CD Claimant's interim distribution shall be based solely on his Investor CD Claims and not on his other types of Claims, if any.

8. Nothing in this Order shall preclude future distributions to Investor CD Claimants or other Claimants under a different plan. Nor shall anything in this Order restrict the Receiver's authority to compromise and settle any Claim, or resolve any objection to a determination, at any time, as appropriate, without further order of this Court.

Source.

Read more: http://sivg.org/article/2013_stanford_victims_to_recover_1_percent.html

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

THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION APPEAL AGAINST SIPC

January 11, 2013
By SEC

The Commission has shown that SIPC should be required to file an application for a protective decree as to Stanford Group Company in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

In denying the Commission's application, the district court made two reversible errors:
First, it incorrectly applied a heightened preponderance standard of proof to the Commission's application rather than the more appropriate probable cause standard. Congress created in SIPA a specific process, within the context of a SIPA liquidation, in which investors must prove their claims for coverage under the Act, including their "customer" status, by a preponderance of the evidence. It makes no sense to apply the same standard to the Commission in proving "customer" status on behalf of investors in this preliminary, summary proceeding.

Moreover, Congress's overarching goals of promoting investor confidence in the securities markets by providing speedy relief for investors indicate that a lesser standard of proof should apply to the initial question of whether SIPC should initiate a liquidation. Indeed, perhaps in recognition of this, SIPC itself is held to a lesser standard when it applies to begin a liquidation. The district court was therefore incorrect in applying a higher standard of proof to the Commission, which is SIPC's plenary supervisor.

The district court's error in this regard was based upon the mistaken belief that the application of the provisions of the Exchange Act to SIPA shows a congressional intent to apply the preponderance standard. But there is no sound basis to analogize plenary proceedings under Exchange Act Section 21(e)—used to finally determine whether a permanent injunction should be granted—to this preliminary, summary proceeding used to determine whether SIPC should be required to apply to begin a liquidation proceeding.

Second, the district court incorrectly interpreted SIPA's customer definition to exclude investors who, because of the unusual operation of the Stanford companies, should be deemed to have deposited cash with SGC. The record here provides at least probable cause to believe that the purported legal separateness of SGC and SIBL should be disregarded, such that, by depositing cash with SIBL, SGC accountholders who purchased SIBL CDs through SGC were effectively depositing cash with SGC. Courts facing similar circumstances have disregarded the corporate separateness of SIPC members and non-member affiliated companies, with SIPC's support. The district court's contrary approach improperly elevates form over substance by strictly adhering to the corporate boundaries of the Stanford entities which were designed to perpetrate an egregious fraud.

Even apart from the lack of genuine separateness of the corporate entities, SIPA's "customer" definition includes those who can be deemed to have deposited cash with a broker-dealer under the Old Naples and Primeline cases. Those cases rejected the notion that "customer" status requires that cash be deposited directly with the broker-dealer, and held that investors in certain circumstances fell within the "customer" definition. Those cases are materially indistinguishable from this one, and the district court's belief otherwise was based on a misunderstanding both of those cases and of the record here.

Finally, the Commission's interpretation of SIPA's "customer" definition is the correct one and is, at the very least, a reasonable one entitled to deference under Chevron. The district court declined to give such deference because it perceived an inconsistency between the interpretation and certain past statements of the Commission. The Commission's past statements, however, clearly state only a general presumption and are fully consistent with the Commission's interpretation in this matter.

INITIAL BRIEF OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, APPELLANT.

Read more: http://sivg.org/article/2013_SEC_APPEAL_AGAINST_SIPC.html

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

How Wall Street Made A Muppet Of The SEC, Mary Schapiro And Dodd Frank

September 5, 2012
By Tyler Durden

That the SEC is the most incompetent, corrupt, irrelevant and captured organization "serving" the US public is known by everyone. And while the details of the SEC's glaring lack of capacity to do anything to restore investor confidence in the capital markets, which has become a casino used exclusively by Wall Street to defraud any retail investor still stupid enough to play (which lately a moot point as there have been no material retail inflows into mutual funds in over three years), are scattered, courtesy of Bloomberg we now have the best summary of just how the utterly clueless SEC is a muppet plaything of Wall Street, and together with it, the "grand regulation" that was supposed to keep Wall Street in check, is nothing but what Wall Street demand it to be, and forced the SEC, way over its head on regulation, to accept every change, that the very banks that are supposed to be regulated, demands as part of Dodd-Frank reforms. In short: everything we know about Wall Street 'regulation' has been a farce, and a lie, exclusively thanks to corruption rampant at the now documentedly incompetent Securities And Exchange Commission.

Bloomberg has the smoking gun.

It had been two days since U.S. lawmakers negotiated all night to finish rules that would reshape the business of Wall Street. The 20-hour session left legislators, aides, lobbyists and regulators exhausted. Almost no one had a grip on all the details.
Then Annette Nazareth stepped in. That Sunday morning, she e-mailed a dozen Securities and Exchange Commission officials about the bill that would become the 2,300-page Dodd-Frank Act.

Who is Annette Nazareth?

Nazareth, herself a former SEC commissioner, represents the biggest banks and securities firms as a partner in the Washington office of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. She attached an annotated copy of the measure to her June 27, 2010, e-mail, marking changes made during the wee hours. It could be an invaluable tool for an agency hard-pressed to analyze the bill on a tight deadline.

Nazareth was the good Wall Street funded Samaritan that stepped into bail out the SEC in its moment of need.

"In case you would find it helpful," Nazareth wrote to the group, many of them ex-colleagues.
Two hours later, SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro responded: "Thanks. We have our work cut out for us."

And who is Davis Polk:

With Nazareth on board, Davis Polk was hired as outside counsel on Dodd-Frank by the six largest U.S. banks and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the Wall Street trade group, according to the law firm's website. The firm also performed work for foreign lenders including Credit Suisse Group AG (CS) and Deutsche Bank AG.

As for Dodd Frank it needs no introduction: it is the Wall Street sponsored abortion that assures nothing has changed on the TBTF front, that banks can do whatever they wish, and that the SEC is powerless to intervene even when necessary. As Elliott management said, Dodd Frank is the one piece of legislation that has assured the Lehman failure was merely an appetizer to the main course when massively undercatpitalized banks will be tumbling like dominoes in a centrally-planned world.

How did Bloomberg get its information:

Nazareth's e-mails to Schapiro and then-SEC General Counsel and Senior Policy Director David Becker, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Bloomberg News, demonstrate how lobbyists and lawyers draw on bonds they formed in government service to gain access for clients, and how they work to maintain those ties.

Everyone knows about the SEC's revolving door policy where former SEC workers go to Wall Street to aid and abet their clients to skirt the law, and avoid SEC entangements. It is rare however to see a double revolving door participant such as Nazareth:

Officials routinely leave federal agencies, Congress and the White House to work for the industries they once supervised. While that path is well-trod and legal -- with some time restrictions -- it still provokes handwringing in Washington. Nazareth's communications provide an inside look at what happens when the revolving door spins.
Nazareth, 56, declined to discuss specific e-mails. She said that people like herself who have worked for both sides are valuable because they can "better translate to their clients" what the SEC is trying to achieve.
"It's unfortunate where we are in an environment now where everybody thinks that is nefarious," Nazareth said.
Nazareth added that she "absolutely" doesn't get favorable treatment.
"I am not batting a thousand, let's put it that way," she said. "And I respect that"

And here we get to the meat of things: Wall Street, via Davis Polk, and its "liason" lawyer, manipulated everyone like docile little muppets.

Nazareth and her colleagues at Davis Polk played a central role as the financial industry shaped its Dodd-Frank priorities, helping write more than 80 comment letters to regulators. The firm's clients, including Sifma, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Bank of America Corp., targeted rules such as the so-called Volcker ban on proprietary trading, arguing it could create excessive burdens on banks, choke off business and hurt the economy.
The Volcker rule has yet to be completed, along with other key Dodd-Frank components such as swap-trading and mortgage regulations, meaning the success of the banking pushback won't be fully measured until next year at the earliest.
In May, Nazareth was named as the top woman lawyer in financial regulation at the Americas Women in Business Law awards in New York. Public disclosures from the SEC also underline her clout. In 2009 and 2010, she attended 11 meetings with Schapiro -- twice as many as any single competitor in the law and lobbying business -- according to the chairman's appointment calendar. Since Dodd-Frank was enacted, Nazareth has taken executives from firms including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) and Credit Suisse to the SEC, agency memos show.

Manipulating the SEC was not enough, Wall Street also had its tentacles at the CFTC, best known for such humiliations as MF Global and Peregrine Financial:

Nazareth has also attended meetings at the Federal Reserve and represents clients at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, where she has met with Chairman Gary Gensler among other officials, according to public disclosures.
Lynn Turner, a former SEC chief accountant who is critical of the banks' agenda, said that Nazareth is "at the top of that list of influential attorneys" who have access to regulators as former SEC officials.
John Nester, an SEC spokesman, said those who used to work at the commission don't get special access to the chairman. Schapiro "knows a lot of people in government, law, academia and consumer advocacy" and it's not surprising that she e-mails and meets with some of them, he said.
"In the end, whether she or anyone in the agency agrees with a particular viewpoint or a specific request depends on whether it furthers the mission of the agency," Nester said.

Nazareth's M.O. is well known to those who have worked on Wall Street - hollow empathy and pandering, just to gain the trust, allowing full out manipulation to ensue:

In her e-mails, Nazareth blended the personal and professional. For instance, she sympathized with Schapiro over a "frustrating" New York Times article in one message, and in another offered to sell the SEC a Davis Polk Web product "at an appropriate government rate."
The overlap was sometimes evident in Nazareth's salutations, which varied from "Dear SEC friends" and "Dear Mary and David" to "Hello All." On March 10, 2010, for example, she wrote to "Chairman Schapiro" asking if she'd take a meeting with Credit Suisse "to discuss the SEC's concept release on equity market structure." After Schapiro agreed, Nazareth wrote back: "Fantastic, Mary!"
Schapiro answered the e-mails in a business-like way. The more numerous exchanges between Nazareth and Becker, who are friends, display an easy banter and a familiarity developed over the years.
Becker, now a partner at the Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP law firm in Washington, declined to comment for this story. His biography on the firm's website says he was "intimately involved" in financial regulatory reform at the SEC and "served a central role in the commission's efforts to implement the Dodd-Frank Act."
Early in the Dodd-Frank debate, in November 2009, Nazareth forwarded a summary of a Senate proposal to Becker, who noted that the actual text ran to 1,100 pages. "More nap time for me," he wrote.
That prompted Nazareth to ask, "Yea, but what about me? No rest for the outside counsel."

There is much more in the full Bloomberg expose which is merely the latest nail in the coffin of the manipulated, coopted farce known as the SEC, which probably more than anything, is the reason why investors have now shunned the centrally planned capital marekts entirely. That Mary Schapiro is still employed as the SEC's head after years and years of abysmal decisions, of policy failures, of having done nothing to restore confidence in the market is, quite simply, a joke. This latest narrative will merely confirm it.

Sadly, in this banana republic which employs such banana agencies as the SEC to do the bidding of the banana elite that matters: not democrats, not republicans, but Wall Street's banks full of money (most of it from the trillions in 2008/9 taxpayer funded bailouts), nothing will ever change, until the next and final crash wipes out everything with it and forces the system to start afresh. Only by eliminating the status quo, its insidious tentacles, and the enture existing generation of corrupt, criminal, co-opted regulators, can there be a chance to restore some semblance of fair and efficient markets.

Until then, enjoy the farce of the broken Wall Street casino until trading volumes finally hit zero. It won't be long. At that point it will be too late.

Source.

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

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

SEC MOTION TO INTERVENE AND TO SUSPEND THE MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF JULY 3, 2012

August 22, 2012
By Matthew T. Martens

Applicant U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or "Commission") respectfully submits this memorandum of law in response to Robert Cheatham's Motion To Intervene and To Suspend the Memorandum Opinion and Order of July 3, 2012 ("Motion To Intervene").

Mr. Cheatham contends that he may intervene as of right in this proceeding pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). That provision states that intervention must be granted as of right, "[o]n timely motion," to anyone who "claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest." In other words, the right of a party to intervene depends on the following four factors:

(1) the timeliness of the motion; (2) whether the applicant "claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action"; (3) whether "the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest"; and (4) whether "the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.".

SEC Motion To Intervene and To Suspend the Memorandum Opinion and Order.

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

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

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/

Motion To Intervene and To Suspend the Memorandum Opinion and Order of July, 3, 2012

July 24, 2012
By Richard R. Cheatham

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 Richard R. Cheatham moves to intervene in this action in order to protect his interest in the subject of the action and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 to suspend the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of July, 3, 2012 pending reconsideration in light of the facts presented in connection Intervener's Motion to Intervene.

In support of this motion, Richard R. Cheatham relies on the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of July, 3, 2012 and his Memorandum In Support of Motion To Intervene and To Suspend Memorandum Opinion and Order of July, 3, 2012.

Motion To Intervene and To Suspend the Memorandum Opinion and Order.

SENATE and HOUSE letter to Schapiro

July 2012 Senate Letter to Schapiro.

July 2012 House Letter to Schapiro.

SIPC OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE

On July 24, 2012, Richard Cheatham filed a motion to intervene and to "suspend" the Court's July 3 Opinion—three weeks after the fact. Although he provides no documentary evidence in support of his assertions, Cheatham contends that brokers from the Stanford Group Company ("SGC") purchased Stanford International Bank, Ltd. ("SIBL") CDs for him without his knowledge, and that the SEC failed to consider the "atypical" nature of these CD purchases in pursuing its case. The Court should reject Cheatham's thirteenth-hour motion for three separate and independent reasons...

Read the complete SIPC OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE.

Read more: http://sivg.org/article/2012_Motion_To_Intervene_and_Suspend_SIPC_Opinion_Order.html

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

HSBC lapses left US economy exposed to exploitation by terrorists - Senate report

July 17, 2012
By Richard Blackden

HSBC left America's financial system exposed to exploitation by drug cartels and terrorist organisations due to its failure to comply with anti-money laundering laws, according to a damning US Senate report.

These are two of the findings in a 340-page study from the US Senate that accuses Britain's biggest bank of a series of compliance lapses between 2004 and 2010.

HSBC, the only British bank with a branch network in America, failed to properly staff its compliance department and wrongly designated Mexico as a "low-risk" country.

The findings are a major embarrassment for HSBC, some of whose senior executives will appear before the Senate committee tomorrow to explain the failings.

In one of the more damaging accusations, the report says HSBC resumed providing banking services to a Saudi Arabian bank despite speculation it had links to financing terrorism.

In an emailed statement, HSBC said the Senate report had provided "important lessons for the whole industry in seeking to prevent illicit actors entering the global financial system".

The bank said it is spending more money on compliance and has become more coordinated in policing high-risk transactions.

HSBC is also criticised by the committee for designating Mexico as "low-risk" despite the widespread use of the country's banking system by drug cartels. The decision made it easier for money to be moved between HSBC's affiliate bank in Mexico and its network in the US. Its Mexican bank should have been treated as a "high-risk correspondent client subject to enhanced due diligence and monitoring," the report said.

The report also contained strong criticism of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a top US bank regulator, saying the regulator failed to crack down on the bank despite multiple red flags, allowing money laundering issues "to accumulate into a massive problem".

HSBC has warned investors that it could face a significant fine in the US, with some analysts speculating the penalty could reach $1bn.

"Accountability is essential and that is what has been missing here," said Carl Levin, the chairman of the committee on permanent investigations. HSBC said last night that it had taken several steps to improve its compliance, including doubling its spend on compliance and enforcing standards globally.

Source.

Read more: http://sivg.org/article/2012_HSBC_drug_cartels_and_terrorist_organisations.html

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

Bill Cassidy request that SEC file an appeal

July 12, 2012
By Bill Cassidy

Dear Chairwoman Schapiro,
I write to respectfully request that the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) file an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, seeking to overturn the July 3, 2012 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Wilkins in the matter of SEC v. Securities Investors Protection Corporation (SIPC), Civil Action No. 11-mc-678.

As you know, this case involves the matter of restitution for the victims of the former Stanford Financial Group under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) of 1972. In July of 2011, in its capacity as the regulator of SIPC, the SEC ordered a liquidation and payment under SIPA to certain affected customers of the former Stanford companies. SIPC however, refused to comply with the SEC’s order, which led to the court proceedings and ultimately, the decision rendered by Judge Wilkins denying SIPA coverage for the Stanford victims.

In the Sixth Congressional District of Louisiana and throughout the country, financial restitution under SIPA represents the last hope for many of Stanford’s victims to regain that which was taken from them more than three years ago. All I ask on behalf of these American citizens is for the SEC to honor the commitment they made back in July of 2011 by continuing to pursue all legal avenues which could result in the determination by the SEC that Stanford’s victims are entitled to SIPC coverage.

As the United States Representative for the area perhaps hardest hit by this tragedy, I have been confronted almost daily since my service began in 2009 with the heartbreaking stories and tragic outcomes that have befallen my constituents affected by Stanford. Enclosed with this letter is a message sent to me by one of those Louisiana citizens, Jean Ann Mayhall, who speaks both of the devastating impact of this ruling and offers a number of compelling arguments for the SEC to consider as you to decide whether to pursue an appeal. Ms. Mayhall’s words undoubtedly represent the hopes of thousands of Stanford victims who will quite literally see any chance for strongly consider those views during your deliberative process.

Once again, I ask you to continue to pursue the course of action that began when the SEC declared, rightfully, that many of the Stanford victims are entitled to coverage from SIPC by filing to appeal the ruling by Judge Wilkins. If I can provide any assistance or support to you or the SEC, please contact me at 202-225-3901. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Bill Cassidy
Member of Congress

Source.

Read more: http://sivg.org/article/2012_Cassidy_request_SEC_appeal.html

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, SEC v. SIPC

July 3, 2012
By U.S. District Judge ROBERT L. WILKINS

The Court is truly sympathetic to the plight of the SGC clients who purchased the SIBL CDs and now find themselves searching desperately for relief. Robert Allen Stanford's 110 year sentence may bring some measure of justice to the SGC clients, but it will not make them financially whole. But this Court has a duty to apply the SIPA statute as written by Congress, and, as other courts have done, this Court also has a duty to construe narrowly the "customer" definition of the statute. For the foregoing reasons, the SEC has failed to meet its burden, by a preponderance of the evidence, of proving that SIPC has "refus[ed] . . . to commit its funds or otherwise to act for the protection of customers of any member of SIPC." Indeed, because the issue turns on uncontested facts and an interpretation of law10, the Court holds that the SEC would have failed to meet even the lesser burden of probable cause. The Application of the SEC is therefore denied. An Order accompanies this Memorandum.

Source.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Application of the Securities and Exchange Commission to compel Respondent, Securities Investor Protection Corporation, to commence a liquidation proceeding (Docket No. 1), the oppositions and replies thereto, and oral argument, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED, that:
The Application of the Securities and Exchange Commission is DENIED; and it is, FURTHER ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice.

Source.

Read more: http://sivg.org/article/2012_MEMO_ORDER_SECvSIPC.html

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

Government accused of negligence in suit

July 3, 2012
By Edward J. Gonzales III

Seven Baton Rouge residents and firms are suing the federal government for negligence and misconduct they say caused their loss of approximately $3.5 million to the massive Ponzi scheme operated by Houston entrepreneur Robert Allen Stanford.

"You can't sue the government simply for making mistakes," attorney Edward J. Gonzales III said; "You can sue the government for negligence and deliberate misconduct," Gonzales added.

It is clear that the OIG report found violations of federal laws and regulations by Barasch. He violated those rules and duties to the investing public in general and to these plaintiffs in particular. In addition, Barasch may have committed multiple criminal violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1519 as well as other violations that facilitated Stanford's crimes and obstructed federal investigations. Had Barasch not done as he did, none of the plaintiffs would or even could have invested with SIBL - it's doors would have been shut - and the damages suffered by the plaintiffs would have been completely avoided. Like the federal employees in Limone v United States, 497 F. Supp. 2d 143 (D. Mass 2007); 579 F 3d 79 (2d 2009), who engaged in subordination of perjury and obstruction of justice in the course of their duties as federal agents, Spencer Barasch has by his conduct rendered the United States liable to the plaintiffs.

Alternatively, the conduct of Spencer Barasch referred to herein was negligent.

Additionally, the failure of Barasch's superiors to properly review and supervise his conduct - simply put, to find out that he was not making outside referrals as he said he was - was negligence, not an exercise of law enforcement discretion or policy discretion. They did not "decide to allow" this conduct. Rather, they should have discovered it and negligently failed to do so. Had they identified Barasch's misconduct, there is no doubt that the SEC and other agencies would then have acted differently and effectively against Stanford.

The plaintiffs purchased their investments, which have been determined to be without value by the Stanford Receiver. The government is therefore liable to the plaintiffs in the amounts they purchased. As further damages for loss of their opportunities to earn on their investments, the plaintiffs also claim as damages the interest that investments in legitimate CD accounts would have earned since the date the receivership was filed, until paid.

Plaintiffs bring this case on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons or entities, who have suffered losses of investments with Stanford International Bank, and file administrative response, excluding any class member who timely elects to be excluded from the Class ("the Class"). Plaintiffs allege that all such class members were damaged or sustained investment losses as a proximate cause and result of the negligence and deliberate misconduct by Spencer Barasch and the negligent supervision of Barasch by the SEC.

As of the present date, the United States of America has the administrative ability to identify all members of the Class, as it has received their claims.

Membership in the Class is so numerous as to make it impractical to bring all Class Members before the Court. The exact number of Class Members is unknown, but can be determined from the United States of America's claim records. Plaintiffs reasonably estimate and believe that there are approximately two thousand (2,000) in the Class. Although Plaintiffs do not presently know the names of all Class Members, their identities and addresses can be readily ascertained from the United States of America's records.

Plaintiffs and all Class Members have suffered similar damages as a result of the negligence and intentional misconduct of the United States of America's employee, Spencer Barasch, as well as the negligent supervision of its employees of the U.S. Government.

Federal TORT Claims ACT Class Action Complaint.

Read more: http://sivg.org/article/2012_Government_accused_of_negligence.html

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

Stanford sentenced to 110 years over Ponzi scheme

June 14, 2012
By The Wall Street Journal

R. Allen Stanford, the once-highflying financier convicted of masterminding a $7 billion Ponzi scheme, was sentenced Thursday to 110 years in federal prison.

The punishment amounts to an effective life sentence for Stanford, who is 62 years old and used to live extravagantly aboard yachts, jets and homes around the world.

"I didn't run a Ponzi scheme, I didn't defraud anybody and there was never any intent to defraud anybody," Stanford, wearing a green prison jumpsuit, told US District Court Judge David Hittner before he was sentenced.

In a rambling statement, marked with long pauses as he choked up and wiped away tears, Stanford accused the government of using "Gestapo tactics" and blamed it for the billions of dollars in losses to his investors.

Stanford's sentence was 40 years less than the prison term given to Bernard Madoff, but 100 years more than his lawyers had asked for.

The sentence ends the three-year criminal prosecution of Stanford, who in March was convicted by a federal jury on 13 of 14 counts including fraud, obstructing investigators and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Though investors continue to seek hundreds of millions of dollars from Stanford in a civil proceeding, the end of the criminal case closes a chapter on one of the most flamboyant figures in the annals of white-collar crime.

Source.

Read more: http://sivg.org/article/2012_Stanford_sentenced_to_110_years.html

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

Opposition to the USA's motion to dismiss the complaint

April 6, 2012
By Dr. Gaytri D. Kachroo

Plaintiffs hereby oppose the United States of America's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (the "Motion"). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action because the government fails to demonstrate that the discretionary function exception shields from liability the Securities and Exchange Commission's ("SEC") negligent failure to follow statutorily prescribed courses of action in the wake of its discovery of Robert Allen Stanford's Ponzi scheme.

The government's strategy on this Motion is to paint with a very broad brush. Thus, the government argues that "the manner in which the SEC chooses to regulate the securities industry" is discretionary conduct protected by the discretionary function exception in the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). Generalized this way, the government's argument obviously cannot be contested. But framing the issue this way only creates a paper tiger. The conduct challenged in this case is not the SEC's regulation of the industry writ large, but rather its failure to comply with two specific, non-discretionary mandates. The government's over-generalization of the issue is an effort to move the battle to safer ground. This misdirection does not survive scrutiny.

Moreover, such a macro approach to the discretionary function exception results in the reverse of what Congress intended, which was to construe the remedial provisions of the FTCA liberally and the exceptions narrowly. If every claim against the SEC were to be construed as an attack on "the manner in which the SEC chooses to regulate the securities industry," then this narrow exception would swallow the general waiver and afford the SEC virtual immunity, contrary to Congress' intent. Indeed, as the government itself points out, Congress considered exempting the SEC from the FTCA entirely, but ultimately, did not do so.

Thus, the crucial first step in determining whether the exception applies is to isolate the specific conduct actually being challenged. Here, the Complaint does not make a broad attack on the manner in which the SEC regulates the securities industry, but rather, challenges two specific instances of SEC inaction: (1) a failure to notify the Securities Investor Protection Corporation ("SIPC") that U.S. registered broker-dealer Stanford Group Company "SGC") was in financial difficulty, after concluding that it was; and (2) a failure to deny continued registration to SGC as an investment advisor in light of the SEC's determination that SGC failed to satisfy registration requirements.

These negligent omissions violated statutorily mandated duties to take prescribed courses of action and thus, were not and could not have been permissible policy choices. As the Supreme Court has explained and courts have consistently held, where there exists a mandatory responsibility, there is no room for a policy choice. Moreover, even if the government could show that the SEC's negligent omissions involved the exercise of judgment, the government also fails to demonstrate, as it must, that such judgment was grounded in considerations of public policy.

Source: PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT

Related documents:

Motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint and incorporated memorandum of law.

Read more: http://sivg.org/article/2012_Opposition_USA_motion_to_dismiss_complaint.html

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