RECEIVER'S FIFTH INTERIM REPORT REGARDING STATUS OF RECEIVERSHIP, ASSET COLLECTION, AND ONGOING ACTIVITIES

February 7, 2013
By Kevin M. Sadler

The Receiver hereby submits for the Court's consideration the following information regarding the status of the Receivership, asset collection efforts, and other ongoing activities. Unless otherwise stated herein, the information in this report is current as of January 31, 2013. The Receiver will supplement this report as circumstances develop or if the information herein materially changes.

I. CASH INFLOWS &MAJOR RECEIVERSHIP ASSETS
The total amount of cash collected by the Receiver - including, but not limited to, remaining operating income streams, asset liquidation, and recovery of assets and funds from third parties - was approximately $230.2 million as of January 31, 2013. The total of all cash on hand was $111 million, which is net of the cash outflows discussed in more detail below in Section II of this report. Of this amount, $8 million was restricted and $103 million was unrestricted.

Cash Balances & Trailing Revenue: The cash balances recovered by the Receiver shortly following his appointment on February 17, 2009 totaled approximately $63.1 million. In addition, the Receivership has collected roughly $5.3 million in cash associated with income earned prior to the inception of the Receivership.

Private Equity: The Receiver has recovered approximately $37.5 million in net cash proceeds from the liquidation of private equity investments and expects to receive approximately $300,000 more from closed or pending private equity liquidations. In addition, the Receiver's financial advisor is continuing to market the remaining investments in Stanford's private equity portfolio, which has an estimated value of up to $6.7 million.

Real Estate: The Receiver has recovered approximately $18.7 million in net cash proceeds from the liquidation of real estate, including the recent Holly Springs sale [see Doc.1695]. Although the Receiver's real estate brokers are continuing to market other properties in Stanford's real estate portfolio, the Receiver is unable to estimate the potential recovery from the liquidation of those properties at this time.

Watercraft and Airplanes: The Receiver has recovered approximately $8.0 million from the disposition of airplanes owned or leased by Stanford and from the sales of the Sea Eagle yacht, the Little Eagle yacht, and the Robust Eagle tugboat.

Latin American Assets: The Receiver has been able to liquidate assets in Panama, Ecuador, and Peru, resulting in a recovery of approximately $12.9 million. Moreover, the Receiver is pursuing the recovery of up to $10.2 million in additional Latin American assets.

Miscellaneous Asset Sales: The Receiver has recovered approximately $2.2 million from the sale of miscellaneous assets - including, but not limited to, furniture, coins, vehicles, and assorted equipment.

Litigation: The Receiver has fraudulent-transfer, unjust-enrichment, and other claims pending against numerous defendants, through which the Receiver seeks the recovery of approximately $700 million. The Receiver has identified at least an additional $1.1 million in international litigation claims. Asset recovery litigation is difficult, protracted, and expensive.

Nevertheless, such claims are the single largest potential source of funds which may be recovered for the benefit of Stanford's victims. Although the Receiver has thus far received approximately $15.5 million from settlements and other litigation efforts (including over $2.2 million received from the political committee defendants in Case No. 3:10-CV-0346-N) and has secured an injunction to hold another approximately $25 million, the amount that the Receiver ultimately is able to collect from defendants is uncertain and may be less than the amounts claimed. The Receiver will continue to work towards appropriate and reasonable settlements, where possible, in order to maximize the net recovery to the Receivership Estate. A detailed report regarding the status of the Receiver's many litigation claims is found in the Third Joint Report of the Receiver, the Examiner and the Investors Committee Concerning Pending Litigation (For the Quarter Ending September 30, 2012) [see Doc. 1716], and related litigation issues are discussed in the Report of the Examiner and Receiver Addressing Matters Assigned to Magistrate Judge Frost [see Doc. 1720].

Return of Political Contributions: The Receiver has identified approximately $1.9 million in political contributions made by Allen Stanford and related entities. The Receiver has requested the return of these contributions from over 90 politicians, political action committees, and congressional committees. Through January 31, 2013, $1,770,380 has been returned (including the principal amount of the contributions that were part of the over $2.2 million received from the political committee defendants discussed above).

Coins and Bullion Inventory: The Receiver has approximately $200,000 in remaining coins and bullion inventory relating to the coins and bullion operations.

Overseas Cash: The Receiver has identified approximately $310 million in cash, assets, and other investments in foreign accounts, including accounts in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. The Receiver cannot ascertain the exact current value of these assets, which are subject to forfeiture proceedings, because those funds are not currently subject to the Receiver's control or direct monitoring. The Receiver is working with the Department of Justice and the Joint Liquidators in Antigua in an effort to reach agreement concerning the release and distribution of these assets.

Other Inflows & Assets: The Receivership has collected approximately $66.8 million through the liquidation of other investment accounts held on behalf of Stanford, including approximately $5.0 million held on behalf of Stanford Trust Company; $1.0 million from the liquidation of Bank of Antigua accounts; $46.7 million through the liquidation of Stanford accounts at Pershing and of various investment funds held on Stanford's behalf; $8.4 million through the recovery of additional cash balances; and $5.7 million received via other inflows, including, but not limited to, rental and interest income, cash flows from other liquidated bank accounts, and restricted funds and interest thereon. The Receiver estimates that he may recover up to $2.5 million in additional assets held in U.S. banks and brokerages.

II. CASH OUTFLOWS
From February 17, 2009 through January 31, 2013, the total amount of Receivership cash outflows - comprising professional fees and expenses, as well as other types of expenses - was approximately $119.2 million.

Expenses Other than Professional Fees: The total amount of all payments made by the Receiver for expenses other than professional fees was approximately $53.3 million. This figure comprises the following approximate amounts: $26.7 million in personnel expenses and other employee expenses; $3.8 million in insurance expenses; $3.5 million in taxes; $1.6 million in general and administrative expenses; $2.4 million in telecommunications expenses; $5.2 million in occupancy expenses; $2.5 million in settled claims; and $7.7 million in other expenses. As previously explained in the Fourth Interim Report [see Doc. 1630 at 5-7], these expenses have decreased dramatically as the Receivership has progressed.

Professional Fees and Expenses: As of January 31, 2013, the professional fees and expenses paid to the Receiver and his professionals total approximately $63.3 million.

Approximately half of this amount was paid in the first year of the Receivership ($30.9 million from the first quarter of 2009 through the first quarter of 2010) to wind down operations and institute necessary legal actions to protect and benefit the Estate.

Furthermore, the Receivership Estate has paid (per Court approval) the Examiner's expenses and legal fees totaling approximately $1.9 million through January 31, 2013. Also per Court direction, the Receivership Estate has paid a total of approximately $600,000 in attorneys' fees, expert fees, and expenses incurred by the Official Stanford Investors Committee (the "OSIC") through January 31, 2013.

FIFTH INTERIM REPORT.

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

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

Allen Stanford receiver sues Greenberg Traurig, Hunton & Williams and YOLANDA SUAREZ

November 16, 2012
By Terry Baynes

A representative for the victims of Allen Stanford's estimated $7 billion Ponzi scheme is suing two law firms he says helped the now-convicted swindler perpetrate his fraud.

The court-appointed receiver, the Official Stanford Investors Committee and individual investors sued Greenberg Traurig and Hunton & Williams on Thursday, claiming that lawyer Carlos Loumiet, who worked for both firms, was instrumental in Stanford's scheme.

"Stanford could not have perpetrated this global mass fraud on his own. He needed corrupt regulators in his chosen offshore jurisdiction of Antigua, shady accountants, and skilled and complicit lawyers to help him," the complaint said.

The lawsuit said Stanford relied on Loumiet, a Miami international banking lawyer who was Stanford Financial Group's outside counsel from 1988 to 2009. For the first 13 of those years, Loumiet was a partner at Greenberg Traurig before moving to Hunton & Williams in 2001.

Loumiet helped Stanford set up a safe haven in Antigua and established U.S. offices that sold certificates of deposit to Latin American investors, the complaint said. He also helped Stanford invest his profits in Caribbean real estate, venture capital investments and an unsuccessful movie project, it said.

"Loumiet counseled Stanford for over twenty years on how to evade U.S. laws and regulations while still operating primarily from U.S. soil," the suit said. He also recommended fellow lawyer Yolanda Suarez, who went on to become the general counsel of Stanford Financial Group. Suarez, but not Loumiet, is named as a defendant in the suit.

A lawyer for Yolanda Suarez did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Loumiet said in an emailed statement that he has never helped any client commit any wrongdoing nor represented anyone he knew was engaged in illegal activity.

"After years of investigations by the federal government and months of trials involving Allen Stanford and his co-defendants, I have not been implicated in any wrongdoing," he said.

The law firms also denied having any responsibility for Stanford's fraud.

Hunton & Williams called the suit "an overreach by Stanford Financial Group's understandably frustrated investors attempting to recoup their unfortunate losses."

Greenberg Traurig said its work for Stanford occurred prior to 2001, three years before the sale of the CDs at the center of the suit.

"This is merely plaintiffs' newest attempt to pry open a deep pocket," Greenberg Traurig's lawyer Jim Cowles said in an emailed statement, noting 63 other individual lawsuits and 15 pending class action claims, including against other large law firms and accounting firms.

Similar suits against law firms Proskauer Rose and Chadbourne & Parke and insurance broker Willis Group Holdings Ltd are currently on appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court. The firms claim that the class actions brought under state law are barred by federal securities law. They say investors should not be able to go after deep-pocketed third parties only tangentially related to the fraud. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans had allowed the cases to proceed in March.

A lawyer for the investors, Edward Snyder of Castillo Snyder, said in an email that Loumiet "worked hand in hand" with Stanford and others to design the basic architecture of the Ponzi scheme. Snyder also represents investors in the lawsuits against Proskauer and Chadbourne.

The latest suit alleges violations of the Texas Securities Act and claims over $1.8 billion in losses to the investor committee and at least $7 billion to the entire investor class, as well as punitive damages to be determined at trial.

Stanford was convicted in March of 13 charges including fraud and conspiracy for selling certificates of deposit from his bank in Antigua to thousands of investors in the United States and Latin America. He had already spent some of those proceeds on yachts, girlfriends, sponsorship of a cricket tournament and other accoutrements of a high-rolling life.

Stanford was sentenced to 110 years in prison in June.

The case is Janvey et al v. Greenberg Traurig et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, No. 12-4641.

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION.

Source.

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

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

Investors Sue Auditor BDO for Stanford Ponzi Fraud

May 14, 2012
By DAVID LEE

Investors defrauded by Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme say in court that the fund's auditor knowingly participated in the fraud.

The Official Stanford Investors Committee filed the federal complaint against BDO USA, and related entities BDO International, BDO Global Coordination and Brussels Worldwide Services. The complaint abbreviates Stanford Group Co. as SGC.

"Despite the pervasive fraud that infected Stanford Financial Group's operations, BDO USA repeatedly issued unqualified audit opinions on its Stanford clients' annual financial statements," the complaint states. "BDO USA's audit opinions on SGC's financial statements were critical to Stanford Financial Group's success."

In March, Stanford was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, four counts of wire fraud, five counts of mail fraud, one count of conspiracy to obstruct a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation, and one count of obstruction of an SEC proceeding. He was acquitted of one wire fraud charge.

"Allen Stanford and his co-conspirators used the promise of SIBL CDs to lure investor money into Stanford Financial Group and then stole billions of dollars in assets from Stanford Financial Group companies for their own personal benefit," the complaint states, abbreviating Stanford International Bank Ltd. certificates of deposit.

"Substantial sums of these stolen funds were used to: (i) support the lavish lifestyles of Allen Stanford and his Ponzi insiders; (ii) issue bogus, unsecured personal "loans" to Allen Stanford; (iii) capitalize other entities wholly owned by Allen Stanford; and (iv) fund investments in speculative, illiquid, and high-risk assets, including private equity holdings and massive investments in Antiguan real estate."

Investors say BDO USA provided critical services to Stanford Financial Group for over a decade, auditing the annual financial statements of Stanford Group Co., a Houston-based broker-dealer and investment adviser that recommended and sold SIBL CDs to investor.

BDO USA also allegedly audited the annual financial statements of Stanford Trust Company (Louisiana), which served as trustee and custodian to hold the SIBL CDs that SGC sold for its investors' IRA accounts. And it audited the annual financial statements of Stanford Group Holdings, a holding company for the broker-dealer arm of Stanford Financial Group, including SGC and STC, according to the complaint.

BDO allegedly played a significant role in weakening banking laws in Antigua, where SIBL was based. When Antigua came under increased scrutiny from foreign regulators, Stanford formed a task force to rewrite the country's banking laws, according to the complaint.

The task force allegedly succeeded both in weakening regulations, and in effectively eliminating SIBL's Antiguan competitors, making Stanford the country's de facto offshore banking regulator.

"The smashing success of the Stanford task force and its misleading regulatory 'reforms' were rooted in its exclusive nine-person membership," the complaint states. "Every firm represented on the Task Force provided crucial services to Stanford Financial Group, and every individual member of the Task Force was personally appointed by Stanford himself. ... BDO USA's partners and associates comprised nearly half of the Stanford Task Force's members, more than any other firm represented on the Task Force."

The key initiative of the task force was to amend Antigua's Money Laundering Act to ensure that "fraud" and "false accounting" were not included as violations, investors say.

BDO USA allegedly had some of the most important responsibilities in completing the initiative, including reviewing and advising on Antigua's banking laws, and making recommendations to Antigua's regulatory authorities, including procedures for supervising and examining international banks.

BDO USA's service on the task force completely undermined its independence from SFG and, and as a result, violated generally accepted auditing standards by issuing unqualified audit opinions on its Stanford clients' annual financial statements during the years that BDO USA served on the Stanford Task Force, the complaint says.

Investors also accuse BDO USA's audit engagement partner, Carlos Ancira, of concealing critical, material information from his own audit engagement team.

"Ancira knew that SGC was under increasing scrutiny from the SEC years before the U.S. Government seized Stanford Financial Group in February 2009," the complaint states. "Shockingly, however, Ancira reassured SGC in a February 28, 2007 email that '[d]ue to the sensitivity of the situation,' no other members of BDO USA's audit engagement team would be told about the SEC's investigation of SGC for possible securities fraud. Furthermore, Ancira's email permitted SGC's outside legal counsel to omit any discussion of the SEC investigation in its audit response letter."

For every year BDO USA audited SGC's annual financial statements, it failed to confirm that SGC remitted investor funds to purchase SIBL CDs and failed to properly modify its audit opinions, the complaint alleged. It also stated that BDO USA failed to properly consider and apply consolidation principles, failed in its role as a public watchdog and issued unqualified audit opinions in spite of knowing its Stanford clients "substantially" depended on SIBL CDs.

The investors seek actual and punitive damages for negligence, civil conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and conversion. They are represented by Guy Hohmann with Hohmann, Taube & Summers in Austin.

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Read the complete CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT here!

Related articles:
Allen Stanford Investors Sue His Accounting Firm! $10 billion class action suit.

Source.

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

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

Stanford Judge Lets Receiver Raise Fee, Retains 20% Discount

April 5, 2012
By Andrew Harris and Edvard Pettersson

The court-appointed receiver for R. Allen Stanford can bill his time starting this year at 2012 rates with a 20 per cent discount in spite of objections by Stanford investors who haven't received any money so far.

U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey in Dallas, in an order yesterday, imposed a 10 per cent "holdback" on out-of-pocket expenses. In a separate order today, Godbey approved the payment of $1.6 million in fees and expenses that the receiver, Dallas lawyer Ralph Janvey, had requested and said he could apply later for the held-back amount of $382,253.

Janvey's outside counsel, Kevin Sadler, argued at a hearing yesterday that the receiver's team has been working at the same pay rates since 2009. Sadler said that Janvey, who regularly charges his clients $500 an hour, has been billing $340 an hour on the Stanford case and then discounting that by 20 per cent.

A federal jury in Houston last month found Stanford, 62, guilty of fraud in what prosecutors said was a $7 billion scheme involving bogus certificates of deposit at his Antigua-based bank. He's scheduled to be sentenced on June 14. Janvey, whom Godbey appointed in February 2009 -- four months before Stanford was indicted -- and his outside professionals, including Baker Botts LLP (1143L), have been paid more than $52 million. That sum doesn't include a court-imposed $16 million hold-back.

RESPONSE OF THE OFFICIAL STANFORD INVESTORS COMMITTEE

The Official Stanford Investors Committee (the "Committee"), respectfully submits this Response to the Receiver's Motion for Approval of Request to Amend Fee Structure and Holdback [Doc. No. 1543].

The Committee, which speaks for the more than 20,000 investor victims of Allen Stanford's Ponzi scheme, opposes the relief requested by the Receiver and his team of professionals. The Receiver's professionals have been well compensated in the 3 years of this Receivership, having collected well in excess of $52 million in fees (with an additional almost $16 million in reserve via the holdback). During this same time period the investor victims have not recovered a single penny as there have been no distributions. Given the current state of this receivership, the Committee cannot agree to giving the Receiver's professionals what is widely perceived within the investor community as a "raise".

Therefore the Committee opposes the relief requested.

Response of the official Stanford investors committee to Receiver's motion to amend fee structure and Holdback.

Related documents:

The Examiner John J. Little does not oppose the Receiver's request to increase the rates billed by the Receiver and his professionals.

SEC PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO RECEIVER'S MOTION TO AMEND FEE STRUCTURE AND HOLDBACK.

APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO RECEIVER'S MOTION TO AMEND FEE STRUCTURE AND HOLDBACK.

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

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

Letter to the Editor, Caribbean360

August 22, 2011
By Eric Cohen

Dear Sir or madam,

A story published in the August 18, 2011, edition of Caribbean360, "Investors question Antigua Stanford liquidators" makes several erroneous and unfortunate statements that only mislead and confuse victims of SIB's failure.

I am a creditor of the Stanford International Bank (SIB), being a holder of Certificates of Deposit (CDs). As such I have one focus – what is the best way to maximize the estate of SIB and what is the best way to maximize the distribution of funds to the creditors. To this end, I have become a member of the Antiguan Liquidators' Creditors Committee, and I can assure you it is our mission to assist the Joint Liquidators in expeditiously recovering victims' assets in a process that is equitable and transparent.

Unfortunately, the article published on August 18 appears bent on upsetting and confusing victims. So please let me begin by setting some of the record straight.

First, the current liquidators, Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson, both of Grant Thornton, were appointed only on May 12, 2011, by the High Court of Antigua. They replaced Nigel Hamilton- Smith and Peter Wastell of Vantis, who were removed by the Court. (Wide and Dickson were not nominated by the Government, or any of its agencies, but were the deliberate choice of victims). It is common knowledge that Vantis, the previous liquidators, owes the court and the estate an accounting of the claim for $18 million fees and expenses, and that a hearing will occur in October, 2011. These fees may be challenged by the estate, but that cannot be known until the accounting is presented to the court.

Second, let us not lose sight of the fact that SIB was an Antigua corporation, now in bankruptcy, and that Antiguan laws rule on Antigua bankruptcies. It is also a fact that 99.9% of the creditors of SIB are the holders of CDs in SIB. The Hon. Mr. Justice Mario Michel of the High Court in Antigua appointed Mr. Wide and Mr. Dickson liquidators of SIB, charged them with the collection of all assets of SIB, and the eventual distribution of the assets to the creditors. To also be clear, note that the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court circuit, of which the Antiguan High Court is a part, is, like the US Courts, independent of government, and its authority to make this appointment, and therefore the authority of the Liquidators, has already been recognized by the Courts in Switzerland and the UK, countries where there are significant assets. While still on the issue of authority, let's note that beyond the High Court there is the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal, with a final right of appeal to the British Privy Counsel (formerly known as the House of Lords), whose authority and competence is respected around the world.

Whereas the US courts have been recognized as the prosecutors of the SEC's case against R. Allen Stanford and his assets, this does not, and can not, include authority for the bankruptcy of SIB.

Third, the extensive expertise of Grant Thornton, Mr. Wide, and Mr. Dickson, in the matter of liquidation, bankruptcies, and fraud, is well documented. Please refer to their bios in the website http://www.sibliquidation.com for more information. I will vouch that they are very open and very conscious about their role in working for the creditors.

Fourth, Mr. Wide and Mr. Dickson, as required by the Order appointing them, delivered a report on Aug. 15, 2011, to the Court in Antigua that presents a detailed accounting of their work and accomplishments in the first 90 days of their mandate, and an outline of their planned recovery efforts. The report has been circulated to victims groups, provided to both the US Receiver and the US investors committee and posted on the liquidators' website under "reports".

In this very lucid report, which is highly recommend for immediate reading by any and all interested parties, the liquidators mention how both they and the previous liquidators have been handicapped by the U.S. Department of Justice, Ralph Janvey, the court-appointed receiver in the U.S., and now the Stanford Investors Committee, in attaining the maximum asset retrieval for the victims of the SIB bankruptcy. Included are issues where funds are frozen and not being managed, and where it appears that funds may be appropriated by the DOJ, which took "the position that criminal asset forfeiture has priority over the rights of officeholders or their estates" in order to uphold their freeze of assets in the UK and Switzerland. These issues have to be a major concern for all CD creditors.

The report also documents where an associate of R. Allen Stanford is attempting to sell off assets, at deeply discounted prices, bought with proceeds of the SIB CDs, for personal use by Mr. Stanford. The U.S. courts, without proper jurisdictional authority, have been powerless to claim these assets for the SIB estate. The operating expenses funds requested from, and granted by, the UK courts, will be used to recover these assets, estimated at $70 million or more, for all creditors.

In the first 90 days, along with the court order freezing the $70 million of Stanford- controlled assets in Antigua, the liquidators have started an action against Mr. Stanford personally, entered into an agreement to sell a Stanford-owned buildings worth $4.5 million, and identified numerous other claims that belong to the liquidation estate that can be pursued for the benefit of victims.

Fifth, in spite of the August 18th letter claim that "the Stanford Investors Committee has asked Grant Thornton to agree to a cooperation protocol between the two proceedings," such a protocol was one of the first issues dealt with co-operatively with the U.S. receiver, who the liquidators have been in discussion with. At the present time it appears to be scuttled by the Stanford Investors Committee, which has interjected with a demand for a protocol of their own design which we on the advising committee fear is only to maximize the committee's projected fees that they are charging to the estate via the U.S. courts.

Sixth, Angela Shaw questions "why a liquidator would have to litigate to secure Stanford-owned properties in Antigua. That litigation shouldn't be necessary." Unfortunately, litigation is the only means that in the common law system, which the U.S. shares with Antigua, to take these assets away from those who currently hold them. While frustrating it is unavoidable.

Our Antiguan Liquidators' Creditors Committee of seven is composed of six victims from different countries representative of the location of victims, and a seventh person was asked by a group of victims in Mexico to participate. The Committee, which has met no fewer than five times since its creation six weeks ago, is single minded; recover what rightfully belongs to the victims of Stanford International Bank in the maximum amounts possible, as soon as possible, and distribute the proceeds to the creditors. We have no other stake in the game, and we receive no compensation other than our share of what the creditors receive.

The story published August 18 in Caribbean360 has offered little to help our efforts. Rather, it pits one group against the other, creating a deadlock that only one person could enjoy – Allen Stanford. For the benefit of the creditors, this has to end.

Eric Cohen
Nassau, Bahamas

Source.

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

Dismay as official Stanford Investors Committee file lawsuit against St Jude's children's cancer hospital charity

February 16, 2011

On this day today, the second anniversary of the civil action by the SEC against the Stanford Financial Group, wholly owned by Allen Stanford awaiting trial on 23 counts of fraud in Texas, allegedly too incompetent to stand trial after being beaten-up in prison and fed a cocktail of anti-depressants. What have we learned?

Firstly Allen Stanford is apparently competent enough today to file a lawsuit against the US prosecutors, the FBI and SEC, accusing them of "abusive law enforcement" and seeking $7.2bn in damages. Since he was declared indigenous after Lloyds of London contested their officer's insurance policy, following the hiring and firing of a carousel of well tailored attorneys, he is now represented by two public defenders. It begs the question who is paying for his lawsuit, and how did he miraculously recover well enough to instruct them.

Now he has recovered, please let the criminal trial begin, and that $7.2bn would also be the same amount the innocent victims of the alleged Stanford fraud have lost. If he's so innocent, where's the money?

On this day today, the Statute of Limitations for any lawsuits in connection with the Stanford case also expired.

Three months ago we woke up to the fact the so-called (SIC) Stanford Investors Committee was going to do nothing very much to help us, so we found a new attorney and launched our own campaign to file FTCA claims against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), for their negligence in not closing down Stanford sooner. They knew he was a fraud 13 years ago. Some of the SEC were merely asleep on the job, while others were caught with their pants down watching porn on their computers. The campaign has been a resounding success, and several thousand Stanford investors have now filed claims.

On this day today, we also anticipated a flood of claims from the receiver and the (SIC) Stanford Investors Committee, who have reportedly been toiling away tirelessly for several months in total secrecy, all in our best interests.

We anticipated a plethora of lawsuits against, amongst others;

BDO Seidman, one of the worlds largest accounting firms, who audited Stanford Group Company, and who fudged their accounts four years running to hide from SIPC it was insolvent and only being supported by tainted funds from SIB in Antigua.

FINRA, who twice fined Stanford for misleading investors, a mere slap on the wrist, but despite all the red flags, could see no further.

The State of Florida, who through their Dept of Banking and Finance granted the newly formed (in 1998) Stanford Fiduciary Investor Services, the illegal right to move vast amounts of money offshore without the reporting a penny to regulators. Yes, Jeb Bush the brother of former President George W Bush became Governor of Florida earlier that same year, and both were recipients of generous campaign donations from Allen Stanford.

Greenburg Traurig, the deep pocketed Miami lawfirm who lobbied endlessly to set up Stanfords Florida deal, and who have been implicated in numerous other murky transactions.

Forbes, and who could forget their endorsement of Stanford as one of Americas 40 richest billionaires with $50bn under management. They gave Stanford his greatest aura of credibility.

One would have anticipated, with four experienced attorneys on the (SIC) Stanford Investors Committee; together with the examiner, the receiver, and Angela Shaw Kogutt, the director and founder of the SVC; these would all be rich pickings; but did they choose to file any suits against any of these? No, not one.

On this day today, sadly, we learned they chose instead to file a suit against St Jude's, the children's cancer research hospital charity who give hope to sick children and their families. Allen Stanford donated $7m towards St Jude's, quite possibly the only truly good deed the "Knight" ever did. No matter where those funds came from, there is one indisputable fact; St Jude's received and spent them in good faith to keep a lot of sick kids alive, and who can begrudge them that?

On this day today, it should have been the day we were all celebrating having made the first step towards recovery from the US Government, who knew for 13 years that Allen Sanford was a fraud, but did nothing. Instead I am sickened that the Stanford Investors Committee, who supposedly act in our best interests, could have instigated such a callous and insensitive action against such a deserving institution as St Jude's without our knowledge, and without our consent.

To all the Stanford investors reading this, I urge you to write or email the Stanford Investors Committee members to withdraw this suit against St Jude's. In the eyes of the world we are all as equally guilty as those undeserving members of the committee who are behind it. Please let us do one good thing and make this right.

Thank you.
Stanford's victim.

Group that lost money in Stanford ponzi scheme sues St. Jude, Le Bonheur

Investors trying to retrieve billions they lost in Stanford Financial Group's Ponzi scheme have sued St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, its fundraising arm American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities Inc. and Le Bonheur Children's Medical Center Foundation for more than $7.37 million Stanford had donated.

The "Official Stanford Investors Committee" filed suit late Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.

The claim represents the Ponzi scheme's latest fallout for Memphis.

Stanford Financial assumed a major profile in town in 2007 and 2008 as title sponsor of Memphis' PGA Tour golf tournament, which benefits St. Jude.

Earlier this month, the investors and the court-appointed receiver also sued the PGA Tour for $12.9 million, an amount that may be related to Stanford Financial's sponsorship of the tournament in 2007-08.

In the hospitals' case, the money that investors are trying to get back was given when Stanford Financial was insolvent and R. Allen Stanford operated the company "in furtherance of his fraudulent scheme," the suit states.

The sum in the suit, however, will be adjusted if the committee finds any additional payments made to the groups from Stanford, according to the lawsuit.

Since the litigation is pending, ALSAC/St. Jude could not reveal a precise amount Stanford gave to the charities, Emily Callahan, chief marketing officer for ALSAC/St. Jude, said in a statement.

But she said, "Our records show that we received less than the amount named in the suit."

The money, she said, was received "in good faith directly from Stanford Financial Group" and was spent immediately "on our mission of saving kids' lives in the U.S. and around the world and finding cures for catastrophic diseases in children...

"While our hearts go out to those impacted by the Stanford investment issues, it would hurt our charitable mission to have to return the money already spent directly on clinical care and support for children suffering from cancer and other deadly diseases, including bone marrow transplants, chemotherapy treatments, on education and training of doctors and nurses who help kids worldwide, and on groundbreaking research," Callahan said in a prepared statement.

Before authorities cracked down in February 2009, Stanford also had contributed a substantial portion of its $2.5 million pledge to Le Bonheur Children's Medical Center's campaign for a new $327 million hospital.

The suit states Stanford donated to ALSAC, St. Jude and the Le Bonheur foundation $2.56 million in 2006, $2.14 million in 2007 and $2.62 million in 2008 and $35,174 in 2009.

Investors who lost an estimated $7 billion to Stanford Financial want as much of their money back as they can retrieve, and some of their other recent "clawback" lawsuits apparently have Memphis ties.

They filed a $12.9 million suit Feb. 7 against the PGA Tour.

The suit says Stanford Financial parties paid the PGA Tour $5.9 million in 2007 and $6.9 million in 2008. Although the suit didn't mention the Memphis tournament, those were the years Stanford was its title sponsor.

This past year, FedEx took over as title sponsor of the FedEx St. Jude Classic.

As he does in his filings against all defendants in the clawback suits, receiver Ralph Janvey claims the PGA received the money from Stanford without providing any services or anything of equivalent value.

The PGA Tour says it doesn't respond in the media to lawsuits.

However, Ty Votaw, the organization's vice president for communications, told The Commercial Appeal on Wednesday that Stanford, as title sponsor of the Memphis event, "received all the rights, benefits and privileges associated with that."

Stanford, like any such tournament sponsor, received such benefits as "naming rights, commercial inventory in the four-day telecast, the benefit associated with being title sponsor of a sporting event that had over 12 hours of television coverage, pro-am spots, hospitality.

"How they use those, I can't comment on," Votaw said.

"We did provide value."

For example, the international TV coverage encompasses 225 countries and 589 million homes, he said.

Stanford is accused of creating a huge pyramid scheme by guiding clients to invest more than $7 billion in certificates of deposit from the Stanford International Bank in the Caribbean island of Antigua and then misusing the money.

Staff reporter Tom Bailey Jr. contributed to this story.

Source.

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