Stanford Financial Group Receivership Update

The four schedules filed by the Receiver address total distributions of approximately $12.59 million of the $55 million that has been authorized for distribution by the Court. For Stanford Investors who have not yet received an initial distribution, there are a number of reasons why that may have occurred, including the following:

•Investor may not have filed a claim with the Receiver’s claim process before the Bar Date fixed by the Court.
•The Investor may not have responded to a request for additional information from the Receiver’s claim processing agent, Gilardi & Co.
•The Investor may have objected to the Receiver’s Notice of Determination with respect to the Investor’s claim.
•The Investor may not have completed and returned the Receiver’s Certification Form.*
•The Investor’s distribution check may simply be in process, such that it will be listed on subsequent schedules to be filed by the Receiver.

The Receiver is continuing to process Notices of Determination, objections to Notices of Determination, and Claim Certifications. Additional payment schedules will be prepared and filed on a rolling basis. It is the Receiver’s expectation that additional payment schedules will be prepared and filed every few weeks (provided that there are sufficient claims being processed to justify that pace).

*The Receiver advises that a significant number of Investors who filed claims and received Notices of Determination have not yet returned completed Certification Forms. Completed Certification Forms must be received before distribution checks are issued.

 

Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic227.html

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group – SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/

Advertisements

Stanford Financial Claims 5th Distribution October 25th 2013

Receiver files 5th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim Distribution Plan – On October 25, 2013, the Receiver filed his 5th Schedule of distribution payments with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 5th Schedule will be followed by others, each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis as additional responses to Certification Notices are received and processed.

To view a copy of the 5th Schedule, please click here:

http://sivg.org.ag/topic225.html

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group – SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/

Kachroo Legal Services Stanford Update October 23rd 2013

STANFORD UPDATE OCTOBER 23rd 2013

TO ALL SEC CLIENTS

TO ALL SFA CLIENTS

Dear Stanford Clients:

We write to update you with important information regarding the claim against the SEC and

ZELAYA V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

As you may be aware, United States District Court Judge Robert N. Scola recently issued an order granting the Government’s second motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ complaint. This ruling comes despite the historic victory previously achieved in surviving the Government’s first motion to dismiss. The result of the order is that the lower court has made a final determination on the entire case and as such KLS is now in a position to appeal the entire case to the United States Court of Appeals for authoritative resolution of all issues.

To that end, KLS has filed a notice of appeal earlier this month, and will submit its full appeal brief in November. KLS will of course keep all clients up to date with developments in the case as they arise, including the approximate timeline of the appeal.

STANFORD FURTHER ACTIONS

In accordance with our previous updates, we would like to make sure that all clients are aware of progress with the Dallas receiver. By now, clients should have received:

1) A notice of Determination

2) A Certification Notice.

If You Have Already Received A Certification Notice

For those of you who have already received a notice directly, it is important to let us know as soon as possible so that we can assist you in processing your claim. Please forward any and all paperwork you have received from the Receiver. Please also sign the attached confirmation in order for us to be able to deal with the Receiver on your behalf directly.

If You Have Not Yet Received A Certification Notice

If you have not yet received a notice, we can check on the current status of your case on your behalf. To enable us to do this, please sign the attached confirmation. Please also be vigilant for any notifications sent to you directly by email as there are strict deadlines to respond.

If You Are Not Yet a Stanford Further Actions (SFA)

Client If you have not yet signed a retainer agreement with KLS, time is running out to submit and process these claims. If you would like us to deal with these claims to the receiver on your behalf, please sign the enclosed authorization form and or contact us with any queries you may have. We can then forward you our standard retainer letter.

SALE OF STANFORD INVESTORS’ CLAIMS

KLS is being solicited by a number of funds that appear to have increased their initial offers to acquire claims from Stanford investors to between 10 and 20 cents on the dollar (i.e. 10-20% of their claimed value). If any of our clients have an interest in pursuing such an offer, please advise us directly so we can facilitate discussions with these funds.

Very truly yours, Gaytri D. Kachroo

Kachroo Legal Services, P.C.

Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic224.html

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group – SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/

Receiver files 4th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim Distribution Plan

On October 17th, 2013, the Receiver filed his 4th Schedule of distribution payments with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 4th Schedule will be followed by others, each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis as additional responses to Certification Notices are received and processed.

To view a copy of the 4th Schedule, please click here:

http://sivg.org.ag/topic217.html

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group – SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/

SEC battles with industry fund over Stanford victims’ claims

By Sarah N. LynchWASHINGTON | Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:05pm EDT

(Reuters) – U.S. regulators sought to overturn a 2012 court ruling that prohibited victims of Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme from seeking compensation, in an unprecedented legal battle between the government and an industry-backed fund that protects investors.

In oral arguments on Wednesday, a lawyer for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to force the fund to start court proceedings so that victims can file claims to recover at least a portion of the millions of dollars they lost.

The Securities Investor Protection Corp (SIPC), which administers the fund, has refused to do so, saying it believes Stanford investors do not meet the legal definition of “customer” under a federal law that is designed to protect investors if their U.S. brokerage collapses.

SIPC uses funds paid for by the brokerage industry to compensate investors if that happens.

A federal district judge agreed with SIPC’s position in July 2012, and tossed out the SEC’s lawsuit.

But pressure from a well-organized group of investors who lost money in the scheme and some members of Congress has helped keep the fight alive.

Two of the judges on the panel put lawyers representing the SEC and SIPC through a series of rigorous and difficult questions, often playing devil’s advocate with each side. A third judge on the panel was not present for the arguments.

The judges gave no strong hints on how they may rule.

However, Chief Judge Merrick Garland asked a series of questions about whether the SEC could simply write new rules that would compel SIPC to act, as opposed to seeking a resolution in court.

The SEC, as SIPC’s regulatory supervisor, has argued that it has the legal authority and discretion to force the fund to take action.

“Is there anything stopping the SEC from issuing a rule defining ‘customer’ the way that you want to define it here?” Garland asked.

“I don’t believe so,” replied John Avery, the attorney arguing the SEC’s case. But if it were challenged, he added, the SEC would land right back in court again.

Allen Stanford was sentenced in 2012 to 110 years in prison for bilking investors with fraudulent certificates of deposit issued by Stanford International Bank, his bank in Antigua.

Many of the investors who purchased these products, however, did so through his Houston, Texas-based brokerage, Stanford Group Co.

At the heart of the case is the question of whether the victims of Allen Stanford’s Ponzi scheme meet the legal definition of “customer.”

SIPC argues that the investors in the scheme entrusted their money to the offshore, unregulated Antiguan bank and not to the U.S. broker-dealer.

Moreover, they say that Stanford’s investors actually did receive their certificates of deposit as promised, even though they turned out to be virtually worthless.

The law, they said, is not designed to combat fraud or guarantee an investment’s value.

The SEC, however, says the location of the Stanford bank is irrelevant because the entire business organization was operating one massive fraud, and that in fact no actual certificates of deposit truly existed.

“It’s very difficult to draw a meaningful distinction between any of these Stanford entities, which were all part of the scheme, they were all in on the scheme, they didn’t follow corporate formalities and the money was commingled,” SEC attorney John Avery argued. “We believe the money, at least constructively, stayed with SGC.”

SIPC’s attorney Michael McConnell urged the court not to allow the SEC to simply lump the Stanford business entities together so the investors can file claims.

He added that the investors received disclosures explicitly telling them the Antiguan bank was not SIPC-protected or U.S.-regulated.

“You have people who in the face of disclosure statements clearly to the contrary, go off to an offshore bank seeking … outlandishly high rates of return knowing that it is not covered by the securities laws,” he said.

“Effectively, what the SEC is telling us is that SIPC should implicitly give free insurance coverage to a fly-by-night organization.”

Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic215.html

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group – SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/

Obama campaign pocketed Ponzi schemer cash

Thirty-nine political candidates, committees have not returned R. Allen Stanford contributions

By Alison Fitzgeraldemail

Majority of funds recovered in Stanford Ponzi scheme spent by receiver
By Lauren Kyger and Alison Fitzgerald

October 10, 2013

President Barack Obama received $4,600 in campaign contributions from R. Allen Stanford less than a year before the Texan was arrested in 2009 for running one of the biggest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history.

Despite repeated requests, the Obama campaign has not returned the money to the court-appointed receiver tasked with recovering money from the fraud and returning it to Stanford’s victims. The campaign still has $5.4 million in its coffers even though the president won’t be running in another election.

(Update, Oct. 16, 2013, 1:39 p.m.: The Obama campaign’s new 3rd quarter filing indicates it has $372,549 remaining.)

Obama isn’t the only politician who has declined to return Stanford campaign contributions to help make Stanford’s defrauded investors whole. A total of 39 candidates and committees have kept their campaign funds despite the pleas by the receiver, Texas Lawyer Ralph Janvey, to return the money.

A spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, which now speaks for the Obama campaign, did not immediately comment.

Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, has the largest outstanding contribution that hasn’t been returned — $10,000 — according to the web site of the receiver. The New Jersey Democratic State Committee also received $10,000 from Stanford and his companies, the web site says.

Other members of Congress on the receiver’s list include Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass.

Stanford was sentenced in 2012 to 110 years in prison for bilking investors out of $7.2 billion. The Texan ran an investment firm that sold fraudulent certificates of deposit in an Antigua-based bank that he owned called Stanford International Bank Ltd.

Five Democratic and Republican national campaign committees, which had received more than $1.6 million from Stanford and his companies, fought attempts by Janvey to recover those contributions. In October 2012, a federal appeals court ordered the committees to turn over the money and pay the receivership’s attorney fees.

Janvey has not sued Obama’s campaign, or the other 38 committees who haven’t returned their contributions, because the cost of a suit would be more than the amount recovered, said Kevin Sadler, a lawyer with Baker Botts that represents the receivership.

Many members of Congress and presidential candidates returned the ill-gotten contributions voluntarily. Former Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) returned a total of $27,500 and Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., reimbursed the receivership $14,000.

Janvey was appointed in February 2009 to wind down Stanford’s web of companies and try to recover as much money as possible to return to the investors who were defrauded in the scheme.

To date, he has recovered $234.4 million. However, the costs of winding down the companies, and of lawsuits trying to recover money, have eaten up more than half that amount.

Stanford investors last month began receiving their first checks since the receivership was created in amounts that totaled about a penny for each dollar lost.

Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic216.html

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group – SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/