Kachroo Legal Services Update on SEC Lawsuit

TO ALL SEC CLIENTS
February 26, 2014

Zelaya et al v. United States of America

Dear Stanford/SEC Clients: We write to update you with respect to important information regarding the claim against the Securities and Exchange Commission.

To read the complete update from Kachroo Legal Services Click Here:

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

Advertisements

Kachroo Legal Services Update on Stanford Further Actions

TO ALL SFA CLIENTS

STANFORD FURTHER ACTIONS

Dear Stanford Clients:

We write to update you with respect to important information regarding customer claims with the Stanford Liquidator in Antigua and Receiver in Dallas.

To read the complete update from Kachroo Legal Services Click Here:

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

 

Justices Throw a Rope to Stanford Ponzi Victims

WASHINGTON (CN) – Federal law does not preclude investors allegedly defrauded by R. Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme from attempting recovery via state class actions, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

For nearly 15 years, Stanford Group Co. and related entities sold certificates of deposit issued by its Antigua-based Stanford International Bank, and then used investor funds to cover its liabilities.

Its eponymous leader was sentenced in 2012 to 110 years in federal prison after a federal jury in Houston, Texas, convicted him on 13 of 14 counts of conspiracy, wire fraud and mail fraud.

Read the full transcript from the Courthouse News Service here.

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

SLUSA – The full Court Ruling

Great news for ALL victims! With the SLUSA ruling going in favour of the victims, all the FROZEN court cases can now proceed.

To view the full court ruling on SLUSA click Here

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

U.S. Justices say Allen Stanford Victim Lawsuits can go Forward

Convicted financier Allen Stanford arrives at Federal Court in Houston for sentencing.

(Reuters) – The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that lawyers, insurance brokers and others who worked with convicted swindler Allen Stanford cannot avoid lawsuits by investors seeking to recoup losses incurred in his $7 billion Ponzi scheme.

On a 7-2 vote the court held that lawsuits filed in state court can go forward. New York-based law firms Chadbourne & Parke and Proskauer Rose and insurance brokerage Willis Group Holdings Plc were all sued by former Stanford investors. The investors also sued financial services firm SEI Investments and insurance company Bowen, Miclette & Britt.

Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act did not prevent the state lawsuits from proceeding. The law says that state lawsuits are barred when the alleged misrepresentations are “in connection with” the purchase or sale of a covered security.

As the defendants in the case were not selling securities traded on U.S. exchanges, “it is difficult to see why the federal securities laws would be – or should be – concerned with shielding such entities from lawsuits,” he wrote.

The defendants sought Supreme Court review after the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2012 said the lawsuits brought under state laws by the former Stanford clients could go ahead.

The former Stanford clients are keen to pursue state law claims because the Supreme Court has previously held that similar so-called “aiding and abetting” claims cannot be made under federal law.
The class action lawsuits filed by the former investors accused Thomas Sjoblom, a lawyer who worked at both law firms, of obstructing a Securities and Exchange Commission probe into Stanford, and sought to hold the other defendants responsible as well.

The Obama administration, representing the SEC, sided with the defendants over the interpretation of the state law in an avowed effort to protect the agency’s own authority to pursue wide-ranging investigations.

The administration pointed out that the “in connection with” language in SLUSA that limits state court lawsuits mirrors language in federal law that gives broad authority of the SEC to pursue such misrepresentations. Therefore, the administration urged the court to give the phrase a broad interpretation.

Stanford’s fraud involved the sale of certificates of deposit by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank. Much of the litigation centers on whether these qualified as securities under applicable laws.

The cases are Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice et al, U.S. Supreme Court. No. 12-79; Willis of Colorado Inc et al v. Troice et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-86; and Proskauer Rose LLP v. Troice et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-88.

To join the debate click here.

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




Joint Comments by the U.S. Receiver, the Examiner and the Official Stanford Investors Committee Concerning the Liquidators’ Efforts to Recover Preference Payments

Joint Comments by the U.S. Receiver, the Examiner and the Official Stanford Investors Committee Concerning the Liquidators’ Efforts to Recover Preference Payments – The U.S. Receiver, the Examiner, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee understand that certain SIBL CD investors have received letters or emails from Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson, the Joint Liquidators appointed by the Antiguan courts to oversee the Antiguan liquidation of SIBL, through which the Joint Liquidators seek to recover from the investors certain amounts (referred to as “preference payments”) that the investors had withdrawn or otherwise received from SIBL during the 6 months’ prior to the failure of SIBL. We also understand that these letters and/or emails are causing considerable distress and concern among SIBL CD investors. We wish to clarify the following matters:

1.The U.S. Receiver, the Examiner, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee have no involvement in the Joint Liquidators’ effort to recover these “preference payments.” The Joint Liquidators are proceeding pursuant to Antiguan law and with the approval of the Antiguan courts. Similarly, the U.S. District Court overseeing the Stanford Receivership has no role in or jurisdiction over the Joint Liquidators’ efforts to recover these “preference payments.”

2.The Antiguan Joint Liquidators have posted a set of Frequently Asked Questions concerning their effort to recover “preference payments” on their website. You can review those Frequently Asked Questions at http://www.sibliquidation.com

3.We understand that the Antiguan court has established a process for objecting to the Joint Liquidators’ effort to recover these “preference payments.” In the first instance, any objections must be directed to the Joint Liquidators at Stanford.enquiries@uk.gt.com. Objections must be filed within 120 days after the investor receives the letter or email asserting the Joint Liquidators’ claim for these “preference payments.”

4.At present, the Joint Liquidators are not permitted to bring lawsuits in the United States to recover these “preference payments,” nor for any other purpose.

To join the debate click here.

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