Texas Supreme Court will weigh in on the Allen Stanford litigation and the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act

The Texas Supreme Court is poised to consider a significant fraudulent transfer case stemming from the Allen Stanford Ponzi scheme. The origins of Janvey v. Golf Channel date back to 2009. In the wake of Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme, the Northern District of Texas appointed a receiver for Stanford and his related entities. The receiver sued the Golf Channel (among others), claiming the nearly $6 million Stanford paid for advertising was a fraudulent transfer under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“TUFTA”).

Read the Entire Article 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

Texas Justices Will Hear Key Ponzi Scheme Case In January

The Texas Supreme Court on Friday teed up a key legal question for oral argument in the R. Allen Stanford Ponzi scheme’s receiver’s quest to recover millions from The Golf Channel Inc. and other businesses paid by Stanford during his sprawling fraud.

The high court said it will hear oral argument in January on a certified question from the Fifth Circuit on what constitutes “value” under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. The answer will determine whether the market value of ads the now-defunct Stanford Financial…

To view the Entire Article, please 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/



Receiver files 2nd Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 2nd Interim Distribution Plan

On November 19, 2015, the Receiver filed his 2nd Schedule of distribution payments under the 2nd Interim Distribution Plan with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 2nd Schedule will be followed by others, each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis.

To view a copy of the 2nd Schedule, please 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/



Multi-billion lawsuit against TD Bank headed to trial

Stanford liquidators seeking damages of US$5.5 billion

The Superior Court of Justice — Ontario has dismissed a motion for summary judgment from Toronto-Dominion Bank, which sought to dismiss a multi-billion dollar claim against the bank by the liquidators of Stanford International Bank Ltd. (SIB).

According to the court’s ruling on the motion, TD was SIB’s main correspondent bank until the Antigua-based bank was exposed as a massive Ponzi scheme in 2009, and collapsed. In 2011, the liquidators commenced an action against TD on behalf of SIB and its customers, seeking damages of US$5.5 billion for alleged negligence and knowing assistance. Those allegations have not been proven.

“Essentially, the claim alleges that as SIB’s correspondent bank from the 1990s to 2009, TD failed to act in accordance with the standard of care applicable to a reasonable banker,” the motion decision says.

“The plaintiffs allege that TD failed to conduct proper due diligence before it started providing banking services to an Antiguan off-shore bank, and compounded its negligence by continuing to provide banking services to SIB for 20 years. They allege that TD ignored public information and red flags that should have led it to terminate SIB’s access to TD’s facilities, report the conduct of Stanford and others to the appropriate authorities, and/or freeze SIB’s accounts,” the decision says.

TD brought a motion seeking a summary judgment to dismiss the claim on the basis that it came after the two-year limitation period had expired. TD argued that the bank’s previous liquidators ought to have known that SIB had a claim against TD before Aug. 22, 2009, based on the widespread publicity surrounding the case, among other things.

However, the court dismissed the motion, ruling that it could not determine, without a trial, when a possible claim against TD could have been discovered.

“The issue of when the former officeholders ought to have known that SIB had a potential claim against TD cannot be fairly adjudicated on this motion and is a genuine issue for trial,” the decision says.

To View the Court Ruling 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/



Law Firms, Banks Face Fallout from Stanford Ponzi Investors

Convicted financier R. Allen Stanford arrives at the Bob Casey Federal Courthouse for sentencing in Houston, Texas, U.S., on Thursday, June 14, 2012. Stanford, found guilty of leading a $7 billion international fraud scheme by a U.S. jury, will spend the rest of his life in prison if a federal judge grants prosecutors? request. Photographer: Aaron M. Sprecher/Bloomberg via Getty Images

For years, investors in R. Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme have been struggling to eke out any significant recoveries. But things are looking up for Stanford’s 21,000 global investors, not to mention for the lawyers representing them on a contingency basis.

Unable to knock out a series of investor suits, four banks and four former law firms that serviced Stanford’s business empire are increasingly feeling the pressure from plaintiffs asserting billions of dollars in claims. As the defendants fight to overturn their courtroom losses—and to find out if they must face the plaintiffs as a class—counsel for the investors are now enjoying the advantage.

In early 2012, three years after the Stanford fraud was exposed, the investors’ position appeared far weaker. Court-appointed Stanford receiver Ralph Janvey and his counsel at Baker Botts had recovered just 3 cents for each dollar lost, with nearly half going toward professional fees. By contrast, in his first two years on the job, Irving Picard, the liquidation trustee for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, had already recovered $7.2 billion from the widow of Madoff investor Jeffry Picower, and $3 billion from others.

“We never had a Mrs. Picower,” said Butzel Long partner Peter Morgenstern, cocounsel in a Stanford investor class action against TD Bank, HSBC, Societe General and two smaller Texas banks that collectively processed billions of dollars of transactions for Stanford’s sham businesses.

Read the Entire Article Here.

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