Chadbourne Says Stanford Receiver Deal Nixes Investor Suit

Chadbourne & Parke LLP told a Texas federal judge on Wednesday that investors accusing it of facilitating Robert Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme no longer have a viable claim after agreeing to a $35 million settlement and bar order with the receiver overseeing recovery for victims of the scheme.

The investors, the bulk of whom are Mexican citizens, claim Chadbourne as well as Proskauer Rose LLP and the firms’ attorneys aided the Ponzi scheme, in which Stanford’s foreign bank sold investors sham securities called certificates…

To view the full article, 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

Investors file second class action against law firm for alleged role in Stanford Ponzi scheme

Last week, victims of Robert Allen Stanford’s Ponzi scheme filed another class action lawsuit against the law firm that, they allege, helped the former chairman and CEO conceal the fraudulent scheme from government regulators.

The named plaintiffs, Sandra Dorrell and Phillip A. Wilkinson, both Texas residents, filed their complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, April 28.

The defendants include Proskauer Rose LLP, an international law firm that is headquartered in New York City and has 13 offices worldwide, and Thomas V. Sjoblom. Sjoblom was a partner at Proskauer from 2006 to 2009.

“All of the Plaintiffs and members of the putative class invested in the Stanford Financial Ponzi scheme by purchasing SIBL (Stanford International Bank Ltd.) CDs or placing their money in other investment accounts with SIBL,” the investors explained in their 96-page complaint. “Over the years that Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class purchased and maintained investments in SIBL, Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class were repeatedly and uniformly told, either directly by their Stanford Financial FAs or via Stanford Financial promotional materials, that, inter alia: (1) an investment in SIBL was safer than investing in U.S. banks because SIBL did not make loans but instead held its funds in a safe and highly liquid portfolio; (2) Stanford Financial was a U.S.-based business regulated by the U.S. Government; and (3) that an investment in SIBL was completely safe and secure because it was guaranteed and insured by Lloyd’s, was thoroughly regulated, was audited by an ‘outside’ audit firm and subjected to regular, ‘stringent’ risk management examinations.

To view the full article, 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/



Chadborne Pays $35M in Stanford Ponzi Suit; Proskauer Faces New Class Action

Two months after a federal appeals court rejected their case, investors who lost billions in a Ponzi scheme orchestrated by R. Allen Stanford have filed a brand-new class action against the company’s former outside counsel at Proskauer Rose.

The move comes as Chadbourne & Parke, which also once counted Antigua-based Stanford Group as a client, has agreed to pay $35 million to resolve parallel investor claims. (The settlement was first reported in February, but the size of the deal was not known.) If the settlement is approved, the funds, minus a contingency fee, will be distributed among investors who bought bogus Stanford CDs.

The new case against , meanwhile, landed Friday in federal district court in Dallas, claiming $5 billion in damages. Once again, the plaintiffs are looking to hold Proskauer responsible for the actions of its former partner, Thomas Sjoblom, who allegedly helped Stanford conceal his Ponzi scheme from regulators.

Sjoblom, who joined Proskauer from Chadbourne in 2006 and represented Stanford’s company while at both firms, is also named as a defendant.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the original case against Proskauer on March 10, following six years of litigation and two trips through the appeals courts. The panel found that, under Texas law, an attorney is shielded from liability if the alleged wrongdoing occurred while he was defending a client.

But according to Friday’s complaint, the Fifth Circuit’s decision also left open a narrow window for the plaintiffs to sue again under Texas’ Securities Act. Their 99-page complaint, filed by Edward Snyder of San Antonio-based Castillo Snyder and cocounsel Strasburger Price on behalf of a putative class of 21,000 Stanford investors, hopes to take advantage of that window………………

To view the full article, 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/



Stanford Investors Suing Proskauer, Chadbourne Seek Cert.

Investors accusing Chadbourne & Parke LLP, Proskauer Rose LLP, two insurance brokers and a financial services firm of aiding Robert Allen Stanford’s Ponzi scheme urged a Texas federal judge on Monday to grant class certification in their malpractice action.

Investors led by Mexican citizen Samuel Troice argued that from at least 1988 until 2009 Stanford engaged in a common course of conduct and uniform scheme to dodge the federal government’s banking and securities laws. Stanford uniformly failed to disclose his illegal conduct or tell investors that…

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/




Chadbourne, Proskauer Renew Bid For Class Info In Ponzi Suit

Chadbourne & Parke LLP and Proskauer Rose LLP are redoubling their fight for documents in the possession of the receiver for Allen Stanford’s Ponzi scheme that they say will reveal important information about a proposed class of plaintiffs suing the law firms for malpractice.

The two law firms, defendants in a suit brought by victims of Robert Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme, say receiver Ralph Janvey should have to give them information about who is in the class.

“To date, defendants have received no discovery…

Read the Full 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/




Receiver in Ponzi Case Can’t Sue Law Firm

WASHINGTON (CN) – The court-appointed receiver for R. Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme cannot sue Proskauer Rose and Chadbourne & Parke in D.C. federal court because it lacks jurisdiction, the D.C. Circuit ruled.

Janvey sued the law firms and attorney Thomas V. Sjoblom, of Virginia, in January 2012 for breach of fiduciary duty, accusing the lawyers of helping the Stanford Investment Bank evade government oversight and investigation.

Sjoblom was a partner at Chadbourne from 2002 to 2006 and a partner at Proskauer from 2006 to 2009, Janvey alleged in a similar suit against the defendants filed in February 2013 in Dallas federal court.

Janvey’s D.C. suit was transferred to Dallas federal in March 2012. The trial court later denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in August 2013, resulting in the case being remanded back to D.C. federal court four months later by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The panel agreed with the trial court’s determination that the D.C. Court should decide if a transfer to Dallas federal court would be “in the interest of justice.”

On July 24, the D.C. Circuit concluded it is not in the interest of justice to transfer the suit back to Dallas federal court. Writing for the court, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said both parties concede some of the defendants are “stateless” for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, which creates a “special problem.”

“Two of the defendants are law firms with partners who are American citizens domiciled abroad,” the 12-page opinion stated. “The Supreme Court has held that the citizenship of a partnership for the purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction ‘depends on the citizenship of all members.'”

Kollar-Kotelly notes the plaintiffs are not pro se litigants. She is not convinced they “were simply confused as to the proper forum” to file their lawsuit.

“Rather, plaintiffs are represented by two law firms, Strasburger & Price LLP and Neligan Foley LLP,” the opinion stated. “Nor have plaintiffs alleged that there were complex or novel jurisdictional provisions at issue excusing their failure to file this action in the proper court. Instead, plaintiffs’ failure to recognize the District of Columbia District Court lacked jurisdiction over their lawsuit suggests that plaintiffs filed their suit in this jurisdiction either in bad faith and/or as an attempt at forum shopping.”

Proskauer did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

Read more here:

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