Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with Hunton & Williams, LLP

On August 16, 2017, the Receiver, the Official Stanford Investors Committee (“OSIC”) and certain individual Investor Plaintiffs filed a Motion seeking Court approval of a settlement entered into with Hunton & Williams, LLP (“Hunton”). Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Receivership Estate will receive $34 million. On August 23, 2017, the Court entered a Scheduling Order setting a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Hunton Settlement and establishing a schedule for the submission of objections.

The Court has set a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Hunton Settlement at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, November 28, 2017. Any party wishing to file an objection to the Hunton Settlement must do so no later than Tuesday, November 7, 2017.

You may access the materials pertaining to the Hunton Settlement and the HUNTON SETTLEMENT FAQ by clicking 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

Lawmakers press DOJ to help victims of Ponzi scheme

Seven lawmakers on Monday asked the Justice Department to investigate whether a Swiss bank is illegally blocking the transfer of restitution funds for victims of the second-largest Ponzi scheme in United States history.

In a Monday letter, representatives from both parties asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions to review whether Swiss bank Societe Generale is complying with a 2013 settlement meant to return a major portion of $210 million to victims of Allen Stanford’s pyramid investment scheme.

The lawmakers asked Sessions “to review this issue and re-engage on behalf of U.S. victims to expedite the return of the frozen assets so they can be properly distributed.”

To view a 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/



Receiver files 1st Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 4th Interim Distribution Plan

On June 30, 2017, the Receiver filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, the 1st Schedule of distribution payments under the 4th Interim Distribution Plan. The 1st 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 1st 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/



Update on Receiver’s Lawsuit Against Former Stanford Financial Advisors

In March 2017, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that the Receiver is not required to arbitrate his claims to recover payments to former Stanford financial advisors and other Stanford employees of proceeds generated from the sale of Stanford International Bank CDs. Following entry of judgment by the Court of Appeals, the Receiver returned to the District Court to pursue those claims. On June 15, 2017, the Receiver filed an amended complaint, consolidating several previously-filed complaints and identifying newly-discovered payments received by the defendants.

As amended, the Receiver’s complaint now seeks to recover more than $289 million from 313 former financial advisors and other Stanford employees. The Receiver alleges that the payments the defendants received were fraudulent transfers; that the defendants failed to provide reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the payments; and that the defendants did not take the payments in good faith. The Receiver also alleges that the defendants were unjustly enriched by the payments, at the expense of Stanford investors. The lawsuit seeks return of the payments, together with prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees.

The District Court has set the Receiver’s claims for trial beginning in July 2018.

To view a copy of the amended complaint, and a copy of the Court’s scheduling order setting the Receiver’s claims for trial, 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/



EIGHTH REPORT OF THE JOINT LIQUIDATORS OF STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK (IN LIQUIDATION)

To view the Eighth Report of the Joint Liquidators of Stanford International Bank (In Liquidation, 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/



Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Fifth Circuit determines Antigua not subject to U.S. court jurisdiction under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in Stanford Ponzi scheme cases.

Antigua, USA March 27 2017
Frank v. Commonwealth of Antigua and Barbuda, No. 15-10717, consolidated with The Official Stanford Investors Committee v. Antigua and Barbuda, No. 15-10788 (5th Cir. Nov. 22, 2016) [click for opinion]

The Commonwealth of Antigua and Barbuda (“Antigua”) successfully appealed a district court ruling that under certain exceptions to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (the “FSIA”), Antigua was subject to suit relating to its alleged involvement in the Stanford Ponzi scheme. Finding that the commercial activity exception to sovereign immunity was not satisfied and that the waiver exception applied only to claims for which jurisdiction was conceded by Antigua, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s determination that it had jurisdiction over certain claims against Antigua, a foreign nation, and remanded for further proceedings.

The plaintiffs in two putative class actions filed suit alleging Antigua was involved and complicit in the Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Allen Stanford. Stanford owned and operated numerous financial entities, including an offshore bank in Antigua, which he used in his scheme to defraud investors. Plaintiffs alleged that Antigua actively and willingly participated in Stanford’s scheme and knowingly provided Stanford and his businesses a safe harbor from regulatory scrutiny. They asserted that Stanford and Antigua had a quid pro quo relationship in which Stanford paid incentives and bribes and made loans to Antigua and its public officials to ensure that he and his organizations were deemed compliant with relevant local regulations. The two putative class actions were consolidated for appeal solely to address whether, under the FSIA, Antigua is subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts…………

To view the full ruling and a copy of the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and, 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/