Stanford Workers Tell 5th Circ. Underwriters Were Let Off Easy

A group of 36 former employees of Stanford Group Cos. on Tuesday asked the Fifth Circuit to intervene in litigation over R. Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme, arguing a lower court wrongly allowed underwriters to walk away with $36 million of unpaid coverage without providing them any compensation or benefit.

The appeal comes after U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey approved a $65 million deal amid objections in May, resolving allegations that Lloyd’s of London and other underwriters should cover losses from the scheme, and…..

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


District Court Approves Settlement with Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, Lexington Insurance Company, and Arch Specialty Insurance Company

On May 16, 2017, the District Court approved a settlement agreement by and among the Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, Lexington Insurance Company, and Arch Specialty Insurance Company. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, once the District Court’s order becomes final, the Receivership Estate will receive $65.0 million. Following receipt of the settlement funds, the Receiver will file a motion asking the District Court for permission to distribute the proceeds of the settlement, net of attorneys’ fees awarded by the Court, to Stanford Investors who have claims approved by the Receiver.

To view a copy of the Court’s Order approving the settlement, click here

To view a copy of the Court’s Order approving attorneys’ fees, click here.

For a full and open debate on the Stanford receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group – SIVG official Forum

Investors Sue Insurance Company That Vouched for Stanford Ponzi Scam

By John Pacenti All Articles 
Daily Business Review

The letters circulated by Stanford International Bank among would-be investors claimed deposits were insured by Lloyds of London and that the bank’s employees were “first class business people.”

The letters proclaimed the bank had undergone “stringent risk management review by an outside audit firm.”

Stanford International Bank is now known as one of the world’s largest Ponzi schemes, a $7 billion scam that is second only to the con pulled off by the former New York investment adviser and financier Bernard Madoff. The Stanford bank, which was based in Antigua and maintained a sizable footprint in Miami, went under in 2009.

So while the bank’s founder and one-time billionaire, R. Allen Stanford, is serving a 110-year prison sentence for fraud, investors are looking for deep pockets to make them whole.

They hope they found it in Willis Group Holdings, the U.K.-based insurance company that provided Stanford with written endorsements. The investors are also suing Willis Group’s American subsidiary based in Colorado.

Getting the litigation to stick in one jurisdiction, though, hasn’t been easy. Filed in Miami-Dade Circuit Court in February, the plaintiffs’ suit was transferred to U.S. District Court in Miami on June 3.

U.S. District Judge Jose E. Martinez stayed the case on June 14 after the Willis Group argued the U.S. Supreme Court is looking at the liability of insurance letters to investors in a related case against Willis Group.

Other lawsuits against Willis Group by similarly situated plaintiffs have ended up in multidistrict litigation in Dallas. One has also been stayed by a Miami federal judge.

A telephone call placed to attorney Edward Soto, a partner at Weil Gotshal & Manges in Miami who represents Willis Group, was not returned by deadline.

But in his motion to Martinez for a stay, Soto said the defendant expects the case and four others filed against Willis Group to be transferred to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Texas that oversees the estate of Stanford International Bank.

The plaintiffs attorney, Ervin Gonzalez, said businesses that vouch for criminal enterprises like Stanford need to be held accountable.

“If someone is going to give an endorsement … they’d better be careful because people rely on those endorsements,” said Gonzalez, a partner at Colson Hicks Eidson in Coral Gables, Fla. “They have an obligation and a duty to be accurate.”

Also representing the plaintiffs is attorney Luis Delgado, a partner at Miami’s Homer & Bonner.

“From in or around August 2004 through 2008, Willis provided ‘safety and soundness’ letters to Stanford Financial’s agents on Willis letterhead and signed by a Willis executive,” the lawsuit claims.

The letters misled clients into believing their deposits were safe and insured, the lawsuit states.

The 29 plaintiffs are from Uruguay, Bolivia, Colombia and Venezuela and had a combined loss of $30 million when SIB collapsed. The lawsuit states they received identical Willis Group letters with the only difference being the date and address.

Visit the Stanford International Victims Group – SIVG

official forum