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

Proskauer, Chadbourne Can’t Invoke Americold, Investors Say

Investors who accuse Chadbourne & Parke LLP and Proskauer Rose LLP of facilitating Robert Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme told a Texas federal court Monday that a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on jurisdiction for nebulous legal entities can’t help the firms escape the suit.

The law firms claim the court lacks jurisdiction since most of the investors were foreign and because the firms were stateless for legal purposes, and say the Supreme Court’s March 7 holding in ConAgra Foods et al. v. Americold Logistics et……..

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/



New York law firms win Stanford fraud appeal, dismissal of lawsuit

File photo of convicted financier Allen Stanford arriving at Federal Court in Houston for sentencing.
Two big New York law firms that represented the now-imprisoned financier Allen Stanford persuaded a federal appeals court on Thursday to throw out a lawsuit claiming that they helped conceal his $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme.

Reversing a lower court ruling, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said Chadbourne & Parke and Proskauer Rose were immune from liability for losses that 18,000 former Stanford investors blamed in part on Thomas Sjoblom, a lawyer who had represented the financier and worked at both firms…………………………..

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/



Chadbourne & Parke Agrees to Settle Stanford Ponzi Claims

Chadbourne & Parke has agreed to a confidential settlement with aggrieved investors in R. Allen Stanford $7 billion Ponzi scheme, ending the firm’s involvement in more than six years of litigation related to a former partner’s role advising the disgraced financier.

Lawyers for the firm informed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the deal late Friday afternoon. That leaves Proskauer Rose and Stanford’s former lawyer, Thomas Sjoblom, the former co-chair of the securities litigation and enforcement practice at Proskauer, as the two remaining defendants facing investor class claims of up to $5 billion in the suit. Sjoblom joined Proskauer in 2006 after leaving Chadbourne.

Separate proposed class actions are also moving ahead against two other firms—Greenberg Traurig and Hunton & Williams—that once served Sanford’s business interests. Investors filed their class certification briefs in the parallel cases on Friday. Adams and Reese, meanwhile, agreed to pay $1 million in May 2015 settle similar investor claims stemming from its work for Stanford-related entities……………………

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/



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/