Government Eyes Stanford Lands

The Antigua and Barbuda Government plans to make an offer to the Joint Liquidators of the Stanford Development Company (SDC) for the purchase of the Pavilion Restaurant and seven acres of adjacent land.

This comes out of a meeting of the Cabinet on Wednesday. Reliable sources say the decision to procure the property which sits within the precincts of the V.C. Bird International Airport is influenced by a number of factors……..

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/




Advertisements

Former U.S. diplomat implicated in Stanford Ponzi scheme

Peter Romero after a meeting with the Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jose Vicente Rangel in Caracas, Venezuela, Aug. 11, 1999.

Peter Romero after a meeting with the Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jose Vicente Rangel in Caracas, Venezuela, Aug. 11, 1999.

A former top State Department official during the Clinton administration is set to go on trial next month on civil allegations he helped Texas financier Allen Stanford carry out his $7 billion Ponzi scheme, then destroyed possible evidence of his involvement.

Peter Romero, who is not accused of criminal wrongdoing, is a former U.S. Ambassador to Ecuador and a former Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere. Soon after Romero left the State Department in 2001, Stanford hired him as a consultant and appointed him to his advisory board.

But Ralph Janvey, the court-appointed receiver seeking to recover funds from the fraud, says Romero’s actual role was to help Stanford attract more victims.

“He traded on his prior government service to become an ambassador for Allen Stanford,” said Janvey’s attorney Kevin Sadler in an email to CNBC.

Janvey sued Romero in federal court in 2011 seeking the return of nearly $1 million in compensation that Janvey says was fraudulently obtained. A one-week jury trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 9 in Dallas.

“For seven years, Romero was paid more than $100,000 per year, plus expenses, for a less than part-time job that involved almost nothing more than lending his name and credibility to Stanford’s organization,” Sadler said.

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/


Stanford investors ride court-rulings rollercoaster

Associated Press file photo -- R. Allen Stanford arrives in custody at the federal courthouse for a hearing in Houston in 2010. Court rulings during 2014 presented a rollercoaster ride for investors in the former Texas tycoon's massive Ponzi scheme.

Associated Press file photo — R. Allen Stanford arrives in custody at the federal courthouse for a hearing in Houston in 2010. Court rulings during 2014 presented a rollercoaster ride for investors in the former Texas tycoon’s massive Ponzi scheme.

Sometimes the federal judiciary rules in favor of small investors who lose their savings to slick promoters like Robert Allen Stanford, of Houston, Texas. On other occasions, federal judges can crush those same investors.

That was the roller coaster ride federal courts provided in 2014 for about 1,000 Louisiana residents and more than 20,000 people in other states and countries.

By year’s end, those towering ascents and stomach-churning plunges left diminished hope of recovering much of the $5.5 billion to $7 billion estimated to have been swindled from people who placed their savings with Stanford Group Co. That firm and its sister companies were shut down by federal regulators in February 2009.

The Houston-based brokerage had offices in Baton Rouge and several other cities across the nation. It also was insured through a federally chartered and industry-funded safety net — the Securities Investor Protection Corp., better known as SIPC.

Ten months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The circuit court’s decision granted investors permission to proceed with negligence and fraud claims in state courts against companies that provided back-office services to Stanford’s juggernaut. That was the high point of the year for some investors.

In July, though, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a lower court decision that allowed SIPC to refuse a directive by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC had ordered SIPC to begin proceedings that could have reimbursed each of the Stanford victims as much as $500,000 of their individual losses.

The SEC later decided against an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As devastating as this year’s court ride was for investors, it provided Stanford, 64, hope of overturning a federal fraud conviction in Houston that sent him to prison for 110 years in Coleman, Florida.

Among the Washington appellate court’s rulings was a decision that investors could not be considered SIPC-insured customers of Stanford Group Co. and a bogus Stanford bank because their money should have been categorized as loans. That categorization, the court ruled, means people who thought they were Stanford investors actually became Stanford’s partners — not his customers.

Now, Stanford is asking the 5th Circuit to overturn his criminal conviction. In that appeal in New Orleans, Stanford argues that the appellate ruling in Washington, D.C., bolsters his view that neither the SEC nor any other federal agency had probable cause to target him for investigation. That’s because, Stanford says, the ruling supports his contention that people who invested in his offshore bank through his Stanford Group Co. “were not customers of the domestic-based SGC.”

Federal prosecutors have not yet filed a response to Stanford’s argument.

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/




Fifth Circuit to convict Allen Stanford: Follow the rules or risk losing chance to be heard

Former Houston billionaire Allen Stanford, convicted in 2012 of operating a Ponzi scheme that defrauded more than 18,000 investors, is appealing his conviction. He's currently serving a 110-year sentence. File photo

Former Houston billionaire Allen Stanford, convicted in 2012 of operating a Ponzi scheme that defrauded more than 18,000 investors, is appealing his conviction. He’s currently serving a 110-year sentence. File photo.

WASHINGTON — The appeals court that will hear former Houston billionaire Allen Stanford’s appeal has sent him a blunt warning. Keep breaking the rules when it comes to filing your appeal, and he may lose his chance to be heard at all.

That’s the message sent last week when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans wrote Stanford a letter telling him that the court has filed his latest brief arguing that his 2012 conviction was illegal. “However, you must make the following
corrections within the next 14 days,” an Oct. 23 letter from the court to Stanford reads.

Adds the court clerk: “As this is the second request to make your brief sufficient, any further insufficiencies received may move the court to strike your brief and dismiss your appeal.”

Stanford was sentenced to 110 years in prison, and is serving his term in central Florida. He has fired his lawyers and is representing himself. He filed a 299-page appeal in September, which the court promptly rejected as too long. He was given to Oct. 6, and then an extension to Oct. 22, to make it conform to the already-relaxed guidelines stipulated by the court.

He made the deadline, but still wasn’t following the rules. He’s now been ordered to strip out all of the attachments he has sent that aren’t “opinions, statutes, rules, and regulations.” He’ll also have to get three more copies of the brief made.

Stanford’s new brief is 174 pages, including exhibits and other appendices. His initial brief was 299 pages.

Murray Waas of Vice Media and I reviewed the contents of his initial arguments here. He has until Nov. 6 to make the requested changes. The U.S. government will respond to the brief with an argument of their own for why he’s right where he belongs, before three judges on the 5th Circuit will make a ruling.

 

Allen Stanford’s Revised Appeal can be read here:

 

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


Ponzi Receiver Can Go After Tiger’s Charity

DALLAS (CN) – The court-appointed receiver for R. Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme can go after the Tiger Woods Foundation charity for $500,000 in alleged fraudulent transfers, a federal judge ruled.

Ralph Janvey, a partner with Krage Janvey in Dallas, sued the Tiger Woods Foundation and Tiger Woods Charity Event Corp. in April. He claimed they received the money in two transfers from Stanford Capital Management LLC, Stanford Financial Group Co. and the Stanford Financial Group Building Inc. Janvey claimed the money was from ” innocent, unwitting ” Stanford investors.

U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on Wednesday, finding that the charity could not prove Janvey’s claims are time-barred.

Godbey said the foundation relies on “far too many factual ambiguities” for its motion to be granted.

Janvey’s fraudulent transfer claim under Texas law has a 4-year statute of limitations; his unjust enrichment claim has a 2-year limit.

The parties agree that the relevant date of reference here is December 13, 2013, the date on which the parties signed the tolling agreement,” the 9-page order states. “Thus, the Receiver’s [fraudulent transfer] claim is time barred if he could have discovered it before December 13, 2012, and the unjust enrichment claim is time barred if it accrued before December 13, 2011. The Receiver argues that because he pleads the discovery rule, an issue of fact exists as to when he discovered his causes of action and his complaint cannot be dismissed. The court agrees.”

The discovery rule under Janvey’s fraudulent transfer claim gives plaintiffs a year to sue after the claim “could reasonably have been discovered by the claimant.”

“Application of the discovery rule is generally a fact-intensive issue inappropriate for resolution in a motion to dismiss,” Godbey wrote. “Even once a plaintiff has been exposed to information that gives rise to a duty to inquire, whether the plaintiff has been diligent in making that inquiry is ultimately a question of fact” to be determined at trial.

Godbey was not persuaded by the foundation’s argument that Janvey failed to plead “diligence at all” in discovering the transfers.

“This argument fails because, as discussed, the Receiver does allege diligence in discovering these transfers by claiming his team spent hours pouring over obscure financial records in order to identify actionable transfers,” the order states. “Defendants take issue with the fact that the Receiver has not specifically contended that these particular transfers were concealed or difficult to discover. But, that would require too much of the complaint at the motion to dismiss stage.”

Godbey found that in a light most favorable for Janvey, it is “perfectly reasonable” to conclude that the “generally complex and obfuscated nature of the Stanford financial records made these particular transfers difficult to discover.”

The foundation did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.

Janvey has aggressively tried to recover funds originating from the Ponzi scheme, filing approximately 50 lawsuits against recipients since his appointment, according to the Courthouse News database.

His targets have included the Miami Heat basketball team, Texas A&M University, the University of Miami, the PGA Tour and the ATP Tour, among others.

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/




Stanford Promises to Prove his Innocence and Repay Victims

To the Stanford International Bank depositors, and clients of the global Stanford Financial Group 

 As this is the first statement from me since the February 17, 2009 destruction of the global Stanford companies, and my imprisonment for allegedly operating a fraud that has been referred to as a “Ponzi scheme”, I want to be direct, clear and emphatic. The actions taken by the U.S. government against me and my companies and that resulted in such harm to so many of you, was baseless, opportunistically contrived and, most importantly, unlawful. To many of you, and especially those of you who believe in and trust the accuracy and veracity of the American media machine, for now I will simply advise you of the series of legal actions taken by me in recent months and ask that you look at them on line, read them carefully and then follow their progress through the American legal system. In the coming days and weeks, as these legal initiatives make their way through the courts I will be posting a daily message on this site to keep informed those of you who have been harmed. 

Meanwhile, I want all of you to know, the many of you around the world who entrusted me and my companies with your investment monies, that it is my intent, and in fact my mission in this life, to restore my good reputation as an honest man, and to personally repay each and every one of you… in full …each and every dollar that was so wrongfully taken from you by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The manner in which I intend to achieve this will be made clear in the coming weeks. 

Thank you,

 R. Allen Stanford

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/