Las víctimas olvidadas de Stanford, ahora disponible en español en:

Tuesday, 13 December 2016

United States Supreme Court Denies Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Criminal Case Against R. Allen Stanford

In 2012, a jury convicted R. Allen Stanford of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1349; four counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2; five counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2; one count of conspiracy to obstruct a Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) investigation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505 and 371; one count of obstruction of an SEC investigation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505 and 2; and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas sentenced Stanford to a term of 110 years in prison, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit unanimously affirmed the District Court’s judgment. Stanford then filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. On November 28, 2016, the Supreme Court denied Stanford’s petition, thus upholding his 2012 conviction.

To view a copy of the order denying Stanford’s petition, 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's 12th Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset Collection and Ongoing Activities

On December 2, 2016, the Receiver filed a report with the Court that discusses the status of the Receivership, the Receivership's asset collection efforts and ongoing activities.


To view the report, 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/


Saturday, 12 November 2016

Receiver files the next three Schedules of Payments to Be Made Pursuant to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Interim Distribution Plans

On November 11, 2016, the Receiver filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, the 15th Schedule of distribution payments under the 1st Interim Distribution Plan, the 6th Schedule of distribution payments under the 2nd Interim Distribution Plan, and the 2nd Schedule of distribution payments under the 3rd Interim Distribution Plan. These three Schedules will be followed by others, each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis.

To view a copy of these three Schedules, 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/


Thursday, 10 November 2016

OSIC Seek Court Approval for Willis Settlement Agreement

On September 7, 2016, 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 Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company (and related persons and entities) (“Willis”). Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Receivership Estate will receive $120 million. On October 19, 2016, the Court entered a Scheduling Order setting a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Willis Settlement and establishing a schedule for the submission of objections.

The Court has set a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Willis Settlement at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, January 20, 2017. Any party wishing to file an objection to the Willis Settlement must do so no later than Friday, December 30, 2016.

To view a copy of the Willis Agreement, 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/


Saturday, 17 September 2016

Receiver files 1st Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 3rd Interim Distribution Plan

On September 16, 2016, the Receiver filed his 1st Schedule of distribution payments under the 3rd Interim Distribution Plan with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. 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/


Tuesday, 13 September 2016

Stanford Ponzi Opt-Outs Sue Insurance Broker

People with $135 million in claims from R. Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme sued British insurance broker Willis Ltd., claiming it aided and abetted the fraud by issuing false "safety and security" letters.

 Lead plaintiff Edna Abel and 274 other individuals or couples hold more than $135 million in claims approved by court-appointed receiver Ralph Janvey. Stanford, 65, was sentenced in 2012 to 110 years in federal prison for 13 of 14 counts of conspiracy, wire fraud and mail fraud.

 Abel et al. sued Willis of Colorado Inc., WGH Holdings Ltd., and Willis Ltd. on Monday in Dallas Federal Court.

They claim they and their financial advisers were "all influenced" by Willis's conspiring in the scheme, in which they bought Stanford's phony certificates of deposit.

"For many of these plaintiffs, their Stanford investments represented significant portions of their life savings," the complaint states. "These letters provide assurances to potential purchasers of CDs that, among other things, Stanford Financial had passed stringent risk management review by outside auditors."

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/


Thursday, 8 September 2016

Stanford Receiver, Investors Seek OK Of $120M Willis Deal

The receiver overseeing recovery for victims of R. Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme and investors on Wednesday asked a Texas federal judge to sign off on a $120 million settlement with insurance brokerage Willis Towers Watson Public Ltd. Co.

Willis had been accused of aiding Stanford’s scheme by vouching for him and his insurance policies in letters to investors, mainly in Latin America, which investors claim helped convince Stanford’s victims that their investments were safe and insured.

 The receiver, Ralph S. Janvey, as well as...

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/


Saturday, 3 September 2016

Receiver files 5th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 2nd Interim Distribution Plan

On September 2, 2016, the Receiver filed his 5th Schedule of distribution payments under the 2nd Interim Distribution Plan with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 5th 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 5th 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/


Wednesday, 31 August 2016

Time Frame of next distribution from US Receiver

To Gilardi 
I have tried to talk to you on the phone, today I have waited more than 9 minutes and no one has answered, the machine at the time said there was no body before my call. Would like to know when are you going to distribute the last order of distribution orders by the Court on March 22-2016. We need to know aka soon as possible. Thank you You may respond to me at this e-mail (email address redacted)

Response from Gilardi 
Dear Claimant,
 A distribution schedule pursuant to the Receiver's 3rd Interim Plan has not yet been approved by the Court, the claims agent will not be able to speculate on when a distribution will occur until after a distribution schedule is approved.

To Gilardi 
You are not correct, the distribution process was approved by the court on March 22-2016. Please give information that is correct and remember, we are asking for what is rightfully ours, and you must answer as soon as possible.

Response from Gildardi 
Dear Claimant,
 There is a difference between a distribution plan being approved and a specific distribution schedule or schedule of payments being approved. As an example please refer to the Order Approving Receiver's Second interim Distribution Plan vs. Receiver's 1st Schedule of Payments to be made Pursuant to the 2nd Interim Plan. Until a schedule of payments pursuant to the 3rd Interim Plan is approved by the Court, the Claims Agent will not be able to speculate on when payments will begin.

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/


Friday, 12 August 2016

Receiver files 4th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 2nd Interim Distribution Plan

On August 10th, 2016, the Receiver filed his 4th Schedule of distribution payments under the 2nd Interim Distribution Plan with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 4th 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 4th 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/


Monday, 20 June 2016

Receiver files 14th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 1st Interim Distribution Plan

On June 17, 2016, the Receiver filed his 14th Schedule of distribution payments under the 1st Interim Distribution Plan with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 14th 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 14th 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/


Saturday, 11 June 2016

Grant Thornton Update to Creditors June 2016

In an effort to keep you informed, below are some of the actives the Joint Liquidators have been working on since the filing of our last report.

The Creditors Advisory Committee
The CAC has been re-formed and a meeting was held recently to discuss the current status of the liquidation and its future plans. Some of the salient initiatives are listed below.


TD Bank Litigation 
TD has filed its Amended Statement of Defense and the JLs are in the process of preparing and finalizing our Reply. Meanwhile, the estate is pushing for the commencement of production and discovery proceedings. We have also been working closely with US Class Counsel to advance and coordinate the bank claims.

 Law Firm Claims 
We are continuing to prosecute the claims against the law firms in Antigua. It is expected that hearings on the jurisdictional issues will be heard towards the end of this year

 HSBC Claims 
HSBC agreed to provide disclosure on an agreed list of requests. In our view this issue has not been fully complied with. It has also become clear that we need to examine individuals, a position to which HSBC has yet to agree. Our current tolling agreement extending the time for filing expires on 30 June. Thus, we are of the view that we need to invoke S236 for proper production and examination. We anticipate our request to be contested.

 Based on the information we have to date, we suspect that there were deficiencies in procedures by the bank and that certain “red flags” existed. We are working closely with our advisors to develop the case..........................


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/


Saturday, 7 May 2016

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/


Tuesday, 3 May 2016

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/


Friday, 29 April 2016

Case of former FSRC head Leroy King to put back on the front burner


A high ranking court official yesterday confirmed that the authorities are taking steps to list the matter of the former head of the Financial Services Regulatory Commission (FSRC), Leroy King, for hearing in the High Court “as soon as possible” as the US Department of Justice (USDOJ) continues to make enquiries about the status of King’s extradition process.

 The matter has been stalled in the system for nearly four years since King filed his last challenge against the decision of the Minister of External Affairs, former prime minister Baldwin Spencer to sign the warrant to return him to the US to face charges linked to the R Allen Stanford US $7 billion Ponzi Scheme.

 High Court Registrar Cecile Hill said the delay in the matter wasn’t a deliberate act, but there were challenges that had to be addressed.................


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/


Thursday, 14 April 2016

Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with Kroll and Seek Court Approval

On March 7, 2016, the Receiver and the Official Stanford Investors Committee filed a Motion seeking Court Approval of a settlement entered into with Kroll, LLC (f/k/a Kroll, Inc.) and Kroll Associates, Inc. (collectively, “Kroll”). Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Receivership Estate will receive $24.0 million. On March 23, 2016, the Court entered a Scheduling Order setting a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Settlement and establishing a scheduling for the submission of objections.

 The Court has set a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Settlement for Friday, July 8, 2016 at 10:00 am. Any party wishing to file an objection to the settlement must do so no later than Wednesday, May 18, 2016, and must do so in accordance with the requirements established by the Court in its Scheduling Order................................


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/


Thursday, 7 April 2016

The Texas Supreme Court Rules in favor of The Golf Channel over the Stanford Ponzi Receiver—Ruling will Likely Limit Future Clawback Suits in Similar Cases

Background 

 Like many other Ponzi schemes, R. Allen Stanford’s operated by selling Certificates of Deposit and paying an initial group of victims a high return using subsequent investors’ money, all the while taking large portions of the investment funds for himself and his various entities (the “Stanford Entities”). While the Ponzi scheme’s perpetrator and many of his associates were sentenced to prison, hundreds of civil suits were filed in various courts that related to and stemmed from the Stanford Ponzi scheme.

 More than seven years ago, Ralph Janvey (“Janvey”) was appointed Receiver for the Stanford Entities and tasked with recovering as much money as possible from the $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme that defrauded over 18,000 people and returning that money to the investors. To achieve this aim, one tool Javney uses is the filing of clawback suits against those companies who were paid by the Stanford Entities but provided no real value in return.

The Golf Channel Case 

 The Stanford Entities heavily invested in and marketed through various sporting channels and events. The Stanford International Bank became the chief sponsor of the Stanford St. Jude’s Championship, a PGA Tour event that was held annually in Memphis, Tennessee and broadcast by The Golf Channel, Inc. (“The Golf Channel”).............


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/


Sunday, 3 April 2016

Ponzi Can't Claw Back Golf Channel Ad Money

AUSTIN, Texas (CN) - The receiver for R. Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme cannot demand the return of $6 million paid to The Golf Channel for advertising, which had "reasonably equivalent value" under Texas law, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The ruling is the first time the high court has weighed in on the notorious Ponzi scheme that involved the sale of phony certificates of deposits.......................


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/


Wednesday, 23 March 2016

Court Approves Receiver's 3rd Interim Distribution Plan

On March 22, 2016, the Court approved the Receiver's 3rd Interim Distribution Plan.

 A copy of the order approving the 3rd Interim Distribution Plan may be found here.

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


Friday, 18 March 2016

Envoy Must Return Cash Tied to Ponzi Scheme

Former U.S. Ambassador to Ecuador Peter Romero must return more than $700,000 that convicted Ponzi schemer R. Allen Stanford paid him during his eight years as an international advisor, the Fifth Circuit ruled.

 A three-judge panel rejected the former dignitary's argument that the court-appointed receiver for Stanford's companies did not timely file his February 2011 complaint.

 Stanford - who turns 66 next week - is serving a 110-year prison sentence after a federal jury in Houston, Texas, convicted him in 2012 of running a $7 billion Ponzi scheme premised on the sale of phony certificates of deposit.

 In 2011, receiver Ralph Janvey went after Romero, one of several political figures recruited to lend credibility to Stanford's fraudulent operations. Romero's case was the first to go to trial.

Romero, appointed to the ambassadorship by Bill Clinton, retired from the U.S. Department of State in 2001.......................


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/


Wednesday, 16 March 2016

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/


Thursday, 10 March 2016

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


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/


Monday, 29 February 2016

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/


Wednesday, 17 February 2016

Stanford Receiver To Pay Out $50M To Ponzi Victims

The receiver for the $7 billion R. Allen Stanford Ponzi scheme on Friday sought permission from a Texas federal judge to distribute another $50 million to victims of the massive fraud, paying out 1 percent of each claim after the receiver reached settlements with lawyers and auditors.

The proposed distribution would be the third payment to Stanford’s thousands of victims since 2013, totaling about 2.5 percent of victim claims. Most of the $50 million payout is coming from two settlements: a $40 million settlement with accounting...


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/


Saturday, 6 February 2016

SEC's Stanford Case A Chance To Clarify Compliance Duties

Compliance officers who worry they have an enforcement target on their back may soon get some clarity — and perhaps reassurance — from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission when it rules on a case involving convicted Ponzi schemer R. Allen Stanford's former top compliance manager.

On Monday, the SEC is scheduled to hear oral arguments in an appeal by Bernerd Young, a former regulator who was the chief compliance officer at Stanford Group Company Inc. at the time the $7 billion fraud was exposed. He...

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/


Wednesday, 3 February 2016

Receiver files 3rd Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 2nd Interim Distribution Plan

On February 2, 2016, the Receiver filed his 3rd Schedule of distribution payments under the 2nd Interim Distribution Plan with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 3rd 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 3rd 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/


Tuesday, 2 February 2016

How a Canadian bank backed a billionaire fraudster:


How a Canadian bank backed a billionaire fraudster. 



Click  here to view the FULL Video.

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


Saturday, 30 January 2016

Allen Stanford’s house of cards: How TD banked the 2nd-largest Ponzi scheme in U.S. history

Allen Stanford’s con was epic. He was responsible for the second biggest Ponzi scheme in U.S. history outdone only by Bernie Madoff.

With a silver tongue and endless charisma, the brash Texan built a multi-billion dollar bank on the island of Antigua. By the late 2000s Stanford Financial Group had grown into an empire with over 21,000 clients throughout the U.S. and South America.

When it collapsed in 2009, over $7 billion in investments disappeared in what one U.S. judge would call “one of the most egregious criminal frauds ever presented to a trial jury in federal court.”

To pull off that massive scam, Stanford needed help and he found it in the most unlikely of places – the Toronto Dominion Bank in Canada......................


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/


TD missed ‘warning signs’ about notorious fraudster, lawsuit alleges

Allen Stanford, the Texas-born ex-billionaire responsible for one of the world’s largest Ponzi schemes, is serving a 110-year sentence in a Florida prison. But outside those walls, other legal battles over his massive fraud are still being waged and involve one of Canada’s largest financial institutions: Toronto-Dominion Bank.

Mr. Stanford, now 65, was once known as Sir Allen, after he was knighted in his adopted home of Antigua and Barbuda, before his title was revoked. He was supposed to be running what appeared to be a staggeringly successful private offshore bank. But in fact, he and a small group at the top of his organization were looting his Stanford International Bank Ltd., using some new investors’ money to pay returns to previous ones and living large on much of the rest.

His empire came crashing down in 2009, when his bank was exposed as a massive fraud that cost his 21,000 investors at least $5.5-billion (U.S.). But until then, he enjoyed a lifestyle worthy of a Bond villain, acquiring his own small Caribbean island for $63-million, a fleet of private jets and helicopters, and a handful of luxurious mansions that included a 57-room “castle” in South Florida, complete with a moat.....................


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/


Saturday, 23 January 2016

You Can't Run a Ponzi Scheme Without a Bank: TD Bank Facing Two Canadian Trials Stemming from its Role in the Stanford Fraud

The New York Times once wrote that "You can't run a Ponzi scheme without a bank … Banks are in a unique position to notice what is going on before the money is all gone."[1] The Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD Bank) may now be wishing that it had heeded this warning. JPMorgan Chase probably does.

From the early 1990s until 2009, TD Bank was the primary provider of correspondent banking services to Stanford International Bank Limited (SIB), an Antiguan off-shore bank that sold certifications of deposit to thousands of investors around the world. Throughout that same period, Allen Stanford (Stanford), SIB’s chairman, perpetrated an $8 billion Ponzi scheme against SIB and its creditors. The scheme was the second largest of its kind, trailing only the scheme perpetrated by Bernie Madoff (Madoff). While Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison for his misdeeds, Stanford received a 110 year sentence and his scheme has given rise to litigation around the globe to recover funds for SIB’s creditors.


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/


Thursday, 21 January 2016

Two Respected Law Firms Fight Claims That They Aided Ponzi Schemer

Robert Allen Stanford, once one of the richest men in America, is today a federal inmate serving a 110-year sentence. His crimes? Running a massive Ponzi scheme that stole over billions of dollars from thousands of unsuspecting investors. How this once bankrupt gym owner could pull off such a heinous crime is a great topic for a future story. This post examines the battle to hold Stanford’s former lawyers responsible for his losses.

As fraud recovery lawyers, we are often called upon to seek alternative sources of funds for victims. Fraudsters often are uncollectible, especially when serving 110-year prison terms. Often, however, banks and lawyers can be held responsible for monies lost by investors; especially when their actions (or inactions) helped facilitate the crime.

Seeking third party recovery is especially important in the Stanford case. The court’s receiver charged with gathering and liquidating Stanford’s assets found that Stanford spent much of the stolen funds. In just three years, Stanford spent over $100 million on private aircraft. In another instance he spent $12 million to lengthen his yacht by just 6 feet!

Investors have seen little money despite the thought that some $7 billion passed through Stanford’s hands and that of the entities he controlled. That puts pressure on efforts to collect from banks, audit firms and lawyers. Two law firms that have been sued are Greenberg Traurig and Hunton & Williams LLP. Both firms are giants in the legal industry and have very deep pockets. Greenberg Traurig has approximately 1900 lawyers and is headquartered in Miami. Hunton & Williams is a Richmond based firm with 800 lawyers.

Both firms were sued in 2012. Stanford’s victims claim that the law firms helped perpetrate the fraud. For a Ponzi scheme so massive and so sophisticated, it is clear that Stanford didn’t act alone, but are the lawyers responsible? At the heart of the investors claims is attorney Carlos Loumiet. He served as counsel for the Stanford Financial Group of companies from 1988 until 2009. For thirteen of those years he was a partner at Greenberg Traurig. In 2001, Loumiet left and went to work at Hunton & Williams. Stanford remained his client there.



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/


Wednesday, 20 January 2016

‘No monies are available’, liquidator tells former SDC workers

Displaced Stanford employees picketed the offices of Grant Thornton on Thursday, December 11, 2014. (OBSERVER media photo)

Joint Liquidator for Stanford Development Company (SDC) Ltd, Marcus Wide has told former workers of the fallen R allen Stanford empire that demonstrations will not change the fact that “no monies are available” to pay outstanding severance.

His response came a day after ex-employees staged yet another protest outside the local Grant Thornton Office on Tuesday.

In an email to OBSERVER media, Wide said there is still no money to pay the employees’ claims. 

He said the liquidators have continued talks with prospective buyers for Stanford’s properties with the hope of making a sale; however, those discussions have not borne fruit.

 “So far we have not been able to get offers at what we consider to be fair value. We cannot force buyers, with the money to pay, and willing to pay proper prices, to come forward,” Wide wrote.

 “We have been overly optimistic with respect to sales prospects in the past and find it difficult to make any predictions on timing,” he added.

 Wide also told the former workers that the local Grant Thornton office is not involved with the Joint Liquidation of SDC. 

He said the process involved himself and another liquidator, Hordley Forbes. “The process of winding up Stanford Development Company Ltd is distinct from the process of winding up Stanford International Bank, as the creditors of each and their assets are different and cannot be intermingled,” Wide noted.

 The former employees of the disgraced financier have agitated for years for the monies due to them.

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/


Tuesday, 12 January 2016

Defiant US fraudster Allen Stanford vows to clear name

In his first interview since being indicted in 2009 for masterminding the second-largest Ponzi scheme in history, convicted US fraudster Allen Stanford has told the BBC he is innocent

"I didn't do anything wrong" said the 65-year-old Texan, speaking from a maximum security penitentiary in Florida. "Will I apologise? No. Mark my words... I am going to walk out the doors of this place a free man."

Stanford says his life behind bars is "hell". He describes being assaulted by fellow inmates in 2009, saying the treatment he received by the authorities after the attack was "barbaric".

Stanford's lack of contrition is sure to anger the victims of his fraud, thousands of whom have little hope of ever recovering the money they lost in his $7bn (£5bn) scam.

The former Houston banker was handed a 110-year sentence in March 2012 on fraud, conspiracy and obstruction charges after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) shut down his global empire.

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/


Thursday, 7 January 2016

Receiver files 13th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 1st Interim Distribution Plan

On December 17, 2015, the Receiver filed his 13th Schedule of distribution payments under the 1st Interim Distribution Plan with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 13th 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 13th 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/