Third Party Discovery of Foreign Bank Records Should First Proceed Under the Hague Convention

Where U.S. litigation discovery obligations were argued to be in conflict with foreign civil and criminal privacy statutes, many recent opinions found that discovery should proceed under the Federal Rules over the protest of the foreign data custodians. See, e.g., Gucci Amer., Inc. v. Curveal Fashion, No. 09 Civ. 8458, 2010 WL 808639 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2010) (compelling the third-party U.S. parent of a foreign bank to produce documents located at its subsidiary despite claims that such production was illegal under Malaysian law) discussed further in prior blog posts here and here. However, in SEC v. Stanford International Bank Ltd, the court departed from this pattern in finding that discovery should first proceed under the Hague convention “in the interest of comity.” Civil Action No. 3:09–CV–0298–N, 2011 WL 1378470 at *14 (N.D.Tex. April 6, 2011).

In this case, the court previously determined that R. Allen Stanford, his associates, and various entities under Stanford’s control (collectively “Stanford”) operated “a massive Ponzi scheme that stole approximately $8 billion from an estimated 50,000 investors scattered over more than 100 countries,” and accordingly, the Court appointed a Receiver to identify and take control of Stanford’s assets. Id. at *1. As third-party Société Générale Private Banking (Suisse) S.A. (“SocGen”) was believed to hold accounts belonging to Stanford, the Receiver sought to discover account records under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”). Id. at *2. SocGen, opposing discovery under the FRCP, argued that as the sought-after documents were located in Switzerland, compliance with the FRCP discovery request would “subject it and its employees to criminal, civil, and administrative penalties under Swiss law.” Id. Instead, SocGen argued that the Receiver should first utilize the discovery procedures of the Hague Convention, of which Switzerland is a signatory.

To determine under which mechanism discovery should proceed, the court applied the balancing of factors set out in Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. U.S. District Court, 482 U.S. 522, 538, 107 S.Ct. 2542, 96 L.Ed.2d 461 (1987) (“Aérospatiale”) and Minpeco, S.A. v. Conticommodity Serv., Inc., 116 F.R.D. 517, 523 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). These factors include: (1) the importance to the litigation of the documents or other information requested; (2) the degree of specificity of the request; (3) whether the information originated in the United States; (4) the availability of alternative means of securing the information, (5) the competing interests of the nations whose laws are in conflict; (6) the hardship of compliance on the party or witnesses from whom discovery is sought; and (7) the good faith of the party resisting discovery under the Federal Rules. See id. at *4.

The court’s application of these factors was initially fairly typical. Factors 1, 2, and 4 were found to favor the Receiver, as the documents were “vital” to the receivership proceedings and not available anywhere else. In particular, the court noted that as it considered the Receiver to essentially be SocGen’s customer, the discovery request “constitutes no more than a bank customer asking for a copy of its own records.” Id. at *5-6, 8, and 11. Counseling the opposite conclusion, factors 3, 6, and 7 were found to favor SocGen, as the documents were only located in Switzerland; this defense was not raised in bad faith; and “comity counsels deference” to SocGen’s “potentially well-founded fear” that compliance with the discovery request under the Federal Rules could lead to prosecution. Id. at *7-8, and 12-13.

Where the Court’s analysis deviates significantly from other opinions is its consideration of the fifth factor, which in this case involves the competing interests of the U.S. and Switzerland. Whereas other courts found that U.S. discovery interests trumped foreign privacy concerns, the Stanford court found this factor to be neutral, after noting that any such balancing of interests would be “political” and “especially inapposite in this case, where the legislative authorities of both nations essentially have spoken by adopting the Convention.” Id. at *9. Compare id. (“the Convention inherently, and adequately, balances the competing sovereign interests here because its use will benefit U.S. interests by providing the needed evidence, and protect Swiss interests by avoiding intrusions upon Swiss sovereignty.”) with Gucci, 2010 WL at *7 (“[T]he Court concludes that the United States interest in fully and fairly adjudicating matters before its courts . . . outweighs Malaysia’s interest in protecting the confidentiality of its banking customers’ records.”).

On balance, the Stanford court found that the comity factors weighed in SocGen’s favor “at least in the first instance.” Id. at *13. Accordingly, the Receiver was to proceed with discovery under the Hague Convention, but was not precluded from renewing its request for discovery under the FRCP should its efforts be unsuccessful. Id. at *13-14. In so holding, the court acknowledged that others relied on the discretion provided by the Supreme Court in Aérospatiale as a “green light to generally ‘discard[ ] the treaty as an unnecessary hassle.’” Id. at *3 (citing In re Automotive Refinishing, 358 F.3d 288, 306 (3rd Cir. 2004)). However, this approach “ignores Aérospatiale’s admonition to ‘exercise special vigilance’ in international discovery disputes . . . and exemplifies courts’ intrinsic ‘proforum bias’ warned against by . . . the Aérospatiale minority.” Id.

While it is unclear the extent to which this approach will be followed by other courts in the future, this opinion illustrates that it is possible for litigants and third parties to successfully navigate cross border discovery conflicts even where privacy interests are at stake.


Stanford Investors Complaint Against BDO

BDO Complaint May 26 2011(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

Allen Stanford Investors Sue His Accounting Firm

Nearly two years after Texas financier Allen Stanford was indicted in an alleged massive Ponzi scheme, investors have just filed a $10 billion proposed class action suit against his auditor—the giant accounting firm BDO.

The suit—filed Thursday in federal court in Dallas—says BDO did not only aid and abet the $7 billion dollar fraud…it was a “co-conspirator.”

“BDO’s cozy relationship with the Stanford Financial Group was steeped in conflicts of interest and required ongoing deceptive and duplicitous manipulation of the facts to allow the Ponzi scheme’s exponential growth for over a decade,” the complaint says. “The result of this deception is the loss of thousands of investors’ life savings.”

BDO not only audited Stanford’s U.S. operations, it also did critical work in Antigua, where the alleged fraud was based.

Before his indictment in 2009, Stanford told CNBC about a task force he put together—including a “major accounting firm” to rewrite Antigua’s banking laws.

“Back in the early ’90s, I was asked by the then-government if I would put together a civilian team of professionals, which I got,” Stanford said. “Ex-FBI, ex-DEA, an ex-U.S. Attorney…a major accounting firm and others to come up with a strong, if not the strongest platform for international banking.”

Authorities and investors say that platform paved the way for the fraud. Stanford has denied wrongdoing. He faces a trial currently scheduled for September 12 on 14 criminal counts.

BDO has not had a chance to respond to the suit, but for months it has been fighting a civil subpoena for documents filed by the court-appointed receiver in the SEC’s lawsuit against Stanford.

In a court filing in April, BDO attorneys said the firm “has no clue as to what it may have done wrong.” The filing called the subpoena “a fishing expedition.”

Stanford’s 30-thousand investors have so far recovered just pennies on the dollar.

Stanford Investors Sue Former Auditor BDO US for $10.7 Billion Over Fraud

BDO USA LLP and its parent, the ex- auditors of indicted financier R. Allen Stanford’s former company, were sued for $10.7 billion by investors claiming BDO ignored signs of potential fraud.

“Despite the pervasive fraud that infected Stanford Financial Group’s operations, BDO repeatedly issued unqualified audit opinions on its Stanford client’s annual financial statements,” Edward Snyder, a lawyer for Stanford investors, said in a complaint filed yesterday in federal court in Dallas.

Stanford’s companies “needed BDO’s unqualified audit opinions to satisfy securities regulators and to continue recommending” sales of the allegedly bogus certificates of deposit at Stanford International Bank Ltd. in Antigua, the investors said in the complaint.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regulators seized Stanford’s operations in February 2009 on allegations they were involved in a “massive Ponzi scheme” that defrauded investors of more than $7 billion.

“We have yet to be served with the complaint and therefore are unable to comment at this time,” Jerry Walsh, a spokesman for BDO, said in an e-mail. “However, the fact that this complaint was not filed until now — years after the Stanford fraud came to light and after many other investor complaints were filed — reflects a transparent understanding that the allegations lack merit.”

Criminal Charges

Stanford, 61, has been incarcerated since June 2009 as a flight risk after he was indicted on parallel criminal fraud charges. He denies the charges and is scheduled for trial in federal court in Houston in September.

In addition to claims that auditors intentionally concealed fraudulent activity, the investors also contend four BDO executives played key roles in a Stanford-sponsored task force that assisted the Antiguan banking authorities in overhauling their banking regulations in the late 1990s, allegedly weakening them in ways that aided Stanford.

The Stanford task force rewrote Antigua’s money-laundering act “to ensure that ‘fraud’ and ‘false accounting’ did not fall under the Act’s prescribed list of violations,” the investors said. After the laws were rewritten in April 1999, the U.S. Treasury Department issued an advisory warning banks to give Antiguan financial transactions “enhanced scrutiny” because of money-laundering concerns, according to the complaint.

‘Speculative Investments’

The investors also accuse BDO auditors of ignoring signs Stanford’s company was operating as an unregistered hedge fund “illegally disguising itself as a bank.” They claim investors were sold hedge fund shares “disguised as CDs,” and that clients’ cash was pooled by Stanford’s company to make “illiquid, speculative investments” instead of the safe, liquid portfolio promised to clients.

“BDO’s cozy relationship with the Stanford Financial Group was steeped in conflicts of interest and required ongoing deception and duplicitous manipulation of the facts to enable the Ponzi scheme to grow exponentially for over a decade,” investors said in the complaint. “The result is the loss of thousands of investors’ life savings.”

The complaint, which seeks to represent all Stanford investors, was filed on behalf of three Texans who lost more than $3.2 million on certificates of deposit issued by Stanford’s Antiguan bank. They seek $10.7 billion in damages from BDO, which is what they calculate Stanford investors worldwide collectively lost on the Antiguan CDs.

The case is Wilkinson v. BDO USA LLP, 3:11-cv-1115, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).

SIB Gets New Joint Liquidators

Antigua St John’s – The Stanford Investment Bank (SIB) has new liquidators, as decided by Justice Mario Michel of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal earlier this month.

The new liquidators, Marcus A Wide of the British Virgin Islands and Hugh Dickson of the Cayman Islands, replace Nigel Hamilton-Smith and Peter Wastell.

Alexander Fundora is the Stanford International Bank Ltd creditor who led the action to appoint new liquidators.

In a recent statement, Hamilton-Smith said his team is now focused on ensuring a smooth handover, including all in-progress claims, to the new appointees.

He said, “The new liquidators will be able to continue the good work in recovering assets for investors – including land assets in Antigua, funds in Switzerland, funds in the UK, and other asset tracing claims that may arise in the future.”

The former joint liquidators had reportedly been able to agree 12,083 investor claims, totalling more than US$4 billion.

“Our primary aim now is to ensure that this progress is continued,” Hamilton-Smith said.

He advised that SIB investors should contact the new joint liquidators at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it for information about their claims.

The outgoing liquidators had previously provided an investor update on April 18, in which they outlined progress to date.

Wide and Dickson bring more than 60 years’ combined experience in insolvency, and now specialize in offshore entities and complex and contentious cases. Wide in particular has liquidated over 30 failed banks in the Caribbean.