Janvey’s 1st Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim Plan

Here is what we have all been waiting for, the 1st Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim Plan released by Janvey.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/164492760/Doc-1903-1stSchedulereInterimPlan

 

Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic183.html

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

 

 

Advertisements

KLS COMMENT ON ZELAYA DECISION

KLS will appeal the latest decision of Justice Scola of FLSD. Needless to say we are disappointed in the ruling as are the thousands of investors defrauded by Allen Stanford. We believe that the judge did not draw the appropriate distinction between a claim based on a misrepresentation and our claim based on a failure to warn in line with the SEC’s mandatory duty to notify SIPC.

However, this decision gives us an opportunity to squarely resolve this fundamental and historic jurisdictional hurdle so that the litigation can proceed without further review based upon an appeals decision in the fourth circuit.

Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic181.html

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

SEC wins dismissal of lawsuit over handling of $7 billion Stanford fraud

We are awaiting a statement from Gaytri regarding this, she says the Judge totally missed the point of our lawsuits and she is appealing this. we will post Gaytri’s response as soon as we receive it.

(Reuters) – A federal judge in Florida has thrown out a lawsuit accusing the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of negligence for failing to report that the now-imprisoned swindler Allen Stanford was running a $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme.

U.S. District Judge Robert Scola in Miami said the market regulator was shielded under an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act that bars claims arising from misrepresentation or deceit.

The plaintiffs, Carlos Zelaya and George Glantz, said they lost a combined $1.65 million with Stanford, and sought class-action status on behalf of investors who were victims of his fraud. They plan to appeal Monday’s decision, their lawyer Gaytri Kachroo said. SEC spokesman Kevin Callahan declined to comment.

Stanford, 63, is serving a 110-year prison sentence after he was convicted on criminal charges in March 2012 for a fraud that the government said was centered in certificates of deposit issued by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank.

Zelaya and Glantz claimed that the SEC considered Stanford’s business a fraud after each of four examinations between 1997 and 2004, but failed to advise the Securities Investor Protection Corp, which compensates victims of failed brokerages.

The SEC filed civil charges against Stanford in February 2009, two months after the multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme of New York-based swindler Bernard Madoff was uncovered. In a typical Ponzi scheme, investors are promised high or consistent returns relative to the amount of risk taken, and older investors are paid with money from newer investors.

Last September, Scola let the lawsuit against the SEC go forward, saying the plaintiffs could argue that the regulator had breached a duty to report Stanford’s misconduct.

But on Monday, he said the FTCA exception barring claims of misrepresentation deprived him of jurisdiction.

“The plaintiffs claim that they were induced into entering disadvantageous business transactions because of the SEC’s misrepresentation,” he wrote. “The plaintiffs’ cause of action is a classic claim for misrepresentation.”

Their lawyer Kachroo said: “We believe that the judge did not draw the appropriate distinction between a claim based on a misrepresentation and our claim based on a failure to warn in line with the SEC’s mandatory duty to notify SIPC.”

In 2010, the SEC’s inspector general criticized the regulator, finding that it knew as early as 1997 that Stanford was likely running a Ponzi scheme.

Earlier this year, federal appeals courts in New York and California dismissed lawsuits against the SEC by victims of Madoff’s fraud.

The case is Zelaya et al. v. U.S., U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, No. 11-62644.

Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic177.html

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

US SEC judge rules Stanford executives are liable for fraud

By Sarah N. Lynch

WASHINGTON | Mon Aug 5, 2013 6:00pm EDT

Aug 5 (Reuters) – In a victory for federal regulators, an administrative judge has found three former executives who worked for Allen Stanford’s now-defunct brokerage liable for fraud and said they should banned from the industry.

The ruling comes more than a year after Stanford was sentenced to 110 years in prison for bilking investors through a Ponzi scheme with fraudulent certificates of deposit issued by Stanford International Bank, his bank in Antigua.

In her ruling, Securities and Exchange Commission Judge Carol Fox Foelak described as “egregious” the conduct of former Stanford Group Co. chief compliance officer Bernerd Young, former president Daniel Bogar and Jason Green, a former head of the private client group.

Foelak also ordered the three executives to pay fines and forfeit ill-gotten profits.

The SEC’s case against the three executives did not allege they actually knew about Stanford’s Ponzi scheme.

Instead, it hinged on whether they sufficiently ensured that marketingmaterials and other disclosures were adequate for investors.

All three executives have vigorously denied any wrongdoing.

Young, who was previously a regulator with the group now known as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, told Reuters in the summer of 2012 that he took due diligence steps including reviewing quarterly financial statements and reading annual reports about the bank.

But he said in the exclusive interview that Antiguan privacy laws kept him from seeing more details about the investment portfolio, so he relied on the bank’s compliance experts.

“If there is such a thing as a…perfect scam, this was the perfect scam,” Young told Reuters last year.

Foelak ordered Young, Bogar and Green to each pay a $260,000 civil penalty.

In addition, Young was ordered to return roughly $592,000 plus interest. Bogar was ordered to forfeit about $1.5 million, and Green must pay $2.6 million.

Lawyers for both Young and Bogar said they were disappointed in the judge’s ruling and are still considering their options.

If they decide to appeal, the case would first go before the full five-member SEC.

“Mr. Young…is deeply troubled by the initial decision’s disturbing implications for the securities compliance industry and the newer and more Draconian standards that compliance officers may be facing,” said Randle Henderson, Young’s attorney.

“The decision demonstrates the real danger to compliance officers relying upon advice of independent outside counsel, fully licensed and qualified accounting firms and the audited financial opinions they issue, and the sovereign financial regulatory agencies of foreign countries.”

Thomas Taylor, a lawyer for Bogar, said that while he felt his client got a “full and fair hearing,” he disagreed with her outcome profoundly.

An attorney for Green could not be immediately reached.

Friday’s ruling by the administrative judge marked the second big trial victory for the SEC in one week.

On Thursday, a jury in New York found former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. vice president Fabrice Tourre liable for federal securities law violations for his role in a complex mortgage deal that cost investors $1 billion when it failed.

Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic175.html

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