Update on Receiver’s Lawsuit Against Former Stanford Financial Advisors

In March 2017, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that the Receiver is not required to arbitrate his claims to recover payments to former Stanford financial advisors and other Stanford employees of proceeds generated from the sale of Stanford International Bank CDs. Following entry of judgment by the Court of Appeals, the Receiver returned to the District Court to pursue those claims. On June 15, 2017, the Receiver filed an amended complaint, consolidating several previously-filed complaints and identifying newly-discovered payments received by the defendants.

As amended, the Receiver’s complaint now seeks to recover more than $289 million from 313 former financial advisors and other Stanford employees. The Receiver alleges that the payments the defendants received were fraudulent transfers; that the defendants failed to provide reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the payments; and that the defendants did not take the payments in good faith. The Receiver also alleges that the defendants were unjustly enriched by the payments, at the expense of Stanford investors. The lawsuit seeks return of the payments, together with prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees.

The District Court has set the Receiver’s claims for trial beginning in July 2018.

To view a copy of the amended complaint, and a copy of the Court’s scheduling order setting the Receiver’s claims for trial, 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/



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 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/



Texas Supreme Court will weigh in on the Allen Stanford litigation and the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act

The Texas Supreme Court is poised to consider a significant fraudulent transfer case stemming from the Allen Stanford Ponzi scheme. The origins of Janvey v. Golf Channel date back to 2009. In the wake of Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme, the Northern District of Texas appointed a receiver for Stanford and his related entities. The receiver sued the Golf Channel (among others), claiming the nearly $6 million Stanford paid for advertising was a fraudulent transfer under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“TUFTA”).

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/



Victims of Stanford Group still fight for their money

It’s been more than six years since federal agents stormed the offices of the Stanford Financial Group, and more than three years since Allen Stanford was convicted of running a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme. Back in 2009, Stanford’s victims, many of whom had lost their entire retirement savings, held public forums with their elected leaders and pleaded for someone, anyone, to make them whole again.

The victims have been much quieter lately. A website belonging to the Stanford Victims Coalition seems not to have been updated in years, and it hosts a purported link to a Louisiana victims group that leads nowhere. Business Report tried to contact local victims who have spoken out in the past; they either did not return the call or declined to be interviewed, explaining that they’re burned out on talking about their plight.

But the fight to obtain some sort of compensation for Stanford’s victims continues.

“There’s a lot going on,” says Baton Rouge attorney Phil Preis, who is pursuing a class action on behalf of the victims. “I remain optimistic that, within the next six months to a year, there are going to be some major recoveries. I know a lot of people are spending a lot of time trying to make it happen.”

There have been setbacks. Last year, a District of Columbia appellate court ruled that, unlike Bernie Madoff’s victims, people swindled by Stanford were not entitled to money from the industry-funded Securities Investor Protection Corp. because Stanford’s Antigua-based bank was not an SIPC member.

But the Stanford Financial Receivership, headed by Dallas attorney Ralph Janvey, is fighting on many fronts. A number of those claims have been successful, although so far investors have received only a penny or two on the dollar, Preis says.


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/