District Court Approves Settlement with Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, Lexington Insurance Company, and Arch Specialty Insurance Company

On May 16, 2017, the District Court approved a settlement agreement by and among the Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, Lexington Insurance Company, and Arch Specialty Insurance Company. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, once the District Court’s order becomes final, the Receivership Estate will receive $65.0 million. Following receipt of the settlement funds, the Receiver will file a motion asking the District Court for permission to distribute the proceeds of the settlement, net of attorneys’ fees awarded by the Court, to Stanford Investors who have claims approved by the Receiver.

To view a copy of the Court’s Order approving the settlement, click here

To view a copy of the Court’s Order approving attorneys’ fees, 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/



Court Approves Receiver’s 4th Interim Distribution Plan

On May 16, 2017, the Court approved the Receiver’s 4th Interim Distribution Plan. A copy of the order approving the 4th Interim Distribution.

To view the Receiver’s 4th Interim Distribution Plan, 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/



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

On April 27, 2017, the Receiver filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, the 16th Schedule of distribution payments under the 1st Interim Distribution Plan, the 7th Schedule of distribution payments under the 2nd Interim Distribution Plan, and the 3rd 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/



EIGHTH REPORT OF THE JOINT LIQUIDATORS OF STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK (IN LIQUIDATION)

To view the Eighth Report of the Joint Liquidators of Stanford International Bank (In Liquidation, 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/



Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Fifth Circuit determines Antigua not subject to U.S. court jurisdiction under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in Stanford Ponzi scheme cases.

Antigua, USA March 27 2017
Frank v. Commonwealth of Antigua and Barbuda, No. 15-10717, consolidated with The Official Stanford Investors Committee v. Antigua and Barbuda, No. 15-10788 (5th Cir. Nov. 22, 2016) [click for opinion]

The Commonwealth of Antigua and Barbuda (“Antigua”) successfully appealed a district court ruling that under certain exceptions to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (the “FSIA”), Antigua was subject to suit relating to its alleged involvement in the Stanford Ponzi scheme. Finding that the commercial activity exception to sovereign immunity was not satisfied and that the waiver exception applied only to claims for which jurisdiction was conceded by Antigua, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s determination that it had jurisdiction over certain claims against Antigua, a foreign nation, and remanded for further proceedings.

The plaintiffs in two putative class actions filed suit alleging Antigua was involved and complicit in the Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Allen Stanford. Stanford owned and operated numerous financial entities, including an offshore bank in Antigua, which he used in his scheme to defraud investors. Plaintiffs alleged that Antigua actively and willingly participated in Stanford’s scheme and knowingly provided Stanford and his businesses a safe harbor from regulatory scrutiny. They asserted that Stanford and Antigua had a quid pro quo relationship in which Stanford paid incentives and bribes and made loans to Antigua and its public officials to ensure that he and his organizations were deemed compliant with relevant local regulations. The two putative class actions were consolidated for appeal solely to address whether, under the FSIA, Antigua is subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts…………

To view the full ruling and a copy of the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and, 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/