Lawmakers want banks punished over massive Ponzi scheme

Getty Images
Lawmakers are asking a top federal regulator to crack down on several banks connected to a mid-2000s Ponzi scheme, arguing the government hasn’t done enough to get victims compensation.

The lawmakers called on the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to punish several banks for holding funds for Allen Stanford, convicted in 2012 of running the second-largest Ponzi scheme in United States history.

In a letter to acting Comptroller Keith Noreika dated Aug. 8, Reps. Roger Williams (R-Texas), Bill Posey (R-Fla.), Charlie Crist (D-Fla.) and Vicente González (D-Texas) asked the OCC to update them on efforts to hold the banks accountable, compensate victims and prevent similar schemes from happening again.

To view a 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/



Advertisements

Receiver’s 13th Interim Report Regarding Status of Receivership, Asset Collection and Ongoing Activities

On June 1, 2017, 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, 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/



Arbitration. Vacatur. District court refuses to set aside arbitration award based on panel’s document discovery rulings.

In Pershing, the defendant, Pershing LLC, sought to confirm an arbitration panel’s decision that it was not liable to a consortium of Louisiana Retirees who fell victim to a Ponzi scheme orchestrated by R. Allen Stanford. The Louisiana Retirees sought to vacate the award.

Pershing was a clearing broker for Stanford Group Company, a broker-dealer controlled by Allen Stanford that sold worthless securities to the Louisiana Retirees. The Louisiana Retirees claimed that Pershing failed to exercise due diligence in its relationship with Stanford that would have uncovered the scheme. The arbitration panel ruled in Pershing’s favor, and the parties then brought competing actions in the district court to confirm or vacate the decision under the Federal Arbitration Act.

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/



Receiver files 1st Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 4th Interim Distribution Plan

On June 30, 2017, the Receiver filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, the 1st Schedule of distribution payments under the 4th Interim Distribution Plan. 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/



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/