Fifth Circuit Rules Receiver Not Required to Arbitrate $215 million Fraudulent Transfer Claim Against Former Stanford Financial Advisers

On March 16, 2017, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its mandate in Janvey v. Alguire, Case No. 14-10857, bringing to a close a long-running dispute between the Stanford Receiver and more than 300 former Stanford financial advisers who were trying to compel the Receiver to assert his claims against them in arbitration.

The financial advisers had asserted that the Receiver was bound by Allen Stanford’s agreements with them to arbitrate any disputes arising out of their employment with Stanford. In a per curiam opinion, a panel of the Fifth Circuit unanimously held that the Receiver was not bound to those arbitration agreements because he was bringing his claims on behalf of Stanford International Bank alone, a receivership entity that never had any arbitration agreement with the former Stanford brokers.

The Receiver’s lawsuit seeks to recover more than $215 million in fraudulent transfers made to the former Stanford brokers, all of whom profited from the sale of fraudulent Stanford International Bank CDs. In a concurring opinion, Judge Higginbotham colorfully summarized the Receiver’s lawsuit thusly:………….

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

Fifth Circuit Vacates Golf Channel Opinion and Seeks Guidance from Texas Supreme Court

On June 30, 2015, the Fifth Circuit vacated its March 11, 2015 opinion in the Golf Channel case and asked the Texas Supreme Court for guidance regarding the meaning of “reasonably equivalent value” as that term is used in the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Briefing in the Texas Supreme Court will begin on September 16, 2015. The Fifth Circuit case is stayed pending completion of the proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court.

For a copy of the Fifth Circuit’s order, 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/




5th Circ. Says Golf Channel Can’t Dodge $6M Stanford Suit

The Fifth Circuit on Wednesday said Golf Channel Inc. can be sued for about $6 million by the receiver for R. Allen Stanford’s Ponzi scheme because the channel did not provide reasonably equivalent value for ads that Stanford bought, potentially paving the way for dozens of similar clawback suits.

Golf Channel contends the $5.9 million it received from Stanford’s businesses was payment for media services the network performed under contracts that had nothing to do with the Ponzi scheme and therefore was not a fraudulent transfer…

Read the Full Article here including Janvey’s lawsuit against the Golf Channel

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




Chadbourne Loses Discovery Bid In Stanford Ponzi Suit

A Texas magistrate judge on Monday denied a bid by Chadbourne & Parke LLP to force the receiver in a suit brought by victims of Robert Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme to turn over the identities, residences and citizenship of the proposed class members, among other information.

Proskauer Rose LLP and Chadbourne had filed the motion after Chadbourne subpoenaed the receiver in November, requesting him to produce documents they claim are critical to its analysis of the proposed class certification. But U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy…

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/


Ex-Stanford Workers Can’t Force Arbitration, SEC Tells Court

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday asked the Fifth Circuit to find that former employees of convicted Ponzi schemer Robert Allen Stanford cannot arbitrate $215 million in claims brought by the receiver for the fraudster’s various entities, saying arbitration would undermine the reasoning behind receivership.

In an amicus curiae brief, the SEC said that while there is a strong public policy in favor of arbitration, the Supreme Court has found that when mandatory arbitration conflicts with the fundamental purposes of another statutory scheme, courts…

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/