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/



The Texas Supreme Court Rules in favor of The Golf Channel over the Stanford Ponzi Receiver—Ruling will Likely Limit Future Clawback Suits in Similar Cases

Background 

Like many other Ponzi schemes, R. Allen Stanford’s operated by selling Certificates of Deposit and paying an initial group of victims a high return using subsequent investors’ money, all the while taking large portions of the investment funds for himself and his various entities (the “Stanford Entities”). While the Ponzi scheme’s perpetrator and many of his associates were sentenced to prison, hundreds of civil suits were filed in various courts that related to and stemmed from the Stanford Ponzi scheme.

More than seven years ago, Ralph Janvey (“Janvey”) was appointed Receiver for the Stanford Entities and tasked with recovering as much money as possible from the $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme that defrauded over 18,000 people and returning that money to the investors. To achieve this aim, one tool Javney uses is the filing of clawback suits against those companies who were paid by the Stanford Entities but provided no real value in return.

The Golf Channel Case 

The Stanford Entities heavily invested in and marketed through various sporting channels and events. The Stanford International Bank became the chief sponsor of the Stanford St. Jude’s Championship, a PGA Tour event that was held annually in Memphis, Tennessee and broadcast by The Golf Channel, Inc. (“The Golf Channel”)………….

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/



Ponzi Can’t Claw Back Golf Channel Ad Money

AUSTIN, Texas (CN) – The receiver for R. Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme cannot demand the return of $6 million paid to The Golf Channel for advertising, which had “reasonably equivalent value” under Texas law, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The ruling is the first time the high court has weighed in on the notorious Ponzi scheme that involved the sale of phony certificates of deposits…………………..

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/



Litigator of the Week: Gold and Coin Wholesaler Wins Take-Nothing Verdict in Stanford Litigation

Orrin Lea Harrison III

Orrin Lea Harrison III

An Addison-based coin and gold wholesaler won a take-nothing verdict in a fraud case involving ongoing Stanford litigation.

With the favorable outcome on July 10, the wholesale company, Dillon Gage, successfully fought back against a $5.1 million clawback claim. The receiver, who represents claimants who lost assets with R. Allen Stanford’s Ponzi scheme, had filed the lawsuit against Dillon Gage.

Orrin Harrison, who represents Dillon Gage, worked hard during a trial to unlink in jurors’ minds any relationship between Stanford’s Ponzi scheme and his client’s customer.

“We were able to show that our customer was not part of the Ponzi scheme,” said Harrison, of Gruber Hurst Elrod Johansen Hail Shank.

Stanford, a Houston financier behind the Ponzi scheme, was sentenced to 110 years in federal prison after his 2012 fraud conviction.

In a complaint, Ralph Janvey, the receiver for Stanford International Bank, alleged that Stanford Coins and Bullion made $5,120,155.67 in payments to Dillon Gage with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud one or more of its creditors. In addition, Janvey alleged that when Dillon Gage accepted those transfers, it had been notified that Stanford Coins and Bullion was “diverting customer money to try to stay afloat.”

In its answer and at trial, Dillon Gage denied the allegations. A pivotal jury charge instructed the jurors that a debtor’s mere intention to prefer one creditor over another did not indicate fraud.

Kevin Sadler, a partner in Baker Botts’ Palo Alto office, who represents Janvey, did not return a call for this story.

“The receiver has done a great job of shutting Stanford down and seeing fraud under every rock,” Harrison recalled telling jurors at his closing. But the dynamics between his client and Stanford Bullion and Coins were nothing more than “playing the float,” he told the panel members. He compared Dillon Gage’s customer’s action to paying off one credit card using funds available from another card.

In less than four hours of deliberations, the jurors agreed, 7-0, with Harrison’s characterization—enough at least to issue the take-nothing verdict.

Read more Here.

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




Law Firms Pay $5M for Stanford Ponzi

DALLAS (CN) – Two Louisiana law firms will pay $5 million to settle claims they referred clients to R. Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme and gave fake opinions to Antiguan banking authorities.

A proposed class of Stanford investors sued New Orleans-based Adams & Reese, Baton Rouge-based Breazeale Sachse & Wilson and several individuals in Federal Court in 2011.

Court-appointed receiver Ralph Janvey filed a second suit in 2012, accusing the defendants of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting.

Janvey also sued Adams & Reese attorneys Robert Schmidt and James Austin, Breazeale Sachse & Wilson attorney Claude Reynaud and Stanford Trust Co. directors Cordell Haymon and Thomas Frazier.

Janvey said the defendant law firms “embarked on their own campaign to enrich themselves at their other clients’ expense,” and that while providing legal services to Stanford Financial, they referred their own clients to Stanford ……………….
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/