Last Update January 5, 2010 The Court today issued an Order addressing the Joint Motion filed by the Receiver and the Examiner concerning the coins and bullion held at Stanford Coins & Bullion. The Court granted all but two aspects of the Joint Motion. A copy of the Order can be viewed HERE. Customers of Stanford Coins & Bullion should monitor the Receiver’s website for information concerning how the Receiver intends to release coins and bullion to customers. The Examiner will also post any information as and when it becomes available. What is New? 1. Fifth Circuit Rejects Receiver's Clawback Claims Against Innocent Investors. The Fifth Circuit on November 13, 2009 rejected the Receiver's clawback claims against innocent CD investors, ruling that such investors are not proper "relief defendants." You may view a copy of the opinion HERE. The case has been sent back to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with the Fifth Circuit's opinion. The Fifth Circuit’s decision puts an end to the Receiver’s attempt to assert “clawback” claims against innocent Stanford CD investors as “relief defendants.” The Receiver is still able to assert fraudulent transfer claims, pursuant to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, against certain Stanford CD investors. The Examiner believes that such fraudulent transfer claims are appropriate only to the extent they seek to recover from investors the “false profits” that such investors received from their Stanford CD investments. Put differently, only those investors who recovered all of their principal, plus some interest, would be exposed to such claims, and the exposure of those investors should be limited to the amounts they received above and beyond their principal investments. The Fifth Circuit’s decision also vacated the freeze on the brokerage accounts owned by the so-called “relief defendants.” The Receiver has indicated (via his website) that he is releasing all previously frozen Pershing accounts that are owned by the investors who were named as “relief defendants.” Investors are free to transfer their accounts and can do so by following the instructions found on the Receiver’s website. www.stanfordfinancialreceivership.com You may view a copy of the transcript of the 5th Circuit argument HERE. Copies of the briefs filed in the Fifth Circuit are available below under “Links to Fifth Circuit Briefs.” 2. Receiver Lawsuits Against Former Stanford Employees. There have been a number of developments concerning the Receiver’s various lawsuits pending against former Stanford Financial Advisors and other employees, as detailed below. a. Receiver Expands Lawsuit Against Former Financial Advisors and Other Employees. On November 13, 2009, the Receiver filed his First Amended Complaint against former Stanford Employees. The Amended Complaint expands the claims initially made by the Receiver against sixty-six (66) former Stanford Financial Advisors and later expanded to reach approximately two hundred sixty former Stanford employees. In this expanded and amended complaint, the Receiver has increased the number of former employees that he is suing and has broadened the claims he is asserting. The Receiver now seeks to recover various forms of compensation paid to some 331 former Stanford employees. You may view a copy of the First Amended Complaint and the Appendix (which identifies the employees named in the suit and the amounts the Receiver alleges he can recover) HERE and HERE. b. Scheduling Order adopted with respect to claims against former employees. On November 16, 2009, the Court adopted and entered a Stipulation and Order concerning the claims asserted against certain of the former financial advisors and other employees. You may view a copy of that Scheduling Order HERE. c. Receiver Files Additional Claims Against Former Stanford Employees. On October 14, 2009, the Receiver filed a new lawsuit (Civil Action No. 09-1946, styled Janvey v. Aitken, et al.,) in Judge Godbey’s court against Christopher Aitken and Stephen Thacker. The suit seeks to recover approximately $11.2 million paid to Aitken and Thacker in or around November 2008 when they became employees of Stanford Capital Management, LLC. The suit alleges that Aitken and Thacker were paid approximately $11 million ($8.6 million to Aitken and $2.6 million to Thacker) in connection with a sale of their “personal goodwill”) to Stanford Capital Management. The suit alleges that the funds paid to Aitken and Thacker were “stolen” from investors in SIB CDs and asserts both fraudulent transfer claims (under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act) and “equitable clawback” claims against Aitken and Thacker as “relief defendants.” You may view a copy of the Receiver’s lawsuit HERE. 3. Pending Fee Applications. There have been a number of developments relating to fee applications that have been filed by the Receiver and the Examiner, as set forth below. a. Receiver Files His Third Application for Fees and Expenses. On October 2, 2009, the Receiver filed his Third Application for payment of his professional fees and expenses, covering the period from June 1, 2009 through August 31, 2009. The Application seeks the payment of $8.864 million in professional fees and expenses; that number reflects the 20% “hold back” amount that the Court ordered at the hearing held on September 10, 2009. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Third Application HERE, and the supporting materials HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. Allen Stanford filed a Response to the Receiver’s Third Fee Application on October 22, 2009. You may view a copy of his Response HERE. The SEC filed its Response to the Receiver’s Third Fee Application on October 26, 2009. You may view a copy of the SEC’s Response HERE. The Examiner filed his Response to the Receiver’s Third Fee Application on October 29, 2009. You may view a copy of the Examiner’s Response, and the materials supporting that Response, HERE, HERE and HERE. The Receiver filed a Reply Brief in support of his Third Fee Application on November 13, 2009. You may view a copy of that Reply Brief HERE. The Court has not indicated when or if it will schedule a hearing with respect to the Receiver’s Third Fee Application. b. The Examiner Files His Second Fee Application. On October 26, 2009, the Examiner filed his Second Fee Application seeking attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amount of $239,258.56 for the period from July 1, 2009 through September 30, 2009. You may view a copy of the Examiner’s Second Fee Application, and the supporting materials, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE. The Receiver filed his Response opposing the Examiner’s Second Fee Application on November 16, 2009. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s response opposing the Examiner’s Second Fee Application, and the supporting materials, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE. The Examiner anticipates filing a Reply Brief in further support of his Fee Application within the next few days. The Court has not indicated when or if it will schedule a hearing with respect to the Examiner’s Second Fee Application. c. The Receiver Files a Fee Application for FTI, FITS, and Ernst & Young. On November 10, 2009, the Receiver filed a Supplemental Fee Application for certain of his financial professionals (FTI, the forensic accountants, FITS, the securities professionals, and Ernst & Young, the accounting firm). Through the Supplemental Fee Application, the Receiver seeks to recover the fees that the Court denied to FITS and the expenses that the Court denied for FTI, FITS and Ernst & Young when it ruled upon the Receiver’s First and Second Fee Application. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Supplemental Fee Application and the supporting materials HERE and HERE. On November 13, 2009, Allen Stanford filed a Response opposing the Receiver’s Supplemental Fee Application. You may view a copy of Mr. Stanford’s Response HERE. The Examiner and the SEC will likely file responses to the Supplemental Fee Application on or around November 30, 2009. 4. Chapter 15 Hearing scheduled. On November 16, 2009, the Court entered an Order scheduling an evidentiary hearing to address the Chapter 15 petition for recognition filed by the Antiguan Liquidators. The hearing will be held on January 21 and 22, 2010. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order setting the hearing HERE. The parties have filed an agreed motion with the Court establishing a pre-hearing schedule in connection with the Chapter 15 hearing. On November 19, 2009, the Court entered an Order adopting the schedule proposed by the parties. You may view a copy of that Order HERE. Further information concerning the Chapter 15 proceedings can be found below (“Petition for Recognition by Antiguan Liquidators of SIB”). 5. Receiver Files Suit Against Rebecca Reeves. On November 10, 2009, the Receiver filed a lawsuit against Rebecca Reeves seeking to recover the proceeds received by Ms. Reeves from the sale of her Florida home that was allegedly purchased with funds provided by Allen Stanford. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s lawsuit HERE. The Receiver has previously filed contempt proceedings against Ms. Reeves and certain of her counsel. Additional information concerning the contempt proceedings is available below (“Motions for Contempt”). 6. Court Approves Bulk Transfer of Pershing Accounts. On November 13, 2009, the Court entered an Order granting the Receiver’s Motion seeking approval for the bulk transfer of brokerage accounts held at Pershing, LLC from Stanford Group Company to Dominick & Dominick, LLP. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE. The transfer applies to accounts that were not subject to the account freeze that, for one reason or another, were never transferred away from Stanford Group Company. Customers whose accounts are subject to this bulk transfer will receive a notice from the Receiver and will be afforded a period of time to arrange to transfer their accounts to other brokerage firms if they wish to do so. Additional information concerning the bulk transfer of accounts is available below (“The Receiver Seeks Authority to Transfer Accounts from Pershing”). In an effort to keep this website current and useful to the Investors, the Examiner has moved various entries to an “archive.” The archived entries no longer have live links to pleadings referenced in those entries. The Examiner has included links to some of the more significant pleadings referenced in archived entries at the bottom of this website. The Examiner has not included links to all of the filings referenced in the archived entries. You may view a copy of the archived entries HERE. Websites Relating to Criminal Proceedings: For Investors in CDs Issued by Stanford International Bank, LTD.: The Examiner has received many inquiries from Investors who purchased certificates of deposit ("CDs") issued by Stanford International Bank, Ltd. ("SIB"). Unfortunately, the news for CD Investors is not good. Both the Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators have concluded that SIB does not have the assets required to redeem all of the CDs it sold, nor to pay interest on those CDs. Investors in CDs will likely recover only a fraction of the amounts invested in those CDs, and the Examiner cannot predict what that recovery might be nor when Investors might receive that recovery. A number of Investors have contacted the Examiner seeking assistance in getting their CDs "released." Those requests have often been accompanied by accounts of the hardships that Investors are suffering because they cannot access the funds they paid to purchase CDs. The Examiner recognizes that Investors are suffering through hardships because of their investment in SIB CDs. However, there is nothing to “release” because, put simply, there are no assets available to SIB to pay interest or redeem the outstanding CDs. Unlike funds put into brokerage accounts, the funds that were transferred by Investors to SIB to purchase CDs were not held, and are not held, in segregated accounts for the individual Investors. Instead, it appears those funds were promptly transferred out of SIB to other Stanford entities. For SIB, the CDs were simply debt obligations (to pay interest and, upon redemption, principal) to the CD holders. SIB cannot meet those obligations. It has been placed into a liquidation proceeding at the instance of Antiguan regulatory authorities. The SEC has alleged that CDs were sold in a Ponzi scheme through which the proceeds of current CD sales were used to make payments on older CDs or diverted to other uses unrelated to the CDs. The U.S. Receiver is working to identify and secure assets that can be applied to the claims of CD holders and other creditors. That process will likely take a considerable period of time, and is unlikely to result in anything approaching a complete recovery for CD holders. CD Investors may provide information to the Receiver concerning their claims relating to their CD investments by completing the Receiver's on-line claim form. The form may be accessed by clicking HERE.
Petition for Recognition by Antiguan Liquidators of SIB:
On April 20, 2009, the Liquidators appointed by the Antiguan Court filed a Motion to Amend or Modify the Court's Amended Order Appointing Receiver in order to permit the filing of a petition pursuant to Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Antiguan Liquidators also filed a Chapter 15 Petition and a Motion to Refer that Chapter 15 Petition to the Bankruptcy Court for determination. You may review the filings by the Antiguan Liquidators HERE, HERE, and HERE. By an Order dated April 22, 2009, the Court directed the parties to file briefs responding to the Motions of the Antiguan Liquidators (but not with respect to the merits of the Chapter 15 Petition). You may review a copy of the Court's Order HERE. On May 11, 2009, the Receiver, the SEC, the IRS and the Examiner each filed briefs responding to the Motions of the Antiguan Liquidators. You may review these materials HERE (Receiver), HERE (SEC), HERE (IRS), and HERE (Examiner).
On May 15, 2009, the Court entered its Order permitting the Antiguan Liquidators to file their Chapter 15 Petition and retaining jurisdiction to decide the merits of that Petition (as opposed to referring the Petition to the bankruptcy court for decision). The Court's Order largely adopts the position advocated by the Examiner. You may review the Court's Order HERE. On May 29, 2009, the parties filed a Joint Status Report with the Court establishing a schedule for submitting briefs concerning the Chapter 15 Petition to the Court. You may view a copy of the Joint Status Report HERE.
On June 2, 2009, the Liquidators filed a Supplemental Declaration by Nigel Hamilton-Smith to support their Chapter 15 Petition. You may view a copy of that document HERE. On June 9, 2009, the Receiver and the SEC filed Responses to the Liquidators' Chapter 15 Petition. You may view a copy of the SEC's Response HERE. You may view a copy of the Receiver's Response HERE. The Liquidators filed their Reply Brief on June 24, 2009. You may view a copy of the Liquidators' Reply Brief HERE. The Receiver filed a large quantity of evidence in support of his response, and the Liquidators similarly filed additional evidence in support of their Reply. The Examiner has not posted those materials because of their volume. On July 8, 2009, the Examiner filed his Brief addressing the Liquidators' Chapter 15 Petition. You may view a copy of the Examiner's Brief HERE.
UK Proceedings On July 3, 2009, the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division in the United Kingdom (the "UK Court") entered its Approved Judgment (the "UK Judgment"). The UK Judgment recognized the Antiguan Liquidators as the "foreign main proceeding" for SIB in the UK. The Receiver has filed a Notice of that Judgment in Judge Godbey's Court. You may view the Receiver's filings with respect to the UK Judgment HERE and HERE. The Antiguan Liquidators have also sought leave to file the UK Judgment and the Order revoking bail for Mr. Stanford in Judge Godbey's Court. You may view the Antiguan Liquidators' filings HERE, HERE and HERE. Canadian Proceedings On September 11, 2009, a court in Montreal, Quebec, issued two judgments through which the Court formally recognized Ralph Janvey, the US-appointed receiver, as the foreign representative of all the Stanford entities in Canada (and contemporaneously denied such recognition to the Antiguan Liquidators with respect to Stanford International Bank, Ltd.). The original judgments were issued in French, and the Receiver has filed official translations of those judgments with the district court in Dallas in connection with the Liquidators' pending petition for recognition. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s filing HERE. The English translations of the two judgments appear as Exhibits C and E within the document. Both the Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators have filed additional briefs and materials relating to the Chapter 15 Petition for Recognition that is pending before the Court. You can view the Receiver's additional filings HERE, HERE and HERE. You may view the Liquidators' additional filings HERE and HERE. The Court has not yet indicated when, or if, it will schedule a hearing with respect to the Chapter 15 Petition.
Customers of Stanford Coin & Bullion, Inc.: On July 29, 2009, the Receiver and the Examiner filed a Joint Motion pertaining to the customers and assets of Stanford Coin & Bullion. The Motion seeks Court approval for the Receiver to return to the customers of Stanford Coin & Bullion virtually all of the coins and bullion held by Stanford Coin & Bullion for the account of its customers. You may view a copy of the Joint Motion and supporting materials HERE and HERE. On August 6, 2009, the Antiguan Liquidators filed a Notice of their partial opposition to the relief sought in the Joint Motion. You may view a copy of the Antiguan Liquidators’ opposition HERE. On August 18, 2009, Allen Stanford filed an opposition to the Joint Motion. You may view a copy of Mr. Stanford’s opposition HERE.
On September 18, 2009, Janet Presson, a customer of Stanford Coin & Bullion, filed a Motion to Extend the time for her to respond to the Joint Motion. You may view a copy of her Motion and supporting materials HERE, HERE and HERE. The Receiver and the Examiner have jointly communicated to the Court concerning the need to decide the Joint Motion so that the Receiver can release to the customers of Stanford Coin & Bullion the assets that remain frozen at Stanford Coin & Bullion, as set forth in the Joint Motion. Neither the Receiver nor the Examiner can predict when the Court will issue a ruling with respect to the Joint Motion. List of Counsel Willing to Represent Investors: The Examiner's office has received a number of inquiries from Investors asking the Examiner for referrals to counsel who might be able to represent individual Investors, or groups of Investors, with respect to various matters relating to their Stanford investments. Because the Examiner was appointed by and is responsible to the Court, the Examiner does not believe it appropriate to refer or recommend specific counsel to any Investors. The Examiner does communicate regularly with a large number of counsel who have various levels of involvement in the various Stanford matters. In response to a request by the Examiner, eighteen different law firms have indicated their willingness to assist Investors with respect to their Stanford investments. One of these firms is located in Peru and is focused upon South American investors. Two are located in Dallas, Texas and are focused upon investors in Latin America. The remaining fifteen firms are located in Illinois, Louisiana, North Carolina and in Texas (Dallas, Houston and San Antonio). You may view a list of these law firms HERE.
Other Court Filings of Interest to Investors:
Additional Stanford Lawsuits Transferred to Judge Godbey. On October 6, 2009, the Judicial Panel on MultiDistrict Litigation issued a Transfer Order in Stanford Entities Securities Litigation, MDL No. 2099, transferring to the Northern District of Texas for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings a number of lawsuits pending across the county. The Order affects three lawsuits already pending the Northern District of Texas, two pending in the Southern District of Texas, and two others pending in the Southern District of Florida and the Middle District of Louisiana. You may view a copy of the Order HERE. The Order gives Judge Godbey the ability to coordinate the discovery and other pretrial proceedings in all seven lawsuits, as well as in any additional lawsuits that may later be transferred to his Court. The Department of Justice seeks to Intervene and to Stay Discovery On July 17, 2009, the Department of Justice filed a Motion to Intervene and a Motion to Stay Discovery. You may view copies of the Motion to Intervene, the Motion to Stay, and the Brief in Support of Motion to Stay HERE, HERE, and HERE. The Receiver responded to the Motions filed by the Department of Justice on August 6, 2009. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s response HERE. On August 21, 2009, the Department of Justice filed a Reply brief in support of its Motions. You may view a copy of the Department of Justice reply HERE. The Court has not yet ruled on the Department of Justice’s Motions. Motion Seeking Release of Financial Advisor Accounts
On July 28, 2009, a group of former Stanford Financial Advisors filed a Motion seeking the release of their frozen Pershing Accounts. You may review a copy of the Motion and supporting Brief HERE and HERE. The Receiver filed his response to the Financial Advisors' Motion on August 26, 2009. You may view a copy of the Receiver's Response, and the Appendix supporting that Response, HERE and HERE. The former Stanford Financial Advisors filed their Reply Brief in support of their Motion on September 22, 2009. You may view a copy of that Reply Brief and supporting materials HERE and HERE. Motion to Sell Yachts “Sea Eagle” and “Little Eagle.” On August 28, 2009, the Receiver filed a motion seeking authority to sell the 50 foot yacht “Little Eagle.” You may view a copy of the Motion and supporting materials HERE and HERE. On September 17, 2009, Allen Stanford filed a response opposing the sale of the “Little Eagle.” You may view a copy of that Response HERE. On September 22, 2009, the Receiver filed a motion seeking authority to sell the yacht “Sea Eagle.” You may view a copy of the Motion and supporting materials HERE and HERE. On October 13, 2009, Allen Stanford filed a response opposing the sale of the “Sea Eagle.” You may view a copy of that Response HERE. On October 28, 2009, the Receiver filed a Reply Brief in support of his motion for authority to sell the “Sea Eagle.” You may view a copy of that Reply and supporting materials HERE and HERE. Stanford Files Notice of Appeal as to Court’s Order on Receiver’s First and Second Applications for Fees and Expenses. Counsel for Allen Stanford has filed a Notice of Appeal with the Fifth Circuit indicating that Mr. Stanford is appealing Judge Godbey’s decision to grant in part and deny in part the Receiver’s Motions to Approve his First and Second Interim Applications for Payment of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses. At the moment, no information is available concerning the schedule for that appeal.
Filings Related to Private Equity Investments
On July 16, 2009, the Receiver filed a Motion seeking the Court’s approval of his retention of Park Hill Group, LLC to assist him in the evaluation, management and disposition of the Stanford entities’ private equity investment portfolio. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Motion and supporting materials HERE and HERE. On July 27, 2009, the Antiguan Liquidators filed an opposition to the Receiver’s Motion seeking to retain Park Hill Group, LLC. You may view a copy of the Liquidators’ opposition HERE. The Receiver filed a reply in further support of his motion to retain Park Hill Group, LLC on August 20, 2009. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Reply HERE. The Court has not yet decided the Receiver's motion relating to Park Hill Group. On July 21, 2009, the Receiver filed a Motion seeking Court approval to sell Stanford’s interests in investments known as the Israel Opportunity Fund I, L.P. and Israel Opportunity Fund II, L.P. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Motion and supporting materials HERE and HERE. On July 22, 2009, the Receiver filed a Motion seeking Court approval to sell Stanford’s interest in Midway CC Hotel Partners. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Motion and supporting materials HERE and HERE. On August 25, 2009, the Court entered Orders authorizing the Receiver to sell the Israeli Opportunity Funds and Midway CC Hotel Partners. You may view copies of the Orders HERE and HERE. On September 24, 2009, Allen Stanford filed a notice of appeal with respect to the Orders authorizing the sale of these investments. You may view a copy of the notice of appeal HERE.
On September 9, 2009, the Receiver filed a Motion seeking authority to sell Stanford’s interests in two additional private equity investments, Insound and MBV. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Motion and the Appendix filed in support of that Motion HERE and HERE. Additional information pertaining to the various private equity investments owned by the Stanford entities can be found below (“Filings Related to Private Equity Investments”). On September 29, 2009, Allen Stanford filed a response opposing the sale of these investments. You may view a copy of that Response HERE. On September 30, 2009, the Court entered its Order approving the sale of these investments. You may view a copy of that Order HERE. On September 17, 2009, the Receiver filed a Motion seeking authority to sell Stanford’s interests in Health Systems Solutions, Inc. (“HSS”). You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Motion and supporting Appendix HERE and HERE. Allen Stanford filed a response opposing the sale of HSS on October 7, 2009. You may view a copy of Mr. Stanford’s response HERE. The Receiver filed a reply brief in support of the sale of HSS on October 23, 2009. You may view a copy of that reply brief HERE. The Court entered its Order granting the Receiver’s motion for authority to sell Stanford’s interest in HSS on October 30, 2009. You may view a copy of that Order HERE. On November 16, 2009, the Receiver filed a Motion seeking authority to sell Stanford’s interest in Senesco Technologies, Inc. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Motion and supporting Appendix HERE and HERE. The Receiver Seeks Authority to Transfer Accounts From Pershing On August 28, 2009, the Receiver filed a Motion seeking authority to transfer approximately 3,500 accounts from Pershing LLC to another brokerage firm (Dominick & Dominick, LLC). The accounts in question are not frozen; they have previously been released from the account freeze but have not been transferred to new brokerage firms (for reasons unknown to the Receiver and the Examiner). You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Motion HERE. Allen Stanford filed a response opposing the Receiver’s Motion on September 17, 2009. You may view a copy of his response HERE. SEC Amends Compliant and Adds Parties On June 19, 2009, the SEC filed a motion seeking leave to file its Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint joins additional parties as defendants in the SEC's action, including Gilberto Lopez and Mark Kuhrt, who are alleged to have been accountants for Stanford-affiliated companies, and Leroy King, the administrator and chief executive officer of the Antigua's Financial Services Regulatory Commission ("FSRC"). FSRC is the Antiguan agency charged with regulating banks in Antigua, including Stanford International Bank, Ltd. You may view a copy of the SEC's proposed Second Amended Complaint HERE.
On July 9, 2009, Mr. Stanford filed a response to the SEC’s motion and opposed the filing of the Second Amended Complaint. You may view a copy of Mr. Stanford’s response HERE. The SEC filed its Reply in further support of its Motion on July 24, 2009. You may view a copy of the SEC’s reply HERE. The Court has not yet ruled on the SEC’s Motion for Leave to Amend. Putative Class Action Filed On July 2, 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of a class of Mexican investors in SIB CDs against Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis Group Holdings, Ltd., and others. You may view a copy of the Complaint HERE.
Motions for Contempt
On July 14, 2009, the Receiver filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Randi Stanford Should Not Be Held in Contempt. The Motion relates to a condominium owned by one of Allen Stanford's entities that is used by Allen Stanford's daughter, Randi Stanford, as her residence. You may view the Receiver's Motion and supporting evidence HERE and HERE. Randi Stanford filed her response to the Receiver’s motion, and a supporting appendix, on August 3, 2009. You may view that Response and Appendix HERE and HERE. On August 13, 2009, Ms. Stanford filed a Motion for Leave to supplement her Response. You may view that Motion HERE and HERE. The Receiver filed his Reply in further support of his Motion on August 18, 2009. You may view a copy of that Reply HERE. The Court has not yet ruled on this Motion to find Randi Stanford in contempt. On August 13, 2009, the Receiver filed a Motion seeking to hold Rebecca Reeves-Stanford and certain of her counsel in contempt. The Motion arises out of the sale by Ms. Reeves-Stanford of her home in Florida. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Motion, supporting Brief, and supporting documents HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. On August 20, 2009, the Receiver filed a supplement to his Motion withdrawing it as to one of the attorneys he originally named. You may view copies of the supplemental materials HERE and HERE. On September 1, 2009, Rebecca Reeves-Stanford filed her response to the Receiver’s Motion seeking to hold her and her counsel in contempt. You may view of copy of her response and supporting appendix HERE and HERE. On September 2, 2009, John Priovolos, counsel to Ms. Reeves-Stanford, filed his response to the Receiver’s Motion. You may view a copy of his response HERE. The Receiver filed his reply brief in support of his motion on September 14, 2009. You may view a copy of that reply brief HERE. Rebecca Reeves-Stanford filed a sur-reply brief on September 29, 2009. You may view a copy of that sur-reply brief HERE. Sale of Real Property Receiver's Motion to Approve Procedures for Sales of Real Property. On May 18, 2009, the Receiver filed a Motion seeking the Court's approval of a procedure pursuant to which he proposed to sell more than fifty (50) pieces of real estate owned by the Stanford entities in the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands. You may view a copy of the Receiver's Motion and supporting materials HERE and HERE. On June 8, 2009, the Examiner filed his Response to the Motion noting his objections to the procedures proposed by the Receiver. You may view a copy of the Examiner's Response HERE. Additional responses were filed on June 8, 2009, by the Stanford Defendants (Mr. Stanford and his entities) and by Trustmark National Bank. You may view a copy of the Stanford Defendants' Response HERE and Trustmark's Response HERE. The Receiver filed his Reply Brief and supporting materials on June 23, 2009. You may view the Reply Brief and supporting materials HERE and HERE. This Motion is now fully briefed and ready to be decided by the Court. Pendergast-Holt Motion to Sell Real Property. On September 28, 2009, Laura Pendergast-Holt and her husband, James Holt, filed a Motion seeking authority to sell certain real property located in North Carolina. You may view a copy of that Motion HERE. The Motion was unopposed. On October 2, 2009, the Court entered its Order authorizing the sale of the property. You may view a copy of that Order HERE. Investor Efforts to Cause a Bankruptcy Filing Since the inception of the receivership, a group of investors represented by the law firm Morgenstern & Blue have twice filed proceedings in the district court through which they sought the ability to cause one or more of the Stanford entities to file bankruptcy proceedings. Those filings are described below. Motion to Modify Injunction.
On September 10, 2009, certain investors filed a motion seeking to modify the Court’s existing injunction in order to permit them to file an involuntary bankruptcy petition against one or more of the Stanford entities. You may view a copy of the Motion and supporting Brief HERE and HERE. On September 30, 2009, the Receiver filed his Response to the Investors’ Motion. You may view a copy of that Response HERE. On October 15, 2009, the investors filed a Reply Brief in support of their Motion. You may view a copy of that Reply Brief HERE. Motion to Intervene Relating to Potential Bankruptcy Filing. Previously, on May 11, 2009, a Motion to Intervene was filed by the same three investors through which they ultimately seek the ability to file involuntary bankruptcy petitions with respect to one or more of the Stanford entities. You may view the Motion and supporting Brief HERE and HERE. On June 1, 2009, responses to that Motion were filed by the SEC, the Receiver and the Examiner. The SEC and the Receiver both opposed the Motion; the Examiner urged the Court to grant the Motion for the limited purpose of conducting further proceedings to determine whether the Investors would be better served by continuing the Receivership in its present form of by permitting the filing of one or more bankruptcy filings. You may view the SEC's Response HERE, the Receiver's Response HERE, and the Examiner's Response HERE. The Movant's filed a Reply Brief in further support of their Motion on June 16, 2009. You may view a copy of the Movant's Reply Brief HERE. The Court has not yet ruled on this Motion, and it is likely now moot because of the passage of time.
Stanford Investor Seeks to Compel Arbitration
On July 8, 2009, Jane Sasser, a Stanford Group Company investor, filed a Motion seeking the ability to proceed with a FINRA arbitration proceeding she filed against her former Stanford financial advisors. You may view of copy of the Motion and Supporting Brief HERE and HERE. Responses to this Motion are due to be filed on or before July 28, 2009. Links to Significant Documents: Fifth Circuit Briefs Brief of Appellant Receiver Ralph Janvey: Click HERE. Brief of Appellees Joseph Becker, et al. (Louisiana Retirees): Click HERE. Brief of Appellee Divo Milan Haddad: Click HERE. Brief of Appellees Jay Stuart Bell, et al.: Click HERE. Brief of Appellees Gaines Adams, et al.: Click HERE. Brief of Appellees Jim Letsos, et al.: Click HERE. Brief of Appellee J.R. Lawson: Click HERE. Brief of Appellees Numa Marquette, et al.: Click HERE. Brief of Appellee Paula Marlin: Click HERE. Brief of Appellee R.S. Torn: Click HERE. Brief of Appellees Thomas and Allred: Click HERE. Brief of the Intervenor Examiner John J. Little: Click HERE. Brief of the SEC, as Amicus Curiae: Click HERE. Reply Brief of Appellant Receiver Ralph Janvey: Click HERE. Reply Brief of Appellees Joseph Becker, et al. (Louisiana Retirees): Click HERE. Reply Brief of Appellees Gaines Adams, et al.: Click HERE. Stanford Insurance Policies Excess Blended “Wrap” Policy: Click HERE. Financial Institutions Crime and Professional Indemnity Policy: Click HERE. Directors’ and Officers’ Liability and Company Indemnity Policy: Click HERE. If you are an Investor, or you represent an Investor, and wish to make contact with the Examiner, it is suggested that you do so via email [STANFORDEXAMINER@LPF-LAW.COM]. You may also contact the Examiner by phone [214.573.2300], fax [214.573.2323], or mail [901 Main Street, Suite 4110, Dallas, Texas 75202], Attn: Court Examiner. If you are an Investor that has submitted an application to the Receiver seeking the release of one or more brokerage accounts, it would be helpful if you would forward a copy of your application materials, and any supporting documents that you submitted, to the Examiner via fax, email or mail.
The Receiver's website is www.stanfordfinancialreceivership.com.
In an Order dated April 20, 2009, the Hon. David C. Godbey, United States District Judge, appointed JOHN J. LITTLE as the Examiner in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank, Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-0298, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (the "Stanford Financial Receivership"). You may view a copy of the Court's Order HERE. You may view a copy of the Court's Order denying various Motions to Intervene, also entered on April 20, 2009, HERE. The Examiner's role is to provide the Court with information concerning the interests of those individuals (or entities) that invested in any financial products, accounts, vehicles or ventures sponsored, promoted or sold by any of the Stanford entities involved in the Stanford Financial Receivership (the "Investors"). The Examiner has been appointed by the Court to convey information to the Court which the Examiner determines would be helpful to the Court in considering the interests of investors. In particular, the Examiner may, from time to time, provide a Report and Recommendation to the Court. The Examiner’s role does not give rise to any attorney-client or fiduciary relationship, or any other duty, between the Examiner and any individual investor, group of investors or any other party. Investors and other parties are responsible for determining the need for, and taking, actions (including the filing of claims and other materials) with respect to any receiver, liquidator, governmental entity or otherwise. Actions of investors and other parties may affect their legal rights and therefore they are encouraged to seek the assistance of a lawyer.
|
