RECEIVER, INVESTORS COMMITTEE AND CERTAIN INVESTORS FILE SUIT AGAINST GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP AND YOLANDA SUAREZ

On November 15, 2012, the Receiver, the Investors Committee and certain Stanford investors filed a lawsuit against the law firms Greenberg Traurig, LLP and Hunton & Williams, LLP, alleging that those firms, acting through Carlos Loumiet and others, served as the architects of the Stanford Ponzi scheme. The lawsuit also named Yolanda Suarez, a former Greenberg Traurig partner who later served as general counsel to the Stanford Financial Group. The Receiver and the Investors’ Committee have released a statement concerning this lawsuit; you may view a copy of that statement HERE. You may view a copy of the Complaint filed in the lawsuit, and the supporting appendix, HERE and HERE.

JUDGE GODBEY ASSIGNS DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING MATTERS, AND CERTAIN PENDING MOTIONS, TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE E. SCOTT FROST.

On September 24, 2012, Judge Godbey entered an Order generally assigning discovery and scheduling matters in pending Stanford-related lawsuits to Magistrate Judge E. Scott Frost. Judge Godbey also assigned to Judge Frost pending Motions to Dismiss in a number of fraudulent transfer cases brought by the Receiver and/or the Committee. You may view a copy of Judge Godbey’s Order HERE. Judge Frost conducted a status conference concerning the matters referred to him on October 19, 2012. In advance of that status conference, the Receiver and the Examiner filed a joint report addressing the status of the various motions to dismiss that had been referred to Judge Frost by Judge Godbey’s Order. You may view a copy of the joint report of the Receiver and Examiner HERE.

Official Stanford Investors Committee and Receiver Oppose IRS Claim Against Stanford Estate. On August 30, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service filed a Notice of Claim in the Stanford Receivership proceeding alleging a claim against Allen and Susan Stanford for an amount in excess of $433 million. You may view a copy of the IRS Notice of Claim HERE. 

On September 12, 2012, the Official Stanford Investors Committee filed a formal Objection to the IRS Notice of Claim. You may view a copy of the Committee’s Objection HERE. The Objection relies, in large part, upon findings announced by Judge Godbey during a hearing held in January 2012. You may view a transcript of that hearing (which was filed as an attachment to the Committee’s Objection) HERE.

The Receiver, Ralph Janvey, has issued a statement indicating that he will oppose any effort by the IRS to assert that its claim should take priority over the claims of Stanford’s defrauded investors. The Receiver’s statement is as follows:

The Internal Revenue Service filed a "notice of claim" yesterday with the US District Court advising the Court that it is IRS's view that Allen Stanford is indebted to the United States for approximately $432 million in personal tax liability. The IRS intervened in the SEC's lawsuit against Allen Stanford three years ago and asserted the existence of a claim against Allen and Susan Stanford, which at that time was for approximately $226 million in personal tax liability. The U.S. District Court permitted the intervention and retained the authority to adjudicate all aspects of the IRS claim.

It has been the Receiver's consistent position that the IRS claim for Mr. Stanford's personal tax liability cannot take priority over the claims of investors who were victimized by the Stanford Ponzi scheme. Any assets of the Receivership acquired by Mr. Stanford were acquired through fraud and as a result of fraudulent transfers. Accordingly, it is the Receiver's position that there are no assets available to satisfy the IRS's tax claim. Indeed, as Judge Godbey ruled in refusing to allow Mr. Stanford to obtain receivership assets to fund his criminal defense, Mr. Stanford has no assets that are untainted by fraud. The Receiver understands, based on his discussions with Department of Justice officials, that the IRS is of the same view and that the purpose of the IRS claim is simply to ensure that, in the unlikely event that there is any money left after Stanford victims' claims are fully satisfied, such money might be used to satisfy a claim that the IRS may establish against Mr. Stanford, rather than being returned to Mr. Stanford himself. Consistent with this understanding, the Receiver is aware that the IRS has communicated in writing to the US DOJ that the IRS does not intend to pursue a claim against any of the funds that the DOJ, with the assistance of the Receiver, is working to return to the United States from Switzerland, Canada, and the UK. 

If the IRS were to take a contrary position and were to attempt to claim priority over victims with respect to funds marshaled by the Receiver or funds the Receiver receives from the DOJ for distribution, the Receiver would contest vigorously any such claim of priority by the IRS. The Receiver believes that under both applicable state and federal law, monies that SIBL received from investors through fraud, which were later fraudulently transferred to Mr. Stanford personally, cannot be used to satisfy any personal federal tax obligation of Mr. Stanford. Particularly in light of Mr. Stanford's criminal conviction and a jury finding that Mr. Stanford's assets were procured by fraud, the Receiver does not believe the IRS has any factual or legal basis to assert a claim of priority over defrauded Stanford investors.

The Examiner will join the Receiver and the Committee in opposing any effort by the IRS to assert that its tax claims against Mr. Stanford are entitled to any priority over the claims of defrauded Stanford investor/victims. 

Antiguan Joint Liquidators Appeal Judge Godbey’s Ruling in Chapter 15 Proceeding. On August 7, 2012, the Antiguan Joint Liquidators filed their Notice of Appeal concerning Judge Godbey’s ruling on their petition for recognition pursuant to Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

On July 31, 2012, Judge Godbey issued his ruling on the Antiguan Joint Liquidators’ petition for recognition pursuant to Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Judge Godbey granted the Antiguan Joint Liquidators recognition as a “foreign non-main proceeding,” and imposed a number of significant restrictions upon the Antiguan Joint Liquidators as a condition of obtaining recognition. You may view a copy of the Judge’s decision HERE.

Allen Stanford Sentenced to 110 Years in Prison. On June 14, 2012, Robert Allen Stanford was sentenced to 110 years in prison following his March 6, 2012 conviction on 13 of 14 counts in the indictment. You may review a copy of the Court’s Judgment sentencing Stanford HERE. Stanford was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, four counts of wire fraud, five counts of mail fraud, one count of conspiracy to obstruct a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation, one count of obstruction of an SEC investigation and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. Stanford was acquitted on one count of wire fraud.   

COURT GRANTS RECEIVER’S MOTION TO ESTABLISH CLAIM PROCESS AND SET A BAR DATE FOR CLAIMS

On May 4, 2012, Judge Godbey issued an order granting the Receiver’s Amended Motion for Entry of an Order Establishing a Bar Date for Claims. You may view a copy of the Court's order HERE.

The Court's order established September 1, 2012, at 11:59 p.m. (prevailing Central Time) as the deadline for certain claimants to submit a completed and signed Proof of Claim Form under penalty of perjury, together with supporting documentation (a "Proof of Claim Form"), against the Defendants in the Stanford Receivership case. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Notice concerning the claims process HERE.

As a part of the claims process approved by the Court, the Receiver has established a separate website to provide information. That site can also be used to submit proofs of claim. For more information, visit the Stanford Financial claims website at www.stanfordfinancialclaims.com.

The Receiver had originally filed his Motion to establish a claims process and set a bar date for filing claims on November 16, 2011. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s original motion and supporting appending HERE and HERE. Following the filing of that original motion, a number of interested parties filed objections and the Receiver, the Examiner, the Investors Committee and the SEC began a series of conferences and negotiations to address various issues raised by the original Motion.

Those negotiations ultimately led to the filing of the Receiver’s Amended Motion to establish a claims process and set a bar date. You may view a copy of the amended motion and supporting appendix HERE and HERE. Certain parties filed additional objections to the Receiver’s Amended Motion. You may view copies of these objections HERE and HERE. The Receiver filed a Reply Brief in support of his Amended Motion and the Court set a hearing on the Motion for April 25, 2012.  You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Reply Brief HERE. 

During the hearing, Judge Godbey asked the Receiver to provide cost estimates for the professional firms that he proposed to use to conduct the claims process. The Receiver did so in a letter dated April 27, 2012. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s letter providing cost estimates HERE. 

In a related Order, Judge Godbey denied a Motion filed by certain Stanford CD investors seeking an order requiring the US Receiver and the Antiguan Joint Liquidators to agree upon a single claims process. You may view a copy of the Order denying that Motion HERE. You may view a copy of the investors’ Motion HERE.

COURT GRANTS IN PART, RECEIVER'S MOTION SEEKING TO ALTER THE FEES PAYABLE TO THE RECEIVER AND HIS PROFESSIONALS

COMMITTEE STATEMENTS:

From time to time, the Investors Committee will issue statements addressing issues of importance to the Stanford Investors.  All such statements will be made available via the Examiner’s website. 

February 18, 2011 Second Statement Regarding Fraudulent Transfer Lawsuits. Click HERE.

February 16, 2011 Statement Regarding Fraudulent Transfer Lawsuits. Click HERE.

Email the Examiner at StanfordExaminer@lpf-law.com

• Asset Recovery Efforts by the Receiver
• Fraudulent Transfer Actions Against Stanford CD Investors
• Fraudulent Transfer Actions Against Former Stanford Employees
• Fraudulent Transfer Actions Seeking to Recover Political Contributions and Related Payments
• Other Actions to Recover Assets
• Websites Relating to Criminal Proceedings
• For Investors in CDs Issued by Stanford International Bank, LTD.
• Fee Applications of the Receiver and the Examiner
• Petition for Recognition by Antiguan Liquidators of SIB
• Customers of Stanford Coin & Bullion, Inc.
• Investor Efforts to Cause a Bankruptcy Filing
• List of Counsel Willing to Represent Investors
• Asset Sales by the Receiver
• Private Equity Sales by the Receiver
• Receiver's Motion for Reappointment
• SEC Amends Complaint and Adds Parties
• Insurance Coverage Issues and Decisions
• Other Orders Entered by Judge Godbey
• Other Proceedings/Filings of Interest to Investors
• Fifth Circuit Rejects Receiver's Clawback Claims Against Innocent Investors
• Archive of Older Information
• Information Gathering
• Links
• General Information

Asset Recovery Efforts by the Receiver:

Following the Fifth Circuit’s decision rejecting the Receiver’s “clawback” claims against innocent Stanford Investors (addressed further below), the Receiver has now focused his asset recovery efforts upon two sets of claims, both brought pursuant to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. The Receiver is currently pursuing fraudulent transfer claims against more than six hundred Stanford CD Investors and against approximately three hundred former Stanford employees. Both are addressed further below.

Fraudulent Transfer Actions Against Stanford CD Investors:

 What's New? 

Since we last updated this website, the Receiver has filed four (4) additional lawsuits against groups of Stanford CD Investors pursuant to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Those five additional lawsuits are identified and discussed further below. The Receiver has also entered into settlements with additional Stanford CD Investors and has dismissed his claims against certain other Stanford CD Investors who were able to demonstrate that they were not "net winners" as alleged by the Receiver. Those settlements and dismissals are detailed below.

The Receiver has now filed a total of ten (10) separate lawsuits against groups of Stanford CD Investors pursuant to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. In each of these lawsuits, the Receiver seeks to recover CD proceeds paid to Stanford CD Investors, alleging that the payment of such proceeds to the Investors was a “fraudulent transfer.” In all, the Receiver has sued approximatley 870 Stanford CD Investors (or groups of investors) in these lawsuits.

The Examiner believes that such fraudulent transfer claims are appropriate and should be pursued by the Receiver, but 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, should 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 Receiver’s complaints in each proceeding go further, and allege that the Receiver may be entitled to recover all CD proceeds received by the Investors named in the complaints. The Examiner believes that claims to recover all CD proceeds received by an Investor are appropriate only if the Receiver can demonstrate that the Investor was aware of the Stanford fraud or otherwise engaged in some form of wrongful conduct.

Investors who are named as Defendants in the Receiver’s fraudulent transfer complaints should confer with their personal attorneys to determine how best to respond to those complaints. Each Investor named as a defendant is also strongly encouraged to compare the Receiver’s allegations concerning the amount of “CD proceeds” received by the Investor with the Investor’s own records.

Complaints/Responses. You may review copies of the Receiver’s lawsuits, and the appendices filed with respect to each lawsuit (which list the individual Investors named as defendants), below. There have been numerous responses, including multiple Motions to Dismiss, filed in these lawsuits. The number of these filings makes it impossible to post them all. Copies of selected responses to the lawsuits and other significant filings are included below.

Janvey v. Alguire, Civil Action No. 09-CV-0724. Receiver’s First Amended Complaint filed December 7, 2009, (202 Defendants named) HERE; Appendix Listing Defendants HERE.

Answer filed by Louisiana Retirees, HERE.

Motion to Dismiss, Answer and Counterclaim filed by Azalea Rest Cemetery, HERE.

Motion to Dismiss and Answer filed by Gold Wing Partners, HERE.

Receiver’s Motion to Dismiss certain Investor Counterclaims, HERE.

Receiver’s Answer to certain Investor Counterclaims, HERE.

Receiver’s Response to certain Investor Motions to Dismiss, HERE.

Janvey v. Venger, Civil Action No. 10-CV-0366. Receiver’s Original Complaint filed February 23, 2010 HERE (303 Defendants named); Appendix Listing Defendants HERE.

Various Investor Defendants have filed answers and motions to dismiss in Janvey v. Venger. Representative samples are set forth below, together with the Receiver’s responses to those answers and motions (if any).

Motion to Dismiss filed by David and Holly Campbell on April 27, 2010, HERE. The Receiver’s Response to the Campbells’ Motion to Dismiss filed May 28, 2010, and supporting materials, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.  [10-366, Docs. 40, 40-1, 40-2, 40-3].  No reply has been filed and the Court has not yet acted on this Motion to Dismiss.

Answer and Counterclaim filed by Shannon Bundick on May 14, 2010, HERE. The Receiver’s Motion to Dismiss Bundick’s Counterclaim (and others), and supporting Brief, filed June 3, 2010, HERE and HERE. No responses have been filed to the Receiver’s Motion to Dismiss.

Answer and Counterclaim filed by Manuel and Rosalia Antuna on May 14, 2010, HERE. The Receiver’s Answer to that Counterclaim filed June 3, 2010, HERE.

Janvey v. Posada, Civil Action No. 10-CV-0415 Receiver’s Original Complaint filed March 1, 2010, including list (54 Defendants named) of Defendants, HERE.

One Investor has filed a Motion to Dismiss and several others have filed Answers in Janvey v. Posada. The Motion and Answers are essentially identical to those filed in Janvey v. Venger (addressed above), as is the Receiver’s Response to the Motion to Dismiss.

Janvey v. Gilbe Corp., Civil Action No. 10-CV-478  Receiver’s Original Complaint filed March 8, 2010, including list (62 Defendants named) of Defendants, HERE.

Three Investor Defendants have filed answers in Janvey v. Gilbe Corp. Thus far, no Motions to Dismiss have been filed.

Janvey v. Buck’s Bits Service, Inc., et al., Receiver’s Original Complaint filed March 15, 2010, HERE; Civil Action No. 10-CV-528. Appendix listing Defendants(36 Defendants named). HERE.

One Investor Defendant has filed an answer in Janvey v. Buck's Bits; no  Motions to Dismiss have been filed.

Janvey v. Johnson, et al., Receiver’s Original Complaint filed March 29, 2010, HERE; Civil Action No. 10-CV-617.  Appendix listing Defendants (36 Defendants named) HERE.

Two Investor Defendants have filed answers, one of which included a Motion to Dismiss, in Janvey v. Johnson. You may view the Answer and Motion to Dismiss filed June 8, 2010, by Billy and Bernadette Bergeron HERE and HERE. You may view the Receiver’s Response to that Motion to Dismiss, filed June 30, 2010, HERE. No Reply has been filed in support of the Motion to Dismiss.

Janvey v. Barr, et al., Receiver’s Original Complaint filed April 8, 2010, HERE; Civil Action No. 10-CV -725. Appendix listing Defendants (43 Defendants named) HERE.  No answers or motions to dismiss have yet been filed in Janvey v. Barr.

Janvey v. Indigo Trust, et al., Receiver’s Original Complaint, filed April 27, 2010, with Appendix listing Defendants (34 Defendants named), HERE. Civil Action No. 10-CV-844. No answers or motions to dismiss have yet been filed in Janvey v. Indigo Trust.

Janvey v. Tonya Dokken, et al., Receiver’s Original Complaint, filed May 7, 2010, with Appendix listing Defendants (41 Defendants named), HERE. Civil Action No. 10-CV-931.

You may view the Answer filed by Sartin Trust on May 28, 2010 HERE. You may view the Answer and Motion to Dismiss filed by John and Rebecca Adams on May 14, 2010 HERE. You may view the Receiver’s Response to the Motion to Dismiss, filed June 9, 2010, HERE and HERE. On June 23, 2010, John and Rebecca Adams withdrew their Motion to Dismiss. You can view their Motion to Withdraw HERE.

Janvey v. Fernandez, et al., Receiver’s Original Complaint, filed May 18, 2010, with Appendix listing Defendants (65 Defendants named), HERE. Civil Action No. 10-CV-1002. No answers or motions to dismiss have yet been filed in Janvey v. Fernandez.

Settlements. To date, the Receiver has entered into agreements with approximately 82 Stanford Investors to settle the Receiver’s fraudulent transfer claims. Those agreements have resulted in the recovery of approximately $5,800,000 by the Receiver. The Receiver has also dismissed his claims against six Stanford Investors in response to those Investors providing the Receiver with information demonstrating that they did not receive any “net profits” from their Stanford CD investments. The dismissed claims sought to recover alleged "net profits" in excess of $4,800,000.

Fraudulent Transfer Actions Against Former Stanford Employees:

What's New?

The most significant development in the Receiver’s lawsuits against former Stanford Employees was his successful effort to obtain a preliminary injunction to maintain a freeze on accounts holding approximately $24 million in assets. The Receiver filed in the Janvey v. Alguire action (09-724) his Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction on April 19, 2010. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Application and the Appendix in support of that Application HERE and HERE. Initially, the Court denied the Receiver’s request for a temporary restraining order and instead ordered accelerated briefing of the issues pertaining to the request for preliminary injunction. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order entered April 23, 2010 HERE. A variety of responses to the Receiver’s Application were filed by the former Stanford Employees; the most significant are listed and available for viewing below:

Response by the Alguire Defendants (119 former employees) and supporting Appendix; HERE and HERE.

Response by Jason Green; HERE.

Response by the Groesbeck Defendants (43 former employees) and supporting Appendix; HERE and HERE.

On May 24, 2010, the Examiner filed a short response expressing his support for the injunctive relief sought by the Receiver. You may view the Examiner’s Response HERE. On that same day, the Receiver filed his Reply brief in support of his application for preliminary injunction, along with a supporting Appendix. You may view the Receiver’s Reply Brief and supporting Appendix HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.

On May 27, 2010, the Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order maintaining the freeze on the frozen accounts. You may view a copy of the Temporary Restraining Order HERE. On June 10, 2010, the Court entered the Preliminary Injunction sought by the Receiver, continuing the freeze on the various accounts owned by certain of the former Stanford Employees. You may view a copy of the Preliminary Injunction HERE. In the Preliminary Injunction, the Court announced certain conclusions that will be significant to the Receiver’s continuing efforts to recover assets for the Receivership Estate. Among those were the following:

a.  That the Receiver presented “ample evidence that the Stanford scheme . . . was a Ponzi scheme.” Preliminary Injunction at 11.

b.  That the services rendered by the former Stanford Employees, in the context of a Ponzi scheme, do not constitute “reasonably equivalent value.” Id. at 14.

c.  That “not every IRA account is automatically exempt from creditors’ claims,” and that the burden to demonstrate the exemption falls on the accountholder. Id. at 18.

d.  That the former Stanford Employees were not entitled to any offset with respect to taxes that they paid on their Stanford earnings. Id. at 19.

Various former Stanford Employees have filed Notices of Appeal with respect to the Court’s Preliminary Injunction. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the Appellants motion seeking to expedite the appeal and has established an expedited briefing and argument schedule. The Appellant former Employees are due to file their Brief on Appeal on July 13, 2010; the Receiver is due to file his Brief on July 28, 2010; and the Appellants are to file their Reply brief on August 4, 2010. The appeal is tentatively scheduled for oral argument during the week of August 30, 2010.

The Receiver's various lawsuits against former Stanford employees are addressed infurther detail below. In each of these lawsuits, the Receiver seeks to recover money paid to the former Stanford employees as compensation, alleging that all such payments were “fraudulent transfers” because the compensation was paid with funds stolen from Stanford CD Investors. The lawsuits seek to recover six different types of compensation paid to former Stanford employees (upfront, forgivable loans; CD commissions; SIB quarterly bonuses, severance payments, branch manager quarterly bonuses, and PARS payments). In all, the Receiver has sued over 330 former Stanford employees in these lawsuits. Further information concerning these different lawsuits is set forth below. 

Janvey v. Alguire, 09-724. The initial pleading in the Janvey v. Alguire lawsuit named some 66 former Stanford FAs and sought to recover compensation received by those Stanford FAs as a result of CD sales. As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Janvey v. Adams (discussed further below) rejecting the Receiver’s “relief defendant” claims, the Receiver has amended his claims against former Stanford employees and is now proceeding on theories of fraudulent transfer and unjust enrichment. The Receiver’s most recent Complaint (the Second Amended Complaint) in Janvey v. Alguire names more than 300 former Stanford employees as Defendants and seeks to recover six different types of compensation paid to those former Stanford employees.

Many of the former Stanford employees named in this action still had brokerage accounts frozen at Pershing. On January 15, 2010, the Court entered an Order authorizing the partial release of those accounts. You may view a copy of that Order HERE. On March 31, 2010, the Receiver, the SEC and 116 former Stanford employees filed a Stipulation with the Court that extends the deadline for releasing accounts belonging to the former employees. You may view a copy of that Stipulation HERE. On April 6, 2010, the Court entered a second Stipulation and Order authorizing another partial release of those accounts. You may view a copy of that Order HERE.

The former Stanford employees have filed numerous motions to dismiss and/or to compel arbitration in response to the Second Amended Complaint. You may view the various pleadings, motions, and responses below:

Receiver’s Second Amended Complaint Against Former Employees, filed December 18, 2009, HERE.

Appendix to Receiver’s Second Amended Complaint (listing Defendants), HERE.

Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, filed by Pena and Hernandez on January 15, 2010, HERE and HERE.

Motion to Dismiss, filed by Nieves and Perezmora on January 15, 2010, HERE.

Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss, and supporting brief (appendix omitted due to volume), filed by 116 former employees on January 15, 2010, HERE and HERE.

Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration filed by Uloa on January 15, 2010, HERE, HERE and HERE.

Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration filed by 9 former employees on January 15, 2010, HERE and HERE.

Motion to Dismiss filed by 38 former employees on January 15, 2010, HERE and HERE.

Answer filed by 13 severed employees on January 19, 2010, HERE.

Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss filed by Jason Green on January 19, 2010, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.

Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Patricio Atkinson on February 5, 2010, HERE and HERE.

Receiver’s Response to Motions to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss, filed February 16, 2010, HERE.

Receiver’s Response to Atkinson’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss, filed February 26, 2010, HERE.

Reply Brief in support of Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Patricio Atkinson on March 15, 2010, HERE.

Supplemental Brief in support of Motion to Dismiss filed by 11 former employees on March 16, 2010, HERE.

Reply Brief in support of Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Pena and Hernandez on March 17, 2010, HERE.

Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration filed by 9 former employees on March 17, 2010, HERE.

On March 5, 2010, the Receiver filed a Motion for Leave to file a Supplemental Complaint through which he seeks to recover from certain former Stanford employees CD proceeds those employees allegedly received from their personal investments in SIB CDs. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Motion and proposed Supplemental Complaint HERE and HERE. Former employees Pena and Hernandez filed a response to the Receiver’s Motion for Leave on March 17, 2010. You may view a copy of that Response HERE. 

Janvy v. Aitken, 09-1946. 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.” On March 30, 2010, the Receiver filed an Amended Complaint in his lawsuit against Aitken and Thacker. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Amended Complaint HERE.

In late May, the Receiver entered into an agreement to settle his claims against Aitken and Thacker. Pursuant to that agreement, Aitken and Thacker agreed to pay the Receiver $4,065,000 on or before July 2, 2010. Thacker agreed to pay an additional 335,000 on or before December 31, 2011. Pursuant to this agreement, an Agreed Motion to Dismiss the Receiver’s lawsuit was filed on June 10, 2010. The Court granted that Motion on June 15, 2010. You may view copies of the Agreed Motion to Dismiss and the dismissal Order HERE and HERE.

Janvey v. Wealth Management Services, Ltd., 10-477. On March 8, 2010, the Receiver filed a lawsuit against Wealth Management Services, Ltd. (“WMSL”), an entity allegedly owned and operated by former Stanford financial advisor David Nanes. The Receiver alleges that WMSL was paid in excess of $9.8 million between March 2006 and January 2009. The Receiver contends that these payments were fraudulent transfers and seeks to recover them on behalf of the Estate. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s lawsuit HERE. WMSL filed its Answer in the lawsuit on May 19, 2010. You may view a copy of WMSL’s answer HERE.

Fraudulent Transfer Actions Seeking to Recover Political Contributions and Related Payments:

What’s New?

Like the Republican campaign committees, the Democratic campaign committees sued by the Receiver (seeking the return of political contributions) moved to dismiss the Receiver’s claims. Details regarding those filings are found below. Similarly, Ben Barnes and Ben Barnes Group, L.P. have filed a motion to dismiss the Receiver’s claims against them. Details as to that motion are also below.

Janvey v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Inc., et al., 10-346. On February 19, 2010, the Receiver filed a lawsuit against the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Inc., the Republican National Committee, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee through which he seeks to recover contributions in excess of $1.6 million allegedly made by Allen Stanford and others to the various Defendant committees.  You may view a copy of the Receiver’s lawsuit HERE. The Republican committees and the Receiver have agreed to extend to March 30, 2010, the deadline for those committees to answer the lawsuit. The Democratic committees have filed a motion (unopposed by the Receiver) seeking to extend to April 23, 2010 the deadline for those committees to answer the lawsuit.

On March 31, 2010, the Republican committees filed a Motion to Dismiss the Receiver’s action. You may view a copy of that Motion to Dismiss and Supporting Brief HERE and HERE. On April 23, 2010, the Democratic committees also filed a Motion to Dismiss the Receiver’s action. You may view a copy of that Motion to Dismiss and Supporting Brief HERE and HERE. You may view a copy of the Appendix file in support of that Motion HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.

The Receiver responded to the Republican committees’ Motion to Dismiss on May 5, 2010. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Response HERE. The Republican committees filed a Reply brief in support of their Motion to Dismiss on May 26, 2010. You may view a copy of the Republicans’ Reply brief HERE.

The Receiver responded to the Democratic committees’ Motion to Dismiss on May 14, 2010. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Response and the Appendix supporting that Response HERE and HERE.

The Court has not yet ruled upon the pending Motions to Dismiss. The Examiner cannot predict when the Court is likely to rule with respect to those Motions.

Janvey v. Barnes, 10-527. On March 15, 2010, the Receiver filed a lawsuit against Ben Barnes and Ben Barnes Group, L.P. seeking to recover payments allegedly in excess of $5 million made to Ben Barnes and Ben Barnes Group, L.P. for lobbying and consulting services. The Receiver alleges that these payments were made, in part, by various Stanford entities and in part by Allen Stanford. The Receiver contends that these payments were fraudulent transfers that he is entitled to recover on behalf of the Receivership estate. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s lawsuit HERE.

On April 12, 2010, the Barnes Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Receiver’s lawsuit. You may view a copy of the Motion to Dismiss and the Brief in support of that Motion HERE and HERE. The Receiver responded to that Motion to Dismiss on May 3, 2010. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Response and the Appendix in support of that Response HERE and HERE. The Barnes Defendants filed a Reply brief in support of their Motion to Dismiss on May 17, 2010. You may view a copy of the Reply brief HERE.

On May 17, 2010, the Barnes Defendants also filed an Objection and a Motion to Strike certain evidence relied upon by the Receiver in his response. You may view a copy of the Defendants’ Objection and Motion to Strike HERE. The Receiver responded to the Objection and Motion to Strike on June 7, 2010. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s response HERE.

The Court has not ruled on any of the motions currently pending the Janvey v. Barnes. The Examiner cannot predict when the Court is likely to rule with respect to those Motions.  

Other Actions to Recover Assets:

What's New?

On April 23, 2010, the Receiver filed an action against Interim Executive Management, Inc. (“IEM”) seeking to recover over $4 million dollars paid to IEM by Stanford entities between 2006 and 2009. The lawsuit is pending as Civil Action No. 10-CV-00829, Janvey v. Interim Executive Management, Inc. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Original Complaint HERE. IEM has not yet appeared in this action.

Janvey v. Reeves, 09-2151. On November 11, 2009, the Receiver filed a lawsuit against Rebecca Reeves, a Florida resident with whom Allen Stanford had a long relationship and two children. In the lawsuit, the Receiver seeks to recover assets allegedly transferred to Ms. Reeves by Stanford, including the proceeds of a Florida home in which Ms. Reeves resided (and which she apparently sold after the appointment of the Receiver). You may view a copy of the Receiver’s lawsuit HERE. Ms. Reeves has filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit and a supporting affidavit, which you may view HERE and HERE. The Receiver has responded to that Motion to Dismiss and has filed a Motion to Strike Ms. Reeves’ affidavit. You may view the Receiver’s Response HERE and HERE; you may view the Motion to Strike the affidavit HERE. The Court has not yet ruled upon these Motions, and the Examiner has no information concerning when such a ruling might be expected.

The Court has entered a scheduling order setting the Reeves lawsuit for trial on December 6, 2010. You may view a copy of the Scheduling Order HERE. The Receiver served Ms. Reeves with requests for written discovery in early May, 2010. Ms. Reeves apparently has not responded to these requests, and instead filed a Motion to Stay Discovery. You may review a copy of the Motion to Stay Discovery HERE. You may review the Receiver’s Response to the Motion to Stay Discovery HERE. The Court has not ruled upon the Motion to Stay Discovery.

The Receiver had previously filed a motion seeking to hold Ms. Reeves in contempt of court for her actions in connection with the sale of her Florida home.  That motion, which is described in further detail below (“Motions for Contempt”), was denied by the Court as moot in an order entered January 4, 2010.

Websites Relating to Criminal Proceedings:

The Examiner is providing links to the Department of Justice’s Victim Notification System website so that you can receive case updates and information about future court proceedings in United States v. Robert Allen Stanford et al. and United States v. James M. Davis, including the dates of public court proceedings that will occur in the near future. The website for the Victim Notification System can be accessed at this link: www.usdoj.gov/criminal/vns. The website for United States v. Robert Allen Stanford is at this link: www.usdoj.gov/criminal/vns/caseup/stanfordr.html. The website for United States v. James M. Davis is at this link: www.usdoj.gov/criminal/vns/caseup/davisj.html. The website for United States v. Laura Pendergast-Holt is at this link: www.usdoj.gov/criminal/vns/caseup/pendergest-holt.html.

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.

Fee Applications of the Receiver and the Examiner:

What's New?

On June 28, 2010, the Examiner filed his Fourth Application for Fees and Expenses. The Fourth Application seeks the payment of $161,373.34 in professional fees and expenses incurred by the Examiner and his law firm during the period from February 1, 2010 through May 31, 2010. You may view a copy of the Examiner’s Fourth Application and the supporting materials HERE and HERE. Prior to the filing of his Fourth Application, the Examiner met with the Receiver and the SEC and resolved any objections they had with respect to his Fourth Application. Accordingly, the Examiner submitted with his Fourth Application an Agreed Order reflecting the agreement of the Examiner, the Receiver and the SEC with respect to the amounts sought in the Fourth Application. You may view a copy of the Agreed Order HERE.The Court has not yet acted with respect to the Examiner’s Fourth Application.

On May 14, 2010, the Receiver filed his Sixth Application for Fees and Expenses. The Sixth Application seeks the payment of $3,161,041.28 in professional fees and expenses, covering the period from January 1, 2010 through February 28, 2010. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Sixth Application and the supporting materials HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE. Prior to the filing of this Sixth Application, the Receiver had met with both the Examiner and the SEC and had negotiated to resolve any objections raised with respect to his Sixth Application. Accordingly, the Receiver submitted with his Sixth Application an Agreed Order reflecting the agreement of the Receiver, the Examiner and the SEC with respect to the amounts sought in the Sixth Application. Allen Stanford filed his Response to the Receiver’s Sixth Fee Application on June 4, 2010. You may view a copy of Mr. Stanford’s Response HERE The Court entered its Order approving the Receiver’s Sixth Fee Application on June 22, 2010. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE.

On April 16, 2010, the Court entered its Order approving the agreement reached by the Receiver, the Examiner and the SEC with respect to the Receiver’s Fifth Application for Fees and Expenses and the Examiner’s Third Application for Fees and Expenses (addressed in further detail below). You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE.

On March 11, 2010, the Receiver filed his Fifth Application for payment of his professional fees and expenses, covering the period from October 1 through December 31, 2009. The Fifth Application seeks the payment of $4,764,753.22 in professional fees and expense; that number reflects both the 20% “hold back” amount that the Court ordered at the hearing held on September 10, 2009 and an additional 5% “hold back” amount as to the fees and expenses of FTI that was agreed upon by the Receiver, the Examiner and the SEC. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Fifth Application HERE, and the supporting materials HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

On March 12, 2010, the Examiner filed his Third Application for the payment of his professional fees and expenses, covering the period from October 1, 2009 through January 31, 2010. The Examiner’s Third Application sought the payment of fees and expenses in the amount of $174,452.58. You may view a copy of the Examiner’s Third Fee Application and supporting materials HERE and HERE.

Pursuant to the agreement they reached with respect to the Receiver’s Fifth Application and the Examiner’s Third Application, the Receiver, the Examiner and the SEC jointly submitted a proposed agreed order with respect to those applications. Pursuant to the terms of that agreed order, the Receiver’s Fifth Fee Application would be approved, subject to the 20% “hold back” previously imposed by the Court plus an additional 5% “hold back” with respect to the fees and expenses of FTI. The Examiner’s Third Fee Application would also be approved, subject to a 2% “hold back” with respect to the Examiner’s fees and expenses.

Petition for Recognition by Antiguan Liquidators of SIB:

What's New? 

When we last updated this website (April 1), the Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators were engaged in negotiations concerning the Liquidators’ pending motion for recognition pursuant to Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. During the past three months, five significant (and somewhat inter-related) events occurred with respect to those negotiations and, more generally, the cross-border proceedings involving the Receivership.

First, on May 19, 2010, the Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators filed a Joint Motion seeking the Court’s approval of an agreement reached between the Receiver and the Liquidators to resolve the pending Chapter 15 petition and to also resolve on-going litigation between the Receiver and the Liquidators in Canada, the United Kingdom and Antigua. Briefly, the parties agreed that the Receiver would be entitled to possess and administer any Stanford assets found in the United States and in Canada, and that the Antiguan Liquidators would be entitled to possess and administer any Stanford assets found in the United Kingdom and in Antigua. Assets found in other jurisdictions, including but not limited to Switzerland, were not affected by the agreement. The agreement further provided that it would not be effective until approved by both Judge Godbey and the Antiguan Court. You may view a copy of the parties’ Joint Motion and Stipulation of Settlement HERE and HERE. On June 9, 2010, certain Stanford investors represented by the Morgenstern & Blue law firm filed objections to the settlement agreement between the Receiver and the Liquidators. You may view a copy of the investors’ objections HERE.

Second, on June 8, 2010, the Antiguan court entered an Order removing Nigel Hamilton-Smith and Peter Wastell as the Liquidators of SIB. On that same date, Switzerland’s financial markets regulatory authority entered an Order recognizing the Liquidators as the appropriate foreign representatives of SIB (and denying such recognition to the Receiver). On June 18, 2010, the Liquidators filed a Notice informing Judge Godbey of both decisions. You may view the Liquidators’ Notice, as well as the Antiguan and Swiss decisions, HERE.

Third, in response to the Antiguan decision removing the Antiguan Liquidators, the Receiver, the Liquidators, the SEC and the Examiner filed on June 18, 2010, a joint motion seeking to stay further proceedings regarding the proposed settlement between the Liquidators and the Receiver. You may view a copy of the joint motion HERE. On June 21, 2010, the Court entered its Order on the joint motion; in that Order, the Court denied without prejudice the motion to approve the settlement. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE.

Fourth, on June 29, 2010, various press reports indicated that Vantis (the employer of the Antiguan Liquidators) had placed itself into “administration” and would be administered by FTI Consulting (which also serves as the Receiver’s forensic accounting firm). On June 30 and July 1, 2010, further press reports indicated that certain Vantis business units had been purchased by RSM Tenon and that Vantis Business Recovery Services, the business unit responsible for the Liquidation of SIB, had been sold to certain of its managers in a management buy-out.

The uncertainty concerning whether Messrs. Hamilton-Smith and Wastell will continue as the Liquidators of SIB, and whether Vantis Business Recovery Services can remain a viable business, make it impossible to determine at this time whether the agreement reached between the Receiver and Messrs. Hamilton-Smith and Wastell will ever be implemented.

The history and background of the Chapter 15 proceedings, and the agreement between the Receiver and the Liquidators, is set forth below.

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.

Both the Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators filed additional briefs and materials relating to the Chapter 15 Petition for Recognition. You can view the Receiver's additional filings HERE, HERE and HERE. You may view the Liquidators' additional filings HERE and HERE.

On November 16, 2009, the Court issued an Order scheduling a hearing on the Chapter 15 Petition for Thursday, January 21, 2010, beginning at 9:00 a.m. The Court’s Order contemplated a two-day hearing with respect to the Petition. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order setting the hearing HERE. On November 19, 2009, the Court entered a second Order establishing a schedule for the disclosure of certain information and the filing of additional briefs in anticipation of the hearing on January 21, 2010. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order addressing scheduling HERE.

In response to the Court’s scheduling order, the Antiguan Liquidators filed a Second Supplemental Brief with supporting materials on December 3, 2009. You may view the materials filed by the Antiguan Liquidators HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.

The SEC filed a Supplemental Opposition to the Chapter 15 Petition on December 17, 2009. You may view a copy of the SEC’s filing HERE.

The Receiver filed materials responsive to the Antiguan Liquidators’ Second Supplemental Brief on December 17 and 18, 2009. On December 17, the Receiver filed his Response to the Antiguan Liquidators’ Second Supplemental Brief. You may view those materials HERE and HERE. On December 18, 2009, the Receiver filed a Notice of certain judgments entered in Canadian proceedings in favor of the Receiver and against the Antiguan Liquidators. You may view those materials HERE and HERE.

In late December and early January, counsel for the Receiver, the Antiguan Liquidators, the SEC and the Examiner conferred concerning the hearing scheduled for January 21, 2010 and the possibility of reaching an agreement between the Receiver and the Antiguan Liquidators that would resolve certain issues in dispute and eliminate the need for a hearing. Those negotiations are on-going. In light of those negotiations, the Court issued an Order cancelling the hearing set for January 21, 2010, and issued a subsequent Order staying all proceedings relating to the Chapter 15 Petition. You may view copies of these Orders HERE and 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.

The Antiguan Liquidators sought permission to appeal the judgments referenced above; the Receiver responded by seeking to have the appeal dismissed. On December 17, 2009, the Canadian Court of Appeal issued its Judgment denying the Antiguan Liquidators request for permission to appeal and granting the Receiver’s motion seeking to dismiss the appeal. You may view a copy of that decision HERE.

Customers of Stanford Coin & Bullion, Inc.:

What's New?

By July 1, 2010, the Receiver had returned virtually all of the coins & bullion that were to be returned pursuant to the Court’s January 5, 2010 Order authorizing the return of coins & bullion to the customers who had purchased them. Information concerning the joint motion that led to the Court’s January 5, 2010 Order has been moved to the archives of this website and can be accessed via the archive section below. Any customer of Stanford Coin & Bullion who has not received coins or bullion that had been ordered and paid for prior to the Order appointing the Receiver should contact the Examiner’s office via email and provide the Examiner with details concerning that customer’s claims.

On April 28, 2010, a Motion to Intervene was filed by Homer Bunker, a customer of Stanford Coin & Bullion whose claims were deferred by the Court in its January 5, 2010 Order. You may view a copy of this Motion to Intervene and supporting materials HERE, HERE and HERE. The Examiner did not oppose the Motion to Intervene and believes that Mr. Bunker should be heard with respect to his claims against Stanford Coin & Bullion. The Receiver has not yet filed a response to Mr. Bunker’s motion.

The Examiner understands that the Receiver is attempting to resolve the claims asserted by customers like Mr. Bunker who ordered and paid for coins or bullion prior to the Court’s Order appointing the Receiver. The Examiner further understands that the Receiver has entered into settlement agreements with a few of these customers, and that additional efforts to resolve these claims are on-going.

Investor Efforts to Cause a Bankruptcy Filing:

What's New?

Not much. As noted below, the Receiver, the SEC, the Examiner and the Movants filed a proposed stipulation in late March 2010 that would create an Investors Committee to participate in these proceedings. No objections have been filed with respect to that proposed stipulation, but the Court thus far has not taken any action to approve or reject the stipulation. The Examiner has no information concerning why the Court has not acted, and cannot predict when the Court might act with respect to the proposed stipulation.

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.

On January 5, 2010, the Court issued an Order setting a February 11 hearing on the Motion to Modify Injunction. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE. In advance of that hearing, the Examiner filed his Report No. 2 on February 3, 2010, raising certain issues that the Examiner felt needed to be addressed by the Movants and the Receiver in advance of, or at, the hearing. You may view a copy of the Examiner’s Report No. 2 HERE. The Receiver filed a Supplemental Brief in support of his position with respect to the Motion on February 8, 2010. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Supplemental Brief and supporting materials HERE and HERE. The Movants and the SEC also filed Supplemental Briefs on February 10, 2010. You may view a copy of the Movants’ Supplemental Brief HERE (the Movants’ appendix has been omitted due to its volume). You may view a copy of the SEC’s Supplemental Brief HERE.

The Court held the hearing as scheduled on February 11, 2010. You may review a transcript of that hearing HERE.

Beginning in late February, the Receiver, the Movants, the Examiner and the SEC engaged in negotiations to attempt to resolve the issues raised by the Motion to Modify Injunction. Those negotiations resulted in an agreement to resolve the Motion by creating a committee of Stanford CD Investors that would function in a manner similar to “creditors’ committees” in bankruptcy proceedings. On March 26, 2010, the Receiver, the Movants, the Examiner and the SEC jointly filed a proposed Stipulation and Order to resolve the Motion by creating a Committee to represent the interests of Stanford CD Investors. Pursuant to the proposed Stipulation and Order, the Committee will consist of the Examiner and six other members representing a cross-section of Stanford CD Investors. The members will be chosen collectively by the Movants, the Receiver and the Examiner. You may view a copy of the proposed Stipulation and Order HERE and 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. On January 5, 2010, the Court entered an Order denying the Motion to Intervene as moot. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE.

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.

Asset Sales by the Receiver:

What's New?

On May 7, 2010, the Receiver filed a Motion for an Order confirming his sale of certain real property in Coral Gables, Florida. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Motion and Supporting Appendix HERE and HERE. On May 28, 2010, Mr. Stanford filed an objection to the sale of the Coral Gables property. You may view a copy of Mr. Stanford’s objection HERE. On June 11, 2010, the Court entered its Order approving the sale of the Coral Gables property on the terms proposed by the Receiver. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE.

On July 2, 2010, the Receiver filed a Motion for an Order confirming his sale of the Stanford headquarters building located at 5050 Westheimer in Houston, Texas. You may view a copy of the Motion and Supporting Appendix HERE and HERE. No responses have been filed with respect to the Motion at this time.

Briefing has been completed with respect to Susan Stanford’s request for an evidentiary hearing to address her claim to one-half the proceeds from the sale of the “Sea Eagle” and the “Little Eagle.” See paragraph b. below. On April 16, 2010, the Receiver, the SEC and the Examiner each filed responses to Ms. Stanford’s Motion for an evidentiary hearing. You may view the Receiver’s Response HERE, the SEC’s Response HERE, and the Examiner’s Response HERE. Susan Stanford filed a Reply Brief on May 7, 2010. You may view a copy of that Reply Brief HERE. The Examiner cannot predict when the Court might address Ms. Stanford’s Motion.

Information concerning prior assets sales by the Receiver is set forth below:

a. Sale of Assets Relating to Panama Operations: Almost immediately after the appointment of the Receiver, governmental authorities in Panama assumed “administrative control and operation” of the Stanford-owned assets located in Panama, including a bank and a brokerage business. As a result of extended negotiations with the Panamanian authorities, the Receive was able to remain involved in efforts by those authorities to sell the bank, the brokerage business, and certain related real estate holdings in Panama. On January 22, 2010, the Receiver filed a Motion and Brief seeking the Court’s approval of a private sale of those Panama-based assets. You may view copies of the Receiver’s filings HERE, HERE and HERE. The Receiver’s Motion was opposed only by Allen Stanford. You may view a copy of Mr. Stanford’s opposition HERE. The Receiver filed a Reply Brief in further support of his Motion on February 10, 2010. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Reply materials HERE and HERE. The Court entered its Order approving the sale of the Panamanian assets on February 10, 2010. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order approving the sale HERE.

b. Sale of 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.

On February 19, 2010, Susan Stanford filed objections to the sale of both the “Sea Eagle” and the “Little Eagle,” asserting that she held a community property interest in both vessels or their proceeds as a result of her 30-plus year marriage to Allen Stanford. You may view a copy of Mrs. Stanford’s objection to the sales HERE.

On February 24, 2010, the Court entered its Order authorizing the Receiver to sell both the “Sea Eagle” and the “Little Eagle,” but the Court also directed the Receiver to “sequester one-half of the proceeds of both sales” pending the Court’s disposition of Mrs. Stanford’s community property claims to those proceeds. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE.

On March 26, 2010, Mrs. Stanford filed a Motion seeking an evidentiary hearing with respect to her community property claim to the proceeds of the “Sea Eagle” and the “Little Eagle.” You may view a copy of that Motion HERE.

c. Sale of Hawker Aircraft: On December 11, 2009, the Receiver filed a Motion seeking Court approval for the sale by the Receiver of a Hawker 600A aircraft. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Motion and supporting materials HERE and HERE. The Receiver’s Motion was opposed only by Mr. Stanford. You may review a copy of Mr. Stanford’s objection to the proposed sale HERE. The Receiver filed a Reply Brief and further supporting materials in support of the proposed sale. You may view that Reply and supporting materials HERE and HERE. On February 5, 2010, the Court entered an Order approving the Receiver’s sale of the Hawker aircraft. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE.

d. Efforts to Sell 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.

On January 26, 2010, the Court entered its Order approving the Receiver’s proposed procedure for selling real property. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE.

Private Equity Sales by the Receiver:

What's new?

On April 7, 2010, the Receiver filed a Motion seeking approval of his sale of three different private equity interests (in U.S. Farm & Ranch Supply, Inc., Merchants Commercial Bank and DGSE Companies, Inc.). You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Motion and supporting Appendix HERE and HERE. The Examiner did not oppose the sales proposed by the Receiver. Mr. Stanford filed an objection to the proposed sales on April 28, 2010. You may view a copy of Mr. Stanford’s objections HERE. On May 12, 2010, the Court entered its Order approving the sales proposed by the Receiver. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE.

Information concerning prior efforts to sell private equity interests owned by the Stanford entities are detailed below.

a. Retention of Park Hill Group, LLC. 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. The Court has not yet decided the Receiver's motion relating to Park Hill Group. On December 10, 2009, the Court entered its Order authorizing the Receiver to retain Park Hill Group, LLC to assist him with respect to the private equity investment portfolio. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE.

b. Sale of Israel Opportunity Fund holdings. 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. That appeal has been fully briefed,has not been scheduled for argument, and is still pending.

c. Sale of Insound and MBV. 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.

d. Sale of Health System Solutions. 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.

e. Sale of Senesco Technologies. 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. Responses to that Motion were filed by Mr. Stanford and by the Antiguan Liquidators. You may view a copy of Mr. Stanford’s response HERE, and a copy of the Antiguan Liquidators’ response HERE. The Receiver filed a Reply in further support of his motion on December 21, 2009. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Reply HERE. The Court entered its Order approving the sale of Senesco on January 28, 2010. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE.

f. Sale of TUG, Spring Creek and SSM Interests. On January 20, 2010, the Receiver filed a Motion seeking authority to sell Stanford’s interests in three different private equity ventures: The Ultimate Gift, LLC (“TUG”), which owned rights to a film by the same name; Spring Creek Ranch Club and certain affiliated entities, which owned a golf course development some forty minutes outside of Memphis, Tennessee; and two investment funds managed by SSM Partners that invested primarily in regional health care companies. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Motion and supporting materials HERE and HERE. Mr. Stanford filed a response objecting to the proposed sale. You may view a copy of Mr. Stanford’s response HERE. The Court entered its Order approving the Receiver’s sale of these three investment interests on March 26, 2010. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE.

Receiver's Motion for Reappointment:

On January 14, 2010, the Receiver and the SEC filed a Joint Motion seeking the reappointment of the Receiver and the modification of certain terms within the Amended Order Appointing Receiver. The reappointment was necessary in order to permit the Receiver to establish the Court’s jurisdiction in various federal districts where he had determined Stanford assets might be found. The Motion, as filed, was not opposed by the Examiner. You may view a copy of the materials filed with respect to the Joint Motion, along with the Receiver’s motion to accelerate briefing and consideration of the Motion, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Initially, Allen Stanford filed a Response objecting to the Receiver’s motion to accelerate. You may view a copy of Mr. Stanford’s response to that Motion HERE. On January 20, 2010, the Court entered its Order denying the motion to accelerate. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE.

The Joint Motion drew considerable attention from the Stanford defendants, the investors and others. You may view the various filings in response to the Joint Motion below:

Notice of Certain SIB Depositors support for the Motion, filed by the Law Offices of Stephen F. Malouf, P.C., HERE.

Class Representatives Objection to the Motion and supporting Brief (Appendix omitted because of volume), HERE and HERE.

Louisiana Retirees Motion for Leave and proposed Brief opposing Joint Motion (Appendix omitted because of volume), HERE and HERE.

Allen Stanford Objection to Joint Motion, HERE.

Rupert Plaintiffs Objection to the Joint Motion (Appendix omitted because of volume), HERE.

Bukrinsky Joinder in Objection to the Joint Motion, HERE.

Holt Opposition to the Joint Motion, HERE.

In response to the opposition generated by the Joint Motion, the SEC and the Receiver filed a Reply Brief through which they narrowed considerably the relief sought in the Motion, eliminating substantially all of the modifications that drew objections. You may view a copy of the Reply Brief and the revised Order sought by the Receiver and the SEC HERE and HERE. The Court has not yet acted upon the revised relief sought by the Joint Motion.

SEC Amends Complaint and Adds Parties:

What's New?

Defendant Mark Kuhrt filed his answer to the SEC’s Second Amended Complaint on June 18, 2010. You may view a copy of Mr. Kuhrt’s answer HERE. 

You may view a copy of the SEC's Second Amended Complaint HERE.

Laura Pendergast-Holt filed her Answer to the Second Amended Complaint on March 4, 2010. You may view a copy of Ms. Holt’s Answer HERE. Gilbert Lopez filed his Answer to the Second Amended Complaint on March 26, 2010. You may view a copy of Mr. Lopez’s Answer HERE.

Mr. Stanford filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and supporting Brief on February 18, 2010. You may view copies of the Motion and Brief HERE and HERE. The SEC filed its Response to Mr. Stanford’s Motion to Dismiss on March 11, 2010. You may view a copy of the SEC’s Response HERE. Mr. Stanford filed a Reply Brief in support of his Motion on March 29, 2010. You may view a copy of Mr. Stanford’s Reply HERE. The Examiner cannot estimate or predict when the Court may rule upon Stanford’s Motion to Dismiss.

Insurance Coverage Issues and Decisions:

What's New?

In a word, confusion. As noted below, the arena for the insurance coverage fight between the individual Stanford defendants and Lloyds of London has shifted from Judge Godbey’s Court to Judge Hittner’s Court in Houston to the Fifth Circuit and then back to district court in Houston. In its decision, the Fifth Circuit expressly directed the presiding judge in the Southern District of Texas to assign the coverage lawsuit to a judge other than Judge Hittner, and expressed its intention that the coverage issues be determined expeditiously. As a result, the coverage lawsuit (Pendergest-Holt v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, et al.) is now pending before the Hon. Nancy Atlas in the Southern District of Texas.

Shortly after the insurance coverage action was assigned to her, Judge Atlas issued an Order denying Lloyds’ motion to vacate the injunction issued by Judge Hittner. You may view a copy of Judge Atlas’s Order HERE. Approximately one month later, she issued an Opinion addressing certain preliminary issues important to the insurance coverage dispute, including that the insurers would bear the burden of proof that the Money Laundering exclusion upon which they rely applies. You may view a copy of Judge Atlas’s Opinion on these matters HERE.  Judge Atlas has scheduled a hearing to determine whether the injunction ordered by Judge Hittner should stay in place on August 24, 2010. You may view a copy of Judge Atlas’s scheduling order HERE.

The pending insurance coverage action has given rise to some ancillary proceedings in Judge Godbey’s court. First, on June 2, 2010, Mr. Stanford sent a letter to Judge Atlas in which he claimed, among other things, that the lawyers for Lloyds of London (the Akin Gump firm) had for many years represented various Stanford entities and Mr. Stanford individually. You may view a copy of Mr. Stanford’s letter  HERE (the attachments have been omitted because of their volume). That letter resulted in a flurry of activity, culminating in an Emergency Motion filed by Mr. Stanford in Judge Godbey’s Court seeking an Order directing the Akin Gump firm to produce documents pertaining to its representation of Stanford entities on an expedited basis. You may view a copy of Mr. Stanford’s Motion, and the attachments to that Motion, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE. Lloyds of London filed a response to that Motion, which you may view HERE. The Receiver also filed a response, which you can view HERE and HERE. On June 21, 2010, Judge Godbey issued an Order with respect to Mr. Stanford’s Motion. You may view a copy of Judge Godbey’s Order HERE.

On July 2, 2010, Mr. Stanford filed a Motion to Disqualify the Akin, Gump firm in the coverage action pending before Judge Atlas. You may view a copy of Mr. Stanford’s Motion HERE. Because of their number and volume, the attachments to that Motion to Disqualify are not being posted. On the next day, Mr. Stanford filed a Motion for Continuance and a supplement to his Motion to Disqualify. You may view a copy of this Motion HERE (the attachments to this Motion are also omitted). Lloyds of London filed a Motion to Strike Stanford’s Motion to Disqualify on July 5, 2010. You may view a copy of that Motion HERE.  Judge Atlas issued on Order on July 6, 2010 addressing both the Motion for Continuance and the Motion to Strike. The Order denied the Motion to Strike, established a briefing schedule for the parties to address the Motion to Disqualify, and directed Mr. Stanford to seek further discovery through Judge Godbey’s court. You may view a copy of Judge Atlas’s Order HERE.

Given the schedule established by Judge Atlas relating to the resolution of the insurance coverage dispute, the Examiner anticipates that she will likely rule on the Motion to Disqualify shortly after briefing is concluded.

In a related development, Lloyds of London issued a notice of deposition and subpoena in the insurance coverage action through which it sought to take the deposition of Karyl Van Tassel, the lead forensic accountant from FTI that has been working with the Receiver since his appointment. On June 11, 2010, the Receiver filed a Motion through which he sought to block that deposition. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Motion and supporting materials HERE and HERE. On June 14, 2010, Judge Godbey issued an Order granting the Receiver’s request for expedited consideration of his Motion. You may view Judge Godbey’s Order HERE.  Lloyds of London filed its Response to the Receiver’s Motion on June 21, 2010. You may view a copy of that Response HERE. The Examiner filed a Response to the Receiver’s Motion on June 23, 2010. You may view a copy of the Examiner’s Response HERE. The Receiver filed a Reply in support of his Motion on the same date. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Reply HERE. Lloyds of London filed a sur-reply on June 24, 2010, but that sur-reply was ordered “unfiled” by Judge Godbey on July 1, 2010. You may view a copy of the Lloyds of London sur-reply HERE, and the order “unfiling” that sur-reply HERE. Judge Godbey issued an Order addressing the Receiver’s Motion on July 6, 2010, in which he indicated that he would grant Lloyds of London leave to depose Ms. Van Tassel provided that Lloyds of London agree to pay 50% of the fees and expenses incurred by the Receiver to develop the knowledge that Ms. Van Tassel possesses with respect to the Stanford enterprise. You may view a copy of Judge Godbey’s Order HERE. Lloyds of London has not yet indicated whether it is willing to proceed with Ms. Van Tassel’s deposition under the conditions imposed by Judge Godbey.

Previous proceedings relating to the insurance coverage disputes are described below and in the Archive of Older Information that can be accessed below.

In prior postings to this website, the Examiner has described various proceedings relating to efforts to obtain access to the proceeds of certain Directors’ and Officers’ liability insurance policies. You may review that information by accessing the Archive of Older Information below. In summary, on October 9, 2009, the Court entered an Order clarifying that Stanford’s insurer, Lloyds’ of London, was free to disburse proceeds of Stanford’s D&O policy to pay defense costs for Allen Stanford, Laura Pendergast-Holt, James Davis and other Stanford Defendants. You may view a copy of that Order HERE. More recent developments relating to insurance coverage are addressed in this section.

On November 19, 2009, the Court entered an Order denying a pending motion filed by Lloyds’ of London seeking to intervene in the receivership proceedings. You may view a copy of that Order HERE.

On November 17, 2009, Laura Pendergast-Holt filed a separate action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (where the Stanford criminal proceedings are pending before the Hon. David Hittner) in which she again sought access to the proceeds of the Stanford D&O policies. Allen Stanford, Gilbert Lopez and Mark Kuhrt joined in that lawsuit on November 20, 2009. On December 3, 2009, Lloyds’ of London filed a new Motion to Intervene in the receivership proceedings along with a Motion to Enforce the orders previously entered by the Court in the receivership proceedings. You may view the materials filed by Lloyds’ of London at the links below (the Appendices are omitted because of their volume):

Lloyds’ Motion to Intervene HERE; Brief in Support of Motion to Intervene HERE.

Lloyds’ Motion to Enforce Orders and for Contempt HERE; Brief in Support of Motion to Enforce Orders and for Contempt HERE.

The Stanford Defendants responded to the Lloyds’ Motions on December 11, 2009. You may view a copy of the Response HERE (the Appendix is omitted because of its volume). Lloyds’ filed a Reply Brief in support of its Motions on December 15, 2009. You may view a copy of the Reply Brief HERE (the Appendix is omitted because of its volume).

The Court entered an Order deciding the Lloyd’s Motions on December 16, 2009. The Court denied Lloyds’ request for an injunction and permitted the Defendants to continue their insurance coverage action in Judge Hittner’s court, concluding that he was better situated to address the coverage issues. The Court also denied Lloyd’s request to intervene in the Receivership proceedings. The Court granted Lloyd’s request that the Defendants and their counsel be held in contempt for filing the coverage action in Judge Hittner’s court, but declined to impose any sanctions. You may view a copy of Judge Godbey’s Order deciding the Lloyds’ Motions HERE.

On January 26, 2010, Judge Hittner issued an Order deciding that the Stanford Defendants should have access to the proceeds of Stanford’s D&O policies to fund their defense costs in both the criminal proceedings and the receivership proceedings. You may view a copy of Judge Hittner’s Order HERE. Lloyds’ of London filed an appeal with respect to Judge Hittner’s Order with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. That appeal was addressed on an accelerated basis by the Court of Appeals. On March 15, 2010, the Fifth Circuit issued its opinion addressing the appeal from Judge Hittner’s Order. In brief, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the Stanford Defendants should have access to the D&O policy proceeds to fund their defense costs, but only until such time as a Court was able to determine whether the Defendants were entitled to coverage under the D&O policy or whether such coverage was precluded by one or more exclusions. You may view a copy of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion HERE.

Following Judge Hittner’s ruling in late January, the Stanford Defendants and their counsel filed a Motion to Reconsider the contempt finding made by Judge Godbey. You may view a copy of the Motion to Reconsider HERE (the Appendix is omitted because of its volume). Lloyds’ of London filed a Response to the Motion to Reconsider and a supporting Appendix. You may view a copy of the Response HERE (the Appendix is omitted because of its volume). The Court has not yet ruled upon the Motion to Reconsider.

Links to Stanford Financial Group 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

Other Orders Entered by Judge Godbey:

What's New?

The Stanford Condominium Owners Association has filed a Notice of Appeal with respect to the Court’s Order denying the Association leave to proceed with a lawsuit against Stanford Development Co. That appeal will now be considered by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In addition to the various matters addressed in some detail throughout this website, the Court has entered a number of Orders disposing of other issues that have been pending in the Receivership proceedings. These Orders are addressed briefly below:

a. Order permitting Trustmark and HP Financial Services Venezuela to intervene. This Order, entered January 5, 2010, resolved motions for leave to intervene filed by both Trustmark Bank and HP Financial Services Venezuela. The motions concerned the obligations of Trustmark with respect to a letter of credit issued at the request of Stanford for the benefit of HP Financial Services. The Court’s Order permits both parties to intervene for the purpose of addressing the letter of credit dispute. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE.

b. Order to Show Cause directed to Randi Stanford. On January 5, 2010, the Court issued an Order directing Randi Stanford (Allen Stanford’s daughter) to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for her refusal to vacate a Houston condominium owned by one of the Stanford entities. The Court scheduled a hearing for January 28, 2010 to address the matter. Prior to the hearing, the Receiver and Randi Stanford reached an agreement pursuant to which she agreed to vacate the condominium and the hearing was cancelled. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE.

c. Order permitting Susan Stanford to Intervene. On January 6, 2010, the Court issued an Order granting the Motion to Intervene filed by Allen Stanford’s estranged wife, Susan Stanford. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE.

d. Order Denying Motion to Reclaim Equipment. On February 23, 2010, the Court entered an Order denying a motion filed by INX, Inc. to reclaim certain computer equipment sold to Stanford Financial Group prior to the appointment of the Receiver. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE. In response to the Court’s Order, INX, Inc. has filed a new Motion for Leave to Intervene, an Amended Motion to Reclaim, and an Appendix in Support of that Motion to Reclaim. You may view copies of those materials HERE, HERE and HERE.

e. Order Granting Motion to Compel. On March 1, 2010, the Court entered an Order granting a motion to compel filed by the Receiver against the law firm of Hunton & Williams and Carlos Loumiet (a former partner in that firm). The Order directed Hunton & Williams and Loumiet to produce certain materials sought by the Receiver. The Examiner understands that some materials have been produced in response to this Order and that disputes remain to be resolved with respect to other materials. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE.

f. Order Denying Various Motions Relating to Arbitration and other Lawsuits. On March 8, 2010, the Court entered an Order denying various motions that had been filed by Stanford investors and others seeking (a) leave to pursue lawsuits or arbitration proceedings against Stanford financial advisors, (b) to compel arbitration, and (c) leave to intervene. The Court denied all of the motions. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE.

g. Order Permitting Houston Walton Galleria to Proceed. On March 15, 2010, the Court entered an Order permitting Houston Walton Galleria to pursue claims against certain Stanford entities in a state court lawsuit. In so ruling, the Court focused upon the lawsuit brought by the Stanford entities against Houston Walton Galleria and the Receiver’s decision to continue prosecuting that lawsuit following his appointment. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE.

h. Order Denying Leave to Proceed to Stanford Condominium Owners. On March 17, 2010, the Court entered an Order denying a motion filed by the Stanford Condominium Owners Association seeking to intervene or, alternatively, seeking leave to proceed with a lawsuit against Stanford Development Co. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE.

Other Proceedings/Filings of Interest to Investors:

What's New?

On June 18, 2010, a group of Stanford investors (the “Marquette Plaintiffs”) filed a Motion seeking leave to proceed with arbitration proceedings against Pershing, LLC. You may view a copy of the Marquette Plaintiffs’ Motion, supporting Brief, and supporting Appendix HERE, HERE and HERE. The Examiner filed a Response to that Motion on July 8, 2010. You may view a copy of the Examiner’s Response HERE. As set forth in the Examiner’s Response, the Receiver concurred with the Examiner’s views concerning the relief requested by the Marquette Plaintiffs.

Motion to Foreclose Filed by Westbridge Community Development District

On February 9, 2010, the Westbridge Community Development District (a Florida entity) filed a Motion seeking leave to foreclose upon certain properties owned by Stanford entities, alleging the failure of those entities to pay certain assessments due to the District. You may view the Motion and supporting Exhibits HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE. The Receiver filed his Response to the Motion on March 17, 2010. You may view a copy of that Response HERE. Westbridge filed its Reply Brief on April 14, 2010. You may view a copy of that Reply Brief HERE. The Examiner cannot predict when the Court will act upon the Motion filed by Westbridge.

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. On January 5, 2010, the Court entered its Order granting the motion to intervene and granting, in party, the motion to stay discovery in the receivership proceeding until the criminal actions are resolved (the Court exempted discovery relating to the Receiver’s efforts to recover assets). You may view a copy of the Court’s Order 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.

The Receiver and Mr. Stanford ultimately filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss this appeal, and the appeal was dismissed on March 18, 2010. You may view a copy of the Dismissal Order 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. The Receiver filed a Reply Brief in further support of his Motion on November 10, 2009. You may view a copy of that Reply Brief HERE. The Court granted the Receiver’s Motion in an Order entered November 13, 2009. You may view a copy of that Order HERE.

Pursuant to the authority granted by the Court’s Order, the Receiver began the process of transferring accounts from Pershing LLC to Dominick & Dominick. With the exception of accounts belonging to former Stanford employees that remain frozen, the transfer process is substantially complete.

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.

On January 4, 2010, the Court denied the Motion for Order to Show Cause as moot. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE. The Court’s ruling was based upon the Receiver’s filing of a separate action against Ms. Reeves addressing the same issues that were raised in his Motion for Order to Show Cause. That separate lawsuit is described in more detail above (“Asset Recovery Efforts by the Receiver”).

Sale of Property by Laura Pendergast-Holt

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.

Fifth Circuit Rejects Receiver's Clawback Claims Against Innocent Investors. Janvey v. Adams, 588 F.3d 831 (5^th Cir. 2009)

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:

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.

Archive of Older Information:

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.

Information Gathering:

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.

Links:

The Receiver's website is:www.stanfordfinancialreceivership.com.

The website for the Stanford Victims Coalition is: www.stanfordvictimscoalition.com.

General Information:

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.

On October 16, 2012, the Investors Committee, the Receiver and the Examiner filed their third joint report addressing the status (as of September 30, 2012) of all pending litigation brought by the Receiver, the Committee and by Committee members as class counsel. You may view a copy of the third Joint Report HERE.