Logo
901 Main Street, Suite 4110
Dallas, TX 75202
214-573-2300

Examiner – Stanford Financial Group

To access the Claims Website of the Stanford Financial Group Receiver, CLICK HERE.

To contact the Examiner, CLICK HERE.

Last Update September 7, 2017

Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with Hunton & Williams, LLP

Hunton Settlement. On August 16, 2017, the Receiver, the Official Stanford Investors Committee (“OSIC”) and certain individual Investor Plaintiffs filed a Motion seeking Court approval of a settlement entered into with Hunton & Williams, LLP (“Hunton”). Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Receivership Estate will receive $34 million. On August 23, 2017, the Court entered a Scheduling Order setting a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Hunton Settlement and establishing a schedule for the submission of objections.

The Court has set a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Hunton Settlement at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, November 28, 2017. Any party wishing to file an objection to the Hunton Settlement must do so no later than Tuesday, November 7, 2017.

You may access the materials pertaining to the Hunton Settlement by clicking on the links below:

  • Scheduling Order, click HERE
  • Motion to Approve Hunton Settlement, click HERE
  • Appendix in Support of Motion to Approve Hunton Settlement, click HERE
  • Settlement Agreement, click HERE
  • Proposed Bar Order (SEC Action) (Exhibit B), click HERE
  • Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings, click HERE
  • Release as to Carlos Loumiet (Exhibit E), click HERE

HUNTON SETTLEMENT FAQs:

Q.   Why did the Plaintiffs and Receiver settle with Hunton for $34 million?

A.   The reasons for the amount of the settlement are discussed at length in the Motion to Approve the Settlement and the Declarations included in the Appendix to the Motion. You can review the Motion to Approve the Settlement and the supporting Appendix by clicking on the links above.

Q:   If approved, which Stanford investors will be entitled to distributions from the Hunton Settlement?

A:   Proceeds available for distribution from the Hunton Settlement will be distributed on a pro rata basis to all Stanford Investors who (a) have Allowed Claim Amounts determined by the Receiver’s claim and distribution process, and (b) have submitted a completed Certification Notice to the Receiver (as required by the Court’s Order approving the Receiver’s First Interim Distribution). The Receiver will file a motion proposing and asking the Court to approve a specific distribution plan for available proceeds from the Hunton Settlement.

Q:   How do I object to the Hunton Settlement or its terms?

A:   Any objection to the Hunton Settlement or its terms, the Motion to Approve the Settlement, the Application for Attorneys’ Fees, or the Judgments and Bar Orders must be filed in writing with the Court in the SEC Action no later than November 7, 2017. Any objections not filed by that date will be deemed waived and will not be considered by the Court. Those wishing to appear and present objections at the Final Approval Hearing must include a request to appear in their written objections. Please refer to the Scheduling Order and Notice (available at the links above) for additional instructions.

Q:   When will the Court make a final determination on the Motion to Approve the Hunton Settlement?

A:   The Final Approval Hearing is set for Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 10:00 AM.. The Court will issue its decision at the hearing or some point thereafter.

Q:   If the Court approves the Hunton Settlement, when can I expect my distribution payment?

A:   The Hunton Settlement contemplates that the Receiver will file a Motion for approval of a plan to distribute the net settlement proceeds after the Court approves the settlement and the settlement amount has been paid to the Receiver.

The timing of the payment of the settlement amount will depend, first, upon when the Court enters its order approving the Hunton Settlement and, second, upon whether any objecting party pursues an appeal from the Court’s order approving the settlement.

The timing of the Court’s approval and any subsequent distribution has yet to be determined. As additional information becomes available, the Receiver and Examiner will post updates to the Stanford Financial Group Receivership websites and to the Examiner’s website.

Q:   I have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver. Do I need to file another Proof of Claim form to be considered in the Hunton Distribution Plan?

A:   NO. If you have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver, you DO NOT need to file another form. There is no further action required by you at this time.

Q:   I have received a Notice of Determination with my claim number, but have not received any distributions. Why is that?

A:   There are several potential reasons for why you may not have received any distributions, including but not limited to:

First, you cannot receive distributions until you have submitted a completed Certification Notice to the Receiver (as required by the Court’s Order approving the Receiver’s First Interim Distribution).

Second, you will not receive distributions if you have objected to the Receiver’s Notice of Determination and that objection has not been resolved.

If you have submitted your completed Certification Notice and have not objected to the Receiver’s Notice of Determination, you should contact the Receiver’s Claims Agent via email or phone as set forth below.

Q:   I have not received a Notice of Determination with my claim number. How can I be sure you received my Proof of Claim Form?

A:   You should contact the Receiver’s Claims Agent to request your claim number:

1. By email at info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com
2. By phone at 866-964-6301 or 317-324-0757.

Administrador Judicial y El Comité Oficial de Inversionistas de Stanford Anuncian un Acuerdo con Hunton y Williams, LLP

El día 16 de agosto de 2017, el Administrador Judicial y el Comité Oficial de Inversionistas de Stanford y ciertas otras Partes Actoras presentaron una Moción solicitando la aprobación del Juzgado para un Convenio entre Hunton y Williams, LLP (y personas relacionadas) (“Hunton”). Conforme a los términos del acuerdo, la Administración Judicial recibirá $34 millones. El día 23 de agosto de 2017, el Juzgado sometió un Auto de Programación donde establece una audiencia sobre la Moción para aprobar el Convenio de Transacción Judicial Hunton y establecer la programación para la presentación de objeciones.

El Juzgado ha establecido la audiencia sobre la Moción para Aprobar la Transacción Judicial Hunton para el día martes, 28 de noviembre de 2017, a las 10:00 am. Cualquier parte que desee presentar una objeción al Convenio Hunton deberá hacerlo a más tardar el martes, 7 de noviembre de 2017.

Podrá obtener acceso a los materiales concernientes al Convenio Hunton al seleccionar los enlaces establecidos a continuación:

  • Auto de Programación, seleccione AQUÍ
  • Moción para Aprobar Convenio Hunton, seleccione AQUÍ
  • Apéndice en Apoyo a la Moción para Aprobar el Convenio Hunton, seleccione AQUÍ (inglés solamente)
  • Convenio de Transacción Judicial, seleccione AQUÍ
  • Auto de Exclusión Propuesto (Acción SEC) (Anexo B), seleccione AQUÍ
  • Notificación del Convenio y Procedimientos del Auto de Exclusión, seleccione AQUÍ
  • Exoneración de Responsabilidades en cuanto a Carlos Loumiet (Anexo E), seleccione AQUÍ

Preguntas Frecuentes sobre el Convenio de Transacción Judicial Hunton:

P: ¿Por qué los demandantes y el Administrador Judicial aceptaron el convenio de transacción judicial por $34 millones?

R: Las razones por el monto del convenio se desahogan a fondo en la Moción para Aprobar Transacción Judicial y en las Declaraciones incluidas en el Apéndice de la Moción. Usted puede revisar la Moción para Aprobar el Convenio y los apéndices de apoyo entrando a los enlaces arriba mencionados.

P: En caso de que fuere aprobado, ¿cuáles inversionistas de Stanford tendrían derecho a distribuciones bajo el convenio de Hunton?

R: Las sumas de dinero del convenio de Hunton que serán disponibles para distribución serán distribuidas de manera proporcional entre todos los inversionistas de Stanford quienes (a) cuenten con Cantidades de Reclamación Permitidas determinadas por el proceso de reclamación y distribución del Administrador Judicial, y (b) hayan presentado un Aviso de Certificación completo al Administrador Judicial (tal y como se requiere por el Auto Judicial que aprueba la Primera Distribución Provisional del Administrador Judicial). El Administrador Judicial someterá una moción proponiendo y peticionando al Juzgado que se apruebe un plan de distribución específico para las sumas de dinero procedentes del Convenio Hunton.

P: ¿Cómo puedo objetar al Convenio Hunton o a sus términos?

R: Cualquier objeción al Convenio de Transacción Judicial Hunton o a sus términos, a la Moción para Aprobar Transacción Judicial, a los Honorarios de Abogados o a la Sentencia y al Auto de Exclusión, deberán presentarse por escrito ante el Tribunal en la Acción SEC (por sus siglas en inglés, Securities Exchange Commission – Comisión de la Bolsa de Valores de EE.UU.), a más tardar el 7 de noviembre del 2017. Cualquier objeción presentada después de dicha fecha se considerará como renunciada y el Juzgado no la tomará en consideración. Aquellos que deseen comparecer y presentar objeciones en la Audiencia de Aprobación Definitiva deben incluir una solicitud de comparecencia a través de sus objeciones por escrito. Para cualquier instrucción adicional, favor de referirse al Auto de Programación y a la Notificación, que se encuentran en los enlaces arriba mencionados.

P: ¿En qué momento el Juzgado tomará su decisión final sobre la Moción para Aprobar Transacción Judicial?

R: La Audiencia de Aprobación Definitiva está programada para el martes, 28 de noviembre del 2017 a las 10:00 am. El Juzgado emitirá su fallo en la audiencia o en algún momento ulterior.

P: En caso que el Juzgado autorice la moción, ¿cuándo podré recibir el pago de distribución que me corresponde?

R: El Convenio Hunton contempla que el Administrador Judicial presente la Moción para la aprobación de un plan para distribuir el sumas netas de dinero del convenio de Hunton después de que el Juzgado apruebe el convenio y el monto convenido sea pagado al Administrador Judicial.

El momento del pago del monto convenido depende, primero de cuando el Juzgado someta la Moción aprobando el Convenio Hunton y, segundo, si alguna parte objetante someta una apelación a la Moción sometida por el Juzgado aprobando el Convenio.

Todavía hace falta que se determine el momento de la aprobación del Tribunal y cualquier distribución subsecuente. En cuanto contemos con información adicional, el Administrador Judicial y el Interventor publicarán las actualizaciones en los sitios web del Síndico de Stanford Financial Group y en los sitios web del Interventor.

P: Ya presenté una forma de Forma de Prueba de Reclamación ante el Administrador Judicial de los Estados Unidos. ¿Es necesario que presente otra forma de Prueba de Reclamación para ser considerado dentro del Plan de Distribución Hunton?

R: No. Si usted ya presentó una forma de Prueba de Reclamación ante el Administrador Judicial de los Estados Unidos, Usted NO necesita presentar otra forma. Por el momento no se requiere que realice acción adicional.

P: He recibido un Aviso de Determinación con mi número de reclamación, pero no he recibido ninguna distribución. ¿Porqué es eso?

R: Existen varias razones potenciales por las cuales usted no pudo haber recibido ninguna distribución, incluyendo pero no limitado a:

Primero, usted no puede recibir distribuciones hasta que haya entregado un Aviso de Certificación completa al Administrador Judicial (como lo requiere la Orden de la Corte que aprueba la Primera Distribución Provisional del Administrador Judicial).

Segundo, usted no recibirá distribuciones si se ha opuesto a la Aviso de Determinación del Administrador Judicial y esa objeción no se ha resuelto.

Si ha presentado su Aviso de Certificación completada y no se ha opuesto a la Aviso de Determinación del Administrador Judicial, debe comunicarse con el Agente de Reclamaciones del Administrador Judicial vía correo electrónico o teléfono como se establece a continuación.

P: No he recibido el Aviso de Determinación con mi número de reclamación. ¿Cómo confirmo que recibieron mi forma de Prueba de Reclamación?

R: Debe comunicarse con el Agente de Reclamaciones del Administrador Judicial para solicitar su número de reclamación:

 

(1) por correo electrónico info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com, o
(2) por teléfono: 866-964-6301 o 317-324-0757.

Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlements with Stanford’s Insurance Brokers

Willis Settlement.  On September 7, 2016, the Receiver, the Official Stanford Investors Committee (“OSIC”) and certain individual Investor Plaintiffs filed a Motion seeking Court approval of a settlement entered into with Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company (and related persons and entities) (“Willis”). Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Receivership Estate will receive $120 million. On October 19, 2016, the Court entered a Scheduling Order setting a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Willis Settlement and establishing a schedule for the submission of objections.

The Court has set a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Willis Settlement at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, January 20, 2017. Any party wishing to file an objection to the Willis Settlement must do so no later than Friday, December 30, 2016.

You may access the materials pertaining to the Willis Settlement by clicking on the links below:

  • Scheduling Order, click HERE
  • Motion to Approve Willis Settlement, click HERE
  • Appendix in Support of Motion to Approve Willis Settlement, click HERE
  • Settlement Agreement, click HERE
  • Proposed Bar Order (SEC Action) (Exhibit C), click HERE
  • Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings, click HERE
  • Publication Notice, click HERE

WILLIS SETTLEMENT FAQs:

Q.   Why did the Plaintiffs and Receiver settle with Willis for $120 million?

A.   The reasons for the amount of the settlement are discussed at length in the Motion to Approve the Settlement and the Declarations included in the Appendix to the Motion. You can review the Motion to Approve the Settlement and the supporting Appendix by clicking on the links above.

Q:   If approved, which Stanford investors will be entitled to distributions from the Willis Settlement?

A:   Proceeds available for distribution from the Willis Settlement will be distributed on a pro rata basis to all Stanford Investors who (a) have Allowed Claim Amounts determined by the Receiver’s claim and distribution process, and (b) have submitted a completed Certification Notice to the Receiver (as required by the Court’s Order approving the Receiver’s First Interim Distribution).  After the Court approves the Willis Settlement and that approval has become final, the Receiver will file a motion proposing and asking the Court to approve a specific distribution plan for available proceeds from the Willis Settlement.

Q:   How do I object to the Willis Settlement or its terms?

A:   Any objection to the Willis Settlement or its terms, the Motion to Approve the Settlement, the Application for Attorneys’ Fees, or the Judgments and Bar Orders must be filed in writing with the Court in the SEC Action no later than December 30, 2016. Any objections not filed by that date will be deemed waived and will not be considered by the Court. Those wishing to appear and present objections at the Final Approval Hearing must include a request to appear in their written objections. Please refer to the Scheduling Order and Notice (available at the links above) for additional instructions.

Q:   When will the Court make a final determination on the Motion to Approve the Settlement?

A:   The Final Approval Hearing is set for Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:00 AM. The Court will issue its decision at the hearing or some point thereafter.

Q:   If the Court approves the motion, when can I expect my distribution payment?

A:   The Willis Settlement contemplates that the Receiver will file a Motion for approval of a distribution plan after the Court approves the settlement and the settlement amount has been paid to the Receiver.

The timing of the payment of the settlement amount will depend, first, upon when the Court enters its order approving the Willis Settlement and, second, upon whether any objecting party pursues an appeal from the Court’s order approving the settlement.

The timing of the Court’s approval and any subsequent distribution has yet to be determined. As additional information becomes available, the Receiver and Examiner will post updates to the Stanford Financial Group Receivership websites and toon the Examiner’s website.

Q:   I have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver. Do I need to file another Proof of Claim form to be considered in the Willis Distribution Plan?

A:   NO. If you have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver, you DO NOT need to file another form. There is no further action required by you at this time.

Q:   I have not received a Notice of Determination with my claim number. How can I be sure you received my Proof of Claim Form?

A:   You should contact the Receiver’s Claims Agent to request your claim number:

(1) por correo electrónico info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com, o
(2) por teléfono: 866-964-6301 o 317-324-0757.

Administrador Judicial y El Comité Oficial de Inversionistas de Stanford Anuncian un Acuerdo con Corredores de Seguros de Stanford

Convenio Willis. El día 7 de septiembre de 2016, el Administrador Judicial y el Comité Oficial de Inversionistas de Stanford y ciertas otras Partes Actoras presentaron una Moción solicitando la aprobación del Juzgado para un Convenio entre Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company (y personas y entidades relacionadas) (“Willis”).Conforme a los términos del acuerdo, la Administración Judicial recibirá $120 millones. El día 19 de octubre de 2016, el Juzgado sometió un Auto de Programación donde establece una audiencia sobre la Moción para aprobar el Convenio de Transacción Judicial Willis y establecer la programación para la presentación de objeciones.

El Juzgado ha establecido la audiencia sobre la Moción para Aprobar la Transacción Judicial Willis para el día viernes, 20 de enero de 2017, a las 10:00 am. Cualquier parte que desee presentar una objeción al Convenio Willis deberá hacerlo a más tardar el viernes, 30 de diciembre de 2016.

Podrá obtener acceso a los materiales concernientes al Convenio Willis al seleccionar los enlaces establecidos a continuación:

  • Auto de Programación, seleccione AQUÍ.
  • Moción para Aprobar Convenio Willis, seleccione AQUÍ.
  • Convenio de Transacción Judicial (incluyendo Anexos), seleccione AQUÍ.
  • Auto de Exclusión Propuesto (Acción SEC) (Anexo C), seleccione AQUÍ.
  • Notificación del Convenio y Procedimientos del Auto de Exclusión, seleccione AQUÍ.
  • Aviso de Publicación, seleccione AQUÍ.

Preguntas Frecuentes sobre el Convenio de Transacción Judicial Willis:

P:   ¿Por qué los demandantes y el Administrador Judicial aceptaron el convenio de transacción judicial por $120 millones?

R:   Las razones por el monto del convenio se desahogan a fondo en la Moción para Aprobar Transacción Judicial y en las Declaraciones incluidas en el Apéndice de la Moción. Usted puede revisar la Moción para Aprobar el Convenio y los apéndices de apoyo entrando a los enlaces arriba mencionados.

P:   En caso de que fuere aprobado, ¿cuáles inversionistas de Stanford tendrían derecho a distribuciones bajo el convenio de Willis?

R:   Las sumas de dinero del convenio de Willis que serán disponibles para distribución serán distribuidas de manera proporcional entre todos los inversionistas de Stanford quienes (a) cuenten con Cantidades de Reclamación Permitidas determinadas por el proceso de reclamación y distribución del Administrador Judicial, y (b) hayan presentado un Aviso de Certificación completo al Administrador Judicial (tal y como se requiere por el Auto Judicial que aprueba la Primera Distribución Provisional del Administrador Judicial). Luego de que el Juzgado apruebe el Convenio Willis y esa aprobación sea definitiva, el Administrador Judicial someterá una moción proponiendo y peticionando al Juzgado que se apruebe un plan de distribución específico para las sumas de dinero procedentes del Convenio Willis.

P:   ¿Cómo puedo objetar al Convenio Willis o a sus términos?

R:   Cualquier objeción al Convenio de Transacción Judicial Willis o a sus términos, a la Moción para Aprobar Transacción Judicial, a la aplicación de los Honorarios de Abogados o a las Sentencias y a los Autos de Exclusión, deberán presentarse por escrito ante el Tribunal en la Acción SEC (por sus siglas en inglés, Securities Exchange Commission – Comisión de la Bolsa de Valores de EE.UU.), a más tardar el 30 de diciembre del 2016. Cualquier objeción presentada después de dicha fecha se considerará como renunciada y el Juzgado no la tomará en consideración. Aquellos que deseen comparecer y presentar objeciones en la Audiencia de Aprobación Definitiva deben incluir una solicitud de comparecencia a través de sus objeciones por escrito. Para cualquier instrucción adicional, favor de referirse al Auto de Programación y a la Notificación, que se encuentran en los enlaces arriba mencionados.

P:   ¿En qué momento el Juzgado tomará su decisión final sobre la Moción para Aprobar Transacción Judicial?

R:   La Audiencia de Aprobación Definitiva está programada para el viernes, 20 de enero del 2017 a las 10:00 am. El Juzgado emitirá su fallo en la audiencia o en algún momento ulterior.

P:   En caso que el Juzgado autorice la moción, ¿cuándo podré recibir el pago de distribución que me corresponde?

R:   El Convenio Willis contempla que el Administrador Judicial presente la Moción para la aprobación de un plan de distribución después de que el Juzgado apruebe el convenio y el monto convenido sea pagado al Administrador Judicial.

El momento del pago del monto convenido depende, primero de cuando el Juzgado someta la Moción aprobando el Convenio Willis y, segundo, si alguna parte objetante someta una apelación a la Moción sometida por el Juzgado Aprobando el Convenio.

Todavía hace falta que se determine el momento de la aprobación del Tribunal y cualquier distribución subsecuente. En cuanto contemos con información adicional, el Administrador Judicial y el Interventor publicarán las actualizaciones en los sitios web del Síndico de Stanford Financial Group y en los sitios web del Interventor.

P:   Ya presenté una forma de Forma de Prueba de Reclamación ante el Administrador Judicial de los Estados Unidos. ¿Es necesario que presente otra forma de Prueba de Reclamación para ser considerado dentro del Plan de Distribución Willis?

R:   No. Si usted ya presentó una forma de Prueba de Reclamación ante el Administrador Judicial de los Estados Unidos, Usted NO necesita presentar otra forma.  Por el momento no se requiere que realice acción adicional.

P:   No he recibido el Aviso de Determinación con mi número de reclamación. ¿Cómo confirmo que recibieron mi forma de Prueba de Reclamación?

R:   Debe comunicarse con el Agente de Reclamaciones del Administrador Judicial para solicitar su número de reclamación:

(1) por correo electrónico info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com, o
(2) por teléfono: 866-964-6301 o 317-324-0757.

BMB Settlement. On September 28, 2016, the Receiver, the OSIC and certain individual Investor Plaintiffs filed a Motion seeking Court approval of a settlement entered into with Bowen, Miclette & Britt, Inc. (and related persons) (“BMB”). Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Receivership Estate will receive $12.85 million. On October 19, 2016, the Court entered a Scheduling Order setting a hearing on the Motion to Approve the BMB Settlement and establishing a schedule for the submission of objections.

The Court has set a hearing on the Motion to Approve the BMB Settlement at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, January 20, 2017. Any party wishing to file an objection to the BMB Settlement must do so no later than Friday, December 30, 2016.

You may access the materials pertaining to the BMB Settlement by clicking on the links below:

  • Scheduling Order, click HERE
  • Motion to Approve BMB Settlement, click HERE
  • Appendix in Support of Motion to Approve BMB Settlement, click HERE
  • Settlement Agreement, click HERE
  • Proposed Bar Order (SEC Action), click HERE
  • Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings, click HERE
  • Publication Notice, click HERE

BMB SETTLEMENT FAQs:

Q.   Why did the Plaintiffs and Receiver settle with the BMB Defendants for $12.85 million?

A.   The reasons for the amount of the settlement are discussed at length in the Motion to Approve the Settlement and the Declarations included in the Appendix to the Motion. You can review the Motion to Approve the Settlement and the supporting Appendix by clicking on the links above.

Q:   If approved, which Stanford investors will be entitled to distributions from the BMB Settlement?

A:   Proceeds available for distribution from the BMB Settlement will be distributed on a pro rata basis to all Stanford Investors who (a) have Allowed Claim Amounts determined by the Receiver’s claim and distribution process, and (b) have submitted a completed Certification Notice to the Receiver (as required by the Court’s Order approving the Receiver’s First Interim Distribution). After the Court approves the BMB Settlement and that approval has become final, the Receiver will file a motion proposing and asking the Court to approve a specific distribution plan for available proceeds from the BMB Settlement.

Q:   How do I object to the BMB Settlement or its terms?

A:   Any objection to the BMB Settlement or its terms, the Motion to Approve the Settlement, the Application for Attorneys’ Fees, or the Judgments and Bar Order must be filed in writing, with the Court in the SEC Action no later than December 30, 2016. Any objections not filed by that date will be deemed waived and will not be considered by the Court. Those wishing to appear and present objections at the Final Approval Hearing must include a request to appear in their written objections. Please refer to the Scheduling Order and Notice (available at the links above) for additional instructions.

Q:   When will the Court make a final determination on the Motion to Approve the Settlement?

A:   The Final Approval Hearing is set for Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:00 AM. The Court will issue its decision at the hearing or some point thereafter.

Q:   If the Court approves the motion, when can I expect my distribution payment?

A:   The BMB Settlement contemplates that the Receiver will file a Motion for approval of a distribution plan after the Court approves the settlement and the settlement amount has been paid to the Receiver.

The timing of the payment of the settlement amount will depend, first, upon when the Court enters its order approving the BMB Settlement and, second, upon whether any objecting party pursues an appeal from the Court’s order approving the settlement.

The timing of the Court’s approval and any subsequent distribution has yet to be determined. As additional information becomes available, the Receiver and Examiner will post updates to the Stanford Financial Group Receivership websites and to the Examiner’s website.

Q:   I have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver. Do I need to file another Proof of Claim form to be considered in the BMB Distribution Plan?

A:   NO. If you have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver, you DO NOT need to file another form. There is no further action required by you at this time.

Q:   I have not received a Notice of Determination with my claim number. How can I be sure you received my Proof of Claim Form?

A:   You should contact the Receiver’s Claims Agent to request your claim number:

1. By email at info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com
2. By phone at 866-964-6301 or 317-324-0757.

Convenio BMB. El día 28 de septiembre de 2016, el Administrador Judicial y el Comité Oficial de Inversionistas de Stanford y ciertas otras Partes Actoras presentaron una Moción solicitando la aprobación del Juzgado para un Convenio entre Bowen, Miclette & Britt, Inc. (y personas relacionadas) (“BMB”). Conforme a los términos del acuerdo, la Administración Judicial recibirá $12.85 millones. El día 19 de octubre de 2016, el Juzgado sometió un Auto de Programación donde establece una audiencia sobre la Moción para aprobar el Convenio de Transacción Judicial BMB y establecer la programación para la presentación de objeciones.

El Juzgado ha establecido la audiencia sobre la Moción para Aprobar la Transacción Judicial BMB para el día viernes, 20 de enero de 2017, a las 10:00 am. Cualquier parte que desee presentar una objeción al Convenio BMB deberá hacerlo a más tardar el viernes, 30 de diciembre de 2016.

Podrá obtener acceso a los materiales concernientes al Convenio BMB al seleccionar los enlaces establecidos a continuación:

  • Auto de Programación, seleccione AQUÍ.
  • Moción para Aprobar Convenio BMB, seleccione AQUÍ.
  • Convenio de Transacción Judicial (incluyendo Anexos), seleccione AQUÍ.
  • Auto de Exclusión Propuesto (Acción SEC), seleccione AQUÍ.
  • Notificación del Convenio y Procedimientos del Auto de Exclusión, seleccione AQUÍ.
  • Aviso de Publicación, seleccione AQUÍ.

Preguntas Frecuentes sobre el Convenio de Transacción Judicial BMB:

P:   ¿Por qué los demandantes y el Administrador Judicial aceptaron el convenio de transacción judicial por $12.85 millones?

R:   Las razones por el monto del convenio se desahogan a fondo en la Moción para Aprobar Transacción Judicial y en las Declaraciones incluidas en el Apéndice de la Moción. Usted puede revisar la Moción para Aprobar el Convenio y los apéndices de apoyo entrando a los enlaces arriba mencionados.

P:   En caso de que fuere aprobado, ¿cuáles inversionistas de Stanford tendrían derecho a distribuciones bajo el convenio de BMB?

R:   Las sumas de dinero del convenio de BMB que serán disponibles para distribución serán distribuidas de manera proporcional entre todos los inversionistas de Stanford quienes (a) cuenten con Cantidades de Reclamación Permitidas determinadas por el proceso de reclamación y distribución del Administrador Judicial, y (b) hayan presentado un Aviso de Certificación completo al Administrador Judicial (tal y como se requiere por el Auto Judicial que aprueba la Primera Distribución Provisional del Administrador Judicial). Luego de que el Juzgado apruebe el Convenio BMB y esa aprobación sea definitiva, el Administrador Judicial someterá una moción proponiendo y peticionando al Juzgado que se apruebe un plan de distribución específico para las sumas de dinero procedentes del Convenio BMB.

P:   ¿Cómo puedo objetar al Convenio BMB o a sus términos?

R:   Cualquier objeción al Convenio de Transacción Judicial BMB o a sus términos, a la Moción para Aprobar Transacción Judicial, a los Honorarios de Abogados o a la Sentencia y al Auto de Exclusión, deberán presentarse por escrito ante el Tribunal en la Acción SEC (por sus siglas en inglés, Securities Exchange Commission – Comisión de la Bolsa de Valores de EE.UU.), a más tardar el 30 de diciembre del 2016. Cualquier objeción presentada después de dicha fecha se considerará como renunciada y el Juzgado no la tomará en consideración. Aquellos que deseen comparecer y presentar objeciones en la Audiencia de Aprobación Definitiva deben incluir una solicitud de comparecencia a través de sus objeciones por escrito. Para cualquier instrucción adicional, favor de referirse al Auto de Programación y a la Notificación, que se encuentran en los enlaces arriba mencionados.

P:   ¿En qué momento el Juzgado tomará su decisión final sobre la Moción para Aprobar Transacción Judicial?

R:   La Audiencia de Aprobación Definitiva está programada para el viernes, 20 de enero del 2017 a las 10:00 am. El Juzgado emitirá su fallo en la audiencia o en algún momento ulterior.

P:   En caso que el Juzgado autorice la moción, ¿cuándo podré recibir el pago de distribución que me corresponde?

R:   El Convenio BMB contempla que el Administrador Judicial presente la Moción para la aprobación de un plan de distribución después de que el Juzgado apruebe el convenio y el monto convenido sea pagado al Administrador Judicial.

El momento del pago del monto convenido depende, primero de cuando el Juzgado someta la Moción aprobando el Convenio BMB y, segundo, si alguna parte objetante someta una apelación a la Moción sometida por el Juzgado aprobando el Convenio.

Todavía hace falta que se determine el momento de la aprobación del Tribunal y cualquier distribución subsecuente. En cuanto contemos con información adicional, el Administrador Judicial y el Interventor publicarán las actualizaciones en los sitios web del Síndico de Stanford Financial Group y en los sitios web del Interventor.

P:   Ya presenté una forma de Forma de Prueba de Reclamación ante el Administrador Judicial de los Estados Unidos. ¿Es necesario que presente otra forma de Prueba de Reclamación para ser considerado dentro del Plan de Distribución BMB?

R:   No. Si usted ya presentó una forma de Prueba de Reclamación ante el Administrador Judicial de los Estados Unidos, Usted NO necesita presentar otra forma.  Por el momento no se requiere que realice acción adicional.

P:   No he recibido el Aviso de Determinación con mi número de reclamación. ¿Cómo confirmo que recibieron mi forma de Prueba de Reclamación?

R:   Debe comunicarse con el Agente de Reclamaciones del Administrador Judicial para solicitar su número de reclamación:

(1) por correo electrónico info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com, o
(2) por teléfono: 866-964-6301 o 317-324-0757.

Attorneys’ Fees Payable from the Willis and BMB Settlements. On October 5, 2016, the Receiver, the OSIC and certain individual Investor Plaintiffs filed a Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses in connection with the settlements with Willis and BMB. In that Motion, the Receiver, the OSIC and the Investor Plaintiffs seek Court approval to pay a total of $30 million to Plaintiffs’ Counsel in connection with the Willis and BMB Settlements. That amount represents 22.582% of the gross recovery expected from the Willis and BMB Settlements and represents a discount of more than $3.3 million from the 25% contingency fee that Plaintiffs’ Counsel was entitled to claim pursuant to Counsel’s agreements with the Receiver, the OSIC, and the Investor Plaintiffs.

The Court has set a hearing on the Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, January 20, 2017.

You may access the materials pertaining to the Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses by clicking on the links below:

  • Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, click HERE
  • Brief in Support of Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, click HERE
  • Appendix in Support of Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, click HERE

Honorarios de Abogados Pagables de los Convenios de Willis y BMB. El día 5 de octubre de 2016, el Administrador Judicial, el Comité Oficial de Inversionistas de Stanford (“OSIC”) y ciertas otras Partes Actoras presentaron una Moción para la Concesión de Honorarios y Gastos de Abogados en conexión con los Convenios de Willis y BMB. En esa Moción, el Administrador Judicial, el Comité Oficial de Inversionistas de Stanford (“OSIC”) y ciertas otras Partes Actoras solicitan la aprobación del Juzgado para pagar un total de $30 millones a los abogados de las Partes Actoras en conexión con los Convenios Willis y BMB. Ese monto representa el 22.582% del recobro total que se espera recibir de los Convenios Willis y BMB y representa un descuento de más de $3.3 millones de la base de honorarios contingentes         del 25% que los abogados de los demandantes tienen derecho a solicitar basado en los Convenios de Abogados establecidos con el Administrador Judicial, el Comité Oficial de Inversionistas de Stanford (“OSIC”) y ciertas otras Partes Actoras.

El Juzgado ha establecido la audiencia sobre la Moción para Aprobar el Pago de Honorarios y Gastos de Abogados para el día viernes, 20 de enero de 2017, a las 10:00 am.

Podrá obtener acceso a los materiales concernientes a la Moción para Pagos de Honorarios y Gastos de Abogados al seleccionar los enlaces establecidos a continuación:

  • Solicitud para Aprobar la Concesión de Honorarios y Gastos de Abogados, seleccione AQUÍ.
  • Memorándum Legal en apoyo a la Solicitud para Aprobar la Concesión de Honorarios y Gastos de Abogados, seleccione AQUÍ.

Court Approves Settlements with Kroll and Chadbourne & Parke, LLP

On August 30, 2016, the Court entered a Bar Order and Judgment approving a $24 million settlement between the Receiver and the Official Stanford Investors Committee (“OSIC”) and Kroll LLC (f/k/a Kroll, Inc.) and Kroll Associates, Inc. The proposed settlement is described below (see Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with Kroll and Seek Court Approval). A copy of the Court’s Bar Order and Judgment is available HERE. On the same day, the Court entered an Order Approving Attorneys’ Fees in connection with the Kroll settlement pursuant to which the Court awarded $5,931,119.71 in attorneys’ fees to the lawyers for the Receiver and the OSIC. A copy of the Order Approving Attorneys’ Fees is available HERE. During the hearing on the approval of the Kroll settlement, the Court addressed the reasoning behind the award of attorneys’ fees. You may review a transcript of that hearing HERE.

Also on August 30, 2016, the Court entered a Final Bar Order approving a $35 million between the Receiver, the OSIC and certain class representative plaintiffs and Chadbourne & Parke, LLP. The proposed settlement is described below (see Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with Chadbourne & Parke, LLP and Seek Court Approval). A copy of the Court’s Final Bar Order is available HERE. On the same day, the Court entered an Order Approving Attorneys’ Fees in connection with the Chadbourne & Parke settlement pursuant to which the Court awarded $8,702,136.04 in attorneys’ fees to the lawyers for the Receiver, the OSIC and the class plaintiffs. The Court also approved the reimbursement of certain litigation expenses funded by the Receiver and the plaintiffs’ law firms.  A copy of the Order Approving Attorneys’ Fees is available HERE.

Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London and Seek Court Approval

On June 27, 2016, the Receiver and the Official Stanford Investors Committee filed a Motion seeking Court Approval of a settlement entered into with Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, Lexington Insurance Company, and Arch Specialty Insurance Co. (collectively, “Underwriters”).  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Receivership Estate will receive $65.00 million.

On July 11, 2016, the Court entered a Scheduling Order setting a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Settlement and establishing a scheduling for the submission of objections.

The Court has set a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Settlement for Friday, October 28, 2016 at 10:00 am.  Any party wishing to file an objection to the settlement must do so no later than Friday, September 30, 2016, and must do so in accordance with the requirements established by the Court in its Scheduling Order.

You may access the materials pertaining to the Underwriters settlement by clicking on the links below:

Scheduling Order, click HERE

Order Resetting Hearing, click HERE

Motion to Approve Settlement, click HERE

Appendix in Support of Motion to Approve, click HERE

Settlement Agreement, click HERE

Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings, click HERE

Publication Notice, click HERE

Underwriters Settlement FAQs:

Q:  Why did the Plaintiffs settle for $65 million?

A:  The reasons for the amount of the settlement are discussed at length in the Motion to Approve the Settlement and the Declarations included in the Appendix to the Motion, all of which are hyperlinked above.

Q:  How was the amount to be paid to the Plaintiffs’ attorneys determined?

A:  The Plaintiffs’ attorneys entered into agreements that set their fee at 33 1/3% of the Net Recovery obtained. The agreements also provided that the Plaintiffs’ attorneys would not be paid if they were not successful. The Plaintiffs’ attorneys have agreed to significantly reduce their fee to 21.5% of the Net Recovery.

Q:  If approved, which Stanford investors will be entitled to distributions from the Underwriters settlement?

A:  Proceeds available for distribution from the Underwriters Settlement will be distributed on a pro rata basis to all Stanford investors who (a) have Allowed Claim Amounts determined by the Receiver’s claim and distribution process, and (b) have submitted a completed Certifications to the Receiver (as required by the Court’s Order approving the Receiver’s First Interim Distribution). After the Court approves the Underwriters Settlement, the Receiver will file a motion proposing and asking the Court to approve a specific distribution plan for available proceeds from the Underwriters Settlement.

Q:  How do I object to the Underwriters Settlement or its terms?

A:  Any objection to the Underwriters Settlement or its terms, the Motion to Approve the Settlement, the Application for Attorneys’ Fees, the Bar Order, or the Judgment and Bar Order must be filed in writing, with the Court in the SEC Action no later than September 30, 2016. Any objections not filed by that date will be deemed waived and will not be considered by the Court. Those wishing to appear and present objections at the Final Approval Hearing must include a request to appear in their written objections. Please refer to the Scheduling Order and the Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings (both of which are hyperlinked above) for additional instructions.

Q:  When will the Court make a final determination on the Motion to Approve the Settlement?

A:  The Final Approval Hearing is set for October 28, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. The Court will issue its decision at the hearing or some point thereafter.

Q:  If the Court approves the motion, when can I expect my distribution payment?

A:  The Underwriters Settlement contemplates that the Receiver will file a Motion for approval of a distribution plan after the Court approves the settlement. The timing of the Court’s approval and any subsequent distribution has yet to be determined. As additional information becomes available, the Receiver and Examiner will post updates to the Stanford Financial Group Receivership websites and on the Examiner’s website.

Q:  I have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver. Do I need to file another Proof of Claim form to be considered in the Underwriters Distribution Plan?

A:  If you have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver, you DO NOT need to file another Proof of Claim.

Q:  I have not received a Notice of Determination with my claim number. How can I be sure you received my Proof of Claim Form?

A:  You should contact the Receiver’s Claims Agent to request your claim number:

(1) by email at info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com, or
(2) by phone at 866-964-6301 or 317-324-0757.

Administrador Judicial y El Comité Oficial de Inversionistas de Stanford Anuncian un Acuerdo con Ciertos Aseguradores de Lloyd’s of London, Arch Specialty Insurance Company, y Lexington Insurance Company y Solicitan Aprobación del Juzgado – El día 27 de junio de 2016, el Administrador Judicial y el Comité Oficial de Inversionistas de Stanford presentaron una Moción solicitando la aprobación del Juzgado para un acuerdo entre Ciertos Aseguradores de Lloyd’s of London, Arch Specialty Insurance Company y Lexington Insurance Company (en conjunto, “Aseguradores”). Conforme a los términos del acuerdo, la Administración Judicial recibirá $65.0 millones. El día 11 de julio de 2016, el Juzgado sometió un Auto de Programación donde establece una audiencia sobre la Moción para aprobar el Acuerdo y establecer la programación para la presentación de objeciones. El día 21 de julio de 2016, el Tribunal reestableció la fecha de la audiencia.

El Juzgado ha establecido la audiencia sobre la Moción para Aprobar El Acuerdo para el día viernes, 28 de octubre de 2016, a las 10:00 am. Cualquier parte que desee presentar una objeción al acuerdo deberá hacerlo a más tardar el viernes, 30 de septiembre de 2016, y deberá hacerlo conforme a los requisitos establecidos por el Juzgado en su Auto de Programación.

Podrá acceder a los materiales concernientes al acuerdo Aseguradores al seleccionar los enlaces establecidos a continuación:

  • Orden de Calendario, seleccione AQUÍ.
  • Orden para reestablecer la fecha de audiencia para Aprobación del Acuerdo, seleccione AQUÍ.
  • Moción para Aprobar el Acuerdo Convenido, seleccione AQUÍ.
  • Apéndice en apoyo a la Moción para Aprobar el Acuerdo, incluyendo el Acuerdo Convenido mismo y los Anexos y Modificación, seleccione AQUÍ.
  • El Acuerdo Convenido incluyendo Anexos y Modificación, seleccione AQUÍ (español).
  • Notificación del Acuerdo y de la Orden de Fecha Final de los Procedimientos (Anexo F), seleccione AQUÍ (inglés), seleccione AQUÍ (español).
  • Aviso de Publicación (Anexo G), seleccione AQUÍ (inglés), seleccione AQUÍ (español).

Preguntas Frecuentes sobre el Acuerdo Convenido de los Aseguradores:

P:  ¿Por qué los demandantes aceptaron el Acuerdo Convenido por $65 millones?

R:  Las razones por el monto del acuerdo se discuten a fondo en la Moción para aprobar el Acuerdo Convenido y en las Declaraciones incluidas en el Apéndice de la Moción, enlaces arriba mencionados.

P:  ¿Cómo se determinó el monto que se debe pagar a los abogados de los Demandantes?

R:  Los abogados de los Demandantes celebraron contratos en los cuales establecieron que sus honorarios serían a razón del 33 1/3% de la Recuperación Neta obtenida. Asimismo, estos contratos establecieron que no se les pagaría a los abogados de los Demandantes en caso de no tener éxito. Los abogados de los Demandantes han accedido a reducir significativamente sus honorarios a razón del 21.5% de la Recuperación Neta.

P:  En caso de que fuere aprobado, ¿cuáles inversionistas de Stanford tendrían derecho a distribuciones bajo el Acuerdo de los Aseguradores?

R:  Las sumas de dinero disponibles para distribución obtenidas por el Acuerdo con los Aseguradores serán distribuidas de manera proporcional entre todos los inversionistas de Stanford quienes (a) cuenten con Cantidades de Reclamación Permitidas determinadas por el proceso de reclamación y distribución del Administrador Judicial, y (b) hayan presentado un Aviso de Certificación completo al Administrador Judicial (tal y como se requiere por el Auto Judicial que aprueba la Primera Distribución Provisional del Administrador Judicial). Luego que el Tribunal apruebe el Acuerdo de los Aseguradores, el Administrador Judicial someterá una moción proponiendo y solicitándole a la Corte la aprobación a un plan específico de distribución de los fondos disponibles del Acuerdo Convenido con los Aseguradores.

P:  ¿Cómo se puede objetar al Acuerdo Convenido Aseguradores o a sus terminus?

R:  Cualquier objeción al Acuerdo Convenido Aseguradores o a sus términos, a la Moción para Aprobar el Acuerdo, a los Honorarios de Abogados, a la Orden de Fecha Final, o a la Sentencia y la Orden de Fecha Final, deberán presentarse por escrito, ante el Tribunal en la Acción SEC, a más tardar el 30 de septiembre del 2016. Cualquier objeción presentada después de dicha fecha se considerará como renunciada y el Juzgado no la tomará en consideración. Aquellos que deseen comparecer y presentar objeciones en la Audiencia de Aprobación Final deben incluir una solicitud de comparecencia a través de sus objeciones por escrito. Para cualquier instrucción adicional, favor de referirse a la Orden de Calendario y a la Notificación del Acuerdo y de la Orden de Fecha Final de los Procedimientos, que se encuentran en los enlaces arriba mencionados

P:  ¿En qué momento el Juzgado tomará su decisión final sobre la Moción para Aprobar el Acuerdo Convenido?

R:  La Audiencia de Aprobación Definitiva está programada para el 28 de octubre del 2016 a las 10:00 am. El Juzgado emitirá su fallo en la audiencia o en algún momento ulterior.

P:  En caso que el Juzgado autorice la moción, ¿cuándo podré recibir el pago de distribución que me corresponde?

R:  El Acuerdo Convenido Aseguradores contempla que el Administrador Judicial presente la Moción para la aprobación de un plan de distribución después de que el Juzgado apruebe el acuerdo. Todavía hace falta que se determine el momento de la aprobación del Tribunal y cualquier distribución subsecuente. En cuanto contemos con información adicional, el Administrador Judicial y el Examinador publicarán las actualizaciones en los sitios web del Síndico de Stanford Financial Group y en los sitios web del Examinador.

P:  Si ya presenté una forma de Forma de Prueba de Reclamación ante el Administrador Judicial de los Estados Unidos ¿Es necesario que presente otra forma de Prueba de Reclamación para ser considerado dentro del Plan de Distribución Aseguradores?

R:  Si usted ya presentó una forma de Prueba de Reclamación ante el Administrador Judicial de los Estados Unidos, NO es necesario que presente otra forma.

P:  No he recibido el Aviso de Determinación con mi número de reclamación. ¿Cómo confirmo que recibieron mi forma de Prueba de Reclamación?

R:  Debe comunicarse con el Agente de Reclamaciones del Administrador Judicial para solicitar su número de reclamación:  (1) por correo electrónico info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com, o (2) por teléfono: 866-964-6301 o 317-324-0757.

Kroll Settlement Approval Hearing Rescheduled

The hearing to consider approval of the settlement entered with Kroll, LLC (f/k/a Kroll, Inc.) and Kroll Associates, Inc. (collectively, “Kroll”) originally scheduled for July 8, 2016 has been rescheduled. That hearing will now take place on Friday, August 12, 2016 at 11:00 am (following the hearing to consider approval of the settlement with Chadbourne & Parke, LLP).

Further details concerning the proposed settlement with Kroll can be found below.

Further details concerning the proposed settlement with Chadbourne & Parke, LLP can be found below.

Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with Chadbourne & Parke, LLP and Seek Court Approval

On April 20, 2016, the Receiver and the Official Stanford Investors Committee filed a Motion seeking Court Approval of a settlement entered into with Chadbourne & Parke, LLP (“Chadbourne”). Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Receivership Estate will receive $35.00 million. On May 9, 2016, the Court entered a Scheduling Order setting a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Settlement and establishing a scheduling for the submission of objections.

The Court has set a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Settlement for Friday, August 12, 2016 at 10:00 am. Any party wishing to file an objection to the settlement must do so no later than Friday, July 22, 2016, and must do so in accordance with the requirements established by the Court in its Scheduling Order.

You may access the materials pertaining to the Chadbourne settlement by clicking on the links below:

Scheduling Order, click HERE for English; click HERE for Spanish.

Settlement Agreement, click HERE for English; click HERE for Spanish.

Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings, click HERE for English; click HERE for Spanish.

Publication Notice, click HERE for English.

Proposed Bar Order, click HERE for English; click HERE for Spanish.

Proposed Final Judgment and Bar Order, click HERE for English; click HERE for Spanish.

El Administrador Judicial y el Comité de Inversionistas de Stanford anuncian el Convenio de Transacción Judicial con Chadbourne & Parke, LLP y Aprobación del Juzgado

En fecha 20 de abril de 2016, el Administrador Judicial y el Comité Oficial de Inversionistas de Stanford presentó una Moción solicitando la Aprobación del Juzgado de un convenio de transacción judicial celebrado con Chadbourne & Parke, LLP (“Chadbourne”).

De conformidad con los términos del convenio, el Patrimonio en Concurso recibirá $35 millones. El 9 de mayo de 2016, el Juzgado emitió un Auto de Programación mediante el cual fijó una audiencia con respecto a la Moción para Aprobar Transacción Judicial y en el cual estableció un calendario para la presentación de objeciones.

El Juzgado estableció la audiencia respecto la Moción para Aprobar Transacción Judicial para el viernes 12 de agosto de 2016, a las 10:00 am.

Cualquier parte que desee presentar una objeción en relación al convenio deberá hacerlo a más tardar el viernes 22 de julio de 2016, y deberá hacerlo conforme a los requisitos que se establecen por el Juzgado en su Auto de Programación.

Usted puede acceder a los materiales con respecto al convenio de transacción judicial con Chadbourne haciendo click en las siguientes ligas:

Auto de Programación, haga click AQUÍ para versión inglés y haga click AQUÍ para versión en español.

Convenio de Transacción Judicial, haga click AQUÍ para versión inglés y haga click AQUÍ para versión en español.

Aviso de Convenio de Transacción Judicial y Procedimientos de Auto de Exclusión, haga click AQUÍ para versión inglés y haga click AQUÍ  para versión en español.

Auto de Exclusión Propuesto, haga click AQUÍ para versión inglés y haga click AQUÍ para versión en español.

Sentencia Definitiva Propuesta y Auto de Exclusión, haga click AQUÍ para versión inglés y haga click AQUÍ para versión en español.

Chadbourne Settlement FAQs:

Q.   Why did the Plaintiffs settle for $35 million?

A.  The reasons for the amount of the settlement are discussed at length in the Motion to Approve the Settlement and the Declarations included in the Appendix to the Motion. You can review the Motion to Approve the Settlement by clicking HERE for English or clicking HERE for Spanish. You can review the Appendix to the Motion to Approve by clicking HERE (English only).

Q:  How was the amount to be paid to the Plaintiffs’ attorneys determined?

A:  The Plaintiffs’ attorneys entered into agreements that set their fee at 25% of the Net Recovery obtained. The agreements also provided that the Plaintiffs’ attorneys would not be paid if they were not successful.

Q:  If approved, which Stanford investors will be entitled to distributions from the Chadbourne settlement?

A:  Proceeds from the Chadbourne Settlement will be distributed on a pro rata basis to all Stanford investors who (a) have Allowed Claim Amounts determined by the Receiver’s claim and distribution process, and (b) have submitted a completed Certification Notice to the Receiver (as required by the Court’s Order approving the Receiver’s First Interim Distribution).

Q:  How do I object to the Chadbourne Settlement or its terms?

A:  Any objection to the Chadbourne Settlement or its terms, the Motion to Approve the Settlement, the Application for Attorneys’ Fees, or the Judgment and Bar Order must be filed in writing, with the Court in the SEC Action no later than July 22, 2016. Any objections not filed by that date will be deemed waived and will not be considered by the Court. Those wishing to appear and present objections at the Final Approval Hearing must include a request to appear in their written objections. Please refer to the Scheduling Order and Notice for additional instructions.

Q:  When will the Court make a final determination on the Motion to Approve the Settlement?

A:  The Final Approval Hearing is set for August 12, 2016 at 10:00 AM. The Court will issue its decision at the hearing or some point thereafter.

Q:  If the Court approves the motion, when can I expect my distribution payment?

A:  The Chadbourne Settlement contemplates that the Receiver will file a Motion for approval of a distribution plan after the Court approves the settlement. The timing of the Court’s approval and any subsequent distribution has yet to be determined. As additional information becomes available, the Receiver and Examiner will post updates to the Stanford Financial Group Receivership websites and on the Examiner’s website.

Q:  I have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver. Do I need to file another Proof of Claim form to be considered in the Chadbourne Distribution Plan?

A:  If you have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver, you DO NOT need to file another form. There is no further action required by you at this time.

Q:  I have not received a Notice of Determination with my claim number. How can I be sure you received my Proof of Claim Form?

A:  You should contact the Receiver’s Claims Agent to request your claim number:

(1) By email at mailto:info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com, or
(2) By phone at 866-964-6301 or 317-324-0757.

Preguntas Frecuentes sobre el Convenio de Transacción Judicial Chadbourne:

Q:  ¿Por qué aceptaron los demandantes aceptaron el convenio de transacción judicial por $35 millones?

A.  Las razones por el monto del convenio se desahogan a fondo en la Moción para Aprobar Transacción Judicial y en las Declaraciones incluidas en el Apéndice de la Moción. Usted puede revisar la Moción para Aprobar Transacción Judicial haciendo click AQUÍ para idioma en inglés y haciendo click AQUÍ para idioma en español. Para revisar el Apéndice de la Moción para Aprobar haga click AQUÍ (únicamente en idioma inglés).

Q:  ¿Cómo se determinó el monto que se debe pagar a los abogados de los Demandantes?

A:  Los abogados de los Demandantes celebraron contratos en los cuales establecieron que sus honorarios serían a razón del 25% de la Recuperación Neta obtenida. Asimismo, estos contratos establecieron que no se les pagaría a los abogados de los Demandantes en caso de no tener éxito.

Q:  En caso de que fuere aprobado, ¿cuales inversionistas de Stanford tendrían derecho a distribuciones del convenio de Chadbourne?

A:  Las sumas de dinero del convenio de Chadbourne serán distribuidas de manera proporcional entre todos los inversionistas de Stanford quienes (a) cuenten con Cantidades de Reclamación Permitidas determinadas por el proceso de reclamación y distribución del Administrador Judicial, y (b) hayan presentado un Aviso de Certificación completo al Administrador Judicial (tal y como se requiere por el Auto Judicial que aprueba la Primera Distribución Provisional del Administrador Judicial)

Q:  ¿Cómo se puede objetar al Convenio de Transacción Judicial Chadbourne o a sus términos?                   

A:  Cualquier objeción al Convenio de Transacción Judicial Chadbourne o a sus términos, a la para Moción para Aprobar Transacción Judicial, los Honorarios de Abogados o a la Sentencia y al Auto de Exclusión, deberán presentarse por escrito ante el Tribunal en la Acción SEC (por sus siglas en inglés, Securities Exchange Commission – Comisión de la Bolsa de Valores de EE.UU.), a más tardar el 22 de julio del 2016.  Cualquier objeción presentada después de dicha fecha se considerará como renunciada y el Juzgado no la tomará en consideración. Aquellos que deseen comparecer y presentar objeciones en la Audiencia de Aprobación Definitiva deben incluir una solicitud de comparecencia a través de sus objeciones por escrito. Para cualquier instrucción adicional, favor de referirse al Auto de Programación y al Aviso.

Q:  ¿En qué momento el Juzgdo tomará su decisión final sobre la Moción para Aprobar Transacción Judicial?

A:  La Audiencia de Aprobación Definitiva está programada para el 12 de agosto del 2016. El Juzgado emitirá s fallo en la audiencia o en algún momento ulterior.

Q:  En caso que el Juzgado autorice la moción, ¿cuándo podré recibir el pago de distribución que me corresponde?

A:  El Convenio de Transacción Judicial Chadbourne contempla que el Administrador Judicial presente la Moción para la aprobación de un plan de distribución después de que el Juzgado apruebe el convenio. Todavía hace falta que se determine el momento de la aprobación del Tribunal y cualquier distribución subsecuente. En cuanto contemos con información adicional, el Administrador Judicial y el Interventor publicarán las actualizaciones en los sitios web del Concurso de Stanford Financial Group y en los sitios web del Interventor.

Q:  Si ya presente una forma de Solicitud de Reconocimiento de Deuda ante el Administrador Judicial de los Estados Unidos ¿Es necesario que presente otra forma de Solicitud de Reconocimiento de Deuda para ser considerado dentro del Plan de Distribución Chadbourne?

A:  Si usted ya presentó una forma de Solicitud de Reconocimiento de Deuda ante el Administrador Judicial de los Estados Unidos, NO es necesario que presente otra forma. Por el momento no se requiere que realice alguna otra acción.

Q:  No he recibido el Aviso de Decisión con mi número de reclamación. ¿Cómo confirmo que recibieron mi forma de Solicitud de Reconocimiento de Deuda?

A:  Debe comunicarse con el Agente de Reclamaciones del Administrador Judicial para solicitar su número de reclamación:

(1)  Por correo electrónico: mailto:info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com
(2) Por teléfono: 866-964-6301 ó 317-324-0757.

Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlement with Kroll and Seek Court Approval

On March 7, 2016, the Receiver and the Official Stanford Investors Committee filed a Motion seeking Court Approval of a settlement entered into with Kroll, LLC (f/k/a Kroll, Inc.) and Kroll Associates, Inc. (collectively, “Kroll”).  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Receivership Estate will receive $24.0 million. On March 23, 2016, the Court entered a Scheduling Order setting a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Settlement and establishing a scheduling for the submission of objections.

The Court has set a hearing on the Motion to Approve the Settlement for Friday, July 8, 2016 at 10:00 am. Any party wishing to file an objection to the settlement must do so no later than Wednesday, May 18, 2016, and must do so in accordance with the requirements established by the Court in its Scheduling Order.

You may access the materials pertaining to the Kroll settlement by clicking on the links below:

Scheduling Order, click HERE for English and HERE for Spanish. Click HERE for the Exhibits to the Scheduling Order (English only).

Settlement Agreement, click HERE for English and HERE for Spanish.

Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings, click HERE for English and HERE for Spanish.

Publication Notice, click HERE for English and HERE for Spanish.

Proposed Bar Order and Judgment, click HERE for English and HERE for Spanish.

Proposed Antiguan Court Orders, click HERE for English and HERE for Spanish.

Kroll Settlement FAQs:

Q:   Why did the Plaintiffs settle for $24 million?

A:   The reasons for the amount of the settlement are discussed at length in the Motion to Approve the Settlement, the Application for Attorneys’ Fees, and the Declarations included in the Appendix to the Application. You can review the Motion to Approve the Settlement by clicking HERE for English and HERE for Spanish. You can review the Appendix in support of the Motion to Approve Settlement by clicking HERE and HERE (English only).

You can review the Application for Attorneys’ Fees by clicking HERE for English and HERE for Spanish. You can review the Appendix to the Application for Attorneys’ Fees by clicking HERE and HERE (English only).

Q:   How was the amount to be paid to the Plaintiffs’ attorneys determined?

A:   The Plaintiffs’ attorneys entered into agreements that set their fee at 25% of the Net Recovery obtained. The agreements also provided that the Plaintiffs’ attorneys would not be paid if they were not successful.

Q:   If approved, which Stanford investors will be entitled to distributions from the Kroll settlement?

A:   Proceeds from the Kroll Settlement will be distributed on a pro rata basis to all Stanford investors who (a) have Allowed Claim Amounts determined by the Receiver’s claim and distribution process, and (b) have submitted a completed Certification Notice to the Receiver (as required by the Court’s Order approving the Receiver’s First Interim Distribution).

Q:   How do I object to the Kroll Settlement or its terms?

A:   Any objection to the Kroll Settlement or its terms, the Motion to Approve the Settlement, the Application for Attorneys’ Fees, or the Judgment and Bar Order must be filed in writing, with the Court in the SEC Action no later than May 18, 2016. Any objections not filed by that date will be deemed waived and will not be considered by the Court. Those wishing to appear and present objections at the Final Approval Hearing must include a request to appear in their written objections. Please refer to the motion for additional instructions.

Q:   When will the Court make a final determination on the Motion to Approve the Settlement?

A:   The Final Approval Hearing is set for July 8, 2016. The Court will issue its decision at the hearing or some point thereafter.

Q:  If the Court approves the motion, when can I expect my distribution payment?

A:   The Kroll Settlement contemplates that the Receiver will file a Motion for approval of a distribution plan after the Court approves the settlement. The timing of the Court’s approval and any subsequent distribution has yet to be determined. As additional information becomes available, the Receiver and Examiner will post updates to the Stanford Financial Group Receivership websites and on the Examiner’s website.

Q:   I have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver. Do I need to file another Proof of Claim form to be considered in the Kroll Distribution Plan?

A:   If you have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver, you DO NOT need to file another form. There is no further action required by you at this time.

Q:   I have not received a Notice of Determination with my claim number. How can I be sure you received my Proof of Claim Form?

A:   You should contact the Receiver’s Claims Agent to request your claim number:

(i) by email at mailto:info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com or
(ii) by phone at 866-964-6301 or 317-324-0757.

Preguntas Frecuentes de la Transacción Judicial de Kroll:

Q:  ¿Porque las Partes Actoras aceptaron en arreglo $24 millones?

A:  Las razones respecto el monto de la Transacción Judicial son abordadas a detalle en la Solicitud de Auto Aprobando Transacción Judicial, la Solicitud para el Pago de Honorarios de Abogados y las Declaraciones incluidas en el Apéndice a la Solicitud. Usted puede consultar la Solicitud de Auto Aprobando Transacción Judicial haciendo click en la siguiente liga AQUÍ para ver la versión inglés y AQUÍ para la versión español.  Se puede revisar al Apéndice a la Solicitud de Auto Aprobando Transacción Judicial haciendo click en la siguiente liga AQUÍ y AQUÍ (inglés solamente).

Se puede revisar la Solicitud para el Pago de Honorarios de Abogados haciendo click en la siguiente liga AQUÍ para ver la versión inglés y AQUÍ para la versión español.  Se puede revisar el Apéndice a la Solicitud haciendo click en la siguiente liga AQUÍAQUÍ (inglés solamente).

Q:  ¿Cómo fue determinado el monto a pagar a los abogados de las Partes Actoras?

A:  Los abogados de las Partes Actoras celebraron contratos estableciendo sus honorarios el 25% de la Recuperación Neta obtenida. Los contratos también establecieron que los abogados de las Partes Actoras no iban a ser pagados en caso de no tener éxito.

Q:  En caso de ser aprobados, cuales inversionistas de Stanford tendrán derecho a distribuciones de la transacción judicial de Kroll?

A:  Los recursos de la transacción judicial de Kroll serán distribuidos de manera proporcional a todos los inversionistas de Stanford que (a) cuentan con Montos Aprobados de Reclamación determinados bajo la reclamación y el proceso de distribución del Administrador Judicial y (b) han presentado una Aviso de Certificación ante el Síndico (conforme a lo requerido por el Primer Plan Provisional de Distribución del Administrador Judicial.

Q:  ¿Cómo puedo oponerme a la Transacción Judicial de Kroll o a sus términos?

A:  Cualquier objeción a la Transacción Judicial de Kroll o a sus términos, a la Solicitud de Auto Aprobando Transacción Judicial, a la Solicitud para el Pago de Honorarios de Abogados o a la Sentencia y al Auto de Exclusión, deberá ser presentada por escrito ante el Juzgado dentro de la Acción de la Comisión de Valores (SEC) a más tardar el 18 de mayo de 2016. Cualquier objeción no presentada para esa fecha se tendrá por renunciada y no será considerada por el Juzgado. Aquellos que deseen comparecer y presentar objeciones en la Audiencia Final de Aprobación deberán incluir una solicitud para aparecer en sus objeciones escritas. Favor de hacer referencia a la solicitud para obtener instrucciones adicionales.

Q:  ¿En qué momento el Juzgado llegará su determinación final con respecto a la Solicitud de Auto Aprobando Transacción Judicial?

A:  La Audiencia Final de Aprobación se fijó para el 8 de julio de 2016. El Juzgado emitirá su decisión en la audiencia o en algún momento posterior a ella.

Q:  Si la Corte aprueba la solicitud, ¿cuándo se me haría mi pago de la distribución?

A:  La Transacción Judicial contempla que el Administrador Judicial presentará una Solicitud para aprobación de un plan de distribución después de que el Juzgado apruebe la transacción judicial. Los plazos para la aprobación del Juzgado y cualquier distribución subsecuente todavía no se determinan. En la medida en que información adicional se vuelva disponible, el Administrador Judicial y Interventor publicarán actualizaciones para la página de internet del Concurso del Grupo Financiero Stanford y en la página de internet del Interventor.

Q:  Ya he presentado un formulario de Reconocimiento de Deuda ante el Administrador Judicial de los Estados Unidos. ¿Necesito presentar otro formulario de Reconocimiento de Deuda para ser considerado en el Plan de Distribución de Kroll?

A:  Si ya ha presentado un formulario de Reconocimiento de Deuda ante el Síndico de los Estados Unidos, usted NO necesita presentar otro formulario. No existen acciones adicionales por parte de usted en este momento.

Q:  No he recibido un Aviso de Determinación con mi número de reclamación. ¿Cómo puedo asegurarme que recibieron mi formulario de Reconocimiento de Deuda?

A:  Usted deberá contactar al Agente de Reclamos del Administrador Judicial para solicitar su número de reclamo:

(1) Por correo electrónico en info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com,
(2) Por teléfono en 866-964-6301 o 317-324-0757.

Receiver and Official Stanford Investors Committee Announce Settlements and Seek Court Approval

Partial Settlement with Attorneys and Directors of Stanford Trust Company.

On May 12, 2015, the Receiver and the Official Stanford Investors Committee filed a Motion seeking Court approval of a settlement entered into with Adams & Reese, LLP, Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, LLP, Robert C. Schmidt, James R. Austin, Cordell Haymon and Lynette Frazier, both individually and as the independent executrix of the Estate of Thomas L. Frazer. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the settling defendants will pay over to the Receivership Estate approximately $4.9 million. The Court has set a hearing on the Motion to Approve the settlement for Friday, July 31, 2015, at 10:00 am. Any party wishing to file an objection to the settlement must do so no later than Friday, July 10, 2015, and must do so in accordance with the requirements established by the Court in its Scheduling Order.

You may access the materials pertaining to this settlement by clicking on the links below:

Settlement Agreement, click HERE for English and HERE for Spanish.

Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings, click HERE for English and HERE for Spanish.

Scheduling Order, click HERE for English and HERE for Spanish.

Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement (Expedited Request for Entry of Scheduling Order and Motion to Approve Proposed Settlement with Adams & Reese Parties, Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, LLP, Cordell Haymon and Lynette Frazier, Bar Order, Notice and Attorneys’ Fees), click HERE for English and HERE for Spanish.

Appendix in Support of Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement, click HERE for English.

Settlement with BDO USA, LLP and related entities.

On May 15, 2015, the Receiver and the Official Stanford Investors Committee filed a Motion seeking Court approval of a settlement entered into with BDO USA, LLP and related BDO entities. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, BDO USA, LLP, will pay over to the Receivership Estate $40.0 million. The Court has set a hearing on the Motion to Approve the settlement for Friday, August 28, 2015, at 10:00 am. Any party wishing to file an objection to the settlement must do so no later than Friday, August 7, 2015, and must do so in accordance with the requirements established by the Court in its Scheduling Order.

You may access the materials pertaining to this settlement by clicking on the links below:

Settlement Agreement, click HERE for English and HERE for Spanish.

Notice of Settlement and Bar Order Proceedings, click HERE for English and HERE for Spanish.

Scheduling Order, click HERE for English and HERE for Spanish.

Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement (Expedited Request for Entry of Scheduling Order and Motion to Approve Proposed Settlement with BDO USA, LLP to Approve the Proposed Notice of Settlement with BDO USA, LLP, to Enter the Bar Order, to Enter the Final Judgment and Bar Order, and for Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees), click HERE for English and HERE for Spanish.

Appendix in Support of Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement, click HERE for English.

SPECIAL NOTICE FOR STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK CD INVESTORS WHO HAVE NOT ALREADY FILED A CLAIM.

The terms of the BDO Settlement also provide Stanford International Bank CD Investors who have not yet filed a claim with the Receiver or the Antiguan Joint Liquidators with an additional opportunity to file a claim with the Receiver. IF YOU HAVE ALREADY FILED A CLAIM WITH THE RECEIVER OR JOINT LIQUIDATORS, THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU. Stanford Investors who have not yet filed a claim with the Receiver or the Antiguan Joint Liquidators may file a claim with the Receiver by completing and filing a Proof of Claim on or before August 5, 2015. You may obtain a Proof of Claim form, in English, HERE, and in Spanish, HERE.

IF YOU HAVE ALREADY FILED A CLAIM WITH THE RECEIVER, YOU DO NOT NEED TO FILE ANOTHER ONE.

BDO Settlement FAQs:

Q.  Why did the Plaintiffs settle for $40 million?

A.  The reasons for the amount of the settlement are discussed at length in the Motion for Approval and the Declarations included in the Appendix to the Motion for Approval.

You can review the Motion for Approval by clicking HERE for English and AQUÍ for Spanish. You can review the Appendix in Support of the Motion for Approval by clicking HERE (English only).

Q:  How was the amount to be paid to the Plaintiffs’ attorneys determined?

A:  The Plaintiffs’ attorneys entered into agreements that set their fee at 25% of the Net Recovery obtained in the BDO lawsuits. The agreements also provided that the Plaintiffs’ attorneys would not be paid if they were not successful in the BDO lawsuits.

Q:  If approved, which Stanford investors will be entitled to distributions from the BDO settlement?

A:  Proceeds from the BDO settlement will be distributed on a pro rata basis to all Stanford investors who (a) have Allowed Claim Amounts determined by the Receiver’s claim and distribution process, and (b) have submitted a completed Certification Notice to the Receiver (as required by the Court’s Order approving the Receiver’s First Interim Distribution). 

Q:  How do I object to the BDO Settlement or its terms?

A:  Any objection to the BDO Settlement or its terms, the Motion, the Judgment and Bar Order, or the Final Bar Order, must be filed in writing, with the Court in the SEC Action no later than August 7, 2015. Any objections not filed by that date will be deemed waived and will not be considered by the Court. Those wishing to appear and present objections at the Final Approval Hearing must include a request to appear in their written objections. Please refer to the motion for additional instructions.

Q:  When will the Court make a final determination on the Motion to Approve the Settlement?

A:  The final hearing on the Motion to Approve is set for August 28, 2015.  The Court will issue its decision at some point in time following the hearing. 

Q:  If the Court approves the motion, when can I expect my distribution payment? 

A:  The BDO Settlement contemplates that the Receiver will file a Motion for approval of a distribution plan after the Court approves the settlement.

The timing of the Court’s approval and any subsequent distribution have yet to be determined. As additional information becomes available, the Receiver and Examiner will post updates to the Stanford Financial Group Receivership websites and on the Examiner’s website.

Q:  I have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver. Do I need to file another Proof of Claim form to be considered in the BDO Distribution Plan?

A:  If you have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver you DO NOT need to file another form. There is no further action required by you at this time.

Q:  I filed my Proof of Claim form after the September 1, 2012 bar date. Do I need to file another Proof of Claim form to be considered in the BDO Distribution Plan?

A:  If you have already filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver you DO NOT need to file another form.

Q:  I have not received a Notice of Determination with my claim number. How can I be sure you received my Proof of Claim Form?

A:  You should contact the Receiver’s Claims Agent to request your claim number:

1) By email at info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com

2) By phone at 866-964-6301 or 317-324-0757.

Q:  I have not filed a Proof of Claim form with the U.S. Receiver. Can I file one now?

A:  Under the proposed terms of the BDO Settlement, you may have an opportunity to participate in the BDO Distribution Plan, and potentially participate in future distributions of funds obtained by the Receivership as a result of future litigation settlements or recoveries by filing a Proof of Claim.

You can download a copy of the Proof of Claim Form from the following link:                   http://www.stanfordfinancialclaims.com/pdf/FINAL_STANFORD_BDO%20POC_060115.pdf

You must submit your Proof of Claim Form to the Receiver by August 5, 2015 to be considered for this opportunity. 

The Receiver will review and consider all Proof of Claim forms submitted prior to August 5, 2015 and will determine each such Claim, including whether to allow such Claim. Submitting a Proof of Claim form does not guarantee that your Claim will be allowed or that you will receive any funds.  

El Administrador Judicial y el Comité Oficial de Inversionistas de Stanford Anuncian Acuerdo y Buscan la Aprobación del Tribunal

Acuerdo Parcial con los Abogados y Consejeros de Stanford Trust Company.

El 12 de mayo de 2015, el Administrador Judicial y el Comité Oficial de Inversionistas de Stanford presentaron una Moción buscando la aprobación del Tribunal de un acuerdo celebrado entre Adams & Reese, LLP, Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, LLP, Robert C. Schmidt, James R. Austin, Cordell Haymon y Lynette Frazier, individualmente y como la albacea independiente del Patrimonio de Thomas L. Frazer. Conforme a los términos del acuerdo, los demandados acuerdan pagar al Patrimonio Bajo Administración Judicial aproximadamente $4.9 millones. El Tribunal ha establecido una audiencia sobre la Moción para Aprobar el acuerdo el viernes 31 de julio de 2015 a las 10:00 am. Cualquier parte que desee presentar una objeción al acuerdo deberá hacerlo a más tardar el viernes 10 de julio de 2015, y deberá realizarlo conforme a los requisitos establecidos por el Tribunal en su Auto de Programación.

Podrá acceder a los materiales concernientes a este acuerdo al seleccionar los links establecidos a continuación:

Convenio de Transaccion Judicial, seleccione AQUÍ para inglés y AQUÍ para español.

Notificación del Acuerdo y Procedimientos del Auto de Exclusión (Bar Order Proceedings), seleccione AQUÍ para inglés y AQUÍ para español.

Auto de Programación, seleccione AQUÍ para inglés y AQUÍ para español.

Moción para Aprobar el Convenio de Transaccion Judicial (Solicitud Acelerada para Entrar en el Auto de Programación y Moción para Aprobar el Acuerdo Propuesto con Adams & Reese, LLP, Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, LLP, Robert C. Schmidt, James R. Austin, Cordell Haymon y Lynette Frazier, Auto de Exclusión, Notificación y Honorarios de Abogados), seleccione AQUÍ para inglés y AQUÍ para español.

Apéndice Soportando la Moción para Aprobar el Convenio de Transaccion Judicial, seleccione AQUÍ para inglés.

Acuerdo con BDO USA, LLP y entidades relacionadas.

El 15 de mayo de 2015 el Administrador Oficial y el Comité Oficial de Inversionistas de Stanford presentaron una Moción buscando la aprobación del Tribunal de un acuerdo celebrado entre BDO USA, LLP, y entidades relacionadas de BDO. Conforme a los términos del acuerdo, BDO USA, LLP pagará al Patrimonio Bajo Administración Judicial $40.0 millones. El Tribunal ha establecido una audiencia sobre la Moción para Aprobar el acuerdo el viernes 28 de agosto de 2015 a las 10:00 am. Cualquier parte que desee presentar una objeción al acuerdo deberá hacerlo a más tardar el viernes 7 de agosto de 2015, y deberá hacerlo conforme a los requisitos establecidos por el Tribunal en su Auto de Programación.

Podrá acceder a los materiales concernientes a este acuerdo al seleccionar los links establecidos a continuación:

Convenio de Transaccion Judicial, seleccione AQUÍ para inglés y AQUÍ para español.

Notificación del Acuerdo y Procedimientos del Auto de Exclusión (Bar Order Proceedings), seleccione AQUÍ para inglés y AQUÍ para español.

Auto de Programación, seleccione AQUÍ  para inglés y AQUÍ ara español.

Moción para Aprobar el Convenio de Transaccion Judicial (Solicitud Acelerada para Entrar en el Auto de Programación y Moción para Aprobar el Acuerdo Propuesto con BDO USA, LLP para Aprobar la Notificación Propuesta de Acuerdo con BDO USA LLP, para Entrar en el Auto de Exclusión, para Entrar en la Sentencia Final y Auto de Exclusión, y para los Honorarios de Abogados del Demandante) seleccione AQUÍ para inglés y AQUÍ para español.

Apéndice Soportando la Moción para Aprobar el Convenio de Transaccion Judicial, seleccione AQUÍ para ingles.

NOTIFICACIÓN ESPECIAL PARA LOS INVERSIONISTAS DE STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK CD QUE NO HAN PRESENTADO UNA DEMANDA.

Los términos del Acuerdo con BDO también disponen que los Inversionistas de Stanford International Bank CD que no han presentado una demanda con el Administrador Judicial o los Liquidadores Conjuntos de Antigua, tienen una oportunidad adicional para hacerlo. SI USTED YA HA PRESENTADO UNA DEMANDA CON EL ADMINISTRADOR JUDICIAL O LIQUIDADORES CONJUNTOS, ESTO NO APLICA PARA USTED. Los Inversionistas de Stanford que no han presentado una reclamación con el Administrador Judicial o los Liquidadores Conjuntos de Antigua, lo podrán hacer al completar y presentar una Prueba de Demanda en o antes del 5 de agosto de 2015. Usted puede obtener una forma de Prueba de Demanda en inglés, AQUÍ, y en español, AQUÍ.

SI USTED YA HA PRESENTADO UNA DEMANDA CON EL ADMINISTRADOR JUDICIAL, NO NECESITA PRESENTAR OTRA.

Preguntas Frecuentes sobre el Convenio de Transacción Judicial BDO:

P.  ¿Por qué aceptaron los demandantes que el convenio de transacción judicial fuera por $40 millones?

R.   Las razones por el monto del convenio se desahogan a fondo en la Moción para Aprobación y en las Declaraciones incluidas en el Apéndice de la Moción para Aprobación.

Para revisar la Moción para Aprobación seleccione AQUÍ para idioma en inglés y seleccione AQUÍ para idioma en español.  Para revisar el Apéndice de Apoyo a la Moción para Aprobación seleccione AQUÍ (únicamente en idioma inglés).

P:  ¿Cómo se determinó el monto que se debe pagar a los abogados de los Demandantes?

R:  Los abogados de los Demandantes celebraron contratos en los cuales establecieron que sus honorarios serían a razón del 25% de la Recuperación Neta obtenida en los juicios BDO. Asimismo, estos contratos establecieron que no se les pagaría a los abogados de los Demandantes en caso de no tener éxito en los juicios BDO.

P:  ¿En caso de que fuere aprobado, cuales inversionistas de Stanford tendrían derecho a distribuciones como resultado del convenio de transacción judicial BDO?

R:  Las sumas de dinero del convenio de transacción judicial BDO serán distribuidas a prorrata entre todos los inversionistas de Stanford quienes (a) cuenten con Cantidades de Reclamación Permitidas determinadas por el proceso de reclamación y distribución del Administrador Judicial, y (b) hayan sometido un Aviso de Certificación completo al Administrador Judicial (tal y como se requiere por la Orden Judicial que aprueba la Primera Distribución Provisional del Administrador Judicial).

P:   ¿Cómo se puede objetar al Convenio de Transacción Judicial BDO o sus terminus?

R:  Cualquier objeción al Convenio de Transacción Judicial BDO o a sus términos, a la Moción, Sentencia y Auto de Exclusión o al Auto Definitivo de Exclusión, deberán presentarse por escrito ante el Tribunal de Acción SEC (por sus siglas en inglés, Securities Exchange Commission – Comisión de la Bolsa de Valores), a más tardar el 7 de agosto del 2015.  Cualquier objeción presentada después de dicha fecha se considerará como renunciada y el Tribunal desechará la misma. Aquellos que deseen comparecer y presentar objeciones en la Audiencia de Aprobación Final deben incluir una solicitud para comparecer a través de sus objeciones por escrito. Para cualquier instrucción adicional, favor de revisar la moción.

P:  ¿En qué momento el Tribunal tomará su decisión final sobre la Moción para Aprobación del Convenio?

R:  La audiencia final para la Moción de Aprobación está programada para el 28 de Agosto del 2015. El Tribunal resolverá sobre este asunto en algún momento después de dicha audiencia.

P:  ¿En caso que el Tribunal autorice la moción, ¿cuándo podré recibir el pago que me corresponde?

R:  El Convenio de Transacción Judicial BDO contempla que el Administrador Judicial presente la Moción para Aprobación de un plan de distribución después de que el Tribunal apruebe el mismo.

Todavía hace falta que se determine el momento de la aprobación del Tribunal y cualquier distribución subsecuente. En cuanto contemos con información adicional, el Administrador Judicial publicará las actualizaciones en los sitios web del Concurso de Standard Financial Group.

P:  ¿Ya presenté una forma de Prueba de Reclamación ante el Administrador Judicial de los Estados Unidos ¿Es necesario que presente otra forma de Prueba de Reclamación para ser considerado dentro del Plan de Distribución BDO?

R:    Si ya presentó una forma de Prueba de Reclamación ante el Administrador Judicial de Estados Unidos, NO es necesario presentar otra forma. Por el momento no se requiere que realice alguna otra acción.

P:  ¿Presenté la forma de Prueba de Reclamación después de la fecha límite del 1 de septiembre del 2012.  ¿Es necesario que presente otra forma de Prueba de Reclamación para ser considerado dentro del Plan de Distribución BDO?

R:  Si ya presentó una forma de Prueba de Reclamación ante el Administrador Judicial de los Estados Unidos NO es necesario que presente otra forma.

P:  ¿No he recibido el Aviso de Decisión con mi número de reclamación. ¿Cómo confirmo que recibieron mi forma de Prueba de Reclamación?

R:  Debe comunicarse con el Agente de Reclamaciones del Administrador Judicial para solicitar su número de reclamación:

1) Por correo electrónico: info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com

2) Por teléfono: (866)-964-6301 ó (317)-324-0757.

P:  ¿No he presentado la forma de Prueba de Reclamación ante el Administrador Judicial de los Estados Unidos. ¿Puedo presentar una en este momento?

R:  De acuerdo a los términos propuestos en el Convenio de Transacción Judicial BDO, puede tener la oportunidad de participar en el Plan de Distribución BDO, y posiblemente participar en distribuciones futuras de fondos obtenidos por el Concurso con motivo de acuerdos de litigios futuros o recuperaciones mediante la presentación de una Prueba de Reclamación.

Para descargar una copia de la Forma de Prueba de Reclamación Demanda seleccione el vínculo siguiente: http://www.stanfordfinancialclaims.com/pdf/FINAL_STANFORD_BDO%20POC_060115.pdf

Debe presentar la Forma de Prueba de Reclamación ante el Administrador Judicial antes del 5 de agosto del 2015.

El Administrador Judicial revisará y tomará en cuenta todas las formas de Pruebas de Reclamación que hayan sido presentadas antes del 5 de Agosto del 2015 y resolverá lo conducente sobre cada Reclamación, inclusive si debe permitir su procedencia o no. El simple hecho de presentar una forma de Prueba de Reclamación no garantiza que su Reclamación sea procedente o que recibirá cualesquier fondos.

Receiver Files Tenth Schedule of Planned Distributions Pursuant to 1st Interim Distribution Plan

Pursuant to the Court’s Order dated May 30, 2013 approving the Receiver’s motion for authority to make a first interim distribution (see below, Court Authorizes First Interim Distribution to Investors), the Receiver has filed ten (10) schedules identifying certain distributions to be made to Stanford investors. Those schedules were as follows:

  • The Receiver’s First Schedule of Payments was filed on August 20, 2013. You may view a copy of the First Schedule of Payments HERE.
  • The Receiver’s Second Schedule of Payments was filed on September 16, 2013. You may view a copy of the Second Schedule of Payments HERE.
  • The Receiver’s Third Schedule of Payments was filed on October 4, 2013. You may view a copy of the Third Schedule of Payments HERE.
  • The Receiver’s Fourth Schedule of Payments was filed on October 17, 2013. You may view a copy of the Fourth Schedule of Payments HERE.
  • The Receiver’s Fifth Schedule of Payments was filed on October 25, 2013. You may view a copy of the Fifth Schedule of Payments HERE.
  • The Receiver’s Sixth Schedule of Payments was filed on November 4, 2013. You may view a copy of the Sixth Schedule of Payments HERE.
  • The Receiver’s Seventh Schedule of Payments was filed on December 4, 2013.  You may view a copy of the Seventh Schedule of Payments HERE.
  • The Receiver’s Eighth Schedule of Payments was filed on February 4, 2014.  You may view a copy of the Eighth Schedule of Payments HERE.
  • The Receiver’s Ninth Schedule of Payments was filed on June 3, 2014. You may view a copy of the Ninth Schedule of Payments HERE.
  • The Receiver’s Tenth Schedule of Payments was filed on September 5, 2014. You may view a copy of the Tenth Schedule of Payments HERE.

Pursuant to the procedure established by Judge Godbey’s May 30, 2013 Order, the Receiver begins to disburse the payments identified on the listed Schedules after those schedules have been on file for ten (10) days. All, or substantially all, of the payments identified on the ten listed schedules have been disbursed by the Receiver.

The ten schedules filed by the Receiver address total distributions of approximately $35.25 million of the $55 million that has been authorized for distribution by the Court. For Stanford Investors who have not yet received an initial distribution, there are a number of reasons why that may have occurred, including the following:

  • The Investor may not have filed a claim with the Receiver’s claim process before the Bar Date fixed by the Court.
  • The Investor may not have responded to a request for additional information from the Receiver’s claim processing agent, Gilardi & Co.
  • The Investor may have objected to the Receiver’s Notice of Determination with respect to the Investor’s claim.
  • The Investor may not have completed and returned the Receiver’s Certification Form.*
  • The Investor’s distribution check may simply be in process, such that it will be listed on subsequent schedules to be filed by the Receiver.
  • The Investor may have changed email addresses since submitting his or her claim, such that the Receiver’s claim processing agent, Gilardi & Co., cannot communicate with the investor.

The Receiver is continuing to process Notices of Determination, objections to Notices of Determination, and Claim Certifications. Additional payment schedules will be prepared and filed on a rolling basis. It is the Receiver’s expectation that additional payment schedules will be prepared and filed every few weeks (provided that there are sufficient claims being processed to justify that pace).

*The Receiver advises that a significant number of Investors who filed claims and received Notices of Determination have not yet returned completed Certification Forms. Completed Certification Forms must be received before distribution checks are issued.

Judge Godbey Approves Receiver’s Motion to Authorize 2nd Interim Distribution. 

On June 4, 2014, the Receiver filed a motion seeking Court approval to begin a 2nd interim distribution to Stanford CD Investors with Allowed Claims. The Motion seeks authority to distribute $17.8 million. Responses to the Motion will be due on or before June 25, 2014. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Motion to Approve 2nd Interim Distribution HERE.

On July 2, 2014, Judge Godbey issued his Order approving the Receiver’s proposed 2nd interim distribution. You may view a copy of the Order HERE.

Receiver Files First Schedule of Distributions from 2nd Interim Distribution

On November 5, 2014, the Receiver filed his first Schedule of Payments to be made to Investors from the 2nd Interim Distribution authorized by Judge Godbey on July 2, 2014. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s first Schedule of Payments HERE. Pursuant to this first Schedule of Payments, the Receiver will distribute $11.77 million of the $17.8 million authorized for distribution as a part of the 2nd Interim Distribution. Pursuant to Judge Godbey’s Order dated July 2, 2014 (see above), payments will begin to be issued ten (10) days after the filing of the payment schedule.

Receiver and Examiner File their Sixth Joint Advisory Concerning Pending Matters

The Receiver and the Examiner have filed a Sixth Joint Advisory with the Court regarding pending motions. The Sixth Joint Advisory was filed on October 6, 2014. The Joint Advisories identify various motions that are fully briefed and awaiting a decision by Judge Godbey, by Magistrate Judge Koenig or by Magistrate Judge Frost. You may view copies of the Joint Advisories at the links below.

  • Sixth Join Advisory, filed October 6, 2014. HERE
  • Fifth Joint Advisory, filed July 10, 2104. HERE
  • Fourth Joint Advisory, filed February 12, 2014. HERE
  • Third Joint Advisory, filed January 14, 2014. HERE
  • Second Joint Advisory, filed October 18, 2013. HERE
  • First Joint Advisory, filed August 12, 2013. HERE

Judge Godbey Denies Receiver’s Motion Seeking Release of $5.8 Million in Professional Fees From Holdback Amount.

The Court has withheld amounts ranging from 10% to 35% from each of the Receiver’s fee applications in the Stanford Receivership. On April 18, 2014, after considerable discussion with both the Examiner and the SEC, the Receiver filed a Motion seeking authority to release and pay to his professional firms 1/3 of the total holdback amount, or $5.8 million. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Motion and supporting materials HEREHERE and HERE.

Both the Examiner and the SEC oppose the relief sought by the Receiver and filed briefs on June 9, 2014, in opposition to the Receiver’s Motion.

You may view the Examiner’s opposition brief and supporting materials HERE and HERE.

You may view the SEC’s opposition brief HERE.

The Receiver filed his Reply Brief in support of his Motion on June 23, 2014. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s Reply Brief HERE.

On July 2, 2014, Judge Godbey entered an electronic order denying the Receiver’s motion as “premature.”

District of Columbia Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Favor of SIPC

On July 18, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its opinion in the appeal in SEC v. SIPC. The Court ruled in favor of SIPC and against the SEC. The net effect of that decision is that SIPC has no obligation to commence a liquidation proceeding with respect to Stanford Group Company, the Stanford broker/dealer entity. You may view a copy of the Court’s Opinion HERE.

Antiguan Joint Liquidators announce First Distribution

On Monday, January 20, 2014, the Antiguan Joint Liquidators announced that they would be making an initial distribution to SIB investors. A copy of the Joint Liquidators’ press release is below:

Antigua, January 20, 2014 – After receiving a number of proposals Joint Liquidators Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson of Grant Thornton have entered into an agreement with ItalBank International of Puerto Rico, to act as distribution agents for dividend payments to Stanford International Bank creditors.

Creditors may choose either wire transfer or USD cheque. Forms for making that choice will be available shortly on the Joint Liquidators website for submission to ItalBank, and the bank will also be making direct contact with creditors to confirm details for transfers. ItalBank is offering new accounts to creditors as an economical and reliable option for receiving your distribution.

The first distribution will be 1%.

Any creditor who withdrew a substantial sum from SIB after 21 August 2008 during the run on Stanford International Bank may not be included in the first distribution. A separate notification from the Joint Liquidators explaining the legal background to this will be sent to the affected creditors. Also FAQs on this issue will be posted on the Joint Liquidators’ official website at www.sibliquidation.com.

Antiguan Liquidator Efforts to Recover Preference Payments

As noted above in the press release from the Antiguan Joint Liquidators, certain investors are receiving notices that the Antiguan Joint Liquidators are attempting to recover “preference payments” received by those investors.  A considerable number of investors have reported receiving these letters.  The Antiguan Joint Liquidators are attempting to recover these “preference payments” and, in doing so, are proceeding pursuant to Antiguan law.  The Examiner, the Receiver, the Official Stanford Investors Committee and the U.S. Court have no role in these efforts.

Joint Comments by the U.S. Receiver, the Examiner and the Official Stanford Investors Committee Concerning the Liquidators’ Efforts to Recover Preference Payments

The U.S. Receiver, the Examiner, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee understand that certain SIBL CD investors have received letters or emails from Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson, the Joint Liquidators appointed by the Antiguan courts to oversee the Antiguan liquidation of SIBL, through which the Joint Liquidators seek to recover from the investors certain amounts (referred to as “preference payments”) that the investors had withdrawn or otherwise received from SIBL during the 6 months’ prior to the failure of SIBL.   We also understand that these letters and/or emails are causing considerable distress and concern among SIBL CD investors.  We wish to clarify the following matters:

  1. The U.S. Receiver, the Examiner, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee have no involvement in the Joint Liquidators’ effort to recover these “preference payments.”  The Joint Liquidators are proceeding pursuant to Antiguan law and with the approval of the Antiguan courts.  Similarly, the U.S. District Court overseeing the Stanford Receivership has no role in or jurisdiction over the Joint Liquidators’ efforts to recover these “preference payments.”
  2. The Antiguan Joint Liquidators have posted a set of Frequently Asked Questions concerning their effort to recover “preference payments” on their website.  You can review those Frequently Asked Questions at www.sibliquidation.com.
  3. We understand that the Antiguan court has established a process for objecting to the Joint Liquidators’ effort to recover these “preference payments.”  In the first instance, any objections must be directed to the Joint Liquidators at Stanford.enquiries@uk.gt.com.  Objections must be filed within 120 days after the investor receives the letter or email asserting the Joint Liquidators’ claim for these “preference payments.”
  4. At present, the Joint Liquidators are not permitted to bring lawsuits in the United States to recover these “preference payments,” nor for any other purpose.

Receiver Files 8th Interim Status Report

On June 18, 2014, the Receiver filed his 8th Interim Status Report concerning the state of the Receivership Estate. You may view copies of the 8th Interim Status Report, and the Receiver’s prior seven interim status reports, at the links below:

  • 8th Interim Status Report, filed June 18, 2014. HERE.
  • 7th Interim Status Report and Appendix, filed January 14, 2014. HERE and HERE.
  • 6th Interim Status Report and Appendix, filed August 26, 2013. HERE and HERE.
  • 5th Interim Status Report and Appendix, filed February 7, 2013. HERE and HERE.
  • 4th Interim Status Report and Appendix, filed June 22, 2012. HERE and HERE.
  • 3rd Interim Status Report and Appendix, filed November 11, 2011. HERE and HERE.
  • 2nd Interim Status Report and Appendix, filed February 11, 2011. HERE and HERE.
  • 1st Interim Status Report and Appendix, filed April 23, 2009. HERE.

Receiver Files Periodic Status Reports concerning Claims and Distributions

Since mid-2012, the Receiver has filed monthly status reports concerning the claim submission and reconciliation process and his distribution process. Beginning with his 21st Status Report, he will now file those reports on a quarterly basis. You may view copies of these monthly status reports below:

  • 22nd Claims Status Report (filed July 17, 2014) HERE.
  • 21st Claims Status Report (filed April 9, 2014) HERE.
  • 20th Monthly Status Report (filed January 13, 2014) HERE.
  • 19th Monthly Status Report (filed December 20, 2013) HERE.
  • 18th Monthly Status Report (filed November 22, 2013) HERE.
  • 17th Monthly Status Report (filed October 23, 2013) HERE.
  • 16th Monthly Status Report (filed September 25, 2013) HERE.
  • 15th Monthly Status Report (filed August 23, 2013) HERE.
  • 14th Monthly Status Report (filed July 19, 2013) HERE.
  • 13th Monthly Status Report (filed June 17, 2013) HERE.
  • 12th Monthly Status Report (filed May 15, 2013) HERE.
  • 11th Monthly Status Report (filed April 16, 2013) HERE.
  • 10th Monthly Status Report (filed March 11, 2013) HERE.
  • 9th Monthly Status Report (filed February 5, 2013) HERE.
  • 8th Monthly Status Report (filed January 9, 2013) HERE.
  • 7th Monthly Status Report (filed December 05, 2012) HERE.
  • 6th Monthly Status Report (filed November 6, 2012) HERE.
  • 5th Monthly Status Report (filed October 12, 2012) HERE.
  • 4th Monthly Status Report (filed September 11, 2012) HERE.
  • 3rd Monthly Status Report (filed August 10, 2012) HERE.
  • 2nd Monthly Status Report (filed July 10, 2012) HERE.

Judge Godbey Reassigns Certain Pending Matters to Magistrate Judge Nancy M. Koenig

On February 13, 2014, Judge Godbey entered an Order reassigning matters previously assigned to Magistrate Judge E. Scott Frost to Magistrate Judge Nancy M. Koenig.  You may view a copy of Judge Godbey’s Order HERE.

OSIC, Receiver and Examiner File Fifth Joint Report on Pending Litigation

On July 8, 2013, the OSIC, the Receiver and the Examiner filed their fifth joint report addressing the status (as of June 30, 2013) of all pending litigation brought by the Receiver and the OSIC. You may view copies of the five joint reports filed by the OSIC, the Receiver, and the Examiner, at the links below.

  • Fifth Joint Report, through June 30, 2013. Filed July 8, 2013. HERE.
  • Fourth Joint Report, through March 31, 2013. Filed April 16, 2013. HERE.
  • Third Joint Report, through September 30, 2012. Filed October 16, 2012. HERE.
  • Second Joint Report, through March 31, 2012. Filed June 1, 2012. HERE.
  • First Joint Report, through June 30, 2011. Filed July 27, 2011. HERE.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules in favor of Stanford Investors

On February 26, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Chadbourne & Park, LLP, v. Troice concerning the applicability of SLUSA (the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act) to state law class action lawsuits brought by Stanford investors.  In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court concluded that SLUSA did not apply to the Stanford investors’ state law class action lawsuits and that those class action lawsuits could proceed.  Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion.  Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion.  Justice Kennedy wrote a dissent, joined by Justice Alito.  You may view the Supreme Court opinions HERE.

OSIC Membership Change Announced

On July 8, 2013, the OSIC filed a report with the Court announcing that Ms. Angela Shaw Kogutt had resigned as a member of the OSIC in January 2013, and that Ms. Pam Reed, a Stanford CD investor residing in Austin, Texas, had been approved to fill the vacant position on the OSIC. You may view a copy of the OSIC’s report HERE.

The members of the OSIC thank Ms. Kogutt for her dedicated service to the OSIC and to Stanford’s investor-victims.

Court Authorizes First Interim Distribution to Investors.

On May 30, 2013, Judge Godbey entered an Order granting the Receiver’s motion for authority to make a first interim distribution to Stanford CD Investors. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE.

A number of investors have asked questions concerning the details and timing of the distribution that has been authorized. In particular, there have been a number of questions raised about the Certification Form that is being sent to Stanford CD Investors. That Certification Form must be completed and returned to the Receivership before any distribution will be made. The Receiver and the Examiner have cooperated to identify and answer twelve Frequently Asked Questions concerning the distribution. You may access those Frequently Asked Questions at this link to the Receivership Claims website: http://www.stanfordfinancialclaims.com/Home/FAQ

You may also access those Frequently Asked Questions in Spanish at this link: http://www.stanfordfinancialclaims.com/ESPHome/FAQ.

The court-appointed Receiver in the Stanford case, Ralph S. Janvey, filed his motion on January 11, 2013 seeking authority to make an interim distribution to Stanford CD investors. The Receiver sought authority to distribute approximately $55 million to Stanford CD investors to compensate them on a pro rata basis for their respective net losses. The net loss for each investor is calculated as the difference between the amount the investor deposited with Stanford and the amount the investor withdrew, without consideration of any fictitious interest that may have been credited to the investor by Stanford. You may view a copy of the Motion and the attachments to the Motion HERE (Motion), HERE (Proposed Order), and HERE (Proposed Investor Certification).

Objections to the Receiver’s Motion were filed by three Stanford creditors: INX, Inc., Curtis Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, LLP, and Trustmark National Bank. You may view those objections HERE (INX, Inc.), HERE (Curtis Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, LLP) and HERE (Trustmark National Bank). Because of its volume, the appendix of materials filed by Trustmark National Bank is not available, but interested parties are invited to contact the Examiner via email if they would like to review those materials.

The Court held a hearing concerning the Receiver’s motion on April 11, 2013.

The Receiver anticipates making additional distributions in the future, and will file additional motions with the Court as and when necessary to authorize such distributions. Future distributions will likely be funded by (a) Stanford assets that have been held in the United Kingdom, Canada and Switzerland as those assets become available to the Receiver pursuant to his settlement agreement with the Antiguan Joint Liquidators; (b) proceeds from the Receiver’s continuing efforts to collect and liquidate Stanford assets; and (c) recoveries made by the Receiver and/or the Official Stanford Investors Committee in litigation being prosecuted for the benefit of the Receivership Estate.

OFFICIAL STANFORD INVESTORS COMMITTEE STATEMENT REGARDING OFFERS TO PURCHASE CD INVESTOR CLAIMS

The Official Stanford Investors Committee (“OSIC”) understands that certain individuals, entities and funds have been and are actively seeking to purchase claims held by Stanford CD investors. The OSIC will not express any opinion concerning the sale of CD Investor claims, nor will the OSIC express any opinion concerning or endorsing any of the individuals, entities and funds that are seeking to purchase claims. Each individual investor or group of investors must decide, based upon their unique circumstances, whether it is in their best interest to sell CD claims. Individual investors should consult with their own legal counsel and their financial and tax advisors when contemplating any sale of CD claims.

The OSIC has not provided, and will not provide, investor information of any sort to any individual, entity or fund seeking to purchase claims held by Stanford CD investors. Moreover, the OSIC does not have access to the Receiver’s database of Stanford claimant information, which is in the sole possession and control of the Receiver and his professionals.

US, Antiguan and UK Courts Approve Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol

The SEC, the U.S. Receiver, the U.S. Examiner, and the OSIC filed a Motion to Approve the Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol in the U.S. Court on March 12, 2013. You may view a copy of the Motion HERE. You may view a copy of the final Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol HERE.

Eight (8) timely objections and/or responses to the Motion to Approve were filed, as follows:

You may view the objection filed by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, a defendant in Civil Action No. 12-4641, HERE.

You may view the objection filed by Whitney Bank HERE.

You may view the objection filed by Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, LLP, HERE.

You may view the objection filed by Proskauer Rose, LLP, a defendant in Civil Action No. 12-644, HERE.

You may view the objection filed by Trustmark National Bank HERE.

You may view the objection and supporting appendix filed by Chadbourne & Park, LLP, a defendant in Civil Action No. 12-644, HERE, HERE and HERE.

You may view the objection filed by Hunton & Williams, LLP, a defendant in Civil Action No. 12-4641, HERE.

You may view the objection filed by Thomas V. Sjoblom, a defendant in Civil Action No. 12-644, HERE.

In addition to these objections, two members of the OSIC filed documents addressing the Motion to Approve on behalf of the clients those members represent. You may view the “Statement, Reservation of Rights and Request to be Heard” filed by OSIC member Peter Morgenstern HERE. You may view the “Statement in Support” of the Motion to Approve filed by OSIC member Edward Valdespino HERE.

The Receiver filed a Reply and Appendix in further support of the Motion to Approve on April 5, 2013. You may view the Receiver’s Reply HERE and HERE. The Examiner filed a Reply and Appendix in further support of the Motion to Approve on April 8, 2013. You may view the Examiner’s Reply HERE and HERE.

Pursuant to the Order he entered on March 19, 2013, Judge Godbey held a hearing on the Joint Motion to Approve the Settlement Agreement on April 11, 2013. During that hearing, counsel for the Antiguan Joint Liquidators announced that the Antiguan Court had held a hearing on April 8, 2013 and approved the Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol. You may view a copy of the Antiguan Court’s Order approving the settlement HERE.

Following the hearing, Judge Godbey entered an Order approving the Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol.You may view a copy of that Order HERE.

On May 2, 2013, the Central Criminal Court in the United Kingdom entered its Order approving the Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol. You may view a copy of that Order HERE.

With the entry of the UK Court’s Order, the Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol became fully effective as of May 2, 2013.

Stanford International Bank Joint Liquidators, U.S. Stanford Receiver, Examiner, Official Stanford Investors Committee, DOJ, and SEC Sign Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol

DALLAS, TX, March 12, 2013 – The Joint Liquidators (JLs) Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson of the Stanford International Bank, Ltd. (SIB) and the U.S. Receiver for Stanford Financial Group and all related entities (Receiver), announced today that they have entered into a Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol (Settlement Agreement) with one another, the U.S. Examiner, John Little, the Official Stanford Investors Committee (OSIC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Advisory Creditors Committee of the Liquidation of SIB has also voted to give its approval to the Settlement Agreement.

Among many other benefits, the Settlement Agreement resolves litigation over approximately $300 million in assets frozen in Canada, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, and creates a unified plan among the JLs, the Receiver, and the DOJ to expedite the handling and distribution of those assets to creditor-victims.

The Settlement Agreement will only become effective after it has been approved by courts in the US, Antigua, and the U.K. When the Agreement is presented to the US court and the Antiguan court for approval, victims will have the opportunity to appear and express their views concerning the Settlement Agreement. After all three courts have approved the Settlement Agreement, it will become effective and pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement the parties will pursue the release of funds via appropriate legal processes in the respective countries, including Canada and Switzerland.

The Settlement Agreement has several benefits, including that it:

  • creates a plan for the distribution of almost 90% of the frozen assets from the U.K., Canada, and Switzerland pursuant to which distributions will be made as soon as the necessary approvals are obtained from the pertinent authorities in those countries;
  • allocates $36 million of the funds in the U.K. to the JLs’ estate in order to pursue additional funds for the estate, to be released over time under the supervision of the U.K. Central Criminal Court, which the JLs expect to significantly enhance amounts available for distribution because those funds will be used to further additional asset recovery efforts. The remaining $44 million of the funds in the U.K. will be distributed to creditor-victims by the JLs;
  • allocates in Canada all $23 million to the DOJ to be transferred to the Receiver to be distributed to creditor-victims;
  • allocates in Switzerland $132.5 million to be forfeited to the DOJ and transferred to the Receiver to be distributed to creditor-victims and $60.5 million to be transferred to the JLs for distribution to victims;
  • provides that distribution of the frozen funds shall be made to creditor-victims of SIB and not to other claimants such as the Internal Revenue Service or the Antiguan government;
  • provides a framework for the sharing of information among the JLs, the Receiver, and OSIC to achieve efficiencies, minimize burdens, and maximize recoveries in Stanford-related litigation;
  • facilitates cooperation and coordination of efforts with respect to litigation and recovery and monetization of Stanford assets;
  • provides for coordination of claims and distribution processes between the JLs and the Receiver; and
  • terminates the substantial expense of competing legal claims to, and proceedings relating to, the frozen assets in Canada, the U.K., Switzerland, and the US.

The Settlement Agreement is a product of the parties’ common goal of optimizing and enlarging the overall recovery for creditor-victims as quickly and cost-effectively as possible. The parties to the Agreement all believe that the Agreement is in the best interests of the victims of the Stanford fraud.

Further information, including a copy of the Agreement, will be posted on the U.S. Receiver’s website at http://stanfordfinancialreceivership.com, on the JLs official website at http://www.sibliquidation.com, and on the Examiner’s website /. Persons who believe they were victims of this fraud scheme should visit those sites for additional information.

To view a copy of the foregoing information in Spanish, please click HERE.

The JLs similarly filed an application for approval of the Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol in the Antiguan Court on March 13, 2013.

To view Frequently Asked Questions concerning the Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol in English, click HERE; in Spanish, click HERE.

U.S. SUPREME COURT GRANTS REVIEW OF JUDGE GODBEY’S SLUSA DECISIONS

On January 18, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the decisions of Judge Godbey and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the applicability of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (“SLUSA”) to Stanford-related class actions. You may view a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision granting review HERE.

The Supreme Court will be reviewing the March 19, 2012, opinion issued by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversing Judge Godbey’s orders finding that SLUSA applied to and required the dismissal of the Roland v. Green, Troice v. Willis and Troice v. Proskauer Rose lawsuits.

You may review a copy of the 5th Circuit’s opinion HERE.

The District Court’s SLUSA Rulings

On August 31, 2011, Judge Godbey issued an Order addressing the applicability of SLUSA to one of the Stanford-related lawsuits (Roland v. Green) pending before him. You may review a copy of Judge Godbey’s Order HERE. Because Judge Godbey concluded that SLUSA applied to the claims asserted by the Plaintiffs in Roland v. Green, he dismissed that lawsuit. He subsequently issued orders in two other Stanford-related class actions pending before him, Troice v. Proskauer Rose and Troice v. Willis, finding that SLUSA applies to the Plaintiffs’ claims in both cases and dismissing both cases.

SEC SUIT vs. SIPC

District Court Proceedings

On December 12, 2011, the SEC filed an Application in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking the entry of an Order to compel SIPC to commence a proceeding under the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”) with respect to Stanford Group Company. The Application was filed in an attempt to compel SIPC to comply with the SEC’s June 15, 2011 decision (addressed below) declaring that certain Stanford CD investors were entitled to protection under SIPA. You may view a copy of the SEC’s Application, supporting Memorandum, and Motion for Order to Show Cause HERE, and HERE.

SIPC responded to the SEC’s filing on December 13, 2011, by filing a Motion to Strike and a Motion for a Scheduling Conference. You may view a copy of SIPC’s filing HERE. The SEC filed its opposition to the Motion to Strike on December 19, 2011. You may view a copy of the SEC’s opposition to the Motion to Strike HERE. SIPC filed its Reply with respect to the Motion to Strike on December 27, 2011. You may view a copy of SIPC’s Reply HERE. On January 3, 2012, the SEC filed its Reply in support of its Motion for an Order to Show Cause. You may view that filing HERE.

On March 5, 2012, the Court held a hearing during which it heard argument on the merits of the SEC’s Application and SIPC’s response to that Application.

On July 3, 2012, the Court issued its Opinion and Order denying the relief sought by the SEC. You may view a copy of the Court’s Opinion and Order HERE and HERE. On August 31, 2012, the SEC filed its Notice of Appeal with respect to the Court’s decision denying relief.

Proceedings on Appeal

The SEC’s appeal of the District Court’s decision is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The SEC filed its initial brief in the appeal on January 11, 2013. You may view a copy of the SEC’s brief HERE. On January 18, 2013, the Examiner, the OSIC and the Stanford Victims Coalition (“SVC”) filed a Motion for Leave to Appear as Amicus Curiae in the appeal in support of the SEC’s position. SIPC opposed the Motion for Leave. On March 12, 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Motion for Leave to Appear and directed that the Amicus brief of the Examiner, the OSIC and the SVC be filed. You may view a copy of the brief of the Examiner, OSIC and SVC HERE.

SIPC filed its brief on appeal on April 12, 2013, You may view a copy of SIPC’s brief on appeal HERE. SIPC’s position on appeal was supported by three groups that filed briefs as Amicus Curiae. You may view the Amicus brief filed by certain law professors and former SEC officials HERE. You may view the Amicus brief filed by the Financial Services Institute, Inc. HERE. You may view the Amicus Brief filed by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association HERE.

The SEC filed its reply brief on May 24, 2013. You may view a copy of the SEC’s reply brief HERE.

The Court of Appeals has not yet scheduled oral argument on this appeal.

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 http://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

On March 9, 2012, the Receiver filed a motion seeking to alter the mechanism through which he and his professional firms are compensated for their work on the Stanford case. Specifically, the Receiver’s motion sought three changes to that mechanism. First, the Receiver sought to reduce the “holdback” percentage that is applied to each of his fee applications from 20% originally imposed by the Court in September 2009 to 10% for all work done after January 1, 2012. Second, the Receiver sought to increase the rates payable to the various professional firms that are assisting him. To date, all work done by those firms has been billed at the firms’ 2009 billing rates. The Receiver sought to increase those rates to the firms’ current 2012 rates. Third, the Receiver sought to reduce the discount that is applied to all billings from 20% to 10%. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s motion and supporting appendix HERE and HERE.

The Receiver’s motion was filed after more than a month of consultations and negotiations between and among the Receiver, the Examiner and the SEC. As a result of those consultations and negotiations, both the Examiner and the SEC were unopposed to certain aspects of the relief requested and were opposed to other aspects of that relief. The Examiner, for example, filed a response indicating that he did not oppose a reduction in the holdback percentage or the use of 2012 billing rates. The Examiner opposed any reduction in the discount applied to all billings and urged that it should remain at 20%. You may view a copy of the Examiner’s response HERE.

The SEC filed a response indicating that it was not opposed to the reduction in the holdback percentage. The SEC was opposed to any changes in the billing rates charged by the Receiver or his professionals and was also opposed to any reduction in the discount applied to billings. You may view a copy of the SEC’s response and supporting Appendix HERE and HERE.

Responses to the Receiver’s motion were also filed by the Official Stanford Investors Committee and by INX, Inc., a Stanford creditor. Both responses urged that no changes be made in the billing structure or mechanism applied to the Receiver and his professionals. You may view a copy of the Response of the Official Stanford Investors Committee HERE. You may view a copy of the Response of INX, Inc. HERE.

Judge Godbey held a hearing on the Receiver’s Motion on Wednesday, April 4, 2012. During the hearing, Judge Godbey noted that he had received approximately a dozen letters from Stanford investors objecting to any changes in the Receiver’s fee structure or mechanism. Judge Godbey issued an Order following the hearing in which he permitted the Receiver to apply 2012 rates to work done from January 1, 2012 forward, maintained the 20% discount on all professional billings, and reduced the holdback percentage to 10% for work done after January 1, 2012. You may view a copy of Judge Godbey’s Order HERE.

EXAMINER’S COMMENT CONCERNING FROZEN STANFORD FUNDS

Since the conclusion of Allen Stanford’s criminal trial in Houston, Texas, the Examiner has received a large number of emails from Stanford Investors seeking the immediate release of the approximately $330 million that has been frozen in Canada, the United Kingdom and Switzerland at the request of the Department of Justice (DOJ). From those emails, it is apparent that there is considerable confusion among Stanford Investors concerning the status of those frozen funds.

At present, funds have been frozen in Canada, the United Kingdom and Switzerland at the request of the DOJ. The approximate amounts frozen in each jurisdiction are US $200 to $210 million in Switzerland, US $100 million in the United Kingdom, and US $20 million in Canada. At the conclusion of Allen Stanford’s criminal trial, the jury delivered a verdict concerning DOJ’s request to have these frozen funds forfeited to DOJ as the proceeds of criminal activity. The jury returned a verdict in favor of forfeiture. You may review the jury’s verdict HERE.

Unfortunately, the jury’s verdict does not make any of the frozen funds available for distribution to Stanford victims. Those funds are frozen in foreign jurisdictions (Canada, the United Kingdom and Switzerland) and are under the authority of courts or agencies located in those jurisdictions. With the jury’s forfeiture verdict, it is anticipated that DOJ will now focus its efforts upon seeking the release of those frozen funds so that they can be made available for distribution to Stanford’s victims.

There remain significant obstacles to be overcome by DOJ before any of the frozen funds can be made available for distribution. The primary obstacle is the opposition of Marcus Wide and Hugh Dickson, the Joint Liquidators of SIB appointed by the Antiguan Courts. The Joint Liquidators have asserted and continue to assert that all of the frozen funds should be released to them and not to DOJ. They have been engaged in litigation in Canada with both DOJ and the US Receiver seeking to block the conclusion of an agreement that would release a substantial portion of the funds frozen in Canada to DOJ. They have similarly been engaged in litigation in the United Kingdom and in Switzerland through which they oppose any release of the frozen funds to DOJ. Instead, they seek possession of the frozen funds.

The Joint Liquidators have also made it clear that they intend to apply a substantial portion of the frozen funds (should they obtain some or all of them) to the litigation and real estate development programs they hope to execute, and not to an immediate distribution to Stanford victims. Through their webinars and court filings, they have made it clear that they would likely retain as much as US $100 million to fund both lawsuits and the development of Antiguan real estate owned by various Stanford entities.

On November 18, 2011, the Official Stanford Investor Committee (“Committee”) sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice urging the Department to immediately begin to take steps to repatriate the Stanford funds currently frozen in Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Canada. The amount of such funds is in excess of $300 million. You may view a copy of the Committee’s letter HERE.

The Committee and the Examiner actively oppose the efforts of the Joint Liquidators to obtain control of the frozen funds as not being in the interests of any Stanford investor, regardless of nationality or domicile. The Committee and the Examiner have supported and will continue to support DOJ’s efforts to obtain control of all the frozen funds and to distribute them to Stanford victims without delay.

COURT DENIES KACHROO LEGAL SERVICES MOTION TO INTERVENE

On November 14, 2011, Judge Godbey denied the Motion to Intervene filed by Kachroo Legal Services (KLS). You may view a copy of Judge Godbey’s Order denying intervention HERE.

KLS filed its Motion to Intervene on July 7, 2011. In the Motion, KLS sought both to intervene in the SEC’s action and to have four Stanford investors represented by KLS appointed to serve on the Official Stanford Investors Committee (Committee). You may view a copy of the Motion to Intervene and the materials supporting that Motion HERE and HERE.

The Committee was established by a District Court order in August 2010, and its seven members were specifically chosen and appointed by the Court to represent a cross-section of the 20,000 victims of the $7. 2 billion Stanford Financial Group Ponzi scheme. The Committee’s members have been actively engaged in a broad range of activities on behalf of the victims, including substantial litigation against third parties and working with the U.S. government authorities overseeing the civil and criminal proceedings. The Official Stanford Investors Committee is absolutely committed to recovering the highest rate of return possible for Stanford’s victims regardless of citizenship or nationality.

The Committee and the Examiner filed a joint response in opposition to the KLS Motion to Intervene on July 28, 2011. You may view a copy of that Motion and the supporting materials HERE and HERE. The KLS Motion to Intervene was also opposed by the Receiver, the SEC, and two large groups of investors, one located primarily in Louisiana and another that is almost entirely South American. You may view a copy of the Receiver’s response to the Motion HERE. You may view a copy of the SEC’s response to the Motion HERE. You may view a copy of the Response filed by the South American investors HERE, and you may view a copy of the Response filed by the Louisiana investors HERE and HERE.

KLS filed a Reply in support of the Motion to Intervene on August 11, 2011. You may view a copy of the Reply HERE.

INVESTORS COMMITTEE NEWS:

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.

January 7, 2011 Statement Concerning Investor Claims Against the Securities and Exchange Commission: For English, click HERE.

November 1, 2010 Statement Concerning the Role of the Investors Committee: Click HERE.

EXAMINER STATEMENTS:

From time to time, the Examiner will also issue statements addressing issues of importance to Stanford Investors.

January 7, 2011 Statement of the Examiner Regarding Efforts to Obtain SIPC Coverage: For English, click HERE. A Spanish version will be prepared and posted next week.

MEETINGS:

The Investors Committee met with the Receiver and his counsel on November 10, 2010, in Dallas, Texas. Certain members of the Investors Committee, along with the Examiner, met with the Receiver and his counsel on November 18, 2010, in Austin, Texas. The Investors Committee also met with the Receiver’s counsel on December 10, 2010, in Dallas, Texas. In addition to these meetings with the Receiver and his counsel, members of the Investors Committee typically meet via conference call on a weekly basis and communicate with each other on an almost daily basis relating to various issues of importance to the Investors. The Examiner is in the process of preparing and filing with the Court a report with respect to the activities of the Investors Committee during the 4th quarter of 2010. That report will be posted here once it is filed with the Court.

The Investors Committee held its second meeting with the Receiver, his counsel, and his forensic accountants on Monday, October 11, 2010, in Dallas, Texas.  The Examiner has prepared a report concerning the October meeting; you may view a copy of that Report, in English, HERE.

The Investors Committee held its first meeting with the Receiver and his counsel on Thursday, September 23, in Dallas, Texas. Pursuant to instructions from the Court, the Examiner prepared and filed a report concerning this initial meeting between the Committee and the Receiver. You may view a copy of the Examiner’s Report concerning this meeting HERE.  You may view a Spanish translation of this Report HERE. During the meeting, the members of the Investors Committee formally adopted by-laws to govern the operations of the Committee, as required by the Court’s Order establishing the Committee. You may view a copy of the Investors Committee by-laws in English HERE. You may view a Spanish translation of the by-laws HERE. As further required by the Order establishing the Committee, the members of the Investors Committee also entered into a Confidentiality Agreement with the Receiver. You may view a copy of the Confidentiality Agreement in English HERE. You may view a Spanish translation of the Confidentiality Agreement HERE.

The Examiner, the Receiver, and counsel for the investors who sought establishment of the Investors Committee are pleased to issue a joint statement announcing the membership of that Committee. To view a copy of the statement in English, click HERE. To view a copy of the statement in Spanish, click HERE.

What’s New?

The Examiner intends to do a comprehensive update of this website, but that will likely take a week or two to complete and post.

Judge Atlas rules against insurance coverage for Stanford, Kuhrt and Lopez.

On October 13, 2010, Judge Nancy Atlas issued an opinion in the insurance coverage dispute pending in Houston, Texas between certain Stanford Defendants and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London (“Underwriters”). (Pendergest-Holt, et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London and Arch Specialty Insurance Co., Civil Action No. H-09-3712 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division). In the opinion, Judge Atlas found that Underwriters had met their burden to demonstrate that there was a substantial likelihood that Allen Stanford, Mark Kuhrt and Gilbert Lopez had engaged in Money Laundering (as that term is defined in the relevant insurance policies). Accordingly, Judge Atlas vacated the preliminary injunction pursuant to which Underwriters had been paying defense costs incurred by Stanford, Kuhrt and Lopez in the criminal and civil actions brought against them. You may view a copy of Judge Atlas’ opinion HERE. An appeal of Judge Atlas’ ruling is likely; however, Judge Atlas declined to stay the effect of her ruling pending such an appeal.

In our last update (dated July 15, 2010), we noted that the Receiver, the SEC and the Examiner had jointly requested a status conference with the Court. That status conference was held on Tuesday, August 10, 2010. The purpose of the status conference was to supplement the information provided to the Court in the interim status report filed by the Receiver addressing the status of the Receivership, his asset collection efforts and his ongoing activities. The report was prepared by the Receiver in consultation with the Examiner and the SEC. You may view a copy of the Interim Status Report HERE and HERE.

Following the status conference, the Court entered a series of Orders addressing certain matters highlighted during the status conference. Those Orders are detailed below.

  1. Order Establishing Investor Committee. On August 11, 2010, the Court approved and entered the Stipulation that had proposed by the Receiver, the SEC, the Examiner and certain Investor parties pursuant to which an Investor Committee would be created to provide additional opportunities for Investors to participate in the activities of the Receivership. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE. The Examiner, the Receiver and certain Investor parties represented by the Morgenstern & Blue law firm will be working to identify candidates to populate the Investor Committee over the next several weeks.
  2. Orders Authorizing Asset Sales. On August 11, 2010, the Court entered its Order granting the Receiver authority to sell certain assets associated with Stanford business interests in Peru. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE. You may also view a copy of Allen Stanford’s opposition to that sale, filed August 9, 2010, HERE. Also on August 11, 2010, the Court entered its Order granting the Receiver’s Motion for approval of the sale of the real and personal property located at 5050 Westheimer in Houston Texas. That property previously served as the global headquarters of the Stanford Financial Group. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order authorizing that sale HERE. You may also view a copy of Allen Stanford’s opposition to that sale, filed on July 23, 2010, HERE.
  3. Order Granting Fee Application Motions. On August 11, 2010, the Court entered its Order granting the Receiver’s Motion for approval of his 7th Fee Application and the Examiner’s Motion for approval of his 4th Fee Application. The Receiver’s Motion was opposed only by Allen Stanford; you may view a copy of Mr. Stanford’s opposition HERE. The Examiner’s Motion was unopposed. Pursuant to the Court’s Order, the Receiver was authorized to pay his law firm and his various professional firms just over $3.2 million in fees and expenses, with just over $800,000 being held back for later determination. The Receiver was also authorized to pay the Examiner’s firm approximately $161,000 in fees and expenses. You may view a copy of the Court’s Order HERE.

Email the Examiner at mailto:StanfordExaminer@lpf-law.com?subject=Stanford%20Financial%20Web%20Inquiry

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:

Also, the Receiver filed on June 22, 2010, a Motion for Summary Judgment in the Janvey v. Alguire case pursuant to which he seeks a summary judgment that he is entitled to the “excess CD proceeds” allegedly received by several Stanford CD investor entities related to Mr. Gary Magness. The Receiver asserts claims against these entities seeking to recover “excess CD proceeds” in an amount that exceeds $8,000,000. You may review the Receiver’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Brief supporting that Motion, and the Appendix supporting that Motion HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE. The Magness entities are due to respond to the Receiver’s Motion on or about July 13, 2010, following which the Receiver will have an opportunity to file a Reply brief. The Examiner cannot predict when the Court will address the Receiver’s Motion.

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.

On June 24, 2010, the Court entered its Order denying Motions to Dismiss filed by some 55 different Investors (or groups of Investors) in the Janvey v. Alguire action. Specifically, the Court rejected the argument that the Receiver’s complaint against the Investors ought to be dismissed because it continued to refer to the Investors as “relief defendants.” You may view a copy of the Court’s Order 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 (5th 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.

Share This Page: