Las víctimas olvidadas de Stanford, ahora disponible en español en:

Friday, 28 October 2011

SEC Enforcers Frozen Amid Watchdog Probes

SEC Enforcers Frozen Amid Watchdog Probes

Wednesday, 26 October 2011

Looks like all the class actions are going to be thrown out thanks to SLUSA!!

Proskauer, Chadbourne off the hook in Ponzi scheme class action

Davis Polk & Wardwell and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison had to make a key strategic decision when they moved to dismiss a securities class action accusing Proskauer and Chadbourne & Parke of abetting R. Allen Stanford's Ponzi scheme. The firms had a veritable arsenal of defenses to deploy: qualified immunity because the law firm defendants were acting as counsel to Stanford; no evidence of fraudulent intent by the law firms; no duty to Stanford's investors. But the first defense both Davis Polk and Paul Weiss chose to assert in motions to dismiss on behalf of Proskauer and Chadbourne was more technical. The Dallas federal court class action, they asserted, had to be dismissed because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 pre-empts its claims, which were all grounded in Texas state law.

"Putting aside the absence of any viable federal claims," wrote Proskauer's counsel from Davis Polk, "because plaintiffs have chosen to bring their claims not only on their behalf, but also on behalf of a putative class, their claims are barred by SLUSA, and they cannot 'be maintained' as a class action in this or any other court."

The strategy turned out to be a good one. On Friday U.S. District Judge David Godbey of Dallas federal court dismissed the class action without granting leave to appeal. The case, he said, was precluded by SLUSA. You have to give class counsel from Castillo Snyder and Strasburger & Price credit for trying to get around the U.S. Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta, which pretty much cuts off federal securities law claims against the law firms, auditors, and investment advisers to accused fraudsters. The allegations against Chadbourne and Proskauer all involved the advice that Stanford counsel Thomas Sjoblom (who lateraled from Chadbourne to Proskauer after he began representing the Ponzi schemer) gave to his client. The class didn't offer evidence that either of the law firms communicated directly with Stanford's investors -- the standard they would have had to meet to bring federal securities claims.

So instead, the amended class action complaint against Sjoblom, Chadbourne, Proskauer, and a former Stanford general counsel was based on Texas's state securities laws. The complaint claimed that former Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement lawyer Sjoblom -- and, by extension, the firms at which he practiced -- should have known Stanford was running a Ponzi scheme, but helped keep him afloat nonetheless.

If Stanford had been trading stock, it would have been a no-brainer for Davis Polk and Paul Weiss to cry SLUSA. He wasn't. Stanford sold investors instruments he called CDs from the Antiguan bank he controlled. These CDs functioned as mutual or hedge fund shares. But it wasn't entirely clear that they fell under SLUSA's definition of securities, which is limited to instruments traded on a national exchange. Davis Polk argued that because Stanford investors liquidated stock and bond holdings in order to purchase Stanford CDs -- and because Stanford claimed that the CDs were backed by stocks and bonds -- the Stanford instruments fell under SLUSA's definition of a covered security.

Because Godbey agreed, he never even reached the other defenses Proskauer and Chadbourne -- and, for that matter, other Stanford defendants whose motions to dismiss he granted on SLUSA grounds -- might have argued. Proskauer counsel James Rouhandeh of Davis Polk declined comment, as did Chadbourne counsel Daniel Beller. I left a message with class counsel Edward Snyder but didn't hear back.

Tuesday, 25 October 2011


October 25, 2011


Dear Stanford clients:

On Thursday, October 13, 2011, the judge overseeing all the Stanford-related cases held a status conference with all the parties to discuss several matters. First, the parties discussed the Antiguan Liquidator’s Chapter 15 petition for U.S. recognition of the Antiguan Liquidation. The discussion centered on whether the issue should be sent to mediation. The judge did not address the merits of whether the Chapter 15 proceeding would recognize the Antiguan Liquidation as the “main” or “non-main” proceeding. A trial in this matter is set for December 2011.
Second, Kevin Sadler of Baker Botts, lead counsel for the Receiver, updated the parties on several of the larger pending actions. Mr. Sadler stated that the former Stanford employee litigation is now pending in the appellate court, the Fifth Circuit, and therefore, there is nothing to do in that action at this time, although some of the former employees have filed for bankruptcy. Concerning the net winner litigation (the clawback actions), Mr. Sadler stated that summary judgment motions were fully briefed and awaiting a ruling from the judge. As to the efforts to get certain documents from Switzerland, Mr. Sadler stated that the Receiver is still waiting for a ruling from the Swiss authority.

Throughout the conference, the judge asked Mr. Sadler to disclose where all the money went that was lost in this Ponzi scheme. The judge could not understand how billions of dollars went missing and neither the Receiver nor the Examiner (nor the Investor Committee) could trace the funds. Mr. Sadler stated that the Antiguan liquidators had failed to cooperate and disclose documents that would aid them in the search for assets. The Receiver, he stated, has not been able to review any documents in the possession of the Antiguan liquidators or the European authorities. In addition, the Department of Justice has not allowed the Receiver to speak with any of the cooperating witnesses in the criminal case. In response, the judge informed Mr. Sadler that if Mr. Stanford is found to be incompetent to stand trial in the criminal case, he will lift the stay in the civil case and allow the SEC to proceed with its claims against the Stanford entities.

Mr. Sadler continued to express that they have done everything they could to recover assets in the United States. They liquidated 95% of all real estate assets, wound down nearly all of the 140 Stanford entities, and are involved in litigation to recover more assets, but this will likely take several more years to resolve. Mr. Sadler stated his belief that if there is some trail that leads to more assets, it would be in Antiguan records.
Third, the Judge inquired why Mr. Sadler had not initiated the claims process, even if there were insufficient funds in the estate to make a distribution at this time. Mr. Sadler stated that the EDICIÓN BILINGÜE
Receiver agrees with the judge and wants to initiate a claims process and distribution to investors, but the Committee and Examiner are blocking the process. In response, the Investor Committee explained that setting up a claims process is costly and there is only $100 million in current assets for investors. The Investor Committee also explained that they prefer to set up one claims process for both Dallas and Antigua, which requires cooperation between the two, which has yet to occur.

An attorney for investors, Stephen Malouf, expressed the frustration of thousands of investors who believe the Receivership has spent over $100 million and still cannot cooperate with the Antiguan liquidators and still cannot explain where all the money went.

Fifth, the parties discussed the impact of the SLUSA decision on the proceedings. The SLUSA decision limits class action lawsuits on behalf of investors based on state law in certain circumstances. The parties discussed whether the single class action case addressed in the judge’s decision was a sufficient test case of the issues or whether additional cases should be decided before an appeal. The judge is considering deciding several other test cases so that they may appeal to the Fifth Circuit as a group. (KLS previously sent an update discussing the SLUSA decision and its potential impact on investors’ recovery.)For more information, please see the attached articles discussing the conference, the role of the Investors Committee and the Receiver’s management of the Stanford entities.
We also note that KLS is in the process of preparing a complaint against the United States for the negligence of the SEC in its investigation of Stanford, and expect to provide an update regarding that action shortly.

The KLS Stanford Team.

Friday, 21 October 2011

Press Release from Stanford International Victims Group



The Stanford case:

International Victims Charge
America to Play Fair


In 2009 on the heels of the Madoff fraud, the Ponzi scheme operated by R Allen Stanford was uncovered which has received widespread media coverage in the United States. What has not been widely reported is that only 4,000 of the 21,000 victims worldwide are US citizens. The remaining 17,000, the vast majority, are innocent victims from around the globe, who all have one common cause; to recover their life savings, stolen by the US citizen R Allen Stanford, under the guise of his Stanford Financial Group, based in Houston, Texas, and regulated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

It is now almost three years since R Allen Stanford was charged with fraud and his various enterprises wound-up and sold by the US court appointed receiver Ralph Janvey. Yet to date there has been no distribution of any funds recovered by the receiver, nor even a mechanism created whereby those funds can be fairly distributed equally among all the innocent victims, some of whom have lost their homes and become ill, while others have died waiting. Meanwhile the receiver, his general counsel, Kevin Sadler of Baker Botts, and the other advisors he has engaged are consuming all the available funds they have collected.

Further, in the United States there has been no recognition that anyone but US voters and taxpayers have been harmed by this massive fraud, perpetrated by a US citizen, based in Texas, where officials of the US regulator preferred to spend their time at work watching porn instead of taking the enforcement actions they were charged with, against a business they knew to be a fraud.

The failure of the SEC in detecting the Madoff Ponzi scheme has been well reported and investigated, yet some of those SEC officials who missed Madoff knew as far back as 1997 that Stanford may be a fraud. The Stanford empire was investigated by the SEC on at least four occasions, first in 1997, and they concluded even back then it was likely a massive Ponzi scheme, yet no action was taken, as the SEC did not think there were any American investors, consequently they permitted the fraud to continue and grow exponentially for a further twelve years, abandoning 21,000 innocent victims to their fate, simply because they believed it did not concern US interests. How wrong could they be, and how prejudiced in their negligent disregard for their duties.

The SEC have been investigated for their failure to detect the Stanford fraud, and heavily criticized. Their own Inspector General has stated that the depth of their failure is unbelievable; and US congressmen have claimed that the debt they owe the Stanford victims is enormous, and have demanded that they should act swiftly, so families whose retirement and savings were stolen as a result of greed and government failure can begin to rebuild their lives.

Following the investigation, earlier this year many hundreds of innocent Stanford victims worldwide filed protective claims against the SEC for negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The SEC have had their allotted six months to respond, yet remain unconscionably silent, with no regard for the consequences of their complicity, or the demands of elected officials.

Now the SEC find themselves and their appointed receiver once again under investigation, for the way they have conducted this receivership.

The Securities and Investors Protection Act was passed by congress to provide a fund to repay innocent victims of US securities fraud, irrespective of their nationality or place of abode. It gave the registered broker/dealers a veneer of respectability and investors the comfort of believing there was a safety net should the worst happen and any of the US financial advisors they trusted turn out to be liars, crooks, or thieves.

It has taken the SEC two years, under considerable political pressure, to instruct SIPC to do the right thing, yet we now learn the number of innocent victims who believed they were eligible for compensation may be limited further, and that SIPC themselves may raid the receivership estate, to recover their losses at the expense of the remaining victims.

Whenever innocent foreign victims of the Stanford fraud have asked for recognition in the United States, invariably they have been told that Stanford operated his fraud from the small Caribbean island of Antigua, and what right have they to expect that US authorities and officials have any obligation or other moral duty to extend assistance. The tentacles of the Stanford empire stretched halfway around the globe and in each of its outposts was portrayed as a safe, stable, and conservative institution backed by a major Texas based group, regulated in the US, who claimed to extend protection to investors worldwide equivalent to that benefiting US citizens. Further, R Allen Stanford, the founder and sole shareholder was compared by Forbes to the likes of UBS and Wachovia, and accredited him as one of the United States 400 wealthiest individuals, with a portfolio of $51bn under management. After the president of the United States, George W Bush, and a raft of US senators and congressmen also lent Stanford their endorsement, how could his credibility possibly be questioned further?

At the request of dissatisfied victims of the Stanford fraud, the courts have recently appointed two very experienced directors of Grant Thornton as joint liquidators of Stanford International Bank, and charged them to recover and distribute, fairly and equally, and in the shortest possible time, the losses stemming from the Stanford Ponzi scheme. Grant Thornton have been recognized as the most proper person to recover losses stemming from the Stanford fraud, with the best chance of success by courts in every jurisdiction worldwide, except in the United States, where the receiver, Ralph Janvey, and his ‘official’ investors committee, comprising mainly self-interested attorneys, have contrived to establish a network of vested interests which serve primarily to benefit themselves, and through which they have reached an agreement whereby they may charge excessive fees which may run to hundreds of millions of dollars, all at the expense of all the innocent victims. Grant Thornton has strived to reach a workable protocol with Janvey for the benefit the innocent victims, yet the vested interests in the US continue to block any agreement from being reached.

There are frozen funds overseas, to the tune of $250m that Grant Thornton wish to recover and distribute equally, transparently, and quickly, to all the Stanford victims worldwide, yet they have been further blocked by the United States Department of Justice, who seek to ‘repatriate’ those funds to the US, to be distributed; how? These are funds that did not originate from the US yet the DoJ insists that US minority interests should once again be given preferential treatment.

The perpetrator of the fraud R Allen Stanford still awaits trial in Texas. Unlike Madoff he has not confessed, but pleads the fifth amendment; has changed attorneys as frequently as changing his socks; claimed incompetence; drug addiction; and now memory loss; what next? His trial has been postponed twice, and is now due to be heard in January 2012, meanwhile many of the initial charges have been dropped, and there are some who believe he may soon be granted bail, and conveniently disappear.

In a recent twist many of the lawsuits that may eventually benefit the victims of this fraud, already delayed two years due to restrictions imposed by the judge appointed by the DoJ to hear the criminal case against Stanford; may now fail entirely, following a ruling by another judge; appointed by the SEC to preside over the civil case, again all at the expense of the innocent victims.

Enough is enough. The United States authorities and institutions have failed us all, not just US citizens, and we all deserve to be treated equally. We have all seen our entire life savings stolen by a US citizen who was permitted to operate for years due to the negligence of the US regulator, and we now find US court appointed officers determined to line their pockets at the further expense of the innocent victims, and through political pressure, place US citizens in a preferential position, while the perpetrator of the fraud continues to mock us all.

It may not appear so to the US victims of this fraud but the world is watching just how self-interested and what blatant disregard some fficials and citizens of the US appear to have for anyone but themselves.

All 21,000 innocent Stanford victims lost their life savings in this massive fraud. All the foreign victims ask is to be treated with fairness, equality, and with due respect. No more humiliation and injustice. Is it too much to ask that the officials of the world’s most powerful, wealthy, and technologically advanced nation show some integrity, accept responsibility for the consequences of their complicity in the Stanford fraud, and make due recompense without further delay to each and every victim regardless of class, creed or citizenship.

Friday, 14 October 2011

Grant Thornton Seek Deal with U.S. Receiver

By Pascal Fletcher

The liquidators of accused Ponzi schemer Allen Stanford’s bank in Antigua are seeking to cut a deal with a U.S. receiver to recover assets for thousands of fraud victims and end a legal turf war entangling the process.

More than 12,000 claimants say they were bilked by the $7 billion scam U.S. prosecutors allege was masterminded by the flamboyant Texas one-time billionaire and sports entrepreneur, whose business empire stretched to the Caribbean and Europe. Arrested in 2009, he denies wrongdoing and is awaiting trial.

Many of his victims have complained that wrangling over jurisdiction between the liquidators appointed by an Antiguan court and the U.S. receiver has hindered the already complex and difficult task of recovering assets from the web of Stanford’s businesses and bank accounts across the world.

“It’s an extraordinarily complex process,” Hugh Dickson, one of two liquidators appointed by the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in May, told Reuters in a phone interview.

Dickson and colleague Marcus Wide were appointed as liquidators for Antigua-based Stanford International Bank (SIB) which issued the certificates of deposit at the heart of the alleged Ponzi scheme. They replaced two previous liquidators.

Dickson said talks were underway in Dallas with the U.S. receivership team involved in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) civil fraud case against Stanford.

“It’s about working out the best way of maximizing the size of the cake, rather than how the existing cake is cut into slices,” he said. The aim of the discussions was “avoiding unnecessary and unproductive clashes” over Stanford’s assets.

Dickson and Wide were proposing a common claims process for recovery of assets linked to SIB, and would also look to cooperate with the U.S. receiver in recovery-related litigation cases. Calls to the phone and office of the U.S. receiver, Ralph Janvey, were not immediately returned.
So far, Stanford’s victims have faced slow progress in efforts to claw back the hundreds of millions they entrusted to the jet-set businessman, who lived a lavish Caribbean lifestyle and gained news headlines with generous cricket sponsorship.

Dickson said his predecessors as liquidators had only recovered about $300,000 in Britain and Antigua, while the SEC receivership had achieved asset recoveries of more than $200 million, but had incurred costs of over $100 million and had not started to distribute the surplus.

On a hour-long online “Webinar” with victims this week, Dickson and Wide faced hundreds of questions, many asking “When will we get our money back?” and “Why is it taking so long?”

“If you’re a victim here, you placed a deposit with a bank that you were told was flush with money, was a robust financial institution, and it’s very difficult to understand why your money is not readily available,” he said.

“When you’re dealing with a fraud, where effectively someone has stolen money and tried to hide it away, it’s not always immediately obvious as well where the assets even are, you have to actively look for them and fight for them to get them back, and that takes time and money,” Dickson said.

But he said he and Wide had made “considerable” advances in the last few months.

He cited $3.2 million in cash recovered from Panama and a further just over $4 million expected to be recovered from the sale of a Bank of Antigua building owned by Stanford.

In addition, the liquidators had managed to gain access to up to $20 million in UK funds to be used to pay for the fees and costs of the liquidation and recovery activities.

“On top of that, we have obtained freezing orders against a group of Stanford-related entities in Antigua that hold assets that we feel are the proceeds of crime,” Dickson said.

These consisted of real estate and property worth about $70 million, as well as land held by subsidiaries of the SIB thought to be worth as much as $250 million.

The liquidators were following leads on further assets held in Latin America and other jurisdictions, and were considering litigation against other third parties, Dickson said.

Dickson said there was also around $250 million in Swiss and UK bank accounts, in cash and financial instruments. But these assets had been frozen under a criminal investigation order initiated by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

French bank Societe Generale said last month it was cooperating with the DOJ investigation after the Wall Street Journal reported the probe involved an account held by Stanford with SG Private Banking (Suisse) SA, a Societe Generale subsidiary.

Dickson declined to confirm which banks were involved, but said the liquidators had met with the Department of Justice and the Swiss and UK authorities to discuss the issues.

“We want to persuade the Department of Justice to withdraw their efforts to recover the money,” Dickson said, adding the liquidators had requested this because they felt their own process for dealing with the funds and distributing them to victims would be faster and more transparent than the DOJ one.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined comment, citing a gag order imposed on the criminal case against Stanford.

“The DOJ keeps referring to this as repatriation, but the money doesn’t necessarily originate from the U.S. in the first place,” Dickson said.
He added that according to the liquidators’ records of the creditor base for recovery purposes, the U.S. interest only amounted to 15 percent of the total, and might be much less once ownership of U.S. investment vehicles was factored in.

Stanford Fallout Continues in Dallas


DALLAS -- The $7 billion Ponzi scheme allegedly masterminded by Houston's Allen Stanford has a Dallas component.

The receivership aspect off the proceeding, involving all the property and its victims, is in a federal district court in Dallas.

The case is now 32-months-old. Angry lawyers and their clients gathered Thursday to find out the status of the case.

John Wade, a Louisiana veterinarian, who lost his company's pension to Stanford and also represents 1500 victims in Louisiana, was at Thursday's hearing.

"I see people that have died," said Wade, describing what's happened in the months while the case has languished.

"I see people that have gone through and tried to hold onto their assets and ultimately they've lost them," he said.

Some of the issues in the Dallas case are how much money and property is at stake, its location and who should have a voice in the matter.

Many of Stanford's investors were from Central and South America. His company was headquartered on the island of Antigua, which wants a prominent voice in the case.

Meanwhile lawyers administering the proceedings have already charged tens of millions of dollars in fees, while victims have received nothing.

"We're looking at recovery of maybe 10 or 15 cents on the dollar in liquidation of assets which for some of these people is not nearly enough," said Ed Snyder, attorney representing victims.

The criminal trial of Allen Stanford was supposed to happen January 2011. It has been delayed until January 2012, while his mental competency is evaluated. Lawyers told the Dallas courtroom it may well be delayed again.

Former Texas billionaire R. Allen Stanford remains in a Houston prison. Stanford is accused of putting the money in fake certificates of deposit.

Thursday, 13 October 2011

Stanford Judge Says Receiver May Need to Conclude Search for ‘Pot of Gold’

By Laurel Brubaker Calkins and Andrew Harris

R. Allen Stanford’s court-appointed receiver may need to stop searching for a secret “pot of gold” and pay defrauded investors from the assets he has recovered so far, the judge overseeing the case said.

“I’m concerned the receiver is expending resources that could otherwise be distributed to investors trying to track down missing resources,” U.S. District Judge David Godbey said during a hearing today in Dallas for dozens of Stanford-related civil cases.

Stanford, 61, was sued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in February 2009 on claims he swindled investors of more than $7 billion through allegedly bogus certificates of deposit at his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank.

“If we knew where it was and were able to go get it, we would have,” SEC attorney David Reece told Godbey, referring to Stanford’s missing billions.

“When the U.S. Justice Department has already checked and there’s no pot of gold, then the receiver can stand down,” Godbey told lawyers for the receiver and investors. “There’s apparently not some trail to a $5 billion secret Swiss bank account that anyone knows about.”

Awaiting Trial
Stanford, who denies all wrongdoing, has been in custody as a flight risk since his indictment on parallel criminal charges in June 2009. He is being treated for a prison-acquired addiction to anxiety drugs while he awaits trial, set for January in Houston federal court.

Godbey told lawyers in Dallas today he’s concerned that receiver Ralph Janvey is duplicating efforts by U.S. prosecutors, who are also tracking Stanford’s assets overseas. The Justice Department has won administrative freezes on more than $300 million in Stanford-related bank accounts in Switzerland and the United Kingdom. These accounts are beyond Janvey’s control and may represent the receivership’s largest category of recoverable assets, according to court filings.

The Stanford receivership has about $100 million in unrestricted cash on hand, Kevin Sadler, Janvey’s lead lawyer, told Godbey today. This represents proceeds from the sale of virtually all of Stanford’s U.S. real estate and private equity holdings, after payment of the receivership’s fees and expenses.

Antigua, Barbuda
Stanford owned additional real estate in the Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda, which is under the control of a separate liquidator appointed by that nation’s government. Lawyers for Janvey and Stanford’s Antiguan liquidators told Godbey today that they can’t agree how to share control of Stanford’s island properties and investor records located in Antigua.

“The U.S. receiver has liquidated 95 percent of what the receiver has control over that’s sellable,” Sadler told Godbey. “We’re basically out of the real estate business and the private equity business. We’ve got some lawsuits that’ll go on for years. And we’ve got some cash, but not enough to distribute right now because of the cost.”

Sadler said if the U.S. receiver gained control of the frozen U.K. and Swiss bank accounts and sold the Antiguan real estate, then there might be enough cash to justify the cost of creating a claims process to distribute recovered assets to investors.

“It’s not going to get cheaper the longer you wait,” Godbey told Sadler.

‘In Limbo’
“If we leave this just in limbo for another two or three years waiting to see if there’s a bigger pot of money, it may be difficult for people to put together claims,” Godbey said. “The prospects of finding a secret Swiss bank account with $5 billion in it is not something you’re holding out much hope for.”

The U.S. receiver and an official investors’ committee have filed more than 100 fraudulent transfer and aiding-and-abetting lawsuits, seeking to claw back proceeds from CD investors or payments to vendors, consultants or financial advisers who worked with Stanford’s companies. Court filings estimate these actions, if successful, could return as much as $500 million to the estate.

“We’ve sued everyone we can find,” Sadler told Godbey today.

Godbey asked the receiver for a plan detailing “what needs to be done to bring this to a conclusion and what it will cost” to complete the task of repaying Stanford’s investors. He didn’t set a timetable for further action on the matter

As Stanford Victims Grumble, Court Approves Receiver's Latest Fee Request

by Julie Triedman

On Tuesday, the Dallas federal district court judge overseeing the receivership of alleged Ponzi schemer R. Allen Stanford's collapsed financial empire of approved the latest $1 million in legal fees requested by receiver Ralph Janvey and the outside law firms advising him.

But while Janvey and his team keep drawing regular paychecks in connection with their recovery efforts on behalf of Stanford investors, as The American Lawyer reports in its October issue, much about the proceedings and Janvey's future role in them remains uncertain.

Federal district court Judge David Godbey is expected to rule soon on a July motion to intervene filed by a group of disgruntled Stanford investors who claim their interests are not being adequately represented by the committee appointed by Janvey to fill that role.

Those moving to intervene accuse the lawyers serving as members of the committee of "double dipping" in the estate because they were paid retainers up front by individual victims and are also eligible under their contracts with the receiver to collect large contingency fees based on what they recover.

Since early this year, Janvey has tapped the committee to take over a number of fraudulent conveyance claims he and his team originally developed, removing the day-to-day expense of litigating those claims. Janvey told the judge in court filings this past summer that he did so as a cost-saving measure.

Janvey's recovery efforts in the case continue to move slowly. To date, of the estimated $7.2 billion lost via Stanford's alleged scheme, the receiver's legal team has recovered just over $146 million. (Another $63 million was sitting in Stanford accounts the day Janvey was appointed.)

Much of the total recovery has already been spent on a combination of legal and professional fees ($50 million) and expenses ($50 million). A majority of the legal fees have gone to one firm, Baker Botts, where Austin-based litigation partner Kevin Sadler is heading up the firm's efforts.

U.S. investors who bought bogus certificates of deposit via the Stanford brokerage entity—a group that includes only a fraction of the 20,000-plus investors harmed by Stanford's alleged worldwide scam—are also waiting impatiently on a forthcoming decision by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation on whether they are entitled to relief for their losses.

SIPC officials said in June that the agency expected to issue its decision in the matter by mid-September. On September 16, however, SIPC Chairman Orlan Johnson announced that the agency's board was delaying a decision pending further review "of the many and complex issues in the Stanford case." Johnson, who is also the co-chair of Saul Ewing's securities transactions and regulations practice group, did not respond to a request for comment.

Wednesday, 12 October 2011

Stanford Bank Liquidators Dispute Predecessor’s $18 Million Fee

Source: Kit Chellel (Bloomberg)

The firm originally appointed to wind up R. Allen Stanford’s bank charged $18 million in fees while recovering around $300,000 for victims of the fraud, according Grant Thornton LLP, the bank’s new liquidator which is seeking to have the bill reduced.

Grant Thornton partner Hugh Dickson said his firm was challenging the Vantis Plc bill in an Antigua court. “We are trying to reduce that number considerably,” he said.

Vantis, which was removed as Antiguan liquidator of Stanford International Bank in May, has asked a court to approve its fees. The firm recovered around $300,000 of assets before being replaced, Grant Thornton said in a Web presentation to Stanford creditors and victims yesterday.

Efforts in the U.S. and Antigua to unwind Stanford’s alleged $7 billion Ponzi scheme have produced little to return to victims and creditors. As of January, U.S-appointed receiver Ralph Janvey had freed up $94.7 million in cash and filed lawsuits with a potential value of $595 million. Stanford is in custody in the U.S and is to be tried for fraud next year.

An Antiguan judge replaced Vantis in May following a request by creditors. Vantis went into administration last year. Its business-recovery operations were bought out by former managers and was renamed FRP Advisory LLP.

“We are in dialogue with Grant Thornton regarding the costs incurred prior to them taking office,” FRP partner Nigel Hamilton Smith said. “Our main objective is to find a sensible solution, which does not result in lengthy court time and further delays.”

Grant Thornton has identified up to $1.5 billion which it wants to return to more than 20,000 Stanford victims and creditors it represents, the firm said yesterday. That figure includes property valued at $300 million, securities worth $250 million and potential returns of as much as $1 billion from lawsuits.

Stanford International Bank, Ltd. (In Liquidation) - Invitation to Online Presentation for the creditors/victims on October 11 at 11:00 a.m. EDT‏

Grant Thornton held their first Webinar on 11th October, taking and answering questions from the investors who joined them.
The Webinar was very interesting and my only criticism is that 1 hour was not long enough.
For those of you who – for whatever reason – failed to link up and listen to what they had to say, the following announcement and link was released by Grant Thornton.
What a pity we could not have had this kind of open disclosure with Vantis and Janvey. You have to ask yourself if Grant Thornton can manage to do so much in such a short period of time, why can’t Janvey and the Gang of 6??? If we had had Grant Thornton acting for us from the beginning I am sure we would all be in a much better financial position than we are now, and I am also sure that the underhand deals that are going on between the US receiver and the committee without any consideration for the investors, would not have been allowed had Grant Thornton been watching.

Here is the release from Grant Thornton:

Thank you to those who attended today’s webinar of the Joint Liquidators for Stanford International Bank. We had over 2,000 registrants. In case you missed the live presentation, here is the link for the presentation.
The above link for the webinar can also be found on the Stanford International Bank Liquidation site (

We look forward to continuing to address your questions and concerns. As always, visit the latest news from the joint liquidators.

Gracias a todos los que hoy asistieron el webinar de los Liquidadores Conjuntos de Stanford International Bank. Hemos tenido más de 2.000 inscritos. En caso de que se haya perdido la transmisión en vivo, aquí está el enlace para ver la presentación:

Esperamos poder continuar respondiendo sus preguntas y preocupaciones. Como siempre, visite para ver las últimas noticias de los Liquidadores Conjuntos.

Tuesday, 11 October 2011

SVC Claiming SIPC for US Victims Only

To all international victims who may be eligible for SIPC - Please read this latest communication from Angela Shaw to the SVC very carefully. She is negotiating with SIPC to limit any payment to only US citizens.

Instead of asking SiPC to reduce the ceiling of $500k per claim, and extend the net to all investors, which would be a much fairer distribution that every Stanford victim could benefit from, once again the US victims have shown their true colours, and their lack of consideration for anyone but themselves.

If the (mainly Louisiana) STC IRA account holders are to be included, then so should all the other investors who purchased through SGC registered representatives.

Angela is still claiming to the US Government she represents all 28,000 victims worldwide, and they are witless enough to believe her.

SVC Members,

Again, I don’t have a lot of news about the SIPC Board vote, but I do have some.

Yesterday, Senator Vitter spoke with SIPC Chairman Orlan Johnson and the feedback I have received is that the Senator continues to feel the SIPC Board is moving in the right direction and needs two to three more weeks of reviewing the facts and the law. Senator Vitter will meet again with the Chairman in two weeks.

Unfortunately, the Stanford entities’ records are still be reviewed by the SIPC Board and it will be another few weeks before a formal decision is announced.

Also yesterday, the SVC’s SIPA lawyer and I had a lengthy conference call with the SIPC General Counsel. She was unable to share where the Board is in its review process, but the detailed questions I was asked about the SVC’s demographic data was insightful. While this is purely speculation on my part, the line of questioning led me to believe the Board is leaning toward accepting the SEC’s request because they are trying to determine how many of the victims were SGC customers and if the SEC’s directive is followed, would that satisfy the investors the SVC’s counsel has represented in its arguments (which has always been all SGC US customers).

The SEC’s request is exactly what the SVC and our lawyer have pursued as his expert opinion is the law is limited to customers of a SIPC member, and he would not have made a broader legal argument to include affiliate entity investors like those who bought from SGC Venezuela (foreign affiliates are excluded in the statute).
That said, if there is a liquidation, those investors can likely file claims and have a court venue to dispute any denial of claims – a right they do not currently have.

I know this is complicated for some of you, but the corporate structure of the Stanford entities makes this case so very unique, and there are thousands of international investors who will likely not qualify for SIPC if the SIPC Board accepts the SEC’s request. My understanding is that all US investors were customers of SGC unless they bought the CDs from a Stanford rep in another country.

As I have mentioned before, I cannot determine how a SIPC trustee would determine whether someone was a brokerage customer, but from what I have seen almost 100% is that
all US investors and a couple of thousand international investors did purchase the CDs through SGC. The STC IRA accounts were included in the SEC’s recommendation also because those were sold by SGC registered representatives.

I think these developments are reason to be hopeful and I will continue to update you all when I know anything. I have emphasized with the SIPC staff and Board that it would ease a lot of minds if there was a defined time frame for this process. They are unable to do that right now, but continue to assure me that the Board is working as quickly as possible and that they do not intend to delay the decision any longer than absolutely necessary.

Keep praying, my friends!



Director and Founder

Stanford Victims Coalition

Saturday, 8 October 2011

Invetsors in Allen Stanford's Ponzi scheme are now at the mercy of a floundering receivership. What went wrong?

By Julie Triedman

Article from "American Lawyer". Just how do those guys think they can continue to line their pockets ?

Line Their Pockets

Committee Struggles to find support

It would seem that the ONLY TWO letters of support for the Committee, come from TWO MEMBERS of the committee being criticised…how sad is that?


October 7, 2011

Some of you have undoubtedly been reading and hearing negative and untrue comments about the efforts we have undertaken, both as lawyers and as members of the Official Stanford Investors Committee, to recover your lost investments. Much of the misinformation and what I believe to be defamatory statements have been sourced to individuals and attorneys who are apparently seeking through misleading tactics, to insert themselves into the case, and to unfairly portray events and likely results for their own benefit and not for yours (in my view). I assure you again that there is no greater priority for us than to seek the maximum financial recovery for you in the shortest period of time. My colleagues and I are working tirelessly to accomplish that end.

We will be having an Investors Committee meeting and will be participating in a number of official court hearings and conferences next week in Dallas. I will provide you with a more detailed update shortly thereafter. In the meantime, I thought it would be helpful to share two letters sent by leaders of the Stanford Victims Community to a reporter who recently published an article about the case. I think the letters fairly capture the reality of the situation.

Please note that I have now officially joined a new law firm Butzel Long, p.c. which is a 150 lawyer firm with substantial resources which I intend to utilize in connection with the continued prosecution of these cases. My new email address is and my new direct phone number is: 212-374-5379. The core team that has been working on this matter will remain the same but we will add additional personnel as required. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.

Peter D. Morgenstern

Ms. Triedman,

I just read your column about the Stanford Ponzi scheme Receivership debacle and was very disappointed to see the grossly defamatory allegations Gaytri Kachroo made about the Court-appointed Investors Committee lawyers. Those lawyers have spent hours a day for well over a year researching and filing claims the Receiver didn’t. There are also numerous tolling agreements that are not public that could result in substantial recoveries for the investors. Unlike the Receiver, the Committee lawyers do not bill for their time and are working purely on a contingency-fee basis for the cases they have filed for all Stanford investors. If they don’t win those lawsuits, they don’t get paid. There is also a tremendous amount of work those lawyers engage in on behalf of the investors that will never result in any compensation – like working with various government agencies on their investigations and other matters that will affect the case.

Separate from their work on the Investors Committee, the three U.S. plaintiff’s lawyers on the Committee worked for 18 months on filing class-action lawsuits on behalf of their clients who may have paid them a small retainer fee. Those cases--and the other work those lawyers do for their clients like filing claims, keeping their clients updated on the case, representing their overall interests in all matters of the case—are completely separate from the work those lawyers do on behalf of the estate. It is a gross misrepresentation to allege the Committee lawyers are “double-dipping” or taking further advantage of Stanford investors.

The Investors Committee lawyers are the biggest advocates Stanford investors have. I know this because I also serve on the Investors Committee with them as one of the two investors. I see the voluminous daily communications, the countless meetings, the invaluable institutional knowledge they bring to the case, their frustration with the complexities involving the Receiver and other matters that absolutely demonstrate without question their interest is in helping Stanford victims recover and not in lining their own pockets. In many ways, the lawyers have also invested with Stanford and they won’t recover anything until the victims do.

I suggest reading the Committee’s response to Ms. Kachroo’s motion to intervene (attached here). If you still think Ms. Kachroo’s allegations have any merit, I also suggest contacting Robert Roseman, the lawyer who is suing Ms. Kachroo on behalf of a previous client.

Angela Shaw
Director and Founder
Stanford Victims Coalition

Dear Ms. Triedman,

I have just read your article in the 'American Lawyer' regarding the Stanford Ponzi scheme. In particular, it was quite disappointing to see you include such a lengthy paragraph filled with criticism of the individual attorneys on the Investors' Committee (IC).

Unfortunately, when you describe Ms. Kachroo as prominent, it implies to your readers that this somehow gives her credibility in the Stanford case. Ms. Kachroo’s involvement in the Madoff case has absolutely no relevance to the Stanford case. The two cases are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Ms. Kachroo represents a relatively very small group of people. Ms. Kachroo became involved in the Stanford case very late in the game. The paragraph that you dedicated to her in your article acknowledges to me that she remains far from up to speed on the activities of the Committee attorneys.

Beyond the substantial amount of time that these attorneys spend on their own Stanford cases (that may or may not result in payment), these attorneys spend an immeasurable amount of time and expertise on efforts dedicated solely to the Stanford victims. With no compensation at all.

There are multiple daily calls, conference calls, emails, court filings, Receiver exchanges, etc among the IC members. There are evening and weekend calls and mailings. Many if not most of these calls are centered around issues unrelated to the lawsuits referred to in your article, but rather on other issues that need looking after on behalf of all victims.

There have been countless trips (personally paid for) to various cities for meetings with numerous government agencies, politicians, Antiguan liquidators, and others…. all on behalf of all Stanford victims yet unrelated to lawsuits.

My name is John Wade. I am a veterinarian by trade and a victim of the Stanford crime. I am also founder of the Louisiana Stanford Victims Group and represent (sadly) 1800 victims in my state. Lastly, I sit on the Investors' Comittee on behalf of my fellow victims. I have been involved almost daily with the attorneys maligned in your article. I can assure you, that it is undeserved. Not only given valuable time, expertise and effort to the Stanford victims' plight, but they have done so in a manner that in my opinion elevates the standard of their profession.

John Wade, DVM

Thursday, 6 October 2011

The Joint Liquidators of Stanford International Bank, Ltd. invite you to attend an online presentation

Dear Creditors/Victims -

The Joint Liquidators of Stanford International Bank, Ltd. invite you to attend an online presentation:

- LIVE Webinar featuring joint liquidators Marcus Wide & Hugh Dickson

- The Joint Liquidators will be informing creditors/victims about the current status of the liquidation and responding to questions from creditors/victims who will have the opportunity to send in questions during the presentation.

- Tuesday, October 11 at 11:00 a.m. EDT – presentation is expected to last approximately 1 hour.

- Register today – limited spaces available – Please visit

to complete registration. There is no cost for you to attend this presentation.

- Please log-in to Webinar 10 minutes prior to start time.

- You will also have the option of listening to the presentation in Spanish.

If you are unable to listen to the presentation on Tuesday October 11 please note that the presentation will also be posted to the liquidation website ( approximately 24 hours after the conclusion of the presentation.

Sunday, 2 October 2011

Lawyers to Attend Judge Godbey's Court on 13th OCT for what is described as "Status Conference"

I don't know what this is about, but Judge Godbey has sent out electronic notifications to hundreds of movants and lawyers to attend his court on 13th OCT. For what is described as "Status Conference". Here is a copy of the court docs. and which cases have been notified:

U.S. District Court
Northern District of Texas
Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 9/28/2011 at 11:15 AM CDT and filed on 9/27/2011

Case Name: In RE: Stanford Entities Securities Litigation
Case Number: 3:09-md-02099-N

Document Number: 21

Docket Text:
ORDER: The Court will hold a status conference for all parties to the Stanford MDL proceeding on 10/13/2011 10:30 AM in US Courthouse, Courtroom 1505, 1100 Commerce St., Dallas, TX 75242-1310 before Judge David C Godbey. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 9/27/2011) (jkm)

Case Name: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank Ltd et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-00298-N

Document Number: 1449

Case Name: Adams et al v. Stanford Group Company et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-00334-N

Document Number: 28

Case Name: Pre-War Art, Inc. et al v. Stanford Coins & Bullion, Inc. et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-00559-N

Document Number: 87

Case Name: Trustmark National Bank v. HP Financial Services Venezuela, C.C.A. et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-00633-N

Document Number: 18

Case Name: In re Stanford International Bank Ltd. Debtor in a Foreign Proceeding
Case Number: 3:09-cv-00721-N

Document Number: 84

Case Name: Janvey v. Alguire et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-00724-N

Document Number: 769

Case Name: Troice et al v. Willis of Colorado, Inc. et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-01274-N

Document Number: 149

Case Name: Troice et al v. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-01600-N

Document Number: 92

Case Name: Gonzalez et al v. Ralph S. Janvey et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-01603-N

Document Number: 45

Case Name: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Ralph S Janvey
Case Number: 3:09-cv-01736-N

Document Number: 25

Case Name: Allen v. Stanford Group Company et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02041-N

Document Number: 12

Ranni v. Willis of Colorado Inc et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02042-N

Document Number: 24

Case Name: Janvey v. Reeves
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02151-N

Document Number: 37

Frank et al v. The Commonwealth of Antigua and Barbuda
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02165-N

Document Number: 44

Case Name: Kyle v. Stanford International Bank Ltd. et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02166-N

Document Number: 15

Case Name: Turk et al v. Pershing LLC
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02199-N

Document Number: 68

Case Name: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London et al v. Stanford et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02206-N

Document Number: 21

Case Name: In the Matter of the Tax Liabilities of John Does
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02290-N

Document Number: 14

Case Name: Rotstain et al v. Trustmark National Bank et al
Case Number: 3:09-cv-02384-N

Document Number: 86

Case Name: Queyrouze et al v. Bank of Antigua et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00304-N

Document Number: 23

Case Name: MacArthur, et al v. Certain Underwriters/Names at Lloyd's of London, et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00313-N

Document Number: 33

Case Name: Jackson et al v. Cox et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00328-N

Document Number: 37

Case Name: Janvey v. Venger et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00366-N

Document Number: 233

Case Name: Janvey v. Rodriguez Posada, et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00415-N

Document Number: 67

Case Name: Janvey v. Wealth Management Services, Ltd.
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00477-N

Document Number: 18

Case Name: Janvey v. Gilbe Corp.
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00478-N

Document Number: 69

Case Name: Janvey v. Barnes et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00527-N

Document Number: 23

Case Name: Janvey v. Buck's Bits Service, Inc.
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00528-N

Document Number: 56

Case Name: Janvey v. Johnson
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00617-N

Document Number: 46

Case Name: Janvey v. Barr
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00725-N

Document Number: 41

Case Name: Rupert et al v. Winter
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00799-N

Document Number: 76

Case Name: Janvey v. Interim Executive Management, Inc.
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00829-N

Document Number: 15

Case Name: Janvey v. Indigo Trust
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00844-N

Document Number: 46

Case Name: Janvey v. Dokken et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-00931-N

Document Number: 76

Case Name: Janvey v. Fernandez et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01002-N

Document Number: 128

Case Name: Janvey v. Stoelker
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01272-N

Document Number: 25

Case Name: Carter et al v. Mills et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01328-N

Document Number: 13

Case Name: Janvey v. Wieselberg et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01394-N

Document Number: 34

Case Name: Janvey v. Merge Healthcare, Inc.
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01465-N

Document Number: 20

Case Name: Casanova et al v. Willis of Colorado Inc et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01862-N

Document Number: 12

Case Name: Kneese et al v. Pershing, LLC
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01908-N

Document Number: 17

Case Name: Janvey v. Tonarelli
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01955-N

Document Number: 11

Case Name: Janvey v. Dillon Gage Inc. of Dallas et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-01973-N

Document Number: 25

Case Name: Janvey vs. Rodriguez-Tolentino et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-02290-N

Document Number: 8

Case Name: Janvey v. Stanford
Case Number: 3:10-cv-02322-N

Document Number: 12

Case Name: Janvey v. Bogar et al
Case Number: 3:10-cv-02583-N

Document Number: 16

Case Name: Janvey v. Alvarado
Case Number: 3:10-cv-02584-N

Document Number: 7

Case Name: Janvey v. Stinson
Case Number: 3:10-cv-02586-N

Document Number: 21

Case Name: Janvey et al v. Toms et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00018-N

Document Number: 15

Godbey. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 9/27/2011) (jkm)
Case Name: Janvey et al v. The University of Miami

Case Number: 3:11-cv-00041-N

Document Number: 16

Case Name: Janvey et al v. The Inter-American Economic Council
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00044-N

Document Number: 7

Case Name: Janvey et al v. IMG Worldwide, Inc.
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00117-N

Document Number: 29

Case Name: Janvey et al v. Miami Heat Limited Partnership et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00158-N

Document Number: 23

Case Name: Ralph S Janvey, et al. v. PGA Tour Inc
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00226-N

Document Number: 17

Case Name: Janvey et al v. Allen
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00289-N

Document Number: 6

Case Name: Janvey et al v. Arizaga
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00290-N

Document Number: 6

Case Name: Janvey et al v. Vingerhoedt et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00291-N

Document Number: 6

Case Name: Janvey et al v. Giusti et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00292-N

Document Number: 10

Case Name: Janvey et al v. The Golf Channel, Inc.
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00294-N

Document Number: 13

Case Name: Janvey et al v. ATP Tour Inc
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00295-N

Document Number: 13

Case Name: Janvey et al v. Salgar
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00296-N

Document Number: 7

Case Name: Janvey et al v. Romero
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00297-N

Document Number: 22

Case Name: The Official Stanford Investors Committee v. Cort & Cort et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00298-N

Document Number: 15

Case Name: Janvey et al v. Castaneda
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00299-N

Document Number: 6

Case Name: Janvey et al v. Brown
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00301-N

Document Number: 12

Case Name: Janvey et al v. Blackman
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00302-N

Document Number: 8

Case Name: The Official Stanford Investors Committee v. American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities, Inc. et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00303-N

Document Number: 28

Case Name: Mendez et al v. Pershing, LLC et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00314-N

Document Number: 11

Case Name: The Official Stanford Investors Committee et al v. Breazeale Sachse & Wilson LLP et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00329-N

Document Number: 38

Case Name: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London et al v. Tolentino et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00360-N

Document Number: 11

Case Name: Robert Juan Dartez, LLC et al v. The United States of America
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00602-N

Document Number: 23

Case Name: Janvey et al v. Chung Design, LLC.
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00738-N

Document Number: 7

Case Name: Janvey v. Insideout Sports & Entertainment
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00760-N

Document Number: 7

Case Name: Janvey et al v. Rocketball, Ltd. et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00770-N

Document Number: 10

Case Name: Trustmark National Bank v. Carribean Sun Airlines, Inc. et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-00924-N

Document Number: 16

Case Name: Official Stanford Investors Committee v. Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Martin, LLP.
Case Number: 3:11-cv-01025-N

Document Number: 9

Case Name: Wilkinson et al v. BDO USA, LLP et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-01115-N

Document Number: 37

Case Name: Janvey v. Libyan Investment Authority et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-01177-N

Document Number: 22

Case Name: Janvey v. Stanford
Case Number: 3:11-cv-01199-N

Document Number: 10

Case Name: Janvey v. Rincon
Case Number: 3:11-cv-01659-N

Document Number: 5

Case Name: Janvey et al v. Texas A&M University
Case Number: 3:11-cv-01895-N

Document Number: 5

Case Name: Rishmague et al v. Winter et al
Case Number: 3:11-cv-02024-N

Document Number: 15

Docket Text:

ORDER: The Court will hold a status conference for all parties to the Stanford MDL proceeding on 10/13/2011 10:30 AM in US Courthouse, Courtroom 1505, 1100 Commerce St., Dallas, TX 75242-1310 before Judge David C Godbey. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 9/27/2011) (jkm)