Stanford Ponzi Scheme Receiver Scuffles Ex-GC For Records
Miami, September 18, 2017 – Last month, the receiver Ralph S. Janvey, unwinding Robert Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme, filed a motion under FRCP 37 for an order to show cause, requiring Defendant Pablo M. Alvarado to show cause as to why he failed to comply with the court’s order granting the receiver’s motion to compel in the clawback suit targeting Stanford’s legal advisers. Earlier, the Court had ordered Alvarado to provide additional information regarding his bank accounts, to produce the records from those bank accounts, and to produce additional categories of financial records relating to six of his real properties. Alvarado’s amended discovery responses and subsequent document production fall far short of the requirements in the court’s order. The receiver has also requested the Court that Alvarado should pay the Receiver’s reasonable litigation expenses incurred as a result of Alvarado’s violations of the discovery rules and the court’s order.
By way of background, Stanford defrauded tens of thousands of investors in a $7 billion Ponzi scheme in which he misused or misappropriated certificates of deposits purchased by investors and administered by Stanford International Bank. He was convicted in 2012 and is serving a 110-year prison sentence.
Janvey is represented by Kevin M. Sadler, Scott D. Powers and David T. Arlington of Baker Botts LLP. Alvarado is represented by Michael J. Stanley and William Shawn Staples of Stanley Law PC. The case is Janvey et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP et al., Case number 3:13-cv-00477, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Repayment of Debt – Not a Preference as the Transfer Did not Enable the Defendant to Receive More Than She Would Have If the Transfer Had Not Occurred.
New Mexico, September 26, 2017 – Debtor and her son were involved in a car…Read More
Health Diagnostic Laboratory Initiates Second Round of Clawback Litigation
July 28, 2016, Virginia – Last month, Health Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc.’s liquidating trustee (HDL) brought…Read More
Insolvency on the Date of Preference is Critical to Prove the Essential Element of a Preference
Mazel v. Varela (In re Kelly), Nos. 15-10164-j7, 15-1049 J,2016 Bankr. LEXIS 1679 (U.S. Bankr….Read More
Whether a Complaint Adequately Identifies a Particular Transfer is Determined by Asking Whether a Defendant Could Respond to the Claims with Appropriate Affirmative Defenses
March 24, 2017 – Spradlin v. Pryor Cashman LLP (In re Licking River Mining, LLC),…Read More
Madoff Trustee Moves for Direct Appeal to Second Circuit in a Clawback Fight Against RBS
March 28, 2017, New York – On March 15, 2017, the trustee Irving Picard for…Read More