This document is a joint motion by the SEC and Receiver requesting that the court enter a Second Amended Order Appointing Receiver. It provides background on the original and amended receivership orders. It notes that additional §754 filings are needed in other districts where receivership assets and records exist. It also clarifies that the receiver's authority to file bankruptcy applies only to corporate defendants, not individuals. Finally, it discusses ongoing related litigation demanding estate resources.
This document appears to be an appendix listing former Stanford employees and the proceeds they received from Stanford International Bank CDs, quarterly bonuses, severance payments, and other compensation. It includes the employees' names and identification numbers, amounts of loans taken from Stanford, and totals of commissions, bonuses, and other payments received from Stanford entities. The data appears to be from an investigation into the finances of these former Stanford employees.
1) The parties submitted a joint status report in accordance with local bankruptcy rules regarding an adversary proceeding between Virgie Arthur and Bonnie Gayle Stern.
2) Discovery is ongoing, with the plaintiff anticipating completion in 8-10 months, while the defendant believes discovery could be completed sooner in 3 months if permitted.
3) The plaintiff estimates needing 10-14 days to present their case at trial plus rebuttal, while the defendant anticipates needing 2 days, with the plaintiff intending to call approximately 12 witnesses and the defendant 3-4 witnesses.
This letter from King & Spalding LLP to members of an arbitration tribunal requests interim measures in an ongoing arbitration between Chevron Corporation, Texaco Petroleum Company, and the Republic of Ecuador. It summarizes recent developments in related litigation in Ecuadorian courts, including the issuance of an order finalizing the evidence period and allowing for imminent judgment, as well as newly discovered evidence of plans by opposing parties to immediately attach assets and disrupt Chevron's global operations. The letter argues interim measures are urgently needed to protect the arbitration tribunal's jurisdiction and ability to provide meaningful relief by suspending enforceability of any imminent Ecuadorian court judgment.
The motion seeks partial summary judgment on the following grounds:
1) St. Paul breached its insurance contracts by refusing to defend Anderson against the EPA's 104(e) Request, as it constituted a "suit" under the policies.
2) St. Paul breached its contracts by refusing to defend against the General Notice Letter, which also constituted a "suit."
3) Anderson is entitled to a declaratory judgment that St. Paul has a continuing duty to defend Anderson against the 104(e) Request, General Notice Letter, and ongoing alternative dispute resolution process.
Can my employer fire me for no reason?
an “at-will” employment state. This means that in most cases, your employer can fire you at any time for any reason, for a bad reason, or for no reason at all. So your employer can fire you for complaining about your boss’s lack of
Can my employer retaliate against me?
Generally, yes. Most retaliation is not illegal. You should contact Heins & Minko Employment Attorneys to find out if you case has merit.
Are there exceptions to employment at-will?
employment contract, it may contain language that says your employer can only fire you “for cause” (i.e., a good reason). Additionally, if your employer made an oral or written statement (including pre-employment statements) that tends to limit its ...
Am I eligible for unemployment if my employer fired me for a bad reason or no reason?
Yes. Even if your situation does not fall into one of the exceptions of employment at will listed here, you may still be eligible for unemployment benefits if your employer did not terminate you for misconduct.
What is illegal discrimination?
Discrimination is treating someone differently based on his/her membership in a “protected class.” Protected classes include race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, physical or mental disability, receipt of public assistance, and age. ...
What is illegal harassment?
(see the preceding paragraph for a list of protected classes) that creates a hostile environment or adversely affects the individual’s employment. Most harassment claims are for sexual harassment. While morally wrong, harassment is not legally wrong unless the reason you are ...
Can I take medical or parental leave?
State and federal laws require some employers to provide eligible employees with leave for the birth, adoption, or foster care of a child, and to care for a serious health condition of the employee or his/her close relative. Eligible employees may sue for damages if their employer denies or ...
Is my employer required to accommodate my disability?
Employers must reasonably accommodate a qualified employee’s disability, unless the accommodation imposes an undue hardship on the employer.
Act 10 continues to cause controversy in Wisconsin
the law unconstitutional in Sept. 2012 and a stay was put on enforcing
Prison guard union vote allowed by state
On behalf of Heins Law Office LLC posted in Employment Disputes on Thursday, May 30, 2013.
President Obama praises Gap for raising wages
behalf of Heins & Minko posted in Employment Disputes on Friday, February 28, 2014. Wisconsin residents may be interested in recent comments by President Obama on a newly announced plan by Gap Inc. to raise its minimum wage. On Feb. 19, President Obama praised the ...
Wisconsin equal rights claim results in settlement
attorney who has
This appeal concerns discovery disputes in an adversary proceeding brought by Sulphur Mountain Land & Livestock, LP against John and Maureen Redmond regarding their bankruptcy filing. Sulphur Mountain had previously sued the Redmonds over a commercial lease guaranteed by their daughter. The bankruptcy court granted Sulphur Mountain's motion to compel discovery from the Redmonds and later issued terminating sanctions against them for alleged noncompliance, even though the Redmonds had produced documents and been deposed. The Redmonds are appealing these rulings.
Mark swhwartz gets_40k_for_client_vs_peter_mallonihatehassard
This order approves the settlement of a personal injury claim brought on behalf of a minor, Joseph Michael Hernandez. It approves attorney fees of $10,096, reimbursement of medical expenses of $11,279, and a total settlement of $41,667. The remaining $30,291 will be deposited in a blocked account for the minor until he turns 18. The guardian is authorized to sign settlement documents and a full release of claims.
When Plaintiff Offers for Defendants to Validate Plaintiff's "Lease" and "Cas...jamesmaredmond
This supplemental declaration was submitted by David Chatfield, an attorney representing Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock Co. LLC, in opposition to a motion to compel further deposition of Stephen Gaggero. Chatfield states that he previously offered to show opposing counsel a document establishing Sulphur Mountain's right to lease the premises in question, without copying it, but received no response. Chatfield offered again by letter on August 26th and again received no response. The declaration aims to show Chatfield attempted to resolve the issue without further court action.
This document appears to be an appendix listing former Stanford employees and the proceeds they received from Stanford International Bank CDs, quarterly bonuses, severance payments, and other compensation. It includes the employees' names and identification numbers, amounts of loans taken from Stanford, and totals of commissions, bonuses, and other payments received from Stanford entities. The data appears to be from an investigation into the finances of these former Stanford employees.
1) The parties submitted a joint status report in accordance with local bankruptcy rules regarding an adversary proceeding between Virgie Arthur and Bonnie Gayle Stern.
2) Discovery is ongoing, with the plaintiff anticipating completion in 8-10 months, while the defendant believes discovery could be completed sooner in 3 months if permitted.
3) The plaintiff estimates needing 10-14 days to present their case at trial plus rebuttal, while the defendant anticipates needing 2 days, with the plaintiff intending to call approximately 12 witnesses and the defendant 3-4 witnesses.
This letter from King & Spalding LLP to members of an arbitration tribunal requests interim measures in an ongoing arbitration between Chevron Corporation, Texaco Petroleum Company, and the Republic of Ecuador. It summarizes recent developments in related litigation in Ecuadorian courts, including the issuance of an order finalizing the evidence period and allowing for imminent judgment, as well as newly discovered evidence of plans by opposing parties to immediately attach assets and disrupt Chevron's global operations. The letter argues interim measures are urgently needed to protect the arbitration tribunal's jurisdiction and ability to provide meaningful relief by suspending enforceability of any imminent Ecuadorian court judgment.
The motion seeks partial summary judgment on the following grounds:
1) St. Paul breached its insurance contracts by refusing to defend Anderson against the EPA's 104(e) Request, as it constituted a "suit" under the policies.
2) St. Paul breached its contracts by refusing to defend against the General Notice Letter, which also constituted a "suit."
3) Anderson is entitled to a declaratory judgment that St. Paul has a continuing duty to defend Anderson against the 104(e) Request, General Notice Letter, and ongoing alternative dispute resolution process.
Can my employer fire me for no reason?
an “at-will” employment state. This means that in most cases, your employer can fire you at any time for any reason, for a bad reason, or for no reason at all. So your employer can fire you for complaining about your boss’s lack of
Can my employer retaliate against me?
Generally, yes. Most retaliation is not illegal. You should contact Heins & Minko Employment Attorneys to find out if you case has merit.
Are there exceptions to employment at-will?
employment contract, it may contain language that says your employer can only fire you “for cause” (i.e., a good reason). Additionally, if your employer made an oral or written statement (including pre-employment statements) that tends to limit its ...
Am I eligible for unemployment if my employer fired me for a bad reason or no reason?
Yes. Even if your situation does not fall into one of the exceptions of employment at will listed here, you may still be eligible for unemployment benefits if your employer did not terminate you for misconduct.
What is illegal discrimination?
Discrimination is treating someone differently based on his/her membership in a “protected class.” Protected classes include race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, physical or mental disability, receipt of public assistance, and age. ...
What is illegal harassment?
(see the preceding paragraph for a list of protected classes) that creates a hostile environment or adversely affects the individual’s employment. Most harassment claims are for sexual harassment. While morally wrong, harassment is not legally wrong unless the reason you are ...
Can I take medical or parental leave?
State and federal laws require some employers to provide eligible employees with leave for the birth, adoption, or foster care of a child, and to care for a serious health condition of the employee or his/her close relative. Eligible employees may sue for damages if their employer denies or ...
Is my employer required to accommodate my disability?
Employers must reasonably accommodate a qualified employee’s disability, unless the accommodation imposes an undue hardship on the employer.
Act 10 continues to cause controversy in Wisconsin
the law unconstitutional in Sept. 2012 and a stay was put on enforcing
Prison guard union vote allowed by state
On behalf of Heins Law Office LLC posted in Employment Disputes on Thursday, May 30, 2013.
President Obama praises Gap for raising wages
behalf of Heins & Minko posted in Employment Disputes on Friday, February 28, 2014. Wisconsin residents may be interested in recent comments by President Obama on a newly announced plan by Gap Inc. to raise its minimum wage. On Feb. 19, President Obama praised the ...
Wisconsin equal rights claim results in settlement
attorney who has
This appeal concerns discovery disputes in an adversary proceeding brought by Sulphur Mountain Land & Livestock, LP against John and Maureen Redmond regarding their bankruptcy filing. Sulphur Mountain had previously sued the Redmonds over a commercial lease guaranteed by their daughter. The bankruptcy court granted Sulphur Mountain's motion to compel discovery from the Redmonds and later issued terminating sanctions against them for alleged noncompliance, even though the Redmonds had produced documents and been deposed. The Redmonds are appealing these rulings.
Mark swhwartz gets_40k_for_client_vs_peter_mallonihatehassard
This order approves the settlement of a personal injury claim brought on behalf of a minor, Joseph Michael Hernandez. It approves attorney fees of $10,096, reimbursement of medical expenses of $11,279, and a total settlement of $41,667. The remaining $30,291 will be deposited in a blocked account for the minor until he turns 18. The guardian is authorized to sign settlement documents and a full release of claims.
When Plaintiff Offers for Defendants to Validate Plaintiff's "Lease" and "Cas...jamesmaredmond
This supplemental declaration was submitted by David Chatfield, an attorney representing Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock Co. LLC, in opposition to a motion to compel further deposition of Stephen Gaggero. Chatfield states that he previously offered to show opposing counsel a document establishing Sulphur Mountain's right to lease the premises in question, without copying it, but received no response. Chatfield offered again by letter on August 26th and again received no response. The declaration aims to show Chatfield attempted to resolve the issue without further court action.
SMLLC v Geraldine Redmond US BK CT Transcript - Case No. NDO3-12487 - 4-20-05jamesmaredmond
The court denied a motion to amend a complaint objecting to the discharge of debt in a bankruptcy case. The original complaint alleged the debtor failed to disclose assets like a corral and horses in bankruptcy filings. The proposed amendment alleged rental property fraud. The court found the proposed amendment did not relate back to the original complaint under Rule 15(c), as the facts alleged were different. A two-day trial was scheduled for May 31st and June 1st to resolve the original complaint.
This document is a declaration by Richard Miyamoto in support of a judgment creditor's opposition to a debtor's motion to avoid a judicial lien. It summarizes a long legal dispute between the parties involving multiple bankruptcy filings by the debtor designed to hinder and delay collection of the judgment. It details the procedural history of the case, including previous court rulings against the debtor for failure to comply with discovery orders. Exhibits are attached documenting the lien and various court orders in the case.
This document is an opposition to a motion to dismiss or transfer venue filed by the defendants. It summarizes relevant facts establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendants in Nevada. It describes the plaintiff Cox & Associates as a Nevada company recruited by the defendant Dillman Equipment to market and sell its equipment in Nevada. It details numerous contacts the defendants had with Nevada, including sales trips, equipment servicing, trade show attendance, and communications regarding marketing in Nevada. The document argues these contacts satisfy the test for personal jurisdiction over the defendants in Nevada.
This document is a reply brief filed by defendants in a class action securities litigation case. It summarizes and responds to arguments made in the lead plaintiffs' opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss. The defendants argue that the court can consider SEC filings, press releases, and transcripts referenced in their motion. They also contend that the lead plaintiffs have misstated facts and failed to provide the full context of disclosures made during the class period. The defendants assert that statements were not misleading and that the plaintiffs have not sufficiently pleaded scienter. Overall, the brief aims to persuade the court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice based on deficiencies in the plaintiffs' arguments and pleading.
SC Opinion and Order - motion for comtemptJRachelle
The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for contempt and sanctions. The court found Susan Brown, the attorney, in contempt for violating a consent order requiring her to turn over all copies of estate property. However, the court did not find Ben Thompson, Brown's former client, in contempt as there was no clear evidence he violated the order. As a sanction, the court ordered Brown to pay the plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees and costs for bringing the contempt motion, but no other punitive sanctions. The court also ordered Brown and Thompson to turn over any remaining estate property.
This appeal involves post-judgment orders from a legal malpractice case brought by Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock Co., Malibu Broadbeach L.P., and Pacific Coast Management against Knapp, Petersen & Clarke and several individuals. The trial court granted Sulphur and Malibu's motion for attorney's fees and costs, denied the defendants' motion for fees and motion to tax costs, finding Sulphur and Malibu were the prevailing parties. The defendants appeal, arguing: 1) the trial court failed to properly determine the prevailing party under Civil Code §1717 before considering C.C.P. §998; 2) even if it had, it abused its discretion in finding Sulphur and
This document is a petition for divorce filed by Sandra Carroll against Kenneth Carroll. It provides basic information about the parties and the marriage. It states that there are no children and the marital assets are valued at under $50,000. It requests that the court grant the divorce and divide the marital assets and debts in a just and equitable manner.
Motion before the Federal Court;
Bill of Costs as award of the Federal Court of Canada to the Right Honorable Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi who won a case against three Crown lawyer
File T-1020-07
This document summarizes testimony from Stephen Gaggero during a trial. Gaggero testified that he currently resides on a 1,500 acre ranch in Ventura County that he uses for equestrian activities, cattle grazing, and growing crops. He has lived in California his entire life. After leaving high school halfway through 10th grade, he became a licensed general contractor and built homes for others until 1985 when he began developing his own real estate projects, primarily custom single-family homes along the California coast from Malibu south. He also remodeled apartment buildings and small shopping centers that he kept in his real estate portfolio.
Doc922 order granting motion doc 723 to vacate claims & stay further proceedingmalp2009
The bankruptcy court granted the Chapter 11 trustee's motion to vacate a prior order allowing claims from Seven Hills Management, LLC. The court also granted a stay of further proceedings on Seven Hills' claims until the conclusion of a related criminal proceeding against parties for whom Seven Hills serves as a corporate alter ego. The criminal proceeding, United States v. Scarfo et al., is pending in federal court in New Jersey.
Nancy S. Montinola versus Philippine Airlines. G.R. No. 198656. September 8, ...PoL Sangalang
Nancy S. Montinola versus Philippine Airlines. G.R. No. 198656. September 8, 2014. Supreme Court of the Philippines. Uploaded by Atty. Apollo X.C.S. Sangalang in relation to his lecture on "Company Policy: Elements of Administrative Investigation and Progressive Discipline" on October 15, 2014, at the Asian Institute of Management, Makati City, Philippines.
Federal Judge's order of sanctions against Wal-Mart for its failure to preserve videotape in retaliation and discrimination lawsuit in Atlanta, Georgia.
A court case in which a landowner in Ohio sued to cancel a lease because the driller and the company that owns the lease have not paid any royalties since drilling. The Fifth Appellate District Court of Ohio found that because a specific provision in the original lease does not provide for cancellation due to non-payment of royalties, the landowners will have to continue to get screwed.
Doc577 complaint action against officers directors legal audit etcmalp2009
This complaint was filed by Matthew D. Orwig, the Chapter 11 Trustee for FirstPlus Financial Group, Inc., against various former officers and directors of FirstPlus, as well as outside attorneys, accountants, and business valuation experts. The complaint alleges claims including breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, and conspiracy related to these defendants' roles in the takeover of FirstPlus, misappropriation of its assets, and misleading public filings. The complaint seeks damages from eight categories of defendants.
B189989 gaggero/sulphur mountain v geraldine, somerset farms, john, maureen r...jamesmaredmond
This document summarizes a hearing in the Superior Court of Ventura County regarding Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock Company's motion for attorneys' fees and the defendants' motion to tax costs. The defendants' attorney argued that the case should have been filed as a limited action in municipal court based on the amount in dispute. He also argued that the plaintiffs pursued the case unreasonably by not accepting the defendants' early $25,209 settlement offer, which included damages and attorneys' fees at that point, and instead drove up costs over the ensuing years.
UNITED STATES' ABUSE OF THE 'SERIAL LITIGATOR' DEFENSEVogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
This document has been prepared in support of DEPRIVATION OF JURY TRIAL(S) - i.e. as “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury” – as set forth in the United States of America’s DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Furthermore, provides a copy of a Court Order FALSELY accusing Newsome of RACIAL and ANTI-SEMITIC SLURS for addressing for what are KNOWN to be Terrorist Acts, War Crimes, Apartheid Practices/Crimes Against Humanity, and other Criminal Acts launched against her by the United States of America’s NAZI’S and/or WHITE Jews/Zionists/Supremacists!
IMPORTANT TO NOTE: Are those WHO played ROLES in the FOUNDING of Israel as the Nazis and/or WHITE Jewish/Zionists/Supremacists Law Firms as Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz: https://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-founder-of-state-of-israel
The DENIAL of JURY TRIAL is also a defense that may be used in seeking INTERNATIONAL Judicial Review, INVESTIGATIONS and PROSECUTIONS, etc. – i.e. in taking matter(s) before INTERNATIONAL Tribunals!
Cabot Koppers Class Complaint Filed 4.20.2010Johnny
This document appears to be a civil cover sheet for a class action lawsuit filed in federal court. The plaintiffs are Maria and Michael Parsons on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The defendants are Kopper Inc. f/k/a Koppers Industries, Inc., Cabot Corporation, and Beazer East, Inc. The lawsuit relates to the Cabot Koppers Superfund Site and alleges jurisdiction under diversity of citizenship. The plaintiffs are seeking over $5 million in damages.
The document defines various legal terms used in a divorce proceeding packet, including petitioner, respondent, alimony, child support, custody, visitation, and grounds for divorce such as irreconcilable differences. It provides sample forms for the answer, notice of hearing, and verification in responding to a divorce petition.
This document summarizes a deposition transcript involving John O'Quinn. O'Quinn was deposed regarding his representation of Vergie Arthur in legal matters related to the death and estate of Anna Nicole Smith. O'Quinn stated that he was engaged by Arthur to help her obtain the right to bury her daughter and raise her granddaughter. He met with Arthur's Florida lawyer, Steve Tunstall, in Fort Lauderdale to discuss assisting in the case in Florida. The scope of O'Quinn's engagement was limited and did not include facilitating media contacts or book deals for Arthur.
SMLLC v Geraldine Redmond US BK CT Transcript - Case No. NDO3-12487 - 4-20-05jamesmaredmond
The court denied a motion to amend a complaint objecting to the discharge of debt in a bankruptcy case. The original complaint alleged the debtor failed to disclose assets like a corral and horses in bankruptcy filings. The proposed amendment alleged rental property fraud. The court found the proposed amendment did not relate back to the original complaint under Rule 15(c), as the facts alleged were different. A two-day trial was scheduled for May 31st and June 1st to resolve the original complaint.
This document is a declaration by Richard Miyamoto in support of a judgment creditor's opposition to a debtor's motion to avoid a judicial lien. It summarizes a long legal dispute between the parties involving multiple bankruptcy filings by the debtor designed to hinder and delay collection of the judgment. It details the procedural history of the case, including previous court rulings against the debtor for failure to comply with discovery orders. Exhibits are attached documenting the lien and various court orders in the case.
This document is an opposition to a motion to dismiss or transfer venue filed by the defendants. It summarizes relevant facts establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendants in Nevada. It describes the plaintiff Cox & Associates as a Nevada company recruited by the defendant Dillman Equipment to market and sell its equipment in Nevada. It details numerous contacts the defendants had with Nevada, including sales trips, equipment servicing, trade show attendance, and communications regarding marketing in Nevada. The document argues these contacts satisfy the test for personal jurisdiction over the defendants in Nevada.
This document is a reply brief filed by defendants in a class action securities litigation case. It summarizes and responds to arguments made in the lead plaintiffs' opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss. The defendants argue that the court can consider SEC filings, press releases, and transcripts referenced in their motion. They also contend that the lead plaintiffs have misstated facts and failed to provide the full context of disclosures made during the class period. The defendants assert that statements were not misleading and that the plaintiffs have not sufficiently pleaded scienter. Overall, the brief aims to persuade the court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice based on deficiencies in the plaintiffs' arguments and pleading.
SC Opinion and Order - motion for comtemptJRachelle
The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for contempt and sanctions. The court found Susan Brown, the attorney, in contempt for violating a consent order requiring her to turn over all copies of estate property. However, the court did not find Ben Thompson, Brown's former client, in contempt as there was no clear evidence he violated the order. As a sanction, the court ordered Brown to pay the plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees and costs for bringing the contempt motion, but no other punitive sanctions. The court also ordered Brown and Thompson to turn over any remaining estate property.
This appeal involves post-judgment orders from a legal malpractice case brought by Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock Co., Malibu Broadbeach L.P., and Pacific Coast Management against Knapp, Petersen & Clarke and several individuals. The trial court granted Sulphur and Malibu's motion for attorney's fees and costs, denied the defendants' motion for fees and motion to tax costs, finding Sulphur and Malibu were the prevailing parties. The defendants appeal, arguing: 1) the trial court failed to properly determine the prevailing party under Civil Code §1717 before considering C.C.P. §998; 2) even if it had, it abused its discretion in finding Sulphur and
This document is a petition for divorce filed by Sandra Carroll against Kenneth Carroll. It provides basic information about the parties and the marriage. It states that there are no children and the marital assets are valued at under $50,000. It requests that the court grant the divorce and divide the marital assets and debts in a just and equitable manner.
Motion before the Federal Court;
Bill of Costs as award of the Federal Court of Canada to the Right Honorable Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi who won a case against three Crown lawyer
File T-1020-07
This document summarizes testimony from Stephen Gaggero during a trial. Gaggero testified that he currently resides on a 1,500 acre ranch in Ventura County that he uses for equestrian activities, cattle grazing, and growing crops. He has lived in California his entire life. After leaving high school halfway through 10th grade, he became a licensed general contractor and built homes for others until 1985 when he began developing his own real estate projects, primarily custom single-family homes along the California coast from Malibu south. He also remodeled apartment buildings and small shopping centers that he kept in his real estate portfolio.
Doc922 order granting motion doc 723 to vacate claims & stay further proceedingmalp2009
The bankruptcy court granted the Chapter 11 trustee's motion to vacate a prior order allowing claims from Seven Hills Management, LLC. The court also granted a stay of further proceedings on Seven Hills' claims until the conclusion of a related criminal proceeding against parties for whom Seven Hills serves as a corporate alter ego. The criminal proceeding, United States v. Scarfo et al., is pending in federal court in New Jersey.
Nancy S. Montinola versus Philippine Airlines. G.R. No. 198656. September 8, ...PoL Sangalang
Nancy S. Montinola versus Philippine Airlines. G.R. No. 198656. September 8, 2014. Supreme Court of the Philippines. Uploaded by Atty. Apollo X.C.S. Sangalang in relation to his lecture on "Company Policy: Elements of Administrative Investigation and Progressive Discipline" on October 15, 2014, at the Asian Institute of Management, Makati City, Philippines.
Federal Judge's order of sanctions against Wal-Mart for its failure to preserve videotape in retaliation and discrimination lawsuit in Atlanta, Georgia.
A court case in which a landowner in Ohio sued to cancel a lease because the driller and the company that owns the lease have not paid any royalties since drilling. The Fifth Appellate District Court of Ohio found that because a specific provision in the original lease does not provide for cancellation due to non-payment of royalties, the landowners will have to continue to get screwed.
Doc577 complaint action against officers directors legal audit etcmalp2009
This complaint was filed by Matthew D. Orwig, the Chapter 11 Trustee for FirstPlus Financial Group, Inc., against various former officers and directors of FirstPlus, as well as outside attorneys, accountants, and business valuation experts. The complaint alleges claims including breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, and conspiracy related to these defendants' roles in the takeover of FirstPlus, misappropriation of its assets, and misleading public filings. The complaint seeks damages from eight categories of defendants.
B189989 gaggero/sulphur mountain v geraldine, somerset farms, john, maureen r...jamesmaredmond
This document summarizes a hearing in the Superior Court of Ventura County regarding Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock Company's motion for attorneys' fees and the defendants' motion to tax costs. The defendants' attorney argued that the case should have been filed as a limited action in municipal court based on the amount in dispute. He also argued that the plaintiffs pursued the case unreasonably by not accepting the defendants' early $25,209 settlement offer, which included damages and attorneys' fees at that point, and instead drove up costs over the ensuing years.
UNITED STATES' ABUSE OF THE 'SERIAL LITIGATOR' DEFENSEVogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
This document has been prepared in support of DEPRIVATION OF JURY TRIAL(S) - i.e. as “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury” – as set forth in the United States of America’s DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Furthermore, provides a copy of a Court Order FALSELY accusing Newsome of RACIAL and ANTI-SEMITIC SLURS for addressing for what are KNOWN to be Terrorist Acts, War Crimes, Apartheid Practices/Crimes Against Humanity, and other Criminal Acts launched against her by the United States of America’s NAZI’S and/or WHITE Jews/Zionists/Supremacists!
IMPORTANT TO NOTE: Are those WHO played ROLES in the FOUNDING of Israel as the Nazis and/or WHITE Jewish/Zionists/Supremacists Law Firms as Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz: https://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-founder-of-state-of-israel
The DENIAL of JURY TRIAL is also a defense that may be used in seeking INTERNATIONAL Judicial Review, INVESTIGATIONS and PROSECUTIONS, etc. – i.e. in taking matter(s) before INTERNATIONAL Tribunals!
Cabot Koppers Class Complaint Filed 4.20.2010Johnny
This document appears to be a civil cover sheet for a class action lawsuit filed in federal court. The plaintiffs are Maria and Michael Parsons on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The defendants are Kopper Inc. f/k/a Koppers Industries, Inc., Cabot Corporation, and Beazer East, Inc. The lawsuit relates to the Cabot Koppers Superfund Site and alleges jurisdiction under diversity of citizenship. The plaintiffs are seeking over $5 million in damages.
The document defines various legal terms used in a divorce proceeding packet, including petitioner, respondent, alimony, child support, custody, visitation, and grounds for divorce such as irreconcilable differences. It provides sample forms for the answer, notice of hearing, and verification in responding to a divorce petition.
This document summarizes a deposition transcript involving John O'Quinn. O'Quinn was deposed regarding his representation of Vergie Arthur in legal matters related to the death and estate of Anna Nicole Smith. O'Quinn stated that he was engaged by Arthur to help her obtain the right to bury her daughter and raise her granddaughter. He met with Arthur's Florida lawyer, Steve Tunstall, in Fort Lauderdale to discuss assisting in the case in Florida. The scope of O'Quinn's engagement was limited and did not include facilitating media contacts or book deals for Arthur.
This document is a public financial disclosure report form for Herman Cain, a candidate for President in 2011. It provides basic identifying information about Cain such as his name, address, and the position for which the report is being filed. It also specifies the reporting periods for different parts of the form, such as the preceding calendar year for reporting income and assets valued within 31 days of filing for presidential nominees. The form certifies that the statements made are true and complete to the best of the individual's knowledge.
Rob Meyne sends an email to colleagues updating them on the recent NRA Board meeting. The key points are: [1] The NRA reaffirmed its opposition to national smoking restrictions. [2] They were able to attend important committee meetings due to their financial support and board membership. [3] NRA President Herman Cain will be leaving in November and may run for president in 2000, which could benefit their relationship. [4] They avoided a potential new policy barring tobacco contributions, ensuring the NRA's continued support.
The document is a letter from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) enclosing copies of initial financial disclosure reports filed by 2012 presidential candidates Newton Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, and Mitt Romney. The FEC reviewed the reports for compliance with federal election law and understands OGE will conduct a final review.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms.
Doc962 freeman group motion compromise & settlement_ a walk-awaymalp2009
The Trustee filed a motion seeking court approval of a compromise and settlement agreement between the Trustee and the Freeman Parties. The agreement provides that Robert Freeman and David Ward will withdraw their respective $92,500 proof of claims against the estate with prejudice, and the Trustee will dismiss the Freeman Parties from an adversary proceeding. The agreement achieves a walk-away settlement and full mutual release of claims between the parties. The Trustee believes the settlement is in the best interest of creditors and the estate by avoiding substantial time and costs of litigation, despite believing there are good objections to the proof of claims.
(1) The bankruptcy court disallowed Claim No. 197, filed as an unsecured $3,311,000 claim by Martin K. Ward against FirstPlus Financial Group, which was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
(2) The court-appointed liquidating trustee had objected to the claim, arguing it was based on a breach of contract between non-debtor parties.
(3) As no response was filed opposing the trustee's objection, the court sustained the objection and disallowed the claim in its entirety.
This document is a court order adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation to remand a case back to state court. The court order provides additional analysis and comments supporting remand. Specifically, it finds that the plaintiffs' settlement demand of $155,000 did not establish by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, as settlement demands often reflect puffing and posturing. An affidavit from the plaintiffs' attorney further supported that the demand was made without adequate information and to facilitate settlement discussions. Therefore, the defendants did not meet their burden to keep the case in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
This document is a motion filed in a US bankruptcy court requesting permission to file an unredacted version of a response under seal. It summarizes that the response contains sensitive commercial information about the debtors' financial condition and restructuring negotiations. The debtors argue the information could harm ongoing negotiations and business operations if disclosed publicly. They seek to file the unredacted version under seal and make it available only to specific parties.
The Alleged Debtors filed a motion requesting the court's permission to file an unredacted version of their Motion to Transfer Venue under seal. They argue the unredacted version contains sensitive commercial information regarding their financial condition and restructuring negotiations that could harm their business if disclosed publicly. The Alleged Debtors state they have publicly filed a redacted version, and the unredacted version would only be available to the court and specific receiving parties subject to confidentiality restrictions. They believe this balancing of interests appropriately protects their sensitive information while still allowing for consideration of the merits of their transfer motion.
This document is the Alleged Debtors' response to the Petitioning Creditors' motion to shorten time for a hearing on their motion to file redacted and sealed documents. The Alleged Debtors do not object to shortening time for the hearing on appointing a trustee, but they believe any redactions or sealed documents should not prevent them from sharing the information with others to promote their interests. The Alleged Debtors also request that the bankruptcy case be transferred to Georgia where related cases are pending.
Doc723 motion to vacate claims & stay further proceedingmalp2009
The Chapter 11 Trustee filed a motion to vacate claims orders and stay further proceedings related to two claims filed against the bankruptcy estate. The claims, totaling $275,000 each, were based on promissory notes related to the debtor's purchase of a company called Premier. After the claims orders were entered allowing the claims in part, an indictment was filed describing how organized crime figures took control of the debtor and looted it for their personal benefit through fraudulent transactions like the one involving Premier. The indictment revealed that one of the claimants, Learned, was controlled by one of the crime figures and was used to defraud the debtor and launder money as part of the scheme.
This document is a motion filed in United States Bankruptcy Court requesting an expedited hearing for a separate motion to file certain documents under seal. The motion provides background on involuntary bankruptcy petitions recently filed against Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. It argues that expedited relief is necessary due to exigent circumstances, including the risk of harm to creditors from ongoing conflicts of interest if relief is not granted quickly. The motion requests that the court schedule a hearing on the separate motion to seal within two days and set the objection deadline on the same expedited schedule.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a statement of disputed facts in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the plaintiff's release from a community corrections center.
2) The defendants disputed many of the plaintiff's facts, citing an affidavit from the director of the community corrections center in support.
3) The plaintiff was ultimately sent back to a correctional facility by the Bureau of Prisons for violating the terms of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone.
1) The defendants filed a statement of disputed facts in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the plaintiff's release from a community corrections center.
2) The defendants disputed many of the plaintiff's facts, citing an affidavit from the director of the community corrections center in support.
3) The plaintiff was ultimately sent back to a correctional facility by the Bureau of Prisons for violating the terms of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone.
1) The defendants filed a statement of disputed facts in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the plaintiff's release from a community corrections center.
2) The defendants disputed many of the plaintiff's facts, citing an affidavit from the director of the community corrections center in support.
3) The plaintiff was ultimately sent back to a correctional facility by the Bureau of Prisons for violating the terms of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a statement of disputed facts in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the plaintiff's confinement at a community corrections facility.
2) The defendants disputed several of the plaintiff's factual claims, citing evidence that the plaintiff violated rules of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone.
3) The plaintiff was ultimately sent back to a federal correctional facility by the Bureau of Prisons due to these violations.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a statement of disputed facts in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the plaintiff's confinement at a community corrections facility.
2) The defendants disputed several of the plaintiff's factual claims, citing evidence from the affidavit of the facility director and documents related to the conditions of the plaintiff's release and confinement.
3) Specifically, the defendants argued that the plaintiff violated the terms of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone, leading to his transfer back to prison by the Bureau of Prisons.
Doc1014 attorney volker going for $1 m in feesmalp2009
Lynn Tillotson Pinker & Cox, LLP ("LTPC") seeks approval of $1,000,000 in attorney fees and $2,958.01 in expenses for a total of $1,002,958.01. The fees represent LTPC's one-third contingency fee from the Trustee's $3,000,000 settlement with Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP f/k/a Olshan Grundman Frome Rozenzweig & Wolosky, LLP and David Adler. LTPC was employed as special litigation counsel and filed an adversary proceeding against Olshan, responding to motions to dismiss and ultimately reaching the settlement. The expenses are for transcripts, legal
Doc1014 attorney volker going for $1 m in feesmalp2009
Lynn Tillotson Pinker & Cox, LLP ("LTPC") seeks approval of $1,000,000 in attorney fees and $2,958.01 in expenses for a total of $1,002,958.01. The fees represent LTPC's one-third contingency fee from the Trustee's $3,000,000 settlement with Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP f/k/a Olshan Grundman Frome Rozenzweig & Wolosky, LLP and David Adler. LTPC was employed as special litigation counsel and filed an adversary proceeding against Olshan, responding to motions to dismiss and ultimately reaching the settlement. The expenses are for transcripts, legal
This document is an objection filed by the United States Trustee to motions filed by Petitioning Creditors and Alleged Debtors to seal certain documents filed with the court. The U.S. Trustee does not oppose sealing documents pending a ruling on whether the bankruptcy cases will proceed, but argues that any sealing should end if the court finds cause to open bankruptcy cases, as the information would then become public. The U.S. Trustee asserts that bankruptcy law favors public disclosure of information relevant to creditors and parties in interest.
This document is an order from a bankruptcy court case staying an adversary proceeding pending resolution of a related state court case. The order schedules a continued status conference in the bankruptcy court for October 6, 2009 and every 90 days thereafter until judgments on liability and damages are issued in the state court case, or until further court order. The parties must submit a joint status report 14 days before each conference.
This document provides the Defendants' response to the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. It includes 11 disputed facts from the Plaintiff's motion. For each fact, the Defendants deny the Plaintiff's version and provide evidence from the affidavit of Ana Gispert supporting their denial. They assert that the Plaintiff violated the rules of his community corrections program by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, the Bureau of Prisons transferred the Plaintiff back to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence.
This document contains the Defendants' response to the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. It disputes 11 facts asserted by the Plaintiff. The Defendants deny that the Plaintiff could perform only light duty work and assert that his work and confinement were in accordance with his medical condition. They also deny allegations regarding restrictions on religious services and assert that the Plaintiff violated rules by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. Finally, they assert that the Bureau of Prisons, not the Defendants, transferred the Plaintiff to another facility for these violations.
The petitioning creditors filed a motion requesting permission to file redacted versions of confidential pleadings and exhibits under seal in bankruptcy proceedings against Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. The pleadings and exhibits contain confidential commercial information from credit agreements. The motion argues that public disclosure of this confidential information would violate the credit agreements.
Similar to 1003 . 3_appendix_-_supp_brief_mtn_re_772_relief_from_rcvrship_order_bukrinsky (1) (20)
The document expresses support for two bills, H.R. 1121 and H.R. 1315, which aim to provide oversight of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that was established by the Dodd-Frank Act. It notes that while Dodd-Frank merged consumer financial regulatory functions, it did so without sufficient oversight of the CFPB. H.R. 1315 would strengthen the review powers of the Financial Stability Oversight Council of CFPB rulemaking. H.R. 1121 would replace the single director of the CFPB with a five-member commission, matching the structure of other regulatory agencies.
The document provides summaries of legislative and regulatory developments related to financial services. It discusses three bills passed by a House subcommittee to amend the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's powers. It also summarizes the Roundtable's comments submitted in response to an FDIC study on brokered deposits. Additionally, it provides updates on the Roundtable's regulatory advocacy efforts regarding swaps rules under Dodd-Frank and preparations for the integration of mortgage disclosure forms.
Koch Industries regulator filing claiming business interest in Keystone XLlee_fang
Flint Hills Resources Canada LP applied for intervenor status in the regulatory hearing regarding TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd.'s application for the Keystone XL Pipeline project. Flint Hills indicated it has a direct interest as one of Canada's largest crude oil purchasers, shippers, and exporters, and it coordinates supply for its refinery in Minnesota. Flint Hills does not intend to actively participate in the hearing at this time but reserves the right to appear and address issues within the hearing order scope or that may arise during the proceeding. Flint Hills will not file written evidence or question other parties but may provide a final argument if desired.
Rep. Kingston and Rep. Westmoreland request clean energy moneylee_fang
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive function. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms.
LA HUG - Video Testimonials with Chynna Morgan - June 2024Lital Barkan
Have you ever heard that user-generated content or video testimonials can take your brand to the next level? We will explore how you can effectively use video testimonials to leverage and boost your sales, content strategy, and increase your CRM data.🤯
We will dig deeper into:
1. How to capture video testimonials that convert from your audience 🎥
2. How to leverage your testimonials to boost your sales 💲
3. How you can capture more CRM data to understand your audience better through video testimonials. 📊
Industrial Tech SW: Category Renewal and CreationChristian Dahlen
Every industrial revolution has created a new set of categories and a new set of players.
Multiple new technologies have emerged, but Samsara and C3.ai are only two companies which have gone public so far.
Manufacturing startups constitute the largest pipeline share of unicorns and IPO candidates in the SF Bay Area, and software startups dominate in Germany.
B2B payments are rapidly changing. Find out the 5 key questions you need to be asking yourself to be sure you are mastering B2B payments today. Learn more at www.BlueSnap.com.
Top mailing list providers in the USA.pptxJeremyPeirce1
Discover the top mailing list providers in the USA, offering targeted lists, segmentation, and analytics to optimize your marketing campaigns and drive engagement.
Structural Design Process: Step-by-Step Guide for BuildingsChandresh Chudasama
The structural design process is explained: Follow our step-by-step guide to understand building design intricacies and ensure structural integrity. Learn how to build wonderful buildings with the help of our detailed information. Learn how to create structures with durability and reliability and also gain insights on ways of managing structures.
At Techbox Square, in Singapore, we're not just creative web designers and developers, we're the driving force behind your brand identity. Contact us today.
Understanding User Needs and Satisfying ThemAggregage
https://www.productmanagementtoday.com/frs/26903918/understanding-user-needs-and-satisfying-them
We know we want to create products which our customers find to be valuable. Whether we label it as customer-centric or product-led depends on how long we've been doing product management. There are three challenges we face when doing this. The obvious challenge is figuring out what our users need; the non-obvious challenges are in creating a shared understanding of those needs and in sensing if what we're doing is meeting those needs.
In this webinar, we won't focus on the research methods for discovering user-needs. We will focus on synthesis of the needs we discover, communication and alignment tools, and how we operationalize addressing those needs.
Industry expert Scott Sehlhorst will:
• Introduce a taxonomy for user goals with real world examples
• Present the Onion Diagram, a tool for contextualizing task-level goals
• Illustrate how customer journey maps capture activity-level and task-level goals
• Demonstrate the best approach to selection and prioritization of user-goals to address
• Highlight the crucial benchmarks, observable changes, in ensuring fulfillment of customer needs
Taurus Zodiac Sign: Unveiling the Traits, Dates, and Horoscope Insights of th...my Pandit
Dive into the steadfast world of the Taurus Zodiac Sign. Discover the grounded, stable, and logical nature of Taurus individuals, and explore their key personality traits, important dates, and horoscope insights. Learn how the determination and patience of the Taurus sign make them the rock-steady achievers and anchors of the zodiac.
Best practices for project execution and deliveryCLIVE MINCHIN
A select set of project management best practices to keep your project on-track, on-cost and aligned to scope. Many firms have don't have the necessary skills, diligence, methods and oversight of their projects; this leads to slippage, higher costs and longer timeframes. Often firms have a history of projects that simply failed to move the needle. These best practices will help your firm avoid these pitfalls but they require fortitude to apply.
Unveiling the Dynamic Personalities, Key Dates, and Horoscope Insights: Gemin...my Pandit
Explore the fascinating world of the Gemini Zodiac Sign. Discover the unique personality traits, key dates, and horoscope insights of Gemini individuals. Learn how their sociable, communicative nature and boundless curiosity make them the dynamic explorers of the zodiac. Dive into the duality of the Gemini sign and understand their intellectual and adventurous spirit.
How MJ Global Leads the Packaging Industry.pdfMJ Global
MJ Global's success in staying ahead of the curve in the packaging industry is a testament to its dedication to innovation, sustainability, and customer-centricity. By embracing technological advancements, leading in eco-friendly solutions, collaborating with industry leaders, and adapting to evolving consumer preferences, MJ Global continues to set new standards in the packaging sector.
IMPACT Silver is a pure silver zinc producer with over $260 million in revenue since 2008 and a large 100% owned 210km Mexico land package - 2024 catalysts includes new 14% grade zinc Plomosas mine and 20,000m of fully funded exploration drilling.
1. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3 Filed 02/09/2010 Page 1 of 444
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-0298-N
§
STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK, LTD., et al., §
§
Defendants. §
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 10(e) OF THE
RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
MORGENSTERN & BLUE, LLC
885 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 750-6776
Facsimile: (212) 750-3128
LACKEY HERSHMAN, L.L.P.
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 777
Dallas, Texas 75219
Telephone: (214) 560-2201
Facsimile: (214) 560-2203
Attorneys for the Movants
2. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3 Filed 02/09/2010 Page 2 of 444
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration of Angela Shaw .............................................................................................................. 1
Joint Motion of the SEC and Receiver for Entry of Second Amended Order Appointing
Receiver and Appendix in Support of Joint Motion of the SEC and Receiver for Entry of
Second Amended Order Appointing Receiver [Dkt. No. 958].......................................................... 7
Receiver Ralph S. Janvey’s Motion to Amend Order Appointing Receiver [Dkt. No. 146]........... 43
Transcript of Oral Argument in Janvey v. Alguire, et al., Civil Action No. 09-10761
(5th Cir. Nov. 2, 2009)..................................................................................................................... 57
Receiver’s Second Amended Complaint Against Former Stanford Employees, filed in
Janvey v. Alguire, et al., Case no. 3:09-cv-0724-N, N.D. Tex. [Dkt No. 156].............................. 171
Defendant E. Randolph Robertson, Jr.’s Original Answer to Receiver’s Second Amended
Complaint Against Former Stanford Employees Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims,
filed in Janvey v. Alguire, et al., Case no. 3:09-cv-0724-N, N.D. Tex. [Dkt. No. 207] ................ 197
Complaint in Frank, et al., v. The Commonwealth of Antigua and Barbuda,
(Case No. 3:09-cv-02165-N).......................................................................................................... 214
First Amended Complaint Against Certain Stanford Investors and Appendix in Support of
Receiver’s First Amended Complaint Against Certain Stanford Investors, filed in Janvey v.
Alguire, et al., Case no. 3:09-cv-0724-N, N.D. Tex. [Dkt Nos. 128 & 129],................................ 288
Answer to Receiver’s First Amended Complaint (Investor Defendants), filed by
investors Robert B. Crawford, Jr., et al., in Janvey v. Alguire, et al.
Case no. 3:09-cv-0724-N, N.D. Tex. [Dkt No. 242]...................................................................... 314
Transcript of Proceedings in Janvey v. Alguire, et al., July 31, 2009............................................ 331
Order of the Honorable David C. Godbey cancelling the January 21, 2010 hearing in In re
Stanford International Bank, Ltd., Case no. 3:09-cv-0721-N, N.D. Tex. [Dkt No. 66] ................ 382
Letter from Ralph S. Janvey to Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, dated August 12, 2009....................... 383
9. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 958 Filed 02/09/2010
Filed 01/14/2010 Page 9 of 444
Page 1 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Case No.: 3-09-CV-0298-N
§
STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK, LTD., §
STANFORD GROUP COMPANY, §
STANFORD CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, §
R. ALLEN STANFORD, JAMES M. DAVIS, and §
LAURA PENDERGEST-HOLT, §
§
Defendants. §
JOINT MOTION OF THE SEC AND RECEIVER FOR ENTRY OF
SECOND AMENDED ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission and Receiver Ralph S. Janvey
request that the Court enter the Second Amended Order Appointing Receiver.
Factual Background
On February 17, 2009 the Court entered the Order Appointing Receiver. (Doc.
10). Within 10 days, the Receiver complied with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 754 by filing
the Complaint and Order Appointing Receiver in 29 districts, located in 16 states, the District of
Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. On March 12, 2009 the Court entered the
Amended Order Appointing Receiver. (Doc. 157).
As a result of his investigation of the books and records of the Receivership
Estate, the Receiver has learned that Receivership Assets and Receivership Records exist in
additional districts where § 754 filings have not been made. The Court’s reappointment of the
Receiver will permit him to complete § 754 filings in additional districts in furtherance of his
duty to “[p]erform all acts necessary to conserve, hold, manage, and preserve the value of the
JOINT MOTION OF THE SEC AND RECEIVER FOR ENTRY OF
SECOND AMENDED ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER PAGE 1
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 7
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
10. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 958 Filed 02/09/2010
Filed 01/14/2010 Page 10of 9444
Page 2 of
Receivership Estate, in order to prevent any irreparable loss, damage, and injury to the Estate.”
Doc. 157 at 5, ¶ 5(g); See Warfield v. Arpe, 2007 WL 549467, *12-13 (N.D. Tex. 2007); Order
Reappointing Temporary Receiver in Civil Action No. 3:02-cv-0605-R, filed 10/04/2006,
attached at Appdx. 1-9.
Additionally, the Receiver has determined that in order for him to carry out his
duties as receiver, it is not necessary for him to have the authority to file bankruptcy petitions on
behalf of any of the individual defendants. Accordingly, the proposed Second Amended Order
Appointing Receiver clarifies that the Receiver’s exclusive authority to file bankruptcy petitions
applies only to the corporate, and not the individual, defendants.
Finally, despite the litigation injunction contained in the Amended Order
Appointing Receiver, a number of lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts against the
Receiver, Estate entities, and defendants. Many of these have been stayed or referred to the
MDL panel. However, a second wave of related litigation is now demanding significant
resources from the Receiver, his professionals, and the Estate. Plaintiffs have filed lawsuits
against former Stanford financial advisors and are taking the position that the litigation
injunction does not apply to terminated employees. Because the Estate is in possession of
documents relating to Stanford client accounts, the plaintiffs and defendants in these suits seek
discovery from the Receiver. Responding to these requests will consume more and more Estate
resources as additional cases are filed and proceed to trial.
There have now been more than 50 cases filed in state and federal courts that
somehow relate to the sale of Stanford CDs or the Receivership. Six cases have named Pershing
LLC (which was the clearing bank for Stanford Group Company) and four have named SEI
Investments Co. (which provided trust services to Stanford Trust Co.) as defendants in five
JOINT MOTION OF THE SEC AND RECEIVER FOR ENTRY OF
SECOND AMENDED ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER PAGE 2
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 8
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
11. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 958 Filed 02/09/2010
Filed 01/14/2010 Page 11of 9444
Page 3 of
different jurisdictions. A number of arbitrations have also been initiated against Pershing at
FINRA. The contracts between Pershing and SGC and SEI and STC require the Estate to
indemnify Pershing and SEI in these lawsuits and arbitrations. Despite the Estate’s pecuniary
interest in these cases, none of the them have been stayed pursuant to this Court’s litigation
injunction, either by agreement or court order. The Estate has already incurred some defense
costs pursuant to the indemnity provisions and if these cases continue, or multiply, they will
further deplete Estate resources. For example, after being referred to the MDL panel, one group
of plaintiffs simply filed a second, almost identical lawsuit against Pershing in another
jurisdiction; they refuse to stay the case and maintain that it is not appropriate for referral to the
MDL panel.
Argument and Authority
The Fifth Circuit, and other Circuit Courts, have upheld repeatedly a district
court’s authority to enjoin the commencement, or even the continuation of pre-existing litigation,
in other venues in order to protect the receivership and the receivership court’s exclusive
jurisdiction:
The district court may require all such claims to be brought before
the receivership court for disposition pursuant to summary process
consistent with the equity purpose of the court. The district court
may also authorize, to the extent that the court deems appropriate,
“satellite” litigation in forums outside of the receivership court to
address ancillary issues. However, the receivership court typically
retains jurisdiction over any attempt at execution of a judgment in
such situations.
Liberte Capital Group, LLC v. Capwill, 462 F.3d 543, 552 (6th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted);
see e.g., Schauss v. Metals Depository Corp., 757 F.2d 649 (5th Cir. 1985); S.E.C. v. Wencke,
622 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1980).
JOINT MOTION OF THE SEC AND RECEIVER FOR ENTRY OF
SECOND AMENDED ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER PAGE 3
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 9
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
12. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 958 Filed 02/09/2010
Filed 01/14/2010 Page 12of 9444
Page 4 of
Because “[t]he receivership court has a valid interest in both the value of the
claims themselves and the costs of defending any suit as a drain on receivership assets,” the court
“may issue a blanket injunction, staying litigation against the named receiver and the entities
under his control unless leave of that court is first obtained.” Liberte Capital Group, LLC v.
Capwill, 462 F.3d 543, 551 (6th Cir. 2006). This injunction can even bind all non-parties with
notice, far exceeding normal limits on the scope of injunctions. See S.E.C. v. Wencke, 622 F.2d
1363, 1369 (9th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, the power to enjoin “extends to the institution of any
suit.” Liberte Capital, 462 F.3d at 551.
If the injunction so provides, leave of the receivership court must be obtained
before suit can be brought against the receiver. See In re Crown Vantage, Inc., 421 F.3d 963,
970–71 (9th Cir. 2005); Seaman Paper Co. of Mass., Inc. v. Polsky, 537 F. Supp. 2d 233, 236 (D.
Mass. 2007); Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Spark Tarrytown, Inc., 829 F. Supp. 82, 88
(S.D.N.Y. 1993). Failure to obtain leave of the receivership court deprives the second court of
subject matter jurisdiction. See Le v. S.E.C., 542 F. Supp. 2d 1318, 1321 (N.D. Ga. 2008).
In Liberte Capital, the district court had entered an injunction on litigation, but
carved out a very narrow exception for litigation against the Receiver for cases challenging the
validity of life insurance policies prior to the insured’s death. Liberte Capital, 462 F.3d at 549.
Insurance companies initiated suits against the entities in receivership that did not fall within the
narrow exception to the injunction, and the district court held them in contempt. The Sixth
Circuit affirmed, emphasizing the district court’s exclusive jurisdiction over the receivership. Id.
at 552.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the Ninth Circuit, has explained the
practical reasons that such an injunction can be necessary and reasonable. It protects the
JOINT MOTION OF THE SEC AND RECEIVER FOR ENTRY OF
SECOND AMENDED ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER PAGE 4
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 10
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
13. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 958 Filed 02/09/2010
Filed 01/14/2010 Page 13of 9444
Page 5 of
interests of the very persons enjoined from filing suit, and prevents the estate from becoming
overwhelmed by the expenses of multiple lawsuits:
The receiver and the district court also felt it essential for
the receiver to be given time to explore all the complex
transactions and aspects of the receivership estate so that innocent
shareholders suffered no further harm.
A receiver appointed by a court in the wake of a securities
fraud scheme may encounter difficulties sorting out the financial
status of the defrauded entity or entities. There may be a genuine
danger that some litigation against receivership entities amounts to
little more than a continuation of the original fraudulent scheme.
Similarly, the securities fraud may have left the finances of the
receivership entities so obscure or complex that the receiver is
hampered in conducting litigation. Moreover, the expense
involved in defending the many lawsuits which often are filed
against an entity in the wake of a securities fraud scheme may be
overwhelming unless some are temporarily deferred. A stay of
proceeding against receivership entities except by leave of the
court may be an appropriate response to the above concerns, and
the district court did not abuse its discretion in this case by entering
the blanket stay.
Wencke, 622 F.2d at 1373.
Even where the court entering the injunction was not the first in which suit was
filed, the Fifth Circuit has vacated a two-year-old judgment and ordered that funds disbursed to
the parties be paid back into the registry of the court. Schauss v. Metals Depository Corp., 757
F.2d 649, 655 (5th Cir. 1985). A customer filed suit against MDC in the Northern District of
Texas and MDC’s bank was joined as garnishee. Id. at 651. Soon thereafter, a fraud suit was
filed in the Southern District of New York. The New York court entered judgment against
MDC, appointed a receiver, and enjoined the commencement of new suits and continuation of
pending suits. Id. A second Texas suit was filed and the two Texas suits consolidated. Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 754 the New York receiver filed the New York order appointing him, but did not
otherwise answer or enter an appearance in the Texas consolidated case. Id. at 652.
JOINT MOTION OF THE SEC AND RECEIVER FOR ENTRY OF
SECOND AMENDED ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER PAGE 5
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 11
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
14. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 958 Filed 02/09/2010
Filed 01/14/2010 Page 14of 9444
Page 6 of
The Texas case then proceeded to bench trial and the court entered judgment
disposing of the funds interpleaded by the bank as garnishee. Id. Two years later, the receiver
moved to set aside the Texas judgment. The Fifth Circuit granted the motion in the interests of
justice and comity between federal courts, to discourage duplicative litigation, and in furtherance
of the important goal of preserving assets in receivership:
[S]everal courts have recognized the importance of
preserving a receivership court’s ability to issue orders preventing
interference with its administration of the receivership property. In
both securities fraud cases, and bankruptcy proceedings, Courts of
Appeals have upheld orders enjoining broad classes of individuals
from taking any action regarding receivership property. Such
orders can serve as an important tool permitting a district court to
prevent dissipation of property or assets subject to multiple claims
in various locales, as well as preventing “piecemeal resolution of
issues that call for a uniform result.”
Id. at 654 (citations omitted).
Conclusion
For these reasons, the SEC and the Receiver ask the Court to enter their proposed
Second Amended Order Appointing Receiver. For the Court’s convenience a red-line comparing
the proposed Second Amended Order Appointing Receiver and Amended Order Appointing
Receiver (Doc. 157) has been filed at Appendix 10-21.
JOINT MOTION OF THE SEC AND RECEIVER FOR ENTRY OF
SECOND AMENDED ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER PAGE 6
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 12
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
15. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 958
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3 Filed 01/14/2010
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 15of 9444
Page 7 of
Dated: January 14, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
By: /s/ Kevin M. Sadler
Kevin M. Sadler
Texas Bar No. 17512450
kevin.sadler@bakerbotts.com
Robert I. Howell
Texas Bar No. 10107300
robert.howell@bakerbotts.com
David T. Arlington
Texas Bar No. 00790238
david.arlington@bakerbotts.com
1500 San Jacinto Center
98 San Jacinto Blvd.
Austin, Texas 78701-4039
(512) 322-2500
(512) 322-2501 (Facsimile)
Timothy S. Durst
Texas Bar No. 00786924
tim.durst@bakerbotts.com
2001 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 953-6500
(214) 953-6503 (Facsimile)
ATTORNEYS FOR RECEIVER
RALPH S. JANVEY
JOINT MOTION OF THE SEC AND RECEIVER FOR ENTRY OF
SECOND AMENDED ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER PAGE 7
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 13
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
16. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 958 Filed 02/09/2010
Filed 01/14/2010 Page 16of 9444
Page 8 of
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Counsel for the Receiver conferred with attorneys who have made appearances on
behalf of parties to this case.
Counsel for the Receiver conferred with David B. Reece, counsel for the SEC,
who stated that the SEC does not oppose the filing of this motion and relief sought herein.
Counsel for the Receiver provided the motion to Jeffrey M. Tillotson, counsel for
Laura Pendergest-Holt, who stated that Ms. Holt opposes the filing of this motion and relief
sought herein.
Counsel for the Receiver conferred with Ruth Schuster, counsel for R. Allen
Stanford, who stated that Mr. Stanford opposes the filing of this motion and relief sought herein.
Counsel for the Receiver conferred with Manuel Lena, counsel for the DOJ (Tax),
who stated that he does not oppose the filing of this motion and relief sought herein.
Counsel for the Receiver provided the motion to David Finn, counsel for James
Davis, but has not received a response to requests to confer on this motion and relief sought
herein.
Counsel for the Receiver conferred with John Little, Court-appointed Examiner, ,
who stated that he does not oppose the filing of this motion and relief sought herein.
Counsel for the Receiver conferred with Joe Kendall, counsel for Susan Stanford,
who stated that Mrs. Stanford takes no position on the filing of this motion and relief sought
herein.
/s/ Kevin M. Sadler
Kevin M. Sadler
JOINT MOTION OF THE SEC AND RECEIVER FOR ENTRY OF
SECOND AMENDED ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER PAGE 8
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 14
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
17. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 958 Filed 02/09/2010
Filed 01/14/2010 Page 17of 9444
Page 9 of
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On January 14, 2010 I electronically submitted the foregoing motion and the
proposed order with the clerk of court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas,
using the electronic case filing system of the court. I hereby certify that I have served all counsel
and/or pro se parties of record electronically or by another manner authorized by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 5(b)(2).
/s/ Kevin M. Sadler
Kevin M. Sadler
JOINT MOTION OF THE SEC AND RECEIVER FOR ENTRY OF
SECOND AMENDED ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER PAGE 9
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 15
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
18. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 1 ofof 444
Page 18 27
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Case No.: 3-09-CV-0298-N
§
STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK, LTD., §
STANFORD GROUP COMPANY, §
STANFORD CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, §
R. ALLEN STANFORD, JAMES M. DAVIS, and §
LAURA PENDERGEST-HOLT, §
§
Defendants. §
APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION OF THE SEC AND RECEIVER
FOR ENTRY OF SECOND AMENDED ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 16
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
19. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 2 ofof 444
Page 19 27
Dated: January 14, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
By: /s/ Kevin M. Sadler
Kevin M. Sadler
Texas Bar No. 17512450
kevin.sadler@bakerbotts.com
Robert I. Howell
Texas Bar No. 10107300
robert.howell@bakerbotts.com
David T. Arlington
Texas Bar No. 00790238
david.arlington@bakerbotts.com
1500 San Jacinto Center
98 San Jacinto Blvd.
Austin, Texas 78701-4039
(512) 322-2500
(512) 322-2501 (Facsimile)
Timothy S. Durst
Texas Bar No. 00786924
tim.durst@bakerbotts.com
2001 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 953-6500
(214) 953-6503 (Facsimile)
ATTORNEYS FOR RECEIVER
RALPH S. JANVEY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On January 14, 2010 I electronically submitted the foregoing motion and the
proposed order with the clerk of court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas,
using the electronic case filing system of the court. I hereby certify that I have served all counsel
and/or pro se parties of record electronically or by another manner authorized by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 5(b)(2).
/s/ Kevin M. Sadler
Kevin M. Sadler
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 17
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
20. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 255-2
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 32ofof22
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 20of27
Filed 04/01/2009 Page 444
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 18
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
21. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 255-2
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 43ofof22
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 21of27
Filed 04/01/2009 Page 444
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 19
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
22. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 255-2
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 54ofof22
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 22of27
Filed 04/01/2009 Page 444
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 20
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
23. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 255-2
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 65ofof22
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 23of27
Filed 04/01/2009 Page 444
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 21
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
24. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 255-2
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 76ofof22
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 24of27
Filed 04/01/2009 Page 444
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 22
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
25. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 255-2
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 87ofof22
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 25of27
Filed 04/01/2009 Page 444
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 23
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
26. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 255-2
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 98ofof22
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 26of27
Filed 04/01/2009 Page 444
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 24
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
27. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 10 of 27
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 255-2 Filed 02/09/2010 Page 27of 22
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 04/01/2009 Page 9 of 444
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 25
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
28. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 255-2
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 11 of 27
Filed 04/01/2009 Page 10 of 22
02/09/2010 28 444
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 26
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
29. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 12 of 27
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 29 of 444
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT 0F TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
§
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Case No.: 3-09CV0298-N
§
STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK, LTD., §
ET AL. §
§
Defendants. §
§
§
§
SECOND AMENDED ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
This matter came before me, the undersigned United States District Judge, on the motion
of Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) for the appointment of a
Receiver for corporate Defendants Stanford International Bank, Ltd., Stanford Group Company,
Stanford Capital Management, LLC, Robert Allen Stanford, James M. Davis, Laura Pendergest-
Holt, Stanford Financial Group, and The Stanford Financial Group Bldg Inc. (“Defendants”). It
appears that, and Individual Defendants Robert Allen Stanford, James M. Davis, and Laura
Pendergest-Holt, (together the “Defendants”).
On February 17, 2009 this AmendedCourt entered its Order Appointing Receiver (the
“Order”) is. (Doc. 10). On March 12, 2009 this Court entered its Amended Order
Appointing Receiver. (Doc. 157). The Receiver has informed the Court that after the
expiration of 10 days from the dates of these Orders, the Receiver identified Receivership
Assets and Receivership Records in districts in which copies of the Complaint and Order
Appointing Receiver have not been filed of record pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 754. In order to
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF 10
Appx. Page 27
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
30. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 13 of 27
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 30 of 444
allow the Court to obtain jurisdiction in these districts, the Court hereby enters this Second
Amended Order Appointing Receiver. The Court finds the entry of this Second Amended
Order Appointing Receiver to be both necessary and appropriate in order to prevent waste and
dissipation of the assets of the Defendants to the detriment of the investors.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. This Court assumes exclusive jurisdiction and takes possession of the assets,
monies, securities, properties, real and personal, tangible and intangible, of whatever kind and
description, wherever located, and the legally recognized privileges (with regard to the entities),
of the Defendants and all entities they own or control (“Receivership Assets”), and the books and
records, client lists, account statements, financial and accounting documents, computers,
computer hard drives, computer disks, internet exchange servers telephones, personal digital
devices and other informational resources of or in possession of the Defendants, or issued by
Defendants and in possession of any agent or employee of the Defendants (“Receivership
Records”).
2. Ralph S. Janvey of Dallas, Texas, is hereby appointed Receiver for the
Receivership Assets and Receivership Records (collectively, “Receivership Estate”), with the
full power of an equity receiver under common law as well as such powers as are enumerated
herein as of the date of this Order. The Receiver shall not be required to post a bond unless
directed by the Court but is hereby ordered to well and faithfully perform the duties of his office:
to timely account for all monies, securities, and other properties which may come into his hands;
and to abide by and perform all duties set forth in this Order. Except for an act of willful
malfeasance or gross negligence, the Receiver shall not be liable for any loss or damage incurred
by the Receivership Estate, or any of Defendants, the Defendants’ clients or associates, or their
subsidiaries or affiliates, their officers, directors, agents, and employees, or by any of
2
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF 11
Appx. Page 28
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
31. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 14 of 27
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 31 of 444
Defendants’ creditors or equity holders because of any’ act performed or not performed by him
or his agents or assigns in connection with the discharge of his duties and responsibilities
hereunder.
3. The duties of the Receiver shall be specifically limited to matters relating to the
Receivership Estate and unsettled claims thereof remaining in the possession of the Receiver as
of the date of this Order. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to require further investigation
of Receivership Estate assets heretofore liquidated and/or distributed or claims of the
Receivership Estate settled prior to issuance of this Order. However, this paragraph shall not be
construed to limit the powers of the Receiver in any regard with respect to transactions that may
have occurred prior to the date of this Order.
4. Until the expiration date of this Order or further Order of this Court, Receiver is
authorized to immediately take and have complete and exclusive control, possession, and
custody of the Receivership Estate and to any assets traceable to assets owned by the
Receivership Estate.
5. As of the date of entry of this Order, the Receiver is specifically directed and
authorized to perform the following acts and duties:
(a) Maintain full control of the Receivership Estate with the power to retain or
remove, as the Receiver deems necessary or advisable, any officer, director, independent
contractor, employee or agent of the Receivership Estate;
(b) Collect, marshal, and take custody, control, and possession of all the
funds, accounts, mail, and other assets of, or in the possession or under the control of, the
Receivership Estate, or assets traceable to assets owned or controlled by the Receivership
Estate, wherever situated, the income and profit therefrom and all sums of money now or
3
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF 12
Appx. Page 29
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
32. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 15 of 27
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 32 of 444
hereafter due or owing to the Receivership Estate with full power to collect, receive, and
take possession of without limitation, all goods, chattel, rights, credits, monies, effects,
lands, leases, books and records, work papers, records of account, including computer
maintained information, contracts, financial records, monies on hand in banks and other
financial initiations, and other papers and documents of other individuals, partnerships, or
corporations whose interests are now held by or under the direction, possession, custody,
or control of the Receivership Estate;
(c) Institute such actions or proceedings to impose a constructive trust, obtain
possession, and/or recover judgment with respect to persons or entities who received
assets or records traceable to the Receivership Estate. All such actions shall be filed in
this Court;
(d) Obtain, by presentation of this Order, documents, books, records,
accounts, deposits, testimony, or other information within the custody or control of any
person or entity sufficient to identify accounts, properties, liabilities, causes of action, or
employees of the Receivership Estate. The attendance of a person or entity for
examination and/or production of documents may be compelled in a manner provided in
Rule 45, Fed. R. Civ. P., or as provided under the laws of any foreign country where such
documents, books, records, accounts, deposits, or testimony maybe located;
(e) Without breaching the peace and, if necessary, with the assistance of local
peace officers or United States marshals to enter and secure any premises, wherever
located or situated, in order to take possession, custody, or control of, or to identify the
location or existence of Receivership Estate assets or records;
4
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF 13
Appx. Page 30
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
33. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 16 of 27
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 33 of 444
(f) Make such ordinary and necessary payments, distributions, and
disbursements as the Receiver deems advisable or proper for the marshaling,
maintenance, or preservation of the Receivership Estate. Receiver is further authorized to
contract and negotiate with any claimants against the Receivership Estate (including,
without limitation, creditors) for the purpose of compromising or settling any claim. To
this purpose, in those instances in which Receivership Estate assets serve as collateral to
secured creditors, the Receiver has the authority to surrender such assets to secured
creditors, conditional upon the waiver of any deficiency of collateral;
(g) Perform all acts necessary to conserve, hold, manage, and preserve the
value of the Receivership Estate, in order to prevent any irreparable loss, damage, and
injury to the Estate;
(h) Enter into such agreements in connection with the administration of the
Receivership Estate, including, but not limited to, the employment of such managers,
agents, custodians, consultants, investigators, attorneys, and accountants as Receiver
judges necessary to perform the duties set forth in this Order and to compensate them
from the Receivership Assets;
(i) Institute, prosecute, compromise, adjust, intervene in, or become party to
such actions or proceedings in state, federal, or foreign courts that the Receiver deems
necessary and advisable to preserve the value of the Receivership Estate, or that the
Receiver deems necessary and advisable to carry out the Receiver’s mandate under this
Order and likewise to defend, compromise, or adjust or otherwise dispose of any or all
actions or proceedings instituted against the Receivership Estate that the Receiver deems
necessary and advisable to carry out the Receiver’s mandate under this Order;
5
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF 14
Appx. Page 31
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
34. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 17 of 27
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 34 of 444
(j) Preserve the Receivership Estate and minimize expenses in furtherance of
maximum and timely disbursement thereof to claimants;
(k) Promptly provide the Commission and other governmental agencies with
all information and documentation they may seek in connection with its regulatory or
investigatory activities;
(l) Prepare and submit periodic reports to this Court and to the parties as
directed by this Court;
(m) File with this Court requests for approval of reasonable fees to be paid to
the Receiver and any person or entity retained by him and interim and final accountings
for any reasonable expenses incurred and paid pursuant to order of this Court;
6. The Receiver shall have the sole and exclusive power and authority to manage
and direct the business and financial affairs of the Defendants, including without limitation, the
sole and exclusive power and authority to petition for relief under the United States Bankruptcy
Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. (the “Bankruptcy Code”), for any or all of the corporate
Defendants. The Receiver is not authorized, without further Court order, to petition for
relief under the Bankruptcy Code for any of the Individual Defendants. Solely with respect
to the authorization to file and execution of a petition for relief under the Bankruptcy Code;
without limiting any powers of the Receiver under applicable law and this Order; and
irrespective of provisions in any Defendants’Defendant’s corporate organizing documents, by-
laws, partnership agreements, or the like, the Receiver shall be deemed to succeed to the position
of and possess the authority of any party with power to authorize and execute the filing of a
petition for relief under the Bankruptcy Code, including without limitation corporate directors,
general and limited partners, and members of limited liability companies.
6
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF 15
Appx. Page 32
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
35. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 18 of 27
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 35 of 444
7. Before taking action under paragraph 6 of this Order, the Receiver must provide
the Commission and the Defendants with at least two business days’ written notice (unless
shortened or lengthened by court order) that the Receiver is contemplating action under the
Bankruptcy Code; provided that the Receiver may apply for an order under seal or a hearing in
camera, as circumstances require. To facilitate an efficient coordination in one district of all
bankruptcies of the Defendants, the Northern District of Texas shall be the Receiver’s principal
place of business for making decisions in respect of operating and disposing of each of the
Defendants and their respective assets.
8. Upon the request of the Receiver, the United States Marshal’s Office is hereby
ordered to assist the Receiver in carrying out his duties to take possession, custody, or control of,
or identify the location of, any Receivership Estate assets or records.
9. Creditors and all other persons are hereby restrained and enjoined from the
following actions, except in this Court and with leave of this Court, unless this Court,
consistent with general equitable principals and in accordance with its ancillary equitable
jurisdiction in this matter, orders that such actions may be conducted in another forum or
jurisdiction:
(a) The commencement or continuation, including the issuance or
employment of process, of any judicial, administrative, or other proceeding against the
Receiver, any of the defendants, any entity within the Receivership Estate, any current
or anyformer agent, officer, or employee related toof the Receivership Estate, or of any
entity within the Receivership Estate, Pershing LLC, and/or SEI Investment
Company arising from the subject matter of this civil action; or
7
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF 16
Appx. Page 33
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
36. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 19 of 27
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 36 of 444
(b) The enforcement, against the Receiver, or any of the defendants, of any
judgment that would attach to or encumber the Receivership Estate that was obtained
before the commencement of this proceeding.
10. Creditors and all other persons are hereby restrained and enjoined, without prior
approval of the Court, from:
(a) Any act to obtain possession of the Receivership Estate assets;
(b) Any act to create, perfect, or enforce any lien against the property of the
Receiver, or the Receivership Estate;
(c) Any act to collect, assess, establish, litigate or recover a claim against the
Receiver or that, where such claim would attach to or encumber the Receivership
Estate or create or impose an obligation upon the part of the Receivership Estate;
(d) The set off of any debt owed by the Receivership Estate or secured by the
Receivership Estate assets based on any claim against the Receiver or the Receivership
Estate; or
(e) The filing of any case, complaint, petition, or motion under the
Bankruptcy Code (including, without limitation, the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy
petition under chapter 7 or chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, or a petition for
recognition of foreign proceeding under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code).
11. Creditors and all other persons are hereby restrained and enjoined from seeking
relief from the injunction contained in paragraph 10(e) of this Order for a period of 180 days
from the date of entry of this Order with respect to any Defendant.
11. 12. Defendants, their respective officers, agents, and employees and all persons in
active concert or participation with them who receive notice of this Order by personal service or
8
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF 17
Appx. Page 34
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
37. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 20 of 27
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 37 of 444
otherwise, including, but not limited to, any financial institution, broker-dealer, investment
adviser, private equity fund or investment banking fun), and each of them, are hereby ordered,
restrained, and enjoined from, directly or indirectly, making any payment or expenditure of any
Receivership Estate assets that are owned by Defendants or in the actual or constructive
possession of any entity directly or indirectly owned or controlled or under common control with
the Receivership Estate, or effecting any sale, gift, hypothecation, assignment, transfer,
conveyance, encumbrance, disbursement, dissipation, or concealment of such assets. A copy of
this Order may be served on any bank, savings and loan, broker-dealer, or any other financial or
depository institution to restrain and enjoin any such institution from disbursing any of the
Receivership Estate assets. Upon presentment of this Order, all persons, including financial
institutions, shall provide account balance information, transaction histories, all account records
and any other Receivership Records to the Receiver or his agents, in the same manner as they
would be provided were the Receiver the signatory on the account.
12. 13. Defendants, and their respective agents, officers, and employees and all
persons in active concert or participation with them are hereby enjoined from doing any act or
thing whatsoever to interfere with the Receiver’s taking control, possession, or management of
the Receivership Estate or to in any way interfere with the Receiver or to harass or interfere with
the duties of the Receiver or to interfere in any manner with the. exclusive jurisdiction of this
Court over the Receivership Estate, including the filing or prosecuting any actions or
proceedings which involve the Receiver or which affect the Receivership Assets or Receivership
Records, specifically including any proceeding initiated pursuant to the United States
Bankruptcy Code, except with the permission of this Court. Any actions so authorized to
9
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF 18
Appx. Page 35
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
38. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 21 of 27
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 38 of 444
determine disputes relating to Receivership Assets and Receivership Records shall be filed in
this Court.
13. 14. Defendants, their respective officers, agents, and employees and all persons in
active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Order by personal
service or otherwise, including any financial institution, broker-dealer, investment adviser,
private equity fund or investment banking firm, and each of them shall:
(a) To the extent they have possession, custody, or control of same, provide
immediate access to and control and possession of the Receivership Estate assets and
records, including securities, monies, and property of any kind, real and personal,
including all keys, passwords, entry codes, and all monies deposited in any bank
deposited to the credit of the Defendants, wherever situated, and the original of all books,
records, documents, accounts, computer printouts, disks, and the like of Defendants to
Receiver or his duly authorized agents;
(b) Cooperate with the Receiver and his duly authorized agents by promptly
and honestly responding to all requests for information regarding Receivership Assets
and Records and by promptly acknowledging to third parties the Receiver’s authority to
act on behalf of the Receivership Estate and by providing such authorizations, signatures,
releases, attestations, and access as the Receiver or his duly authorized agents may
reasonably request;
(c) Provide the Commission with a prompt, full accounting of all
Receivership Estate assets and documents outside the territory of the United States which
are held either: (1) by them, (2) for their benefit, or (3) under their control;
10
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF 19
Appx. Page 36
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
39. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 22 of 27
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 39 of 444
(d) Transfer to the territory of the United States all Receivership Estate assets
and records in foreign countries held either: (1) by them, (2) for their benefit, or (3) under
their control; and
(e) Hold and retain all such repatriated Receivership Estate assets and
documents and prevent any transfer, disposition, or dissipation whatsoever of any such
assets or documents, until such time as they may be transferred into the possession of the
Receiver.
14. 15. Any financial institution, broker-dealer, investment adviser; private equity
fund or investment banking firm or person that holds, controls, or maintains accounts or assets of
or on behalf of any Defendant, or has held, controlled, or maintained any account or asset of or
on behalf of any defendant or relief defendant since January 1, 1990, shall:
(a) Hold and retain within its control and prohibit the withdrawal, removal,
assignment, transfer, pledge, hypothecation, encumbrance, disbursement, dissipation,
conversion, sale, gift, or other disposal of any of the assets, funds, or other property held
by or on behalf of any defendant or relief defendant in any account maintained in the
name of or for the benefit of any defendant or relief defendant in whole or in part except:
(i) as directed by further order of this Court, or
(ii) as directed in writing by the Receiver or his agents;
(b) Deny access to any safe deposit boxes that are subject to access by any
Defendant; and
(c) The Commission and Receiver may obtain, by presentation of this Order,
documents, books, records, accounts, deposits, or other information within the custody or
control of any person or entity sufficient to identify accounts, properties, liabilities,
11
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF 20
Appx. Page 37
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
40. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 23 of 27
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 40 of 444
causes of action, or employees of the Receivership Estate. The attendance of a person or
entity for examination and/or production of documents may be compelled in a manner
provided in Rule 45, Fed. R. Civ. P, or as provided under the laws of any foreign country
where such documents, books, records, accounts, deposits, or testimony may be located;
15. 16. The Defendants, their officers, agents, and employees and all persons in active
concert or participation with them and other persons who have notice of this Order by personal
service or otherwise, are hereby restrained and enjoined from destroying, mutilating, concealing,
altering, transferring, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, directly or indirectly, any
contracts, accounting data, correspondence, advertisements, computer tapes, disks or other
computerized records, books, written or printed records, handwritten notes, telephone logs,
telephone scripts, receipt books, ledgers, personal and business canceled checks and check
registers, bank statements, appointment books, copies of federal, state, or local business or
personal income or property tax returns, and other documents or records of any kind that relate in
any way to the Receivership Estate or are relevant to this action.
16. 17. The Receiver is hereby authorized to make appropriate notification to the
United States Postal Service to forward delivery of any mail addressed to the Defendants, or any
company or entity under the direction and control of the Defendants, to himself. Further, the
Receiver is hereby authorized to open and inspect all such mail to determine the location or
identity of assets or the existence and amount of claims.
17. 18. Nothing in this Order shall prohibit any federal or state law enforcement or
regulatory authority from commencing or prosecuting an action against the Defendants, their
agents, officers, or employees.
So Ordered and signed, this ____ day of March 2009.______________, 2010.
12
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF 21
Appx. Page 38
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
41. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 24 of 27
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 41 of 444
_______________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF 22
Appx. Page 39
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
42. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 25 of 27
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 42 of 444
Document comparison done by Workshare DeltaView on Thursday, January 14, 2010
3:08:25 PM
Input:
Document 1 PowerDocs://AUS01/547486/1
Document 2 PowerDocs://AUS01/570394/4
Rendering set 1-Bold Double Underline-Strikethrough
Legend:
Insertion
Deletion
Moved from
Moved to
Style change
Format change
Moved deletion
Inserted cell
Deleted cell
Moved cell
Split/Merged cell
Padding cell
Redline Summary:
No. Change Text
"AMENDED ORDER APPOINTING
RECEIVER" changed to "SECOND
1 Change
AMENDED ORDER APPOINTING
RECEIVER"
"the appointment of a...Stanford International"
2 Change changed to "the appointment of a...Stanford
International"
"Stanford Capital...Financial Group, and The"
3 Change changed to "Stanford Capital...Financial Group,
and The"
"Stanford Financial Group... It appears that"
4-5 Change changed to "Stanford Financial Group...the
“Defendants”)."
6 Change "this" changed to "On February 17, 2009 this"
"this Amended Order Appointing Receiver"
7-8 Change changed to "this Court entered its Order
Appointing Receiver"
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF 23
Appx. Page 40
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
43. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 26 of 27
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 43 of 444
"Order Appointing Receiver...and appropriate"
9-10 Change
changed to "Order Appointing...and appropriate"
"and dissipation of the...to the detriment of"
11 Change changed to "and dissipation of the...to the
detriment of"
"Defendants to the detriment of the investors."
12 Change changed to "Defendants to the detriment of
investors."
"et seq. (the “Bankruptcy...for any or all of the"
13 Change changed to "et seq. (the “Bankruptcy...for any or
all of the"
"for any or all of the... Solely with respect"
14 Change changed to "for any or all of the... Solely with
respect"
"irrespective of...organizing documents," changed
15-16 Change
to "irrespective of...organizing documents,"
"the following actions,...unless this Court,"
17 Change changed to "the following actions,...unless this
Court,"
"that such actions may be...forum or jurisdiction:"
18 Change
changed to "that such actions may be conducted:"
"Receiver, any of the...the Receivership Estate,"
19 Change changed to "Receiver, any of the...the
Receivership Estate,"
"the Receivership Estate, or" changed to "the
20 Change
Receivership Estate, any current or"
"or any agent, officer, or employee" changed to
21-22 Change
"or former agent, officer, or employee"
"agent, officer, or...the Receivership Estate"
23-24 Change changed to "agent, officer, or...the Receivership
Estate"
"the Receivership Estate,...from the subject matter"
25-26 Change changed to "the Receivership Estate...from the
subject matter"
"(c) Any act to collect,...against the Receiver"
27 Change changed to "(c) Any act to collect,...against
the Receiver"
28-29 Change "recover a claim against...attach to or encumber"
changed to "recover a claim against...attach to or
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF 24
Appx. Page 41
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
44. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 959 Filed 01/14/2010 Page 27 of 27
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 44 of 444
encumber"
"would attach to or...the Receivership Estate;"
30 Change changed to "would attach to or...the Receivership
Estate;"
31 Deletion chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code).
32 Deletion 11. Creditors and all...of entry of this Order
33 Change "." changed to "with respect to any Defendant."
"Defendants, their respective officers," changed to
34 Change
"12. Defendants, their respective officers,"
"Defendants, and their respective" changed to "13.
35 Change
Defendants, and their respective"
"Defendants, their respective officers," changed to
36 Change
"14. Defendants, their respective officers,"
"Any financial institution, broker-dealer," changed
37 Change
to "15. Any financial institution, broker-dealer,"
"The Defendants, their officers," changed to "16.
38 Change
The Defendants, their officers,"
"The Receiver is hereby authorized" changed to
39 Change
"17. The Receiver is hereby authorized"
"Nothing in this Order shall prohibit" changed to
40 Change
"18. Nothing in this Order shall prohibit"
"Ordered and signed, this ____ day of March
41-42 Change 2009." changed to "Ordered and signed, this...of
______________, 2010."
Statistics:
Count
Insertions 20
Deletions 22
Moved from 0
Moved to 0
Style change 0
Format changed 0
Total changes 42
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF 25
Appx. Page 42
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
45. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 146 Filed 03/11/2009
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 1 ofof 444
Page 45 14
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 43
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
46. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 146 Filed 03/11/2009
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 2 ofof 444
Page 46 14
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 44
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
47. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 146 Filed 03/11/2009
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 3 ofof 444
Page 47 14
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 45
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
48. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 146 Filed 03/11/2009
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 4 ofof 444
Page 48 14
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 46
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
49. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 146 Filed 03/11/2009
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 5 ofof 444
Page 49 14
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 47
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
50. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 146 Filed 03/11/2009
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 6 ofof 444
Page 50 14
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 48
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
51. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 146 Filed 03/11/2009
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 7 ofof 444
Page 51 14
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 49
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
52. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 146 Filed 03/11/2009
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 8 ofof 444
Page 52 14
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 50
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
53. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 146 Filed 03/11/2009
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 9 ofof 444
Page 53 14
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 51
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
54. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 146 Filed 03/11/2009 Page 10 of 14
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 54 of 444
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 52
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
55. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 146 Filed 03/11/2009 Page 11 of 14
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 55 of 444
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 53
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
56. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 146 Filed 03/11/2009 Page 12 of 14
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 56 of 444
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 54
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
57. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 146 Filed 03/11/2009 Page 13 of 14
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 57 of 444
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 55
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
58. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 146 Filed 03/11/2009 Page 14 of 14
Filed 02/09/2010 Page 58 of 444
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 56
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
59. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3 Filed 02/09/2010 Page 59 of 444
1
1 BEFORE THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
2
RALPH JANVEY, §
3 §
Appellee, §
4 § CIVIL ACTION NO.
v. §
5 § 09-10761
JAMES ALGUIRE, et al, §
6 §
Appellants. §
7
8
9 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
10
ORAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE
11
SENIOR JUDGE WILL GARWOOD
12 JUDGE EDWARD C. PRADO
JUDGE JAMES L. DENNIS
13
November 2, 2009
14
(Via Online Recording)
15
16 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
17
18
19
20
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 57
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
file:////client/c$/Documents%20and%20Settings/jethomas/Desktop/BB-hearing.txt (1 of 114)BY THE EXAMINER PM]
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED [11/9/2009 9:02:26
60. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3 Filed 02/09/2010 Page 60 of 444
21
22
23
24
25
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 58
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
file:////client/c$/Documents%20and%20Settings/jethomas/Desktop/BB-hearing.txt (2 of 114)BY THE EXAMINER PM]
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED [11/9/2009 9:02:26
61. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3 Filed 02/09/2010 Page 61 of 444
2
1 APPEARANCES
2
FOR THE RECEIVER:
3
Kevin Sadler
4 Baker Botts, LLP
98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1500
5 Austin, Texas 78701
6 FOR THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION:
7 Michael Post
US Securities & Exchange Commission
8 Burnett Plaza Suite 1900
801 Cherry St Unit # 18
9 Fort Worth, Texas 76102-6882
10 THE EXAMINER:
11 John Little
Little Pedersen Fankhauser
12 901 Main St., Suite 4110
Dallas, Texas 75202
13
FOR THE APPELLEES:
14
Michael Quilling
15 Quilling Selander Cummiskey & Lownds, P.C.
2001 Bryan St., Suite 1800
16 Dallas, Texas 75201
17
18 INDEX
19 Page
20 Oral Argument by Mr. Sadler - - - - - - - - - - - - 3
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 59
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
file:////client/c$/Documents%20and%20Settings/jethomas/Desktop/BB-hearing.txt (3 of 114)BY THE EXAMINER PM]
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED [11/9/2009 9:02:26
62. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3 Filed 02/09/2010 Page 62 of 444
21 Oral Argument by Mr. Little - - - - - - - - - - - - 21
22 Oral Argument by Mr. Quilling - - - - - - - - - - - 35
23 Oral Argument by Mr. Post - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44
24 Rebuttal by Mr. Sadler - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 48
25 Reporter's Certification - - - - - - - - - - - - - 57
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 60
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
file:////client/c$/Documents%20and%20Settings/jethomas/Desktop/BB-hearing.txt (4 of 114)BY THE EXAMINER PM]
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED [11/9/2009 9:02:26
63. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3 Filed 02/09/2010 Page 63 of 444
3
1 **********
2 PROCEEDING
3 **********
4
5 ORAL ARGUMENT
6 MR. SADLER: This case arises
7 out of one of the largest Ponzi schemes ever to be
8 perpetrated in the United States. It is rivaled
9 probably only by the Madoff Ponzi scheme scandal.
10 There are thousands of victims scattered across
11 almost all of the 50 states, as well as victims in
12 other countries. Since this scheme collapsed and
13 following the filing of a lawsuit by the SEC, which
14 was in February, the receiver has been doing what
15 receivers always do when these Ponzi schemes
16 collapse, and that is, carry out the specific
17 court-ordered duty.
18 And we have a very specific
19 court-ordered duty to prosecute litigation to
20 recover assets traceable to this estate, and we're
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 61
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
file:////client/c$/Documents%20and%20Settings/jethomas/Desktop/BB-hearing.txt (5 of 114)BY THE EXAMINER PM]
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED [11/9/2009 9:02:26
64. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3 Filed 02/09/2010 Page 64 of 444
21 doing that simply so that those assets can be
22 brought back into the estate and used to compensate
23 all the victims of this fraud; and there are
24 thousands.
25 That duty and how we are carrying out
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 62
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
file:////client/c$/Documents%20and%20Settings/jethomas/Desktop/BB-hearing.txt (6 of 114)BY THE EXAMINER PM]
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED [11/9/2009 9:02:26
65. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3 Filed 02/09/2010 Page 65 of 444
4
1 really brings us to why we're here today on this
2 appeal and two fundamental legal questions for you,
3 the resolution to which will really affect how this
4 receivership proceeds. The first basic question is,
5 as it always is in Ponzi schemes -- and we've all
6 read about them. The way a Ponzi scheme works is,
7 funds are taken in by fraud, and then they are
8 diverted to all manner of different purposes.
9 One purpose for the diversion of the
10 funds is to pay out selectively to mask the fraud
11 and to keep it going. Because, of course, someone
12 running a Ponzi scheme, as soon as they stop making
13 those payments to some investors, people make claims
14 and the fraud is exposed.
15 And so the first important question
16 for this panel is, when funds are taken by fraud
17 from one investor and then are simply turned around
18 and used to selectively make partial payments to
19 other investors, do those funds remain assets
20 traceable to the estate which our court-ordered
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 63
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
file:////client/c$/Documents%20and%20Settings/jethomas/Desktop/BB-hearing.txt (7 of 114)BY THE EXAMINER PM]
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED [11/9/2009 9:02:26
66. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3 Filed 02/09/2010 Page 66 of 444
21 mandate requires us to return to the estate to
22 benefit all the victims of the fraud and to use
23 those as compensation for those victims? And that
24 is the first fundamental question before you.
25 I submit to you that if you follow
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 64
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
file:////client/c$/Documents%20and%20Settings/jethomas/Desktop/BB-hearing.txt (8 of 114)BY THE EXAMINER PM]
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED [11/9/2009 9:02:26
67. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3 Filed 02/09/2010 Page 67 of 444
5
1 the case of SEC versus George -- and it is cited in
2 our briefs, it is discussed extensively -- and it is
3 a case from the Sixth Circuit involving Ponzi
4 schemes, involving claims against investors who
5 receive preferential payments. And the Sixth
6 Circuit decided that those investors had to return
7 the money they received. Not just a portion of it,
8 not just what might have been called interest, but
9 they had to return all of it even though there was
10 no allegation of wrongdoing, even though there was
11 no allegation of complicity.
12 And the Sixth Circuit in SEC versus
13 George relied on this Court's opinion in Forex
14 Management for the proposition that investors who
15 were paid with other investors' stolen money have no
16 preferential right to retain that money, and that
17 deals -- yes, sir?
18 JUDGE GARWOOD: Is that a legal
19 difference between paying a -- somebody for services
20 or buying something with what you call stolen money,
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 65
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
file:////client/c$/Documents%20and%20Settings/jethomas/Desktop/BB-hearing.txt (9 of 114)BY THE EXAMINER PM]
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED [11/9/2009 9:02:26
68. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1003-3 Filed 02/09/2010 Page 68 of 444
21 or are you using it to pay some other investor who
22 has a claim?
23 MR. SADLER: There can be a
24 difference, and the other case that we cite to this
25 Court --
APPENDIX TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF Appx. Page 66
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE INJUNCTION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH
10(e) OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDER IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE EXAMINER
file:////client/c$/Documents%20and%20Settings/jethomas/Desktop/BB-hearing.txt (10 of 114) [11/9/2009 9:02:26 PM]