7/31/2019 Stanford Victims Coalition Letter to Antiguan Liquidators for Stanford International Bank

1/3

June 6, 2012

DELIVERED VIA EMAIL TO:Mr. Marcus Wide and Mr. Hugh DicksonAntiguan Liquidators for Stanford International Bank, Ltd.

Re: Response to the Stanford Victims Coalitions Questions Regardingthe Status of the Antiguan Liquidation Proceeding of StanfordInternational Bank

Dear Mr. Wide and Mr. Dickson,

While I was not given the courtesy of a direct reply to the questions I submitted onbehalf of the Stanford Victims Coalition (SVC) on April 3, 2012, I was recently able to reviewthe responses posted on your website. As the director of the SVC, as well as an individualStanford International Bank (SIB) CD investor, I would like to provide my thoughts.

Unfortunately, your responses about the status of the Antiguan liquidation proceedingof Stanford International Bank (SIB) are far from unbiased, and your patronizing commentnoting the dubious hand of Morgenstern in my letter isquite simplyunprofessional.Peter Morgenstern had no role whatsoever in formulating the SVCs questions. While Mr.

Morgenstern does serve along with me on the Official Investors Committee appointed by theU.S. District Court, he does not represent the SVC, and he is not involved in the SVCs efforts.

In my opinion, the Antiguan liquidation team continues to be well versed inmanipulating the truth to fit its needs. The volume of misleading, one-sided information inyour response is simply astonishing, and I feel it is a travesty Stanford victims do not knowwho they can believe and trust in the aftermath of losing their savings in fictitious StanfordInternational Bank CDs.

As I have previously suggested, if you would like to provide true transparency and fulldisclosure to the creditors of the SIB estate, your next webinar should be a joint effort by the

Antiguan liquidators, the Official Investors Committee, and the U.S. Receiver to address thecreditors together with no ulterior motives. The parties involved in the U.S. liquidation andlitigation proceedings for more than three years now have substantially more experience inthis particular case than the Antiguan liquidation team, and their input is essential to allowStanford victims to fully see the ugly truth about how their few remaining assets are beingspent by the Joint Liquidators in a way that complicates and prolongs their recovery.

7/31/2019 Stanford Victims Coalition Letter to Antiguan Liquidators for Stanford International Bank

2/3

Now that Allen Stanford has been convicted in the United States and the same jurythat found him guilty also approved the forfeiture of Stanford-owned accounts in the UK,Canada and Switzerland, the Antiguan liquidators are preventing the DOJ from repatriatingthose funds to the U.S. so they can be distributed to Stanfords victimsunder U.S. law throughthe Receivers already running claims process. Instead, the Antiguan liquidators have used$20 million borrowed from the UK accounts (which belong to the creditors) to pay

yourselves to: 1)litigate against the DOJ for control of $330 million designated for criminalforfeiture; and 2)fight for recognition before the United States courts, where you haveattempted to duplicate actions of the Receiver (which we have already paid for at least once)and other parties.

The Antiguan liquidators have aligned with a hand-picked faction of actual creditors,including Alex Fundora, a client of the liquidators counsel, who clearly received preferentialtreatment from the Antiguan courts award of almost $3 million of SIB creditors funds.Your team has chosen not to align with the realmajority of the creditors of the Stanfordestate, or heard our pleas for cooperation and conservation of the estate.

The Antiguan liquidators motivation has been clear in my opinion, butyour recentletter to the DOJ proposing DOJ drop their litigation over the frozen criminal forfeitureaccounts in the UK, Canada and Switzerland revealed once and for all the Antiguanliquidators real incentivea $60 million paycheck to distribute the assets. Why would theAntiguan liquidators think it is logical for Stanfords thousands of victims to be funding theirfight with the DOJ to distribute the CRIMINAL PROCEEDSof a crime prosecuted by theUnited States government?

The SVC does notsupport having any Stanford creditors claims governed by Antiguanlaw, which was used by Allen Stanford to operate a massive Ponzi scheme while the Antiguangovernment has done nothing to accuse any parties of any wrongdoing. Why would anyStanford victim want their claims administered in a country known for corruption and whose

government partnered with Stanford in order to steal our savings? Lest we forget AllenStanford used stolen SIB CD money to pay for the creation of the very law that governs theAntiguan liquidation proceeding!

The Antiguan liquidators have nothing to distribute to Stanford creditors if you do notgain control over the forfeiture accounts, and your team has already spent millions of dollarsbelonging to Stanford creditors fighting the U.S. government (paid by many Stanfordcreditors tax dollars) to get control ofthose accounts. That harsh reality is not exactlyfeatured in your webinars and emails, which I believe have been utilized purely for PRpurposes to promote the Antiguan liquidators. If your team would stop spending what is leftof our savings to litigate against the DOJ, the $330 million could be repatriated and

distributed in the very near futureand under U.S. law rather than Antiguan law.

If Antigua had prosecuted Allen Stanford, the Antiguan liquidators would have had amore legitimate argument for control of Stanfords assets. The sad reality is the Antiguangovernments first response to the Stanford situationas their lobbyist in Washington callsitwas to take what assets were left so they had a bargaining chip when the Receiver cameknocking. When the U.S. government showed Antigua it would not stand for yet anotherillegal expropriation of property owned by U.S. citizens, Antigua then tried to wash its handsof being at the center of one of the worlds most scandalous financial crimes in history bysaying Antigua was only a transit point in the Stanford Ponzi scheme.

7/31/2019 Stanford Victims Coalition Letter to Antiguan Liquidators for Stanford International Bank

3/3

Today, the Antiguan liquidators appointed by the High Court of Antigua claim thatAntigua was much more than a transit point; you claim Antigua was the center of maininterest. If Antigua was the center of Stanfords Ponzi scheme, why hasnt Antigua pursuedany criminal allegations for the mutli-billion Ponzi scheme that occurred on their watch?

Lets be honest, we all know Stanford International Bank was a house of cards, and

that Allen Stanford was rightfully prosecuted in the U.S.the Stanford Financial Groups realcenter of main interest. It is only fair and logical that all of Stanfords assets and the litigationrelating to those assets are rightfully administered by the U.S. District Court. The Antiguanliquidators refusal to cooperate and defer to the U.S. Receivership in any way, shape or formhas beenand will continue to bea massive obstacle standing in the way of ALL Stanfordvictims recovery.

Additionally, it appears to me the Antiguan liquidators have a very clear conflict ofinterest in fairly representing a substantial number of the creditors they claim to representincluding my own family and thousands of other Stanford Group Company (SGC) customerswho stand to gain protection under the Securities Investor Protection Act. Approximately$3.5 billion of the $7.2 billion on Stanfords books on February 16, 2009, came from fictitiousCD "transactions" that were traced to commissions paid to a registered representative ofStanford Group Company, a member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation(SIPC). The owners of those $3.5 billion in accounts are in jeopardy of not obtainingprotection by SIPC for up to $500K of their losses because of the same arguments being madeby the Antiguan liquidators--that SIB was a realbank with real obligations to its customers,

The Stanford Victims Coalition strongly urges the Antiguan Joint Liquidators to: 1)drop its litigation related to the forfeiture accounts in the UK, Canada and Switzerland; 2)repay the funds that were borrowed from the UK accounts; and 3) focus on pursuing assetsoutside the U.S. that have not already been secured. If that had been your approach all along,the SVC would have been 100% supportive of those efforts. Instead, your proceeding has cost

us unknown millions by fighting for control of what had already been recovered, while alsodelaying the process of recovering through other avenues. The human toll of thisinternational turf war is immeasurable, and it compounds every day. The bleeding of theStanford estate must be stopped.

Sincerely,

Angela ShawDirector and FounderStanford Victims Coalition