Stanford Judge Lets Receiver Raise Fee, Retains 20% Discount

April 5, 2012
By Andrew Harris and Edvard Pettersson

The court-appointed receiver for R. Allen Stanford can bill his time starting this year at 2012 rates with a 20 per cent discount in spite of objections by Stanford investors who haven't received any money so far.

U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey in Dallas, in an order yesterday, imposed a 10 per cent "holdback" on out-of-pocket expenses. In a separate order today, Godbey approved the payment of $1.6 million in fees and expenses that the receiver, Dallas lawyer Ralph Janvey, had requested and said he could apply later for the held-back amount of $382,253.

Janvey's outside counsel, Kevin Sadler, argued at a hearing yesterday that the receiver's team has been working at the same pay rates since 2009. Sadler said that Janvey, who regularly charges his clients $500 an hour, has been billing $340 an hour on the Stanford case and then discounting that by 20 per cent.

A federal jury in Houston last month found Stanford, 62, guilty of fraud in what prosecutors said was a $7 billion scheme involving bogus certificates of deposit at his Antigua-based bank. He's scheduled to be sentenced on June 14. Janvey, whom Godbey appointed in February 2009 -- four months before Stanford was indicted -- and his outside professionals, including Baker Botts LLP (1143L), have been paid more than $52 million. That sum doesn't include a court-imposed $16 million hold-back.


The Official Stanford Investors Committee (the "Committee"), respectfully submits this Response to the Receiver's Motion for Approval of Request to Amend Fee Structure and Holdback [Doc. No. 1543].

The Committee, which speaks for the more than 20,000 investor victims of Allen Stanford's Ponzi scheme, opposes the relief requested by the Receiver and his team of professionals. The Receiver's professionals have been well compensated in the 3 years of this Receivership, having collected well in excess of $52 million in fees (with an additional almost $16 million in reserve via the holdback). During this same time period the investor victims have not recovered a single penny as there have been no distributions. Given the current state of this receivership, the Committee cannot agree to giving the Receiver's professionals what is widely perceived within the investor community as a "raise".

Therefore the Committee opposes the relief requested.

Response of the official Stanford investors committee to Receiver's motion to amend fee structure and Holdback.

Related documents:

The Examiner John J. Little does not oppose the Receiver's request to increase the rates billed by the Receiver and his professionals.



News separator


SIVG reserves the right to delete comments that are off-topic or offensive. Excessively long comments may be moderated as well. SIVG cannot facilitate requests to remove comments or explain individual moderation decisions. The comments posted here, express only the views of their authors and not the administrators/moderators from SIVG; for that reason SIVG won't be held responsible for those contents

Join the Discussion

Showing 4 comments...

International Victim wrote on April 5, 2012 at 21:13
This is an absolute disgrace. Janvey and Little have got their pay rise while we the victims have not yet receive any cent from our life-savings! Mr. Little is supposed to help us; what the hell are you doing?
Angie wrote on April 6, 2012 at 05:10
We need to be careful not to attack the Receiver too much because the Antiguan Liquidators will use that to leverage their own ongoing attempts to steal from us. The Receiever is at least the lesser of two evils, and is governed by US laws. While the Antiguan Liquidators have not incurred expenses equal to the US Receiver, they actually OWE the estate $10 million they "borrowed" from the criminal forfeiture account in the UK. There is also an outstanding bill of $18 million from the first Antiguan liquidator...
US victims wrote on April 7, 2012 at 23:51
Angie, you should be ashamed :(
From Mexico wrote on April 8, 2012 at 01:33
Why do we still need to pay Janvey and Little? Both must be removed as soon as possible! We lost the chance 2 years ago because of Morgenstern and now we are f..ked!!! I belive there was personal interest involved!