User Rating: 3 / 5
ALLAN STANDFORD LOSES WITH LLOYDS OF LONDON WHO WILL NOT PAY HIS LEGAL FEES!!
FROM A
DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW by Monte Friesner
Financial Crime Consultant for WANTED SA
Friday October 15, 2010
A United States District Judge in a Texas civil case has ruled that accused Ponzi schemer Allan Stanford is not entitled to have his defense fees paid by Lloyd's of London through the D & O insurance policy held by the Stanford Group.
Lloyd's denied coverage for Stanford's Attorney fees after reportedly paying out $14 Million USD when Stanford executive James Davis pled guilty to Mortgage Fraud; Obstruction of the SEC; Conspiracy to Commit Securities Fraud pursuant to the money laundering exclusion clause in the insurance policy.
In a detailed 45-page Opinion that summarizes the Stanford scandal ~ the Court, speaking through Judge Nancy Atlas concluded that it was more than likely that Stanford "knowingly committed acts of Money Laundering."
The Court phrased the issue thus:
- "The question presented therefore is whether Underwriters [Lloyd's] have shown a substantial likelihood that one or more Plaintiffs [Stanford and the other Defendants] engaged in money laundering, as defined in the applicable insurance policies." (Opinion at 2)
- "The Court concludes further that Underwriters have proved a substantial likelihood that a preponderance of the evidence would establish that Stanford knowingly committed acts of money laundering involving the criminal property." (Opinion at 42)
The Court's holding:
- "... The Court concludes that the Underwriters have met their burden to show a substantial likelihood that the preponderance of the evidence would demonstrate that the money laundering exclusion applies to each Plaintiff, and the coverage of defense costs in the criminal or SEC action, or related litigation for Plaintiff, is not required by the policy." (Opinion at 45)
The Court further denied Stanford the right to continue to receive attorneys' fees as defense costs pending any appeal that he might choose to take, advising that the Court would upon proper petition, appoint counsel to represent him. Stanford's assets are reportedly all seized under court order, and he claims he cannot pay his attorneys.
* Laura Pendergest et al vs Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, Case No.:4:09-cv-03712 (SD TX).
The facts and opinions stated in this article are those of the author and not those of WANTED SA. WANTED SA does not warrant the accuracy of any facts and opinions stated in this article; does not endorse them, and accepts no responsibility for them.
