• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASDALLAS DIVISIONSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE §COMMISSION, §§Plaintiff, §§v. § CASE NO. 3-09-CV0298-L§STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK, §LTD., STANFORD GROUP COMPANY, §STANFORD CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, §LLC, R. ALLEN STANFORD, §JAMES M. DAVIS, and §LAURA PENDERGEST-HOLT, §§Defendants. §
______________________________________________________________________________
EMERGENCY MOTION TO SET ASIDE OR DISSOLVE ORDER APPOINTINGRECEIVER AS TO DEFENDANT LAURA PENDERGEST-HOLT
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF MOTION
On March 2, 2009, counsel for Defendant Laura Pendergest-Holt appeared in this caseand, with some reservations, consented to the entry of an Agreed Preliminary Injunction. Laterthat same afternoon, in a stunning exercise in bad faith, two lawyers acting on behalf of theReceiver showed up at Ms. Pendergest-Holt’s home in Mississippi. Without any warning ornotice to Ms. Pendergest-Holt or to her counsel, the lawyers (aided by a U.S. Marshal) enteredDefendant’s house and began rummaging through her and her husband’s personal effects. Thelawyers took what they pleased (including a car belonging to Ms. Pendergest-Holt and Mr.Holt’s personal tax returns) and were so delighted in doing so that, at one point, they gleefullyindicated to Mr. Holt that he was not going to be living in the house much longer.______________________________________________________________________________
MOTION TO SET ASIDE OR DISSOLVE ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER Page 1
02174.901/204368
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 141 Filed 03/10/2009 Page 1 of 10
 
The apparent justification for the raid was the
ex parte
order entered by the Court onFebruary 17, 2009, which appointed a receiver for both the Stanford corporate entities and forMs. Pendergest-Holt personally (the “Receivership Order”). As explained below, theReceivership Order as it applies to Ms. Pendergest-Holt (and to her husband) is so broad as to beunconstitutional. Further, because the order was entered on an ex parte basis, Ms. Pendergest-Holt has never been given a chance to contest the terms of the order, much less whether it shouldapply to her. Meanwhile, the Receiver’s lawyers appear to believe that the Receivership Ordersuspends Ms. Pendergest-Holt’s constitutional rights and allows them free rein to invade herhome at will, without any advance notice to Defendant or her counsel.There is no other way to explain the Receiver’s lawyers’ shocking behavior inrummaging through Ms. Pendergest-Holt’s undergarment drawer, rifling through her personalitems and re-directing Defendant’s and her husband’s personal mail to the Receiver’s office. Forthose who think the accused have at least minimal rights, they might be wise to rethink that viewwhen entering the world inhabited by the Receiver’s counsel. For obvious reasons, Defendantneeds this Court’s help in ensuring that these outrageous events never happen again.By this motion, Defendant Laura Pendergest-Holt asks the Court to terminate theReceivership Order as it applies to her, seeks protection from further improper intrusions by theReceiver and its counsel, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Department of Justice, and seeks the immediate return of property improperly seized by the Receiver.Given the extraordinary actions taken by the Receiver’s lawyers, Defendant requests thather motion to dissolve the Receivership Order be heard on an expedited, emergency basis at
10:00 a.m. on Thursday, March 12, 2009,
when the Court is already set to hear the SEC’sapplication for preliminary injunction against other defendants in this matter.______________________________________________________________________________
MOTION TO SET ASIDE OR DISSOLVE ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER Page 2
02174.901/204368
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 141 Filed 03/10/2009 Page 2 of 10
 
BACKGROUND FACTS
1.
 
The SEC filed this lawsuit on February 17, 2009, against multiple corporate andindividual defendants affiliated with Stanford International Bank.
1
On the same day it filed itslawsuit, the SEC asked the Court (O’Connor, J.) to enter a broad temporary restraining order andpreliminary injunction against the defendants as well as an order appointing Ralph Janvey as areceiver for all defendants in the case, including for the individual Defendant Pendergest-Holt.On February 17, 2009, the Court entered both the temporary restraining order and ReceivershipOrder requested by the SEC. [Docket Nos. 8, 10].2.
 
Under the Receivership Order, the Receiver was granted unlimited power tocollect all “Receivership Assets” belonging to any of the Defendants and or to any entities theyown or control. [Docket No. 10 at ¶ 1]. “Receivership Assets” is defined broadly in theReceivership Order to include all “assets, monies, securities, properties, real and personal,tangible and intangible, or whatever kind and description, wherever located [.]”
 Id.
Further, theReceivership Order authorized the Receiver to “immediately take and have complete andexclusive control, possession, and custody of the Receivership Estate,” which is defined toinclude “Receivership Assets and Receivership Records.”
 Id.
at ¶¶ 2, 4. As an example,Ms. Pendergest-Holt’s personal correspondence and personal effects would be part of the“Receivership Estate” created by the Court’s order. Indeed, the Receiver has already divertedMs. Pendergest-Holt’s mail pursuant to paragraph 14 of the Receivership Order.3.
 
On February 25, 2009, the United States Government filed a criminal complaintagainst Ms. Pendergest-Holt in the Northern District of Texas for obstructing a proceedingbefore the SEC in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505. At the time the criminal complaint was filed,
1
Ms. Pendergest-Holt was not served with a copy of the Complaint until weeks later, when her currentlawyer agreed to accept service on her behalf.
______________________________________________________________________________
MOTION TO SET ASIDE OR DISSOLVE ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER Page 3
02174.901/204368
Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 141 Filed 03/10/2009 Page 3 of 10
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...