Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Tiger Woods Complaint

Tiger Woods Complaint

Ratings: (0)|Views: 16,988 |Likes:
Published by jmaglich1
tiger woods foundation complaint
tiger woods foundation complaint

More info:

Published by: jmaglich1 on Apr 30, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/07/2014

pdf

text

original

 
AMENDED RECEIVER’S COMPLAINT PAGE 1
515420 000002 8381650.1
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE S.A., COMMISSION § § Plaintiff, § § v. § § STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK, LTD., § STANFORD GROUP COMPANY, § STANFORD CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC § R. ALLEN STANFORD, JAMES M. DAVIS, § LAURA PENDERGEST-HOLT, et al. § § Defendants, § § RALPH JANVEY, RECEIVER, Plaintiff, v. TIGER WOODS FOUNDATION, INC. and TIGER WOODS CHARITY EVENT CORPORATION, Ancillary Defendants. § § § § § § § § § Case _________________
AMENDED RECEIVER’S COMPLAINT
Ralph Janvey, in his capacity as the court-appointed Receiver (the “Receiver”) files this Amended Complaint
1
 against the Tiger Woods Foundation (the “Foundation”) and Tiger Woods Charity Event Corporation (collectively, the “Defendants”), and states:
I.
 
INTRODUCTION
1.
 
On February 16, 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission commenced a lawsuit in this Court against R. Allen Stanford, several associates, James M. Davis, Laura
1
 The Original Complaint inadvertently included attorneys in the signature block who should not have been included. Attorneys listed in the signature block in this Amended Complaint should remain as attorneys to be noticed, and any attorneys no longer listed in this Amended Complaint should be removed as attorneys to be noticed in this suit.
Case 3:14-cv-01567-L Document 5 Filed 04/30/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID 20
 
AMENDED RECEIVER’S COMPLAINT PAGE 2
515420 000002 8381650.1
 Pendergest-Holt, Gilberto Lopez, Mark Kurht, and Leroy King, and five of Mr. Stanford’s companies, Stanford International Bank, Ltd. (“SIB,” “SIBL,” or “the Bank”), Stanford Group Company (“SGC”), Stanford Capital Management, LLC, Stanford Financial Group Company, and the Stanford Financial Group Building Inc. (collectively, the “SEC
 
Defendants”) for claims related to a fraudulent investment scheme created, organized, and operated by R. Allen Stanford and others. That lawsuit is styled
SEC v. Stanford International Bank, Ltd. et al.
, No. 3:09-CV-0298-N, and is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. In
SEC v. Stanford International Bank, Ltd., et al.
, the SEC alleges,
inter alia
, that the SEC
 
Defendants engaged in a Ponzi scheme that raised millions of dollars from unwitting investors through the sale of certificates of deposit that purported to offer guaranteed interest rates significantly higher than those being offered by domestic, insured financial institutions (the “Ponzi scheme”). The SEC’s complaint in
SEC v. Stanford International Bank,  Ltd., et al.
 describing the Ponzi scheme is in this Court’s record and is incorporated herein by reference. 2.
 
Defendants, identified herein as the Ancillary Defendants, received two separate contributions or transfers of funds from the SEC Defendants, totaling $502,000 (the “Transfers”). These contributions amount to fraudulent transfers because Defendants exchanged no reasonably equivalent consideration for what they received. The Receiver brings this Complaint to rescind these Transfers because the funds used were those of innocent, unwitting investors in the Bank’s fraudulent Ponzi scheme.
II.
 
PARTIES
3.
 
Plaintiff Ralph Janvey was appointed as Receiver for the SEC Defendants
 
 by order of this Court signed February 17, 2009, and superseded by the Amended Orders
Case 3:14-cv-01567-L Document 5 Filed 04/30/14 Page 2 of 12 PageID 21
 
AMENDED RECEIVER’S COMPLAINT PAGE 3
515420 000002 8381650.1
 Appointing Receiver entered on March 12, 2009, and July 19, 2010 (the “Receivership Orders”), which are in the Court’s record and incorporated herein by reference. The Receivership Orders authorize the Receiver to,
inter alia
: [i]nstitute 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. Receivership Orders, ¶ 5(c), p. 5. 4.
 
The Tiger Woods Foundation, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation with its principal  place of business located at 121 Innovation Drive, Suite 150, Irvine, California 92617. It may be served with process through its registered agent for service of process in Texas, KPMG, 717 North Harwood Street, Suite 3100, Dallas, Texas 75201. 5.
 
The Tiger Woods Charity Event Corporation is a nonprofit corporation with its  principal place of business located at 121 Innovation Drive, Suite 150, Irvine, California 92617. It may be served with process through its registered agent for service of process, Gregory T. McLaughlin, at 121 Innovation Drive, Suite 150, Irvine, California 92617.
III.
 
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6.
 
This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the matters raised by this lawsuit  pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because this action is ancillary to
SEC v. International Bank, Ltd., et al
.
See Haile v. Henderson Nat’l Bank 
, 657 F.2d 816, 822 (6
th
 Cir. 1981). Moreover, the money transferred to Defendants as described herein constitutes a Receivership Asset, defined in the Receivership Orders as “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 Orders, ¶ 1, p. 2. This Court assumed exclusive jurisdiction through the
Case 3:14-cv-01567-L Document 5 Filed 04/30/14 Page 3 of 12 PageID 22

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->