Response and Objection to the KLS Motion to Intervene

The Motion to Intervene filed by the KLS Stanford Victims should be denied. While styled as a Motion to Intervene (and for the appointement of four additional Stanford investors to the Committee), the Motion is little more than an attempt by one lawyer – Gaytri Kachroo (“Kachroo”) – to belatedly insert herself into these proceedings, principally in order to influence defrauded Stanford investors to hire her firm to sue the United States government, but also in an effort to circumvent prior orders of this Court which established and govern the conduct of the Committee.

The Motion should be denied for at least each of the following reasons (any one of which would alone support denial):

A. This Court has uniformly denied all of the numerous previous requests (during this two-and-a-half-year old case) by individual Stanford investors, and groups of investors, to intervene, and instead determined to appoint the Examiner and the Committee to represent the interests of investors in these proceedings, all through carefully crafted orders entered after notice and an opportunity to be heard by Movants and all other Stanford investors and their representatives. Neither Kachroo nor any member of the KLS Group (nor any other Stanford investor for that matter) filed any objections to, or appeals from, any of the relevant orders about which she now belatedly complains, but all of which became final and non-appealable long ago. In fact, no investors filed objections to entry of any of the orders which established the Committee, entrusted it with broad powers to investigate and prosecute claims on behalf of investors and the Receivership estates, and named the Examiner;

B. Even considering Kachroo’s request for appointment of her firm’s clients to the Committee would be premature and inappropriate unless this Court were to reverse its previous practice and grant her intervention motion;

C. Granting the Motion and/or other motions to intervene at this stage of the proceedings would create chaos, delay and increase the costs of administering these cases;

D. The requested intervention would be futile because the alleged and limited grounds for which the intervention is purportedly sought have either been addressed already, or would be unaffected by the requested intervention;

E. The putative intervenors, all of whom appear to be Stanford investors, are already fully and adequately represented in these proceedings; and

F. The requested intervention is untimely.

The request by Kachroo Legal Services, P.C. to initiate an investigation attached the recently filedMotion to Intervene and Declaration based on the malfeasance and waste of the receivership which to date has consumed all collected assets, $120 million. The motion also details an inside deal between the Receiver and the Official Stanford Investor Committee which provided a pre-approved 25% percent contingency fee to attorneys on the Committee who have not objected to any of the Receiver’s fees. This is despite their role of holding the receivership accountable and on track and their right to raise and be heard on any issue in the Receivership proceedings.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE! Source.

Visit the Stanford International Victims Group – SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: