FORMAL DEMAND: Immediate Interim Distribution of US$24.2M Unconditional Assets, Cessation of Estate Depletion, and Outstanding 22nd Report
June 20, 2026
Mark McDonald
Joint Liquidator – Stanford International Bank Limited (in Liquidation)
Grant Thornton New Zealand Limited
Level 4, 152 Fanshawe Street
PO Box 1961
Auckland 1010
New Zealand
Kevin Hellard
Joint Liquidator – Stanford International Bank Limited (in Liquidation)
Grant Thornton UK LLP
30 Finsbury Square
London EC2P 2YU
United Kingdom
Subject: FORMAL DEMAND: Immediate Interim Distribution of US$24.2M Unconditional Assets, Cessation of Estate Depletion, and Outstanding 22nd Report
Dear Mr. McDonald and Mr. Hellard,
I write on behalf of COViSAL and the Stanford International Bank (SIB) creditor body regarding your explicit written confirmation on May 7, 2026, establishing that the 22nd Report to Creditors would be issued on May 28, 2026—marking the standard six-month reporting cycle from your previous update.
As of today, June 20, 2026, twenty-three days have elapsed past your self-imposed deadline. The report has not been published on sibliquidation.com, nor has any formal communication been issued explaining this reporting failure.
Creditors will no longer allow their remaining capital to be held hostage by the systemic, open-ended timelines of the Swiss courts. After 17 years of liquidation proceedings, victim-creditors have received a cumulative distribution of just 2.6% of their claims (approximately US$133 million). Meanwhile, the liquidation estate has systematically hemorrhaged over US$140 million in professional fees, advisor expenses, and liquidator honorariums. This continuous depletion of asset yield must stop immediately.
Creditors require unambiguous, immediate transparency on the following matters:
I. LEGAL STANDING AND RECOGNITION
I write to you from a position of standing that has been formally recognized by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank, Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-0298-N. As documented in the court record, COViSAL's objections and correspondence on behalf of Stanford survivors have been accepted and docketed by the Court. This recognition reinforces our legitimacy to demand full transparency and accountability on behalf of the creditor body.
Furthermore, the Joint Liquidators operate from multiple jurisdictions: Mark McDonald from Auckland, New Zealand; Kevin Hellard from London, England; and Antonia McIntyre-Anderson from Tortola, British Virgin Islands. This global operational capacity demonstrates that the estate possesses the requisite infrastructure to execute creditor distributions worldwide. The defense that distribution is too "complex" or "time-consuming" is entirely inconsistent with your established multi-jurisdictional presence.
II. REJECTION OF THE SWISS LITIGATION LINKAGE
In your recent correspondence, you asserted that the timeline for concluding the liquidation and executing distributions is entirely dependent on the unresolved Union Bancaire Privée (UBP) claim. Creditors completely reject this position.
The Antiguan estate is currently sitting on liquid, unencumbered capital that can and must be deployed immediately to victims, regardless of whether the Swiss trials take months or years to resolve. The resolution of preliminary evidentiary or standing issues in Geneva does not legally or practically restrict the Antiguan High Court or the Joint Liquidators (JLs) from making an immediate interim distribution of unencumbered funds on hand.
The JLs have successfully executed three interim distributions to creditors since 2009. They cannot credibly claim that a fourth distribution is legally or structurally prohibited when they have successfully exercised that exact authority three times previously.
III. THE 2013 CROSS-BORDER PROTOCOL – A BINDING OBLIGATION
The 2013 Cross-Border Protocol, approved by the U.S. District Court in Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-0298-N on April 11, 2013, and by the Antiguan High Court on April 8, 2013, is a legally binding agreement that explicitly states:
"Distribution of the frozen funds shall be made to creditor-victims of SIB and not to other claimants such as the Internal Revenue Service or the Antiguan government."
The Protocol was designed with explicit mandates that the JLs are currently frustrating:
- "to expedite the handling and distribution of those assets to creditor-victims"
- "maximize recoveries"
- "terminate the substantial expense of competing legal claims"
- "creates a plan for the distribution of almost 90% of the frozen assets from the U.K., Canada, and Switzerland pursuant to which distributions will be made as soon as the necessary approvals are obtained"
The Protocol explicitly allocated specific funds for creditor distribution:
- Switzerland: $132.5 million to the DOJ/Receiver + $60.5 million to the JLs for distribution to victims
- Canada: $23 million to the DOJ/Receiver
- U.K.: $44 million to the JLs for distribution to victims
The Protocol also provided "a framework for the sharing of information among the JLs, the Receiver, and OSIC to achieve efficiencies, minimize burdens, and maximize recoveries."
The JLs are now delaying a court-approved framework designed specifically to get recovered money to victims rapidly. This is a direct violation of the Protocol's core mandate and, by extension, an affront to the authority of the supervisory courts.
IV. FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF THE US$24.2M RETENTION CONTRADICTION
Per your 21st Report and subsequent email admissions, the Antiguan estate controls two massive, separate pools of capital earmarked strictly for creditors:
- Accrued & Unclaimed Distribution Funds: US$14,470,453.00
- Confirmed Swiss Assets Held for Distribution: US$9,744,701.43 (representing the pre-existing US$6,001,761.00 frozen balance combined with the Antiguan estate's exact allocation from the subsequent US$11.9 million Swiss recovery received on November 28, 2025)
Total Capital Held for Creditor Distribution: US$24,215,154.43
Your defense that executing an interim distribution of these funds is "uneconomical" or too "complex" is forensically and logically untenable:
1. Active Infrastructure Duplicity: Your report notes that the estate continually pays operational expenses—including salaries for three full-time staff members in Antigua, temporary help, and office lease relocations—specifically to process redistributions, handle unbanked checks, and trace unreachable individuals.
2. Elimination of Administrative Inefficiency: Because the estate is already bearing the fixed administrative overhead necessary to manage, trace, and re-issue the US$14.47 million in accrued funds, your argument that distributing the Swiss balances presents an unmanageable standalone complexity is false. Utilizing this active operational framework to deploy the combined pool of over US$24.2 million completely eliminates the defense of economic inefficiency.
3. Yield Destruction via Burn Rate: Every month this US$24.2 million sits idle, it is actively eroded by the estate's ongoing operational overhead and legal burn rate. Retaining this capital rather than distributing it to aging victims constitutes a direct failure to preserve asset values for the benefit of creditors—a duty explicitly required by the Protocol and the International Business Corporations (IBC) Act.
Furthermore, the JLs' own self-stated condition for distribution has been met. The 21st Report stated that the original US$6 million pool was "uneconomical until further significant recoveries are made." The subsequent Swiss recovery brought the Antiguan estate's total held Swiss balance to exactly US$9,744,701.43—representing a 62.3% increase from the amount previously deemed unfeasible to distribute. The condition precedent for distribution has been satisfied.
V. FORENSIC ACCOUNTING OF SPEND VS. CREDITOR RETURN
The financial statement attached to your 21st Report reveals an unconscionable disparity between professional payouts and victim recovery:
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Paid to Creditors | ~US$133 Million |
| Paid to Professionals/Liquidators | Over US$140 Million |
| Other & Co-Lead Legal Fees and Expenses | US$75.69 Million |
| Liquidators' Fees & Expenses (Current & Former) | US$28.20 Million |
| 3rd Party Funding Costs | US$14.28 Million |
| Operational Expenses & Other Advisors | US$11.95 Million |
| Adverse Costs Paid & Provisions | US$9.11 Million |
Approximately 51% of total historical recoveries (US$291M) have been consumed by professional fees and expenses, while only 46% has reached the actual victims. This ratio directly contradicts the Protocol's purpose to "maximize recoveries" and "terminate the substantial expense of competing legal claims."
It is an abuse of the liquidation process for cumulative professional fees to outpace the total recovery delivered to the 17,000 victim-creditors. Creditors will no longer tolerate their funds being used to finance an open-ended wind-down process while they receive nothing.
VI. DUTIES UNDER THE IBC ACT AND COURT SUPERVISION
The Joint Liquidators are officers of the High Court of Antigua, appointed under the International Business Corporations Act, Cap. 222 of the Laws of Antigua and Barbuda. As officers of the court, the JLs function strictly subject to the supervision of the court, in accordance with their defined statutory duties and powers under sections 307 to 311 of the IBC Act.
The Antiguan High Court has established precedent removing liquidators for failing "to act in the best interest of the estate and/or creditors." The guiding principle is clear: if the Court is satisfied that a liquidator is acting against the interest of the liquidation, the Court retains the inherent power to remove the sitting liquidators and appoint successors.
Creditors explicitly reserve the right to seek relief under section 204 of the IBC Act for conduct that is unfairly prejudicial to creditors.
VII. FORMAL DEMAND FOR CLARIFICATION AND ACTION
Pursuant to your statutory and fiduciary duties to the creditor body, and in light of the binding obligations under the 2013 Cross-Border Protocol approved by the courts, you are formally requested to provide the following within ten (10) business days:
- Publication Date: The precise, definitive date for the publication of the overdue 22nd Report to Creditors.
- Distribution Implementation Plan: A formal confirmation of when the JLs intend to petition the Antiguan High Court to authorize an immediate distribution utilizing the combined US$24.2 million in available liquidity.
- Forensic Cost Justification: An itemized, forensic breakdown of the exact projected costs to execute a distribution, mathematically demonstrating why a pool of US$24.2 million cannot be economically distributed alongside your already active claims-management infrastructure.
- Account Domicile Verification: Written confirmation of the banking institutions, account numbers (masked), jurisdictions, and interest yields where the US$14,470,453.00 and US$9,744,701.43 pools are currently domiciled.
- Delay Explanation: A written explanation detailing why the 22nd Report was not published on May 28, 2026, as explicitly scheduled in your email of May 7, 2026.
VIII. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
The wind-down phase of this estate cannot be used as a mechanism to slowly exhaust remaining assets via professional burn-rate. Creditors are entitled to transparency and immediate financial restitution from the cash currently held on hand.
If a satisfactory response, an immediate distribution plan, and the outstanding 22nd report are not provided within the requested timeframe, COViSAL explicitly reserves the right to file a formal creditor requisition with the Antiguan High Court to compel production, halt further professional fee approvals, and seek an order forcing an immediate distribution of all unencumbered funds.
The Antiguan High Court retains supervisory jurisdiction over this liquidation. As established by the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal, liquidators are officers of the court who function subject to its active supervision. We will seek all relief available under the International Business Corporations Act and the court's inherent jurisdiction to ensure accountability.
Furthermore, as a party recognized by the U.S. District Court in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank, Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-0298-N, we intend to bring these direct violations of the Cross-Border Protocol to the attention of Judge Godbey, who approved the Protocol and retains continuous jurisdiction over matters arising from it.
I await your prompt reply.
Sincerely,
Jaime R. Escalona
COViSAL (since 2009)
www.covisal.org | @COViSAL
jaenrodes@covisal.org