United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED August 9, 2024 No. 23-10726 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Securities and Exchange Commission,

Plaintiff,

versus Stanford International Bank, Limited, et al.,

Defendants,

Hugh Dickson; Mark McDonald, in their capacities as the Foreign Representatives and Joint Liquidators of the bankruptcy estate of Stanford International Bank, Limited,

Appellants,

versus Ralph S. Janvey, in his capacity as the Court-appointed Receiver for the Stanford Receivership Estate; Official Stanford Investors Committee; Societe Generale Private Banking (Suisse) S.A.,

Appellees. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:09-CV-298 Case: 23-10726 Document: 140-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/09/2024

______________________________ Before Higginson, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Andrew S. Oldham, Circuit Judge: For years, Robert Allen Stanford ran a billion-dollar Ponzi scheme through various Texan and Antiguan entities. In 2009, a federal district court approved an equity receiver (the “Receiver”) to handle claims from defrauded investors, manage the assets of the Stanford entities, and bring claims against allegedly complicit third parties. This appeal arises from a settlement with one of those third parties, Societe Generale Private Banking (Suisse) S.A (“SGPB”). As part of that settlement, the district court entered a bar order that enjoined the world from bringing future Stanford-related claims against the Swiss bank. But two individuals appointed by an Antiguan court to handle the liquidation of one of the Stanford entities contend that the bar order should not extend to their claims against SGPB. We hold that the district court did not have the requisite personal jurisdiction to bind the Joint Liquidators with its bar order. I This is not the first time that this court has confronted an appeal related to the Stanford Ponzi scheme. See, e.g., Zacarias v. Stanford Int’l Bank, Ltd., 945 F.3d 883 (5th Cir. 2019); SEC v. Stanford Int’l Bank, Ltd. (“Lloyd’s”), 927 F.3d 830 (5th Cir. 2019); United States v. Stanford, 805 F.3d 557 (5th Cir. 2015); Janvey v. Brown, 767 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2014); Janvey v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., Inc., 712 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2013). At the risk of re-tilling well-tilled ground, we (A) briefly outline the context for the establishment of the equity receivership. We then (B) detail the origin of the Joint Liquidators and their conflicts with the Receiver. Finally, we (C) discuss the events giving rise to the specific settlement with SGPB and resulting bar order.

2 Case: 23-10726 Document: 140-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/09/2024

No. 23-10726

A For almost a decade, Robert Allen Stanford ran an elaborate Ponzi scheme. See Janvey, 712 F.3