SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(US)(ca5) 208

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Janvey – Appellant
Versus
GMAG – Respondent



United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED May 30, 2023 No. 22-10235 Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

Ralph S. Janvey, in his Capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for The Stanford International Bank Limited, et al.,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

GMAG, L.L.C.; Magness Securities, L.L.C.; Gary D. Magness; Mango Five Family Incorporated, in its Capacity as Trustee for The Gary D. Magness Irrevocable Trust,

Defendants—Appellants,

consolidated with _____________

No. 22-10429 _____________

Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

versus

GMAG, L.L.C.; Gary D. Magness Irrevocable Trust; Gary D. Magness; Magness Securities, L.L.C.,

Defendants—Appellants, Case: 22-10235 Document: 00516768578 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2023

versus

Ralph S. Janvey,

Appellee. ______________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC Nos. 3:15-CV-401, 3:09-CV-298 ______________________________

Before Stewart, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges. Leslie H. Southwick, Circuit Judge: In 2009, Stanford International Bank was exposed as a Ponzi scheme and placed into receivership. Since then, the Receiver has been recovering Stanford’s assets and distributing them to victims of the scheme. To that end, the Receiver sued Gary Magness, a Stanford investor, to recover funds for the Receivership estate. The district court entered judgment against Magness. Magness now seeks to exercise setoff rights against that judgment. Because Magness did not timely raise those setoff rights, they have been forfeited. AFFIRMED. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case stems from the collapse of the Stanford International Bank (“SIB”), which has been the subject of several appeals before this court. 1 We summarize the facts as relevant to this appeal.

_____________________ 1 Janvey v. Brown, 767 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2014); Janvey v. GMAG, L.L.C., 913 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2019), vacated & superseded by 925 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2019); Janvey v. GMAG, L.L.C., 977 F.3d 422 (5th Cir. 2020); Janvey v. GMAG, L.L.C., No. 21-10483 c/w 21- 10882, 2022 WL 4102067 (5th Cir. Sept. 7, 2022).

2 Case: 22-10235 Document: 00516768578 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/30/2023

No. 22-10235 c/w No. 22-10429

In 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) exposed the fraudulent operations of SIB. Janvey v. GMAG, L.L.C., 977 F.3d 422, 425 (5th Cir. 2020). For nearly two decades, SIB had issued fraudulent certificates of deposit, or CDs, that paid above-market interest rates. Id. The payments, though, were derived

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top