IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11118

MIGUEL RISHMAGUE, Individually and on behalf of UCB Properties Trust 

and Inversiones Misanisa Trust; ODDE JALIL RISHMAGUE, Individually 

and on behalf of UCB Properties Trust and Inversiones Misanisa Trust, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

PAUL D. WINTER, Dependent Executor of the Estate of Robert S. Winter, 

substituted in place and stead of ROBERT S. WINTER, deceased; BOWEN, 

MICLETTE & BRITT, INCORPORATED; WILLIS OF TEXAS, 

INCORPORATED; WILLIS OF COLORADO, INCORPORATED; JAIME 

ALEMAN; ALEMAN, GALINDO, CORDERO & LEE; ALEMAN, GALINDO, 

CORDERO & LEE TRUST (BVI) LIMITED; AMY S. BARANOUCKY, 

 Defendants - Appellees

__________________________

Cons w/ 14-11119

BARRY RUPERT; CAROL RUPERT; DAVID QUINTOS; DIANA 

DIMITROVA STOILOVA; ELIZABETH RUNKLE, et al

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

PAUL D. WINTER, Dependent Executor of the Estate of Robert S. Winter, 

substituted in place and stead of ROBERT S. WINTER, deceased ; BOWEN, 

MICLETTE & BRITT, INCORPORATED, also known as Bowen Miclette 

Descant & Britt, Incorporated; AMY S. BARANOUCKY; WILLIS GROUP 

HOLDINGS LIMITED; WILLIS OF COLORADO, INCORPORATED,

 Defendants – Appellees

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11118 Document: 00513194932 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/16/2015
Nos. 14-11118 & 14-11119 

2

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:11-CV-2024 

USDC No. 3:10-CV-799

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:*

This case is about the district court’s continued oversight of the nearly 

one hundred actions that are pending in the Northern District of Texas, arising 

out of the alleged multi-billion-dollar Ponzi scheme perpetrated by R. Allen 

Stanford, over one dozen of which are set for trial in the next year-and-a-half.1

Shortly after the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) 

filed a civil lawsuit against Stanford and several Stanford-related 

corporations, the district court placed all of the defendants’ assets in a 

receivership. The district court “appointed a Receiver, Ralph S. Janvey, to 

marshal, conserve, hold, manage and preserve the value of the receivership 

estate.”2 SEC v. Stanford Int’l Bank Ltd., 424 F. App’x 338, 340 (5th Cir. 2011). 

The district court also enjoined “[c]reditors and all other persons” from “[t]he 

commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of 

process, of any judicial, administrative, or other proceeding against the 

Receiver, any of the defendants, the Receivership Estate, or any agent, officer, 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1 See MDL Statistics Report–Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District United 

States, Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, (July 15, 2015), www.jpml.uscourts.gov/

sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_District-July-15-2015.pdf. 2 The district court first appointed a receiver on February 17, 2009 and entered an 

Amended Order Appointing Receiver on March 12, 2009. On July 19, 2010, the district court 

entered a Second Amended Order Appointing Receiver, which is almost identical to the first.

 Case: 14-11118 Document: 00513194932 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/16/2015
Nos. 14-11118 & 14-11119 

3

or employee related to the Receivership Estate, arising from the subject matter 

of this civil action.” The district court also enjoined all persons from “[a]ny act 

to obtain possession of the Receivership Estate assets” as well as “[a]ny act to 

collect, assess, or recover a claim against the Receiver or that would attach to 

or encumber the Receivership Estate.” Before remanding the PlaintiffsAppellants’ lawsuits to state court, the district court explicitly provided that 

their lawsuits remain subject to the litigation stay. Plaintiffs-Appellants now 

appeal the district court’s refusal to lift that litigation stay and to allow their 

lawsuits to proceed in state court. 

“[S]everal courts have recognized the importance of preserving a 

receivership court’s ability to issue orders preventing interference with its 

administration of the receivership property.” Schauss v. Metals Depository 

Corp., 757 F.2d 649, 654 (5th Cir. 1985); see SEC v. Safety Fin. Serv., Inc., 674 

F.2d 368, 372-73 (5th Cir. 1982) (“[T]he district court has broad powers and 

wide discretion to determine the appropriate relief in an equity receivership.” 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also SEC v. Hardy, 803 

F.2d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir. 1986) (“A district judge simply cannot effectively and 

successfully supervise a receivership and protect the interests of its 

beneficiaries absent broad discretionary power.”). Emphasizing the district

court’s “broad authority to issue blanket stays of litigation to preserve the 

property placed in receivership pursuant to SEC actions,” this court previously 

upheld this same litigation stay against similar challenges. Stanford Int’l 

Bank, 424 F. App’x at 340, 340-42. We are mindful that four years have passed 

since that decision. See SEC v. Wencke, 622 F.2d 1363, 1373 (9th Cir. 1980) 

(“The time at which the motion for relief from the stay is made also bears on 

the exercise of the district court’s discretion.”); SEC v. Wencke, 742 F.2d 1230, 

1231 (9th Cir. 1984) (explaining that the relevant issue “is one of timing, that 

is, when during the course of a receivership a stay should be lifted and claims 

 Case: 14-11118 Document: 00513194932 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/16/2015
Nos. 14-11118 & 14-11119 

4

allowed to proceed, not whether the stay should be lifted at all”). At this time, 

however, as the district court continues to receive itself as well as coordinate 

and oversee extensive litigation, relating to asset recovery, we cannot say that 

the district court abused its discretion in declining to lift the litigation stay. 

See Stanford Int’l Bank, 424 F. App’x at 340-42; see also SEC v. Kaleta, 530 F. 

App’x 360, 361-62, & n.2 (5th Cir. 2013) (emphasizing the necessity of the 

litigation stay to protect assets of would-be defendants, parties closely 

affiliated with the Receivership Entities, who had personal guarantees to pay 

the Receivership Estate); Hardy, 803 F.2d at 1038 (“We would be remiss were 

we to interfere with a district court’s supervision of an equity receivership 

absent a clear abuse of discretion.”).

The district court’s decision is AFFIRMED.

 

 Case: 14-11118 Document: 00513194932 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/16/2015