### 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. WIN TER, deceased; BOWEN, MICLETTE & BRITT, INCORPORATED; WILLIS OF TEXAS, INCORPORATED; WILL IS OF COLORADO, INCORPORATED; JAIME AL EMAN; ALEMAN, GALINDO, CORDERO & LEE; ALEMAN, GALINDO, CORDERO & LEE TRUST (BVI) LIMITED; AMY S. BARANOUCKY,
Defendants

- Appellees

__________________________ Cons w/ 14

- 11119 BARRY RUPERT; CAR OL 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, de ceased ; BOWEN, MICLETTE & BRITT, INCORPORATED, also k nown 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: 09/16/2015No s . 14

- 11118 & 14

- 11119

2 Appeal s from t he 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 contin ued 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 distri ct 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. Ap p’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 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . 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 Appointin g Receiver on March 12, 2009. On July 19, 2010, the district court entered a Second Amended Order Appointing Receiver, which is almost identical t o the first. Case: 14-11118 Document: 00513194932 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/16/2015No s . 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 Plaintiffs

Appellants’ lawsuits to state cou rt, 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 Ci r. 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 place d 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 h ave passed sinc e 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 distri ct 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: 09/16/2015No s . 14

- 11118 & 14

- 11119

4 allowed to proceed, not whether the sta y 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 declin ing to lif t the litigation stay. See Stanford Int’l Bank , 424 F. App’x at 34 0

- 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 a buse of discretion.”)

. The district court’s decision is AFFIRMED. Case: 14-11118 Document: 00513194932 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/16/2015