« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Why Would Laura Pendergest-Holt Take The Fall For Allen Stanford's Ponzi?
Suspected Ponzi schemer Sir Allen Stanford's chief investment officer Laura Pendergest-Holt was indicted in Houston this morning for obstructing and conspiring to obstruct the federal investigation into Stanford's sham money manager. Aside from a new allegation that Pendergest transferred $4.3 million of bank funds into the bank's operating account after speaking to the SEC, the charges don't appear much different from those laid out in a criminal complaint filed against the photogenic 35-year-old overseer of Stanford's "Tier 2" investments in February. (That's not for lack of rifling through her underwear drawer, according to a motion filed by her lawyer.)
That complaint depicted Pendergest-Holt's role in the Stanford enterprise as less mastermind than a case of (yes we realize this is a lame joke but) "Who Framed Jessica Rabbit?"
It described in detail how Stanford lawyer Thomas Sjoblom -- who was identified in the complaint as Attorney A -- deflected the SEC's January requests to get testimony from Stanford and his fearsome chief financial officer James Davis by explaining the two did not "micro-manage" the firm's investments, and turning investigators instead to Pendergest-Holt and Stanford International Bank President Juan Rodriguez. Sjoblom then admitted in an email that it could be a problem that Pendergest-Holt knew nothing about the company's "Tier 3 investments" -- the secret part of Stanford's scheme, where 80% of his investments had been located, according to the SEC -- and arranged for her to be briefed on Tier 3 before she testified, explaining that the SEC only wanted to hear from executives familiar with the "entire investment portfolio." Within three weeks of Sjoblom explaining this to her -- during a meeting at the Stanford Aviation airport hangar in Miami, Florida -- Davis had briefed Pendergest-Holt and Rodriguez on Tier 3, Rodriguez had resigned in horror, Pendergest-Holt had botched her testimony with all manner of rookie lies and evasions, and Sjoblom had quit the case altogether. A former SEC enforcement lawyer named Jacob Frenkel told the Daily Journal the complaint was "a printed invitation to Ms. Pendergest-Holt to get on the government's train or be run over by it."
So why didn't she board the train?
Media coverage of Pendergest-Holt's role at Stanford generally depicts her as something of a Stepford executive. Having grown up in the same tiny Mississippi town (Baldwyn) attending the same tiny Baptist church as Davis, she was "groomed" for a position at the firm from the age of 15 by the man she called a "visionary mentor," according to the New York Times. She began at Stanford straight out of a master's program in 1997 and enjoyed the requisite "meteoric rise," replete, a story in this month's Texas Monthly says, with the attendant designer clothes, $700 bottles of wine, corporate jet trips between Baldwyn and her Stanford office in Memphis, and "temper tantrums" when her expenses were questioned. And few media outlets fail to mention her looks. When one Wall Street Journal blog snippily called out a Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal profile for one too many uses of words like "striking" and "statuesque" the editor contacted the blogger and said he'd approved all the descriptive passages because "people kept bringing it up" to his reporter and it "seemed like part of the larger story."
And perhaps it is, though it doesn't get us much closer to the mystery of why Pendergest-Holt didn't cooperate with the investigation. She has since sued Sjoblom for malpractice, so why not the "visionary mentor" who hired him? We'll stay on the case...
Josh
Zachary
Who knows? But a quick google image search indicates she dresses like a feisty piece of lawbreaker, should be some good entertainment.
Bring on the courts.
May 12, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Easy come. Easy go.
May 12, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I'll state the obvious. Because she was one of Stanford's most loyal concubines. That's why.
Sub out 'visionary mentor' for 'pimp daddy' and 'groomed' for 'trained' at the ripe young age of 15 and it all falls into place. Tkacik appears aware of the story behind the story here, as he makes clear with his italics and links.
Her classic 'meteoric rise' from secretary to executive personal assistant had a nickname amongst the working class at Enron before it's collapse. Women like her were nicknamed VAVOOOOM.
May 12, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That reminded me of a rather corny but funny Playboy cartoon I first saw as a teenager -- (Gasp!) -- which remains forever ensconced in the warped recesses of my mind, where "Bubbles La Vavoom", the beautiful and well-endowed headline entertainer at a local strip club, proudly introduces her new boyfriend to her father and mother:
"And these are my parents, Herman and Esther La Vavoom."
May 12, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I may be terribly sophomoric but every time I read Sjoblom all I can think of is Soblowme. The content of the article was sadly lost on me.
May 12, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not so sophomoric, since that's apparently what Mr. Sjoblom told Ms. Benderover-Hot to say to federal investigators -- which is why she's go' some 'splainin' to do.
May 12, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
photogenic
Moe has prematurely closed out the 2009 competition for the correct framing of the proposition that the person in question qualifies for the "pretty girl *discount" and that the circumstances in which said qualified individual finds herself are unusual for talented and otherwise thus-qualified girls.
*pretty girls ride free, sleep free, eat free, drink free, smoke free, you get the picture.
May 13, 2009 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really only care about one thing, stopping this wholesale destruction of the market system. If we don't rebuild this enterprise to be something that we can faith in it will fail and so will we.
May 13, 2009 4:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
She seems like a classic True Believer, and i'm not suprised that she thinks she's on the side of angels, and determined to fight for her mentor's good name. It also seems clear that Bloom has set her up to take the fall, however, this ain't a movie, and I suspect that her ignorance of the details of Tier 3 will reveal her true position, as statuesque fall girl.
May 13, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
MADOFF + STANFORD + DREIER + SATYAM + FISERV + ALBERT HU = PROSKAUER ROSE & FOLEY & LARDNER read on.
Investors who have been burned in these scams should start to seek redress from the lawyers who were involved with these scams. I personally have been trying to notify regulators and authorities of a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR scam that is putting states like New York and Florida at huge risk, as well as, companies like Intel, Lockheed, SGI and IBM. The states and companies involved in the fraud fail to acknowledge the risk exposing shareholders and citizens to impending liabilities. Investigators, courts and federal agents ignoring the crimes and evidence, including a car-bombing attempt on my life. I know how Harry Markopolos felt trying to expose Madoff in a world without regulation.
Did I hear Proskauer Rose is involved in Madoff (involved many clients too) and acted as Allen Stanford's attorney. Investors who lost money in these scams should start looking at the law firm Proskauer's assets for recovery. First, Proskauer partner Gregg Mashberg claims Madoff is a financial 9/11 for their clients, if they directed you to Madoff sue them. Then, Proskauer partner Thomas Sjoblom former enforcement dude for SEC and Allen Stanford attorney, declares PARTY IS OVER to Stanford employees and advises them to PRAY, this two days before SEC hearings. Then at hearings, he lies with Holt to SEC saying she only prepared with him but fails to mention Miami meeting at airport hanger. Then Sjoblom resigns after SEC begins investigation and sends note to SEC disaffirming all statements made by him and Proskauer, his butt on fire. If you were burned in Stanford sue Proskauer.
Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner are also in a TRILLION dollar FEDERAL LAWSUIT legally related to a WHISTLEBLOWER CASE (CASE NOW GOING TO TRIAL) also in FEDERAL COURT. Marc S. Dreier (PLEADED GUILTY), brought in through Raymond A. Joao of Meltzer Lippe after putting 90+ patents of mine in his own name, is also a defendant in the Federal Case.
The Trillion Dollar suit according to Judge Shira Scheindlin is one of PATENT THEFT, MURDER & A CAR BOMBING. For graphics on the car bombing visit www.iviewit.tv.
The Federal Court cases
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Docket 08-4873-cv - Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. - TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT
Cases @ US District Court - Southern District NY
(07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York, et al. - WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT
(07cv11196) Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al.
(07cv11612) Esposito v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv00526) Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.,
(08cv02391) McKeown v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv02852) Galison v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv03305) Carvel v The State of New York, et al., and,
(08cv4053) Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al.
(08cv4438) Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.
( ) John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York
----------------
You go girl. Everyone burned in Stanford should sue Proskauer Rose and any other lawyer involved. Sjoblom was former SEC dudesicle for Enforcement, he cannot claim he did not know. The Miami meeting, going to Miami, Miami, Miami to mislead federal authorities. Party is over Mr. Sjoblom at your next party you could be the party girl with Bernard Madoff, Marc Dreier, etc. I hear those fed pens are loads and loads and loads of fun.
Best Regards
Eliot Bernstein
Inventor
Iviewit Technologies
www.iviewit.tv
iviewit@iviewit.tv
PS - I await your eternal soul Mr. Sjoblom, you were right, you do need to pray but deaf ears or devils ears it falls upon.
May 15, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink