Nadex Advertisement
Interactive Brokers Advertisement
Home > Boards > US OTC > Delisted >

United Western Bancorp Inc.(fkaUWBKQ)

RSS Feed
Add Price Alert      Hide Sticky   Hide Intro
Moderator: Docsavag, LGL8054, Large Green, Newtogame
Search This Board: 
Last Post: 7/22/2017 11:33:59 AM - Followers: 188 - Board type: Free - Posts Today: 7


This Bank was taken by the OTS, OCC & FDIC Under Color of Law
Now there is a Big Cover Up going on

Shares Outstanding: 29.26


DENVER--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- United Western Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company"), a Denver-based holding company whose principal subsidiary was formerly United Western Bank® (the "Bank), today announced that on February 18, 2011, the Company filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Office of Thrift Supervision (the "OTS"), the Acting Director of the OTS (the "Acting Director") and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the "FDIC").

 On January 21, 2011, the Acting of the OTS, in cooperation with the FDIC, seized the Bank and appointed the FDIC receiver based on three alleged grounds: (i) the Bank was undercapitalized and failed to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan ("CRP") within the time prescribed by statute; (ii) the Bank was likely to be unable to pay its obligations or meet its depositors' demands in the normal course of business; and, (iii) the Bank was in an unsafe or unsound condition to transact business. The Company alleges in the Complaint that none of these grounds existed at the time of the seizure. 

A. Gibson, Chairman of the Board of the Company said, "The seizure order issued on January 21, 2011 by the OTS, appointing the FDIC as receiver, is arbitrary and capricious and lacked any rational basis in applicable law."

The Company's Complaint refutes the allegations made by the FDIC and the OTS, and importantly, among other facts cites:

The Acting Director of the OTS, without any reasonable basis, concluded the Bank had failed to submit a CRP acceptable to the OTS. However, despite the statutory requirement that institutions be given a reasonable time to submit a CRP, the OTS demanded that the Bank submit a CRP within seven days, a clearly unreasonable request in excess of its statutory authority.

The Bank's capital position provided no basis to accelerate the standard 45 day time frame for filing a CRP. On December 3, 2010, the OTS directed the Bank to take a capital write-down with the intent of lowering the Bank's capital ratio as much as necessary in order to create the illusion that the Bank was not adequately capitalized. The result of this arbitrary and capricious directive was to lower the Bank's total risk-based capital ratio to 7.8 percent (which is only 0.2 percent below the 8.0 percent ratio required to be considered adequately capitalized). But for the OTS's arbitrary and capricious directive, the Bank would have remained within the technical definition of adequately capitalized and not been subject to the requirement that it submit a CRP.

The Company believes that the seizure of a Bank with a reported total risk-based capital ratio of 7.8 percent and a pending recapitalization is unprecedented. If the standard applied by the OTS to United Western Bank was uniformly applied to banks across the country, a significant number of those banks would be subject to immediate seizure. The majority of the institutions closed by the OTS in 2009 and 2010 were critically undercapitalized, meaning that the ratio of tangible equity to total assets was less than 2 percent. A number of these institutions were insolvent; for example, one of these institutions had a core capital ratio of negative 7.11 percent and a total risk-based capital ratio of negative 7.36 percent.

The Company's research suggests the OTS has not accepted any CRP submitted to it during this financial crisis. Instead, the OTS appears to reject CRPs as a matter of course, regardless of merit, and then asserts that the failure to submit an acceptable CRP is grounds for receivership. The rejection of the Bank's CRP was part of this unreasonable pattern by the OTS.

No grounds existed for the Acting Director to reasonably conclude that United Western was likely to be unable to pay its obligations or meet its depositors' demands in the normal course of business. The liquidity concerns asserted by the OTS and FDIC were based on their unfounded disapproval of the Bank's 17 year-old business model and a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bank's long-term, contractual relationships with certain of its institutional depositors. There was no rational basis for the OTS or FDIC to conclude that the Bank would not continue to effectively manage its institutional depositor relationships as the Bank had for almost two decades, including through the worst of the financial crisis in 2008 and going forward. The institutional depositors would have maintained funds on deposit absent an arbitrary or capricious action by the OTS or FDIC to force withdrawal of such funds. The Bank repeatedly, most recently as of January 20, 2011, advised the OTS that this was the case. The Bank had ample liquidity to pay its obligations and meet depositor demands.

The Bank had over $400 million of cash at the time of the seizure, which represented approximately 25% of total deposits on January 21, 2011.

The Company and the Bank were very close to completing a recapitalization transaction of $200 million, with commitments in place of $149.5 million and parties identified to complete the transaction at the time of the seizure of the Bank by the FDIC. The completion of this transaction would have eliminated the need to seize the Bank, thereby avoiding a significant loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund. This information was provided to the OTS on January 20, 2011.

 The Company is represented in this law suit by its internal counsel and certain inside directors of the Company and certain former inside directors of the Bank are represented by BuckleySandler, LLP of Washington, D.C. and certain independent directors of the Company and certain former independent directors of the Bank are represented by the Washington office of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky &Walker LLP.

I  am not sure you understand, don't confuse the moneys that belong to the Bank (the ITR and JPM moneys due) even if the Government did not take the Bank, those moneys are the banks.

The government is liable because they took the Bank, our asset, our constitutional rights, under color of law and tired to defraud all of the shareholders as well as the employees the credititors and others. took assets held in the Banks Name and deprived all of us including the community. They Tarnished the management and the Banks Business reputation. I ask you what is it worth? An Unconstitutional move by government thugs.

And now they don't want us or any body to talk about the cover up
Jim Peoples, former CEO, left, and Guy Gibson, former chairman, are challenging bank's takeover.


#31703  Sticky Note What happened with the excluded Assets & Liabilities iPrelude 10/09/14 09:42:28 PM
#39596   .......wonder how FCNCA plays the KS Bank take-over fredscott36 07/22/17 11:33:59 AM
#39595   O so I guess I'll call my broker BBANBOB 07/22/17 11:25:16 AM
#39594   .....wonder if uwbi's BK CO-TRUSTEE counsel, mark e. fredscott36 07/22/17 11:23:26 AM
#39593   Bban, Spot on, it all hinges around the govt's Docsavag 07/22/17 10:53:16 AM
#39592 naive buffoons deserved to be WIPED OUT..............under-capitalized fredscott36 07/22/17 10:29:14 AM
#39591   I for one think they have been and BBANBOB 07/22/17 09:49:33 AM
#39590   i bet somehow wamu and this mess is wamuvoodoo 07/22/17 08:53:37 AM
#39589   Looks like Fred's game is not working any more! LGL8054 07/21/17 01:32:29 PM
#39588 a weird way, we have the FDIC fredscott36 07/21/17 10:58:40 AM
#39587 assured, my friend, there is a lot fredscott36 07/21/17 10:47:21 AM
#39586   In keeping with court procedures- I guess we Newtogame 07/21/17 10:38:38 AM
#39585   In God We Trust. fredscott36 07/21/17 10:36:32 AM
#39583   ....ain't gonna be any payout nor distribution on fredscott36 07/21/17 10:12:11 AM
#39582   Maybe this afternoon our CUSSIPs are exchanged for Large Green 07/21/17 09:42:46 AM
#39581   WELL FRED is TODAY THE DAY?????????????????? BBANBOB 07/21/17 09:12:29 AM
#39580   ......all is well that ends well............................... BBANBOB 07/20/17 12:52:21 PM
#39579   .........CONTACT: Barbara Thompson fredscott36 07/20/17 12:20:15 PM
#39578   Agreed, retro active don't count, and the ruling BBANBOB 07/20/17 12:09:16 PM
#39577   I believe that the FDIC papers came after LGL8054 07/20/17 11:53:25 AM
#39576   .......that's dated (4-year's old) and it's self-serving..........and was fredscott36 07/20/17 11:39:39 AM
#39575   DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY LGL8054 07/20/17 11:28:39 AM
#39573   FDIC Scores Partial Victory In $265M Tax Refund Row LGL8054 07/20/17 10:22:46 AM
#39572   ..........................$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ en route........................ fredscott36 07/20/17 10:12:01 AM
#39571   The Perfect Tax You will like this. LGL8054 07/19/17 10:15:25 PM
#39570   "U.S. corporate taxes are too high," Docsavag 07/19/17 08:35:03 PM
#39569   U.S. Bancorp, the largest regional bank in the LGL8054 07/19/17 05:14:56 PM
#39568   ..............FCNCA.................$376.35 +$1.73 (+0.46%)................. fredscott36 07/19/17 11:54:03 AM
#39567   .....oh, UWBI.......................WHEN THE FDIC WANTS UWBI GONE............... fredscott36 07/19/17 11:15:44 AM
#39566   “Although we are appreciative of First Citizens’ interest fredscott36 07/19/17 10:39:52 AM
#39565   ...........simple math..........$178mio, less $52mio in prioritie fredscott36 07/19/17 10:32:22 AM
#39564   .......let's play with frankie and KS BANK, for fredscott36 07/19/17 10:26:51 AM
#39563   investandpray 07/19/17 10:24:54 AM
#39562   ......'priorities' have already been paid...........we understand.....who cares fredscott36 07/19/17 10:20:14 AM
#39561   empirical evidence indicates $178mm has been deposited in BBANBOB 07/19/17 10:15:58 AM
#39560   .............................. MARK 10:27 ................................... fredscott36 07/19/17 10:10:27 AM
#39559   $2.5 billion in retirement funds! ???????????? BBANBOB 07/19/17 09:42:05 AM
#39558   $16.50 settlement Now or $2.5 billion in retirement funds! LGL8054 07/19/17 09:22:29 AM
#39556   TAG FREDDIE you're it BBANBOB 07/18/17 03:07:22 PM
#39555   "".we better see that $5.50 per SOON or BBANBOB 07/18/17 02:11:09 PM
#39554   "".we better see that $5.50 per SOON or BBANBOB 07/18/17 02:10:23 PM
#39553 ladies kinda feeling good about owning FCNCA...........???????...... fredscott36 07/18/17 12:06:53 PM
#39551   .....Barbara Thompson, spokeswoman for First Citizens, says the fredscott36 07/18/17 11:31:31 AM
#39550   ROFLMFAO--maybe Franks trying to buy KSBI--because the FDIC Newtogame 07/18/17 11:23:59 AM
#39549   $35.00 per in CASH Newtogame 07/18/17 11:21:42 AM
#39548   Watch out, if you don't sell FCNCA will fredscott36 07/18/17 11:15:13 AM
#39547   Hypothetical conversation with Harold Keen @ KSBI Newtogame 07/18/17 11:04:21 AM
#39546   .....KS is simply trying to up the ante..............mayhaps fredscott36 07/18/17 10:45:03 AM
#39545   A giant F/U to FCNCA from a little guy Newtogame 07/18/17 10:32:53 AM
#39544   .......(go ahead and hack our love message, NEWT fredscott36 07/18/17 10:28:32 AM