SureTrader SureTrader SureTrader
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: 1/24/2017 6:58:49 AM - Followers: 189 - Board type: Free - Posts Today: 3



UNITED WESTERN BANKCORP INC. (UWBK)

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


PR FROM FEBRUARY 2011 ANNOUNCING COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OTS (OFFICE OF THRIFT SUPERVISION):


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.

 

    
    
PostSubject
#31703  Sticky Note What happened with the excluded Assets & Liabilities iPrelude 10/09/14 09:42:28 PM
#38136   And b. BuckleySandler LLP is authorized to apply all garyhalvo 01/24/17 06:58:49 AM
#38135   Nice. c. Chapter 7 Trustee Simon E. Rodriguez garyhalvo 01/24/17 06:57:24 AM
#38134   ***PACER***Filing***AND MAYBE WE ARE ABOUT DONE with UWBKQ Large Green 01/24/17 03:54:25 AM
#38133   Tell em to hurry the HELL UP ,I'm BBANBOB 01/23/17 02:57:42 PM
#38132   ........................ 1 for 88 , hope.........?????........... fredscott36 01/23/17 12:38:02 PM
#38131   .......SEC is named as CO-TRUSTEE on a common fredscott36 01/23/17 12:23:23 PM
#38130   FREDDIE always has puzzled me but you know BBANBOB 01/23/17 11:56:20 AM
#38129   You all aint got no SHEEP, so the BBANBOB 01/23/17 11:39:21 AM
#38128   .....heard the SEC is reviewing the "transaction"...................and the fredscott36 01/23/17 10:30:42 AM
#38127   I was curious as well about that, LOVING BBANBOB 01/22/17 03:11:00 PM
#38126   And where does this filing come from? Docsavag 01/22/17 02:21:43 PM
#38125   OK let me do it THIS WAY with BBANBOB 01/22/17 01:59:12 PM
#38123   (in the filing)upon the occurrence of a “regulatory jehu 01/22/17 11:50:18 AM
#38122   J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive James LGL8054 01/22/17 09:56:27 AM
#38121   fdic knows BIGS are watchin' 'em..............no worries.........we'll see fredscott36 01/22/17 09:16:09 AM
#38120   SO PUT A FIRE UNDER SOMEONES BUTT, CALL BBANBOB 01/21/17 01:03:08 PM
#38119   .......uwbi shareholders hanging on = a SURVIVAL PROGRAM......... fredscott36 01/21/17 11:59:11 AM
#38118   .....BOTTOM LINE: this long, drawn-out AGONIZING waiting............could and fredscott36 01/21/17 11:18:58 AM
#38117   hhehehe well DUH, but at this point I BBANBOB 01/21/17 11:12:22 AM
#38116   .....works for me.......docs seem to indicate the 1 fredscott36 01/21/17 10:59:46 AM
#38115   2.50 cash and 1-60 SOAP DOPE ROPE STOCK BBANBOB 01/21/17 10:55:13 AM
#38114   .....it appears that simon/kimmie are sitting on their fredscott36 01/21/17 10:35:57 AM
#38113   capital ratio only reason to seize a bank, jehu 01/21/17 09:53:15 AM
#38112   The FDIC gave up all their other claims Newtogame 01/20/17 11:59:57 AM
#38111   Why is the FDIC only going after the ITR Newtogame 01/20/17 11:57:48 AM
#38110   ..............FCNCA........363.07 +6.29 (+1.76%).................... fredscott36 01/20/17 11:53:57 AM
#38109   .....JPM wanted to transfer its secured claim in fredscott36 01/20/17 11:49:37 AM
#38108   .....a feeble, pathetic window-dressing status statement, as required fredscott36 01/20/17 11:39:08 AM
#38107   GGGGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Kimmy forgot to bring up the $$$$$$$$$ Newtogame 01/20/17 11:35:43 AM
#38106   TRUSTEE’S REPORT DATED JANUARY 18, 2017 Newtogame 01/20/17 11:25:29 AM
#38105   Further, JP Morgan Chase Bank asserts a security Newtogame 01/20/17 11:23:14 AM
#38104   .....we ain't wiped out.........just gotta live with a fredscott36 01/20/17 11:03:06 AM
#38103   WE ARE WIPED OUT !!!!!!!!! investandpray 01/20/17 10:22:42 AM
#38102   ....ESOP decafs said $1.625 p/s ($50mm Guy sell-out fredscott36 01/20/17 10:19:05 AM
#38101   NEW OK where did this come from and when BBANBOB 01/20/17 09:57:34 AM
#38100   Because the United Western Bank receivership remains hopelessly Newtogame 01/20/17 09:13:23 AM
#38099   WE ARE WIPED OUT !!!!!!!!! Newtogame 01/20/17 08:28:08 AM
#38098   again check you messages on the simple machines BBANBOB 01/19/17 08:42:22 PM
#38097   No, gotta keep this buried. Cede&Co counts the jehu 01/19/17 04:10:37 PM
#38096   Gary Lots was done by a LOT of banks BBANBOB 01/19/17 01:56:08 PM
#38095   Oh yes ,but thank you. BBANBOB 01/19/17 01:51:11 PM
#38094   Hey Bob did you read this? WM garyhalvo 01/19/17 01:10:02 PM
#38093   When TRAVESTIES like this come about they are BBANBOB 01/19/17 01:02:39 PM
#38092   After reading comments on this board and attempting investandpray 01/19/17 12:30:31 PM
#38091   ya got mail on simple machines WMIH board pard BBANBOB 01/19/17 11:17:09 AM
#38090   Wish I still had private messaging on IHUB BBANBOB 01/19/17 09:41:04 AM
#38089   will they trade on the open market? jehu 01/19/17 08:57:29 AM
#38088   I think it's a RAPE BBANBOB 01/18/17 01:53:52 PM
#38087   Deutsche Bank is Really Really Sorry, DOJ LGL8054 01/18/17 01:38:06 PM
#38086   ....oh, one point on the BK.........from our seasoned fredscott36 01/18/17 11:35:12 AM
PostSubject