SureTrader Nadex 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: 2/27/2017 4:50:05 PM - Followers: 188 - Board type: Free - Posts Today: 0


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
#38558   had a real nice one years ago glass BBANBOB 02/27/17 04:50:05 PM
#38557   Damn, not leaving any room for suspense, are Docsavag 02/27/17 04:29:29 PM
#38556   IT'S FKING CLOSE TO WATER BBANBOB 02/27/17 03:22:19 PM
#38555   Fred, I thought your palate was a bit Docsavag 02/27/17 02:08:32 PM
#38554   ......FDIC did not seize your dirty little under-capitalized fredscott36 02/27/17 12:09:25 PM
#38553   ......FOUNDATION (not fred HOLDING scott) EQUATION = 30% fredscott36 02/27/17 11:51:47 AM
#38552   $3 and 60 for 1 I'M IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FRANKIE BBANBOB 02/27/17 11:47:41 AM
#38551   .............cuddle me, mommy.........FCNCA........$362.00 -0.60 (-0.17%)............ fredscott36 02/27/17 10:58:05 AM
#38550   ......all uwbi cusip holders have a right to fredscott36 02/27/17 10:15:10 AM
#38549   Oh I know DOC, and they KNOW WE BBANBOB 02/26/17 02:40:41 PM
#38548   Bban, they're attempting to get you to accept Docsavag 02/26/17 01:16:16 PM
#38547   Unlikely... Docsavag 02/26/17 01:15:04 PM
#38546   Do you believe ??? LGL8054 02/26/17 12:43:34 PM
#38545   $4.50 + $1.51 = $6.01 BBANBOB 02/26/17 09:52:23 AM
#38544   Please Note: that FC it is saying they LGL8054 02/25/17 05:14:20 PM
#38543   $487 mm X .35% = $170 mm less LGL8054 02/25/17 04:24:35 PM
#38542   ......clarification on the Guy $50mm LOCK on day fredscott36 02/25/17 12:24:35 PM
#38541   .......sounds good....................all MATH however and must pass the fredscott36 02/25/17 11:55:35 AM
#38540   I don't want to HEAR anything PARD, I BBANBOB 02/25/17 11:43:25 AM
#38539   .....probably ain't gonna see more than two words........'case closed'........... fredscott36 02/25/17 11:23:21 AM
#38538   Guess we'll see won't we BBANBOB 02/25/17 11:08:43 AM
#38537   ......all litigation (other than the ITR and the fredscott36 02/25/17 10:16:34 AM
#38536   And as you KNOW we have NOT RELEASED BBANBOB 02/24/17 11:09:10 AM
#38535   .......true.........imo, the FDIC pursues some litigation for ulterior fredscott36 02/24/17 11:02:20 AM
#38534   JPM bought the WaMu BHC without the FDIC's approval. BBANBOB 02/24/17 10:55:05 AM
#38533   .....we believe HE would resolve the uwbi nightmare fredscott36 02/24/17 10:46:52 AM
#38532   WWJD? He would expose the sin, in jehu 02/24/17 10:40:40 AM
#38531   ......we cannot pin down FCNCA on where the fredscott36 02/24/17 10:23:18 AM
#38530   bottom of p64 of 10k for fcnca jehu 02/24/17 07:19:42 AM
#38529   $2.50 and some FRANKY FUDGE, all the players BBANBOB 02/23/17 02:14:10 PM
#38528   .....FC definitely acquired a Deferred Tax Asset (DTA) fredscott36 02/23/17 12:08:57 PM
#38527   ......impossible to determine without seeing the financial statements, fredscott36 02/23/17 11:17:51 AM
#38526   MY question where did $178.8Mil come from? Newtogame 02/23/17 11:06:30 AM
#38525   ...obviously, the BHC's ITReturns were amended........the ITRefund for fredscott36 02/23/17 10:57:00 AM
#38524   As of September 30, 2013, the UnitedWesternBankreceivershiphadanegativenetwortho Newtogame 02/23/17 10:48:16 AM
#38523   ......JPM is in on the scheme............JPM waived its fredscott36 02/23/17 10:44:49 AM
#38522   I cannot help but think that there has Newtogame 02/23/17 10:41:56 AM
#38521   If our stock is worth 0 pps- JPMorgans Newtogame 02/23/17 10:36:30 AM
#38520   The secured claims total approximately $13,640,099.60 and the Newtogame 02/23/17 10:34:00 AM
#38519   ..............CONVERT CUSIP 913201109...............or fu................... fredscott36 02/23/17 10:23:49 AM
#38518   She I believe, said that she wanted $450 LGL8054 02/23/17 10:13:56 AM
#38517   New, maybe I'm being naive, but... investandpray 02/23/17 10:07:10 AM
#38516   Not to mention---the trustee gets paid a % Newtogame 02/23/17 10:03:17 AM
#38515   Are we to believe the trustee Via adversary Newtogame 02/23/17 09:59:59 AM
#38514   The Trustee received correspondence from a former employee Newtogame 02/23/17 09:56:44 AM
#38513   Hope(no pun intended) the FDIC kept a receipt jehu 02/22/17 05:27:08 PM
#38512 the final BHC NOL, by any calculation Newtogame 02/22/17 04:42:34 PM
#38511   correctamundo, I'm no banker, but how can it jehu 02/22/17 04:21:05 PM
#38510   And that is a 10K- so add 000 Newtogame 02/22/17 04:13:23 PM
#38509   6yrs running on FCNCA 10k jehu 02/22/17 03:34:28 PM