Cannabis Report
Home > Boards > US OTC > Delisted >

United Western Bancorp Inc. (fka UWBKQ)

RSS Feed
Add Price Alert      Hide Sticky   Hide Intro
Moderator: Docsavag, LGL8054, Large Green, Newtogame
Search This Board: 
Last Post: 7/18/2018 10:20:46 AM - Followers: 192 - Board type: Free - Posts Today: 7



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.

 

    
    
Cannabis Report
PlusOneCoin Top Posts
No plusone'd posts yet. Be the first!
PostSubject
#31703  Sticky Note What happened with the excluded Assets & Liabilities iPrelude 10/09/14 09:42:28 PM
#41696   pickle juice fredscott36 07/18/18 10:20:46 AM
#41695   WELL THEN GETERDUN and BRING IT ON! BBANBOB 07/18/18 10:12:08 AM
#41694   ITR APPEAL SETTLED AND BOTH CASES CLOSED????????? fredscott36 07/18/18 09:15:56 AM
#41693   IF UWB WAS BANKRUPT WERE IN HELL ARE Newtogame 07/18/18 08:59:14 AM
#41692   COMMON SENSE Newtogame 07/18/18 08:56:36 AM
#41691   FDIC Dividends from Failed Banks Newtogame 07/18/18 08:37:03 AM
#41690   COMMON SENSE Newtogame 07/18/18 08:29:59 AM
#41689   ......I'm going down with this ship.............................. fredscott36 07/17/18 10:52:01 AM
#41688   .......AGREED......although WE UNDERSTAND that Mr. Otting has requested fredscott36 07/17/18 10:09:55 AM
#41687   GPO Feb 24 2015 Newtogame 07/17/18 09:59:40 AM
#41686   .....ROCK AND A HARD PLACE......Si-ROD......between those..........let's watch fredscott36 07/17/18 09:25:24 AM
#41685   .........07/16/2018 Adversary Case Number 17-01277 JGR Closed............Heritage G fredscott36 07/16/18 12:18:38 PM
#41684   Fred, you must be discussing the interest Docsavag 07/16/18 10:29:28 AM
#41683   ........frankie's still involved.........FCNCA........$404.30 +$4.40 (+1.10%).... fredscott36 07/16/18 10:25:51 AM
#41682   .......TRUST ME (ahem!!!!), the FASCIST FDIC wants that fredscott36 07/16/18 10:10:46 AM
#41681   .......EZ-WIDER, zig-zag, Loredo gum gums.....................I can make a fredscott36 07/16/18 09:21:48 AM
#41680   .......looks like the uwbi RATS are working on fredscott36 07/15/18 11:21:07 AM
#41679   As I see it, We are owed the LGL8054 07/14/18 02:32:26 PM
#41678   OR be closed in a snap with shares/cash Large Green 07/14/18 12:30:42 PM
#41677   ..... dunno where we go from here ..........looks like we fredscott36 07/14/18 12:18:51 PM
#41676   ........http://www.jonesday.com/files/Publication/dba621dd-6e4d-4181-bf71-a28a5f605a75/Presentation/ fredscott36 07/14/18 10:40:52 AM
#41675   ....WOULD FRED Q. SCOTT and/or GUY A. GIBSON fredscott36 07/14/18 10:22:04 AM
#41674   LOL there was a light at the end Newtogame 07/13/18 12:08:41 PM
#41673   .....FDIC always does this.........falls in love with a fredscott36 07/13/18 11:00:36 AM
#41672   Or they just take FRANKIE and FC out BBANBOB 07/13/18 10:44:33 AM
#41671   ................poor frankie...........might need a CRP soon.....imagine that.......FC fredscott36 07/13/18 10:23:21 AM
#41670   don't waste your time playing with this disgusting fredscott36 07/13/18 10:04:47 AM
#41669   No Newtogame 07/12/18 01:54:56 PM
#41668   Do you have a link to download the sidedraft 07/12/18 01:51:29 PM
#41667   sidedraft---If my interpretation of the mandate is correct, Newtogame 07/12/18 01:42:07 PM
#41666   Thanks for the correction, Good info! LGL8054 07/12/18 01:28:05 PM
#41665   I couldn't get the top link to work, sidedraft 07/12/18 12:30:13 PM
#41664   GO AWAY, fred.........ain't no bank........ain't no HOLDCO......and enuf fredscott36 07/12/18 12:11:42 PM
#41663   ..........FCNCA..........$397.44 -$6.69 (-1.66%)........................... fredscott36 07/12/18 11:42:42 AM
#41662   you know, I kinda had a sneaking suspicion Newtogame 07/12/18 11:38:31 AM
#41661   .............looks to me like he filed an appeal fredscott36 07/12/18 11:29:56 AM
#41660   So help me understand this---You are going to Newtogame 07/12/18 11:24:08 AM
#41659   .........and remember, SIMON can drop the "en banc" fredscott36 07/12/18 10:58:18 AM
#41658   .....WHAT........????........FDIC ain't requesting a re-hearing, SIMON is...... fredscott36 07/12/18 10:40:08 AM
#41657   The FDIC will NOT request an en blanc Newtogame 07/12/18 10:34:10 AM
#41656   ........."INCOME TAX REFUNDS ARE APPURTENANT TO THE FILER fredscott36 07/12/18 10:19:42 AM
#41655   ......don't go there, SIMON........ Rule 9019: Compromise and Arbi fredscott36 07/12/18 10:04:20 AM
#41654   .....I hope Simon brings in some LEGAL HORSEPOWER...........just fredscott36 07/12/18 09:52:33 AM
#41653   Mandate Rule Definition: An inferior court has no Newtogame 07/12/18 09:52:32 AM
#41652   Hearings and rehearings en banc are not favored Newtogame 07/12/18 09:43:14 AM
#41651   .....intercept re: FDIC...... nervous nellies........ fredscott36 07/12/18 09:42:58 AM
#41650   [b]......an appellate panel decides whether to request the Newtogame 07/12/18 09:40:49 AM
#41649   At its most basic, the mandate is the LGL8054 07/12/18 09:35:12 AM
#41648   .......standard procedure, not surprised.........coulda waited another 20 days.... fredscott36 07/12/18 09:27:35 AM
#41647   wELL i GUESS THIS EITHER PUTS A FIRE BBANBOB 07/12/18 09:22:14 AM
PostSubject