SureTrader
Interactive Brokers Advertisement
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: 6/22/2017 12:13:45 PM - Followers: 188 - Board type: Free - Posts Today: 13



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
#39368   ......FCNCA.....$348.50 -$7.46 (-2.10%)........no thanks, AH.......... fredscott36 06/22/17 12:13:45 PM
#39367   Who is Willeyfred ??? hehehe 8lang 06/22/17 11:31:41 AM
#39366   .......'the deal' is determined by parameters in the fredscott36 06/22/17 11:13:34 AM
#39365   cotton balls in the barrel of an M-60 BBANBOB 06/22/17 11:04:45 AM
#39364   .......nothing personal intended, but you morons are simply fredscott36 06/22/17 10:58:17 AM
#39363   ....Administrative Law in ameriKa is a camouflaged tool fredscott36 06/22/17 10:47:49 AM
#39362   Willeyfred Who the H are you working for???? LGL8054 06/22/17 10:41:19 AM
#39361   ........polite disagreement on that option....................litigation waiver la fredscott36 06/22/17 10:36:01 AM
#39360   UNTIL compensation IS MADE and ACCEPTED this is BBANBOB 06/22/17 10:27:42 AM
#39359   ....."time is of the essence" is cited in fredscott36 06/22/17 10:24:26 AM
#39358   FRANKIE FDICK with FRED even calling you out BBANBOB 06/22/17 10:23:09 AM
#39357   I had an interesting call from a local Cbart 06/22/17 09:24:52 AM
#39356   Maybe this will build a fire under their Newtogame 06/22/17 08:05:27 AM
#39355   I can be reasonable...let's split the difference. Docsavag 06/21/17 04:53:58 PM
#39354   OR 49.50 if you apply RICO X's BBANBOB 06/21/17 04:02:30 PM
#39353   The Bank had over $400 million of cash LGL8054 06/21/17 03:31:10 PM
#39352   I'd happily settle for $4.16 p/s... Bring it investandpray 06/21/17 02:36:38 PM
#39351   IF you held a 24,000,000 shares block so BBANBOB 06/21/17 02:33:08 PM
#39350   Using the numbers from the slop bucket and LGL8054 06/21/17 02:26:42 PM
#39349   I am intrigued by your comment: investandpray 06/21/17 02:22:11 PM
#39348   `With what we know so far, it looks LGL8054 06/21/17 02:07:17 PM
#39347   ..........close it out, AH.....................or we take you down fredscott36 06/21/17 12:57:32 PM
#39346   ..............use $2.50 per, cash.......................................... fredscott36 06/21/17 10:59:54 AM
#39345   final s/p is based upon a formula - fredscott36 06/21/17 10:28:33 AM
#39344   WAS FAR TOO LOWWWWWWWWWWWWWW BBANBOB 06/21/17 10:15:24 AM
#39343   guy's estimate of final s/p...........?????........ fredscott36 06/21/17 10:05:22 AM
#39342   And just how might that be accomplished? Sunnybank 06/20/17 09:05:37 PM
#39341   And its time FOR HIM TO COUGH A BBANBOB 06/20/17 12:29:54 PM
#39340   ......FDIC handed frankie FIVE of the past 15 fredscott36 06/20/17 11:17:01 AM
#39339   LMAO, its just called PRINCIPLES PARD........4 is getting BBANBOB 06/20/17 11:10:06 AM
#39338   ........................Office of THRIFT Supervision........................ fredscott36 06/20/17 10:23:55 AM
#39337   .....longer chase = BIGGER CATCH........ala fine wine............ fredscott36 06/19/17 12:17:27 PM
#39336   Fred, we apparently have a different conceptual framework Docsavag 06/19/17 12:09:28 PM
#39335   ......ALCOHOL is a tool of the DEVIL...................poison.............. fredscott36 06/19/17 11:43:58 AM
#39334   .......FCNCA $375.00 +$3.18 (+0.86%)..................................... fredscott36 06/19/17 11:04:21 AM
#39333   300 fred 300 not 200,000, remember its only BBANBOB 06/19/17 10:56:05 AM
#39332   .........FC closed out the $10-BILLION merger with FC fredscott36 06/19/17 10:49:53 AM
#39331   ....need to poll the FC BOD on USB's fredscott36 06/19/17 10:33:12 AM
#39329   this circus needs to end jehu 06/19/17 10:01:13 AM
#39328   The House of Representatives voted to repeal key LGL8054 06/18/17 02:26:39 PM
#39327   Jerome Corsi / Infowars.com exposed the LGL8054 06/18/17 11:28:43 AM
#39326   I like the way you think... Docsavag 06/17/17 09:33:08 PM
#39325   """OR WE BLOW UP THE USB/FCNCA MERGER..........""" BBANBOB 06/17/17 07:48:14 PM
#39324   .......only one minor problem IF....IF....USB moves in on fredscott36 06/17/17 12:05:10 PM
#39323   .....WE WANT U.S. BANK to buy FIRST CITIZENS BANK ......... fredscott36 06/17/17 11:27:14 AM
#39322   DIG THROUGH THAT PILE OF CHIT and YA BBANBOB 06/16/17 04:35:20 PM
#39321   ......btw, mr. gruenberg, I WANT A PONY....................... fredscott36 06/16/17 10:25:01 AM
#39320   “My little horse must think it queer fredscott36 06/16/17 10:23:06 AM
#39319   Trump administration wants to rewrite Dodd-Frank regulations LGL8054 06/15/17 02:14:52 PM
#39318   More Fiduciary Coverage » LGL8054 06/15/17 01:42:36 PM
PostSubject