Home > Boards > US OTC > Delisted >

United Western Bancorp Inc. (fka UWBKQ)

RSS Feed
Add Price Alert      Hide Sticky   Hide Intro
Moderator: Nightdaytrader, Docsavag, Large Green, Newtogame, Hewhocantrade
Search This Board: 
Last Post: 5/28/2022 12:21:04 PM - Followers: 195 - Board type: Free - Posts Today: 0



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
#55027   ...............broken clock, blind squirrel LUCK, ICOULDBEWRO fredscott36 05/28/22 12:21:04 PM
#55026   HEHEHE ..just bring it, we'll pay the 20%..... BBANBOB 05/28/22 11:22:47 AM
#55025   TAXABILITY......................?????..................not sure.............. fredscott36 05/28/22 10:18:18 AM
#55024   ................latest lie from paying agent mole................. fredscott36 05/28/22 08:23:53 AM
#55023   ......corner of my eye............$689.28 +7.53 (+1.10%).................baby fredscott36 05/27/22 09:44:31 AM
#55022   BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA TOO FUNNY DOC BBANBOB 05/27/22 08:29:23 AM
#55021   ...................EACH PASSING DAY, waiting, EQUALS MORE MONEY FOR fredscott36 05/27/22 08:17:16 AM
#55020   ..............................I'd rather go with "TED" something, dockie........... fredscott36 05/26/22 12:19:20 PM
#55019   Frodo, we can only accept this if you Docsavag 05/26/22 12:10:27 PM
#55018   .....should we care about this, I COULD BE fredscott36 05/26/22 12:09:57 PM
#55017   ............I AM CONTEMPLATING FORMALLY GIVING BANJO BOB A fredscott36 05/26/22 11:02:03 AM
#55016   .............................bobbie....................????..........................the RECOVERI fredscott36 05/26/22 10:55:50 AM
#55015   AHHHHHHHH OK WHATEVER that meant BBANBOB 05/26/22 10:35:57 AM
#55014   ..................................."I COULD BE WRONG"....................... fredscott36 05/26/22 10:31:19 AM
#55013   The rates I PUT UP are for DIVIES BBANBOB 05/26/22 10:10:01 AM
#55012   ................the top personal income tax rate = 37%, fredscott36 05/26/22 09:45:18 AM
#55011   Fred IS WHAT IT IS and AINT WHAT IT BBANBOB 05/26/22 09:26:27 AM
#55010   ..........big boy issue remaining with this POS....................RECOVERIES distri fredscott36 05/26/22 07:37:36 AM
#55009   ......DO WE CARE ABOUT THIS AH.........$659.94 +11.22 (+1.73%)........................ fredscott36 05/25/22 11:07:48 AM
#55008   1. .....was the ella ann holding GRAT stock fredscott36 05/25/22 10:30:07 AM
#55007   I have a problem. pathological lying.............fabricating falsehoods..............grand schemes fredscott36 05/25/22 09:15:15 AM
#55006   The first step is to acknowledge the problem. Docsavag 05/25/22 08:50:45 AM
#55005   agreed, bob. USPS guarantees 2-year delivery. fred needs fredscott36 05/25/22 08:42:10 AM
#55004   SCOTUS !!#%%&*(()*^%### Newtogame 05/25/22 08:36:18 AM
#55003   LOL """ is in the mail............................."" sure it is BBANBOB 05/25/22 08:00:40 AM
#55002   ____________________________ZEN__________________________________ fredscott36 05/25/22 08:00:07 AM
#55001   ......COULD EASILY BE TWO MORE YEARS......or even longer..............FDIC fredscott36 05/24/22 12:06:23 PM
#55000   .............NORMAN BATES ROCKS, Mr. Motel..............imo, hypothetically speaking.......... fredscott36 05/24/22 11:09:22 AM
#54999   To the honorable Fred Scott Question if our batesco711 05/24/22 11:00:28 AM
#54998   .............as you agreed on numerous occasions, paranoid DENIAL fredscott36 05/24/22 10:40:34 AM
#54997   WRONGO POSTER FRODO BBANBOB 05/24/22 10:28:02 AM
#54996   .................legal and technical reasons for the delay, GETRIDOFME................ fredscott36 05/24/22 10:22:21 AM
#54995   Then PUT A FKIN BOW on it and BBANBOB 05/24/22 10:15:29 AM
#54994   .....................2+ years, minimum, for that to settle, sweet fredscott36 05/24/22 10:03:26 AM
#54993   Come on SCOTUS get off your ass Newtogame 05/24/22 09:57:28 AM
#54992   DAMNED DOC both of those are GREAT and BBANBOB 05/24/22 09:52:46 AM
#54991   .................................FIRREA violations, radagast........................ fredscott36 05/24/22 09:33:37 AM
#54990   Alex, I'll take Famous Bankruptcies for $200... Docsavag 05/24/22 09:27:56 AM
#54989   .................BUT RADAGAST, sir...........................how i fredscott36 05/24/22 09:24:07 AM
#54988   Foolish Docsavag 05/24/22 09:21:10 AM
#54987   Hey, not a bad sounding name! Docsavag 05/24/22 09:18:25 AM
#54986   ....................What kind of hobbit is Frodo?..........................btw, dockie........... fredscott36 05/24/22 08:56:15 AM
#54985   Couldn’t have said it better myself!!! investandpray 05/24/22 08:55:51 AM
#54984   Frodo, just to let you know, we're not Docsavag 05/24/22 08:47:23 AM
#54983   .........we throw out CLUE after CLUE after CLUE fredscott36 05/24/22 07:33:54 AM
#54982   .......is her husband a former director at a fredscott36 05/23/22 02:08:21 PM
#54981   You people simply just do not know how Docsavag 05/23/22 12:24:18 PM
#54980   ...............commercial loan collectors are NOT bound by the fredscott36 05/23/22 11:36:30 AM
#54979   ..................talking to yourself, again, is a bad sign, fredscott36 05/23/22 11:16:37 AM
#54978   NBD I will be here to see JUST BBANBOB 05/23/22 11:12:20 AM
PostSubject
Consent Preferences