Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
....and the best legal rep. money can buy.
Doc,
Have you ever looked at the lawyer Guy Gibson pays to open his BK Mail?
People wonder, even with all the circumstantial evidence of confidential settlement -"Are we getting anything?"
The answer is easy to determine simply from this:
Matthew Rawlinson Global Co-Chair of the firm’s Securities Litigation Practice. PARTNER LATHAM WATKINS LLP
https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/United-Western-Bancorp-Inc/Certificate-of-Service-re-Application-to-Employ-Hogan-Lovells-US-LLP-as-Attorney/cob-1:2012-bk-13815-00661-005
Guy A. Gibson
c/o Matthew Rawlinson
Latham & Watkins LLP PO BOX 7346
140 Scott Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025-1008
https://www.lw.com/people/matthew-rawlinson
So picture yourself as CEO of a Corp. with $50mm in debt, waiting to be liquidated. Wno are you going to pay to read all 704 filings and countless attachments? Facing insolvency, the cheapest BK suit possible would imagine, right? Good money chasing bad.
But is that who Guy Gibson was paying? Nope
High End Killer DEFENSE ATTORNEY....Not BK AT ALL...
Am guessing $1500-2000 an hour...to read all those filings/attachments,for what, 9 years?!?
(2017 rates)
https://www.lawyersmutualnc.com/blog/lawyer-rates-top-1000-per-hour
Second Largest Law Firm in the World, Co-chair Defense litigant...trial attorney used to open Guy's mail? Why? What does Guy need a Defense attorney for a broke-ass BK?
Guess he's concerned someone might want a slice.....OF SOMETHING, RIGHT!
Bingo Money.
But why Rawlinson?
EASY..
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1674400.html
MHC MUTUAL CONVERSION FUND v. United Western Bancorp, Inc., Defendant
Judge GORSUCH [future SCOTUS Justice]
Tip of the Spear was Rawlinson for both this appeal and the original trial case. We won each. Guess Guy was paying to keep Matthew on the bench...
just in case, eh?
What do you think $2 million billings to Guy et al for the 9 year BK?
EASY.
So, if you the CEO are paying that kind of CAKE for an empty BK, you'd have rocks in your head, but if NOL's + Recoveries + original confidential settlement....well spend the money, right?
All in my opinion.
nite.
Meritor Bank with comparison to UWBKQ
Below comments represent personal opinion so please accept it as such.
Quote from
Attorney Gary Hindes:
"Those with me at the time will recall that we started buying Meritor stock for a penny a share the day after the FDIC closed PSFS on December 11, 1992. It took a lot longer than I would have liked for, unfortunately, there was no interest clock ticking and so the government had no incentive to settle."
---------------------------------------------------
Article:
PSFS investors win appeal for $276 million
by Joseph N. DiStefano, Posted: January 28, 2011
It's not over yet, but: After a nearly 20-year legal fight, federal appeals court voted 6-4 today that the Court of Federal Claims properly awarded investors, led by Frank Slattery, in the failed Meritor Savings Bank/Philadelphia Savings Fund Society (PSFS), some $276 million in damages and compensation from the government's 1992 takeover of the troubled Philadelphia bank and its forced sale to Mellon.
Lawyers for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. had challenged the claims court's award. The case now goes back to the claims court for final orders, pending a possible Supreme Court appeal.
Slattery and other investors argued the government wrongly forced the bank out of business, wiping out investors' shares, after changing the rules for how PSFS should measure its capital reserves. FDIC officials said the bank made so many bad business loans, it would have failed anyway.
Gary Hindes, a Delaware investor in Meritor who has tracked the appeal closely, says the government has 90 days to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which might not decide to hear what he called an "arcane" case before its term ends in June. Investors once talked of organizing a new PSFS with some of the proceeds from the lawsuit, but Hindes told me such discussion died out as the case dragged on.
Hindes said the judgement is worth about $4.50 a share in thinly-traded Meritor stock, after paying fees to lawyer Tom Buchanan of Washington's Winston & Strawn, and other costs. Investors had seen the value of the shares fall toward zero after the takeover, then recover to the $2 to $4 range as the lawsuit won a string of cases, only to fall again in the face renewed Washington delays.
"It seems like it has taken forever," Meritor shareholder Brad Christensen told me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Swami here. So, to recap there was no interest on damages awarded over the 19 year long battle here. There were no NOLs either.
Shareholders netted close to $4.60 on 61.7 million shares outstanding after lawyer fees deducted and monies held back on the outcome of a failed suit by a disgruntled shareholder were added back in.
This for a bank with $2.4 billion in assets readily comparable to $2.2 billion for UWBKQ.
If Meritor had the same number of shareholders as UWBKQ, the award, at face value would equal $9.59/sh.
That $9.59 reflects no interest earned over the years, no NOLs. no global Mortgage Backed Security Scandal (no exposure), no global Libor Scandal (no exposure).
General impression: the gov't walked away with a very low ball payout.
UWBKQ learned from the best attempt at battling the FDIC (waged by a single shareholder), and applied this to their scrimmage lead by it's FOUNDER, Guy Gibson. Who better to wage war with?
So, when we read BK documents like this:
12/10/18 billing
Telephone conference with S. Rodriguez regarding Larson assertion estate has claim against FDIC receivership; review latest FDIC financial reports for UWB (0. 5); review recent online posts of UWBI shareholders regarding FDIC receivership (0. 3); Review Larson correspondence and telephone conference with M. Larson (1. 0) . Review Dennis & Co. Bills and draft Fee Application and Cover Sheet. Draft Dennis & Co Fee Application Order and Notice and review and revise entire Dennis Application to send to S. Rodriguez for review. Review cases on availability of accounting and equitable remedies against FDIC as follow up to Vellone / Larson meeting. Review and revise Dennis and Co. Fee Application and draft Proposed Order; conference call with W. H. Parsons and S. Rodriguez regarding response to IRS notice. Correspondence with L. Henry regarding confidentiality agreement. Correspondence with S. Rodriguez regarding strategy and response to Vellone request to bring new claim against FDIC for share of receivership " surplus. " Correspondence with H. Reese regarding proposal for FDIC claim.
....we might ask ourselves...If we have a new claim, What was the OLD claim against the FDIC and how much did UWBKQ receive from it? More than Meritor? And if the 'OLD' claim was settled after drop of appeal filing in 2013, how much value in interest/dividends was accrued through to 2021?
Again, this would illustrate why such interest/dividends, like the old claim, might need to be stealthy and thus create a case for preferred series -lacking trading symbols and a listed board to trade on.
All in my opinion.
nite
The J series......
Green, the only way I know to track the I and J SERIES is through a Bond site. Yep, tracking this way is weird, but may provide us an object lesson in stealthy structured settlements. Good thing USB might offer this, yes?
This is all in my opinion, as is the rest of the post, so please understand this is an evidence backed argument for confidential stipulation and not a step by step guide to what actually transpired with United Western Bancorp. Don't know for a fact, just looking at the cards shown.
http://finra-markets.morningstar.com/BondCenter/BondDetail.jsp?ticker=C671163&symbol=USB4452282
This is the internal trading symbol Finra (regulatory body for securities) uses: USB4452282. This is the only site was able to find this. Notice the inaccuracies. Maturity date: 3999? Listing as Corporate Bond....this from an official government entity meant to track this stuff. But what do you do but comport the data onto a bond site when there is no TICKER SYMBOL for a stock.
Under last price traded you will find a link in blue -center page- reading TRADE HISTORY. Click this for a listing of daily volume/prices. When the security trades, it does not list exact number of shares traded beyond a certain point, but rather tops out at $5mm Dollars, not share count. This makes it impossible to know actual size of big block trades beyond a daily total of $5mm.
So, for example, if, and we're stating if, a liquidating trust was to block trade $200mm, 300mm, or more in that, I or J.....bond, only
$5mm would show as traded on that particular day, yes?
Sure would obscure things.....
----------------------------
Now imagine if an entity had to take payment from an arrangement in year 1 but could not close out it's BK until year 6. In what form should that payment come in? Cash so it can earn 1% or less? Or securities earning +5% annually?
Again in my opinion (based on the evidence found), in many ways, UWBKQ learned from the Meritor payout and appear to have structured a much, much better return for its shareholders then what they would have imagined. Thank you Guy and team.
Patience.
Green, did you do the Homework?
Am curious why are you asking NTG:
...distribution by 4/15/2021 so what makes you think that date is possible?
Newtogame, $27 and others have done the homework, but you?
You were asked in post 50695:
But let me ask you Large Green, what is USB.I trading or ticker symbol? Go search Yahoo finance for one.
I mean, it's a big board issue stock, it must have a ticker to track it with, to purchase it through a broker right?
Plot twist -it has no ticker symbol nor was it released on the NYSE as its siblings.
It was dumped on the Pinks in 2015. Do you know how many preferred issues traded on the pinks in 2015 WITHOUT a ticker symbol?
According to FINRA, only one.....USB.I
Why do you suppose USB would not list this preferred issue on any exchange, unlike USB. A,B,C,F,G,H,K,L,M SERIES and without a ticker to sell to retail?
interesting, no?
---------------------------------------
If you can't be bothered with the central question above, why bother NTG? No one can help you.
The answer/evidence is staring you in the face. What is the ticker symbol to USB.I?
The significance of being issued without a trading symbol is HUGE -making it a very stealthy, difficult to track volume, price, etc. So stealthy in fact that if you type in the cussip # into google, the security may appear as a bond on some foreign exchanges... and not a preferred stock.
Obviously, we are looking at something that would be suitable for payment in a confidential stipulation, maybe?
Now, go find the trading symbol for USB.J which was issued in 2017.
What's wrong with this picture?
Newtogame, sorry for butting in, just thought i would handle your light work tonight.....:)
All in my opinion.
nite.
Chaleco great questions, not so great answer?
The below is opinion and purely going off memory, so facts may be a bit fuzzy..apologies am tired.
"250 mill will you guess that:is this related to the Net Operating Losses from the bank that was sold to an X buyer or is it from Assets Not Purchased by fcnca that were excluded in the deal or this money is part of the recoveries."
Personal impession is that the USB preferreds are not related to NOLS but a % of FDIC recoveries. Why?
NOLS are a given to sell off.... with a blessing from the FDIC, but who bought them? Strongly suspect FCNCA for two reasons:
First, Fred had long trumpeted the $178mm tax offset FCNCA had acquired and been burning quarterly (acquired from UWBKQ?).
Separately, and much later NEWTOGAME found in a UWBKQ filing FDIC numbers related to recoveries to date. Comparing before and after he found that FDIC had gained $178mm in UWB recoveries...Coincidence or NOLS?
Second, 12/2012, shortly before the ruling on UWBKQ VS FDIC, Carmen Holding Ames (part of the family operating the tightly run FCNCA) perplexingly sold off $227mm of the family stock. Fred has long suggested this found its way into Uwbkq coffers.
Pretty wild move right? But what most on the board have not found in the bylines was the fact that Carmen had, just a year earlier, placed all that stock in an IRREVOCABLE TRUST FOR HER FAMILY. It was not designed to be tampered with, but what happens? Piggy bank trust gets smashed wide open! The reason given for her actions: she wanted to focus on her family.....,
Big Picture: The events surrounding UWBKQ, we have not seen there equal. It was the perfect legal storm : from wrongful seizure, to industry-wide RMBS and LIBOR bad faith claims. HUGE.
Meritor bank did not have such a smorgasbord to go after, yet they managed a $4+ recovery for more than TWICE the number of shares UWBKQ has. $9.16+ per share under our share structure for that settlement for similarly sized banks.
GUY GIBSON was well aware of the MBS scam, as the bank started going after these funds (before seizure) with its BofA suit. Believe they were seeking $103mm plus interest, from just BofA alone. No doubt Guy would have gone after JPM,Morgan Stanley, and Royal Bank of Scotland himself but the FDIC came calling.
Add in the $150mm of capital the bank had just taken in before receivership, and the $$$ UWBKQ may be looking at should far outweigh a simple NOLS ONLY PAYOUT.
Hope this helps, and again all in my opinion.
Hi Chaleco...it's a guess, but
U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc. 250,000
Barclays Capital Inc. 250,000
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC 250,000
These are the three underwriters that act as intermediaries between the issuer and the retail purchaser. Typically they commit to distributing their respective blocks completely, which is what i believe your are suggesting:
-U.S. Bancorp Investments (sub. of USB), that UWBKQ got the full allotment of USB Investments 250,000, yes?
Investopedia explains it like this:
The underwriting agreement can take a number of different shapes. The most common type of underwriting agreement is a firm commitment in which the underwriter agrees to assume the risk of buying the entire inventory of stock issued in the IPO and sell to the public at the IPO price. Often, there is a group of underwriters for an IPO that shares in the risk for the offering, called the syndicate.
But there is no guarantee that is how it played out for UWBKQ. They could have gotten the full USB Investment portion as i believe you are suggesting, or less, or even more. Am not sure.
Hope this helps.
All of this is opinion.
night
Here is the link.......
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=14773944&guid=_pyaUFTR10mNLth
Just to be clear, am not suggesting the full $750mm plus dividends is placed into some BK trust. This preferred does currently trade, and those shares we do not own nor many others like it.
But let me ask you Large Green, what is USB.I trading or ticker symbol? Go search Yahoo finance for one.
I mean, it's a big board issue stock, it must have a ticker to track it with, to purchase it through a broker right?
Plot twist -it has no ticker symbol nor was it released on the NYSE as its siblings.
It was dumped on the Pinks in 2015. Do you know how many preferred issues traded on the pinks in 2015 WITHOUT a ticker symbol?
According to FINRA, only one.....USB.I
Why do you suppose USB would not list this preferred issue on any exchange, unlike USB. A,B,C,F,G,H,K,L,M SERIES and without a ticker to sell to retail?
interesting, no?
Sunnybank....really?
But nobody seems to have any idea when there will be closure
It was clearly stated in a past post that for monies to hit our account it appears USB I Series Preferred must be closed out by USB. This takes place on April 15th. Thus, our IDEA is that at some point AFTER this date a window for closure may occur.
if there will be a payout
There is a payout, based simply on evidence USB is debtor in possession, which requires PURCHASE. Nobody buys into a <$50MM> debtor, or paraphrasing the trustee "hopelessly insolvent", unless there is value. Correct?
...and how much that might be
More than Meritor Bank Settlement, courtesy of Guy Gibson, but this is only an estimate.
But you do realize though that, even if anyone on this board knew the EXACT answers to the above questions,to post this info may trigger this:
"The penalty for violating a confidentiality agreement varies depending upon the terms of the agreement. The violating party may be required to pay a fixed amount of money (as stated in the agreement); or the agreement may require the violating party to forfeit any funds received in a lawsuit settlement". Edgar Allen Law
Could not help noticing that you did not attempt to refute what was posted on Plainsite:
USB officially listed as United Western Bancorp
This is the underpinning of anything we as investors will subsequently find reinforcing a position of a substantial confidential stip within the UWBKQ
7BK.
If you cannot accept USB as debtor-in-possession here....doubt anyone can help you.
The evidence found beyond this, serves to support this position, but it's pointless to share with an agnostic.
This is all in my opinion. Probably not good enough for you, but it will be interesting to see how what you read here compares with the future...
Might the board be brain-washed?
$27, it's amazing that we could share evidence of confidentiality within the BK, of multiple preferred issues directed towards our BK (hint was dropped in a previous post but no nibbles...too weird), implying additional evidence and dollars contained in these USB issues which suggest distinction and segregation from other USB preferreds(it does),yet we hear mostly crickets?
Betcha if Fred came on this moment, board would line up almost to a man posting about the latest rant:
"My Rainbow Ponies -Two key board clicks and the Ninja+Snowman is deposited in accounts 3-11-21!!...Oh wait, my mistake, we lost everything!!...Toodles -off to Captiva on SpaceX SN9...WHEEEE"
Swear, Jim Jones or Symbionese Liberation Army could not have done a better job perpetrating Stockholm Syndrome on the board.
Ok am back......
What is Aaron Greenspan, founder of Plainsite all about? To understand what makes this guy tick, and at the core of questions about filings found there:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/11/anonymous-shell-company-us-ban/
anonymous-shell-company
Aaron has a bone to pick with those hiding behind the corporate veil, so he created Plainsite.org to rip the drapes away, so to speak. IN-PLAIN-SIGHT as the name implies, is the motto.
The system analytics used by Aaron found USB hiding behind United Western Bancorp early 2016 and started amending court docs to reflect true ownership. Having seen our page multiple times prior to 2016, i can vouch personally that in 2015 and earlier, there was no mention of USB on United Western Bancorp BK.
Sources of information OUTSIDE the immediate case are used in the algo to make these discoveries.
So did Aaron get it right?
USB is the 5th largest Bank in the US so they could swing a $100,000,000's deal, they also had a pre-existing relationship w/UWB, and they do some interesting things like:
https://usbtrustgateway.usbank.com/portal/public/defaultSvcs.do
Stuff like liquidating/litigation trusts and structured settlements.
So if Plainsite was guessing, sure was a good one, eh?
Ok let's try it a different way...
"But my questions are, who is doing the official listing, and where is the evidence of such a listing located."
ANSWER, There is no 'official' court document/filing which states that USB is the new debtor-in-possession. I expressed this very fact when the board was asked to find such notice anywhere in the 704 filings. Thus either Plainsite lied/fudged or they got it right and we are looking at evidence of a confidential agreement by-way-of concealment of a very material event in the BK. Yes?
"I've not seen anything that says that United Western Bancorp, a Colorado corp., is now/actually US Bancorp, a Delaware corporation."
ANSWER: Nor will you outside of Plainsite, if this in fact is evidence of a confidential agreement. PLAINSITE either got it wrong and everything you have read by this poster and a few others is crap or they got it right, and we are missing some serious documentation in the BK -thus confidentiality, meaning bigger payout. Yes?
So this brings us back to Plainsite and why the heck did they make this distinction in the court docs. More important though, is how did they find this stuff, or is this all made up. Short answer is algorithm, as mentioned previously in what you read.
Deeper dive will have to wait till I've had breakfast.
Hi New!.......
Offboard, we have all worked very hard to solve this settlement question. If a connection had not been made between Venable llp., First Citizen's Bank, UWBKQ, and John E. Bowman [Ex-Director OTS] back in 2012, I wonder if we would even be having this discussion.
The I series.....
Chaleco,
Sure, IMO there is more of an association/connection between this USB preferred issuance and UWBK, but it requires the admission that confidentiality is in play here.
As stated previously, the single-solid piece of evidence that some form of compensation is coming to the shareholders:
USB 'officially listed as debtor United Western Bancorp'.
Everyone here likes to ask questions, but let me ask all where in the 704 BK documents filed below is there a mention of a change in ownership?:
https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/United-Western-Bancorp-Inc/cob-1:2012-bk-13815
The sale of NOLS requires this, yes? But this event is not, in-and-of-itself a SECRET EVENT. It's a very public accounting element, yet it is MIA in the BK docs.
Thus we appear to have a state of confidentiality.
Newtogame, $27, myself, and am sure others have spent considerable time gathering off-the-board circumstantial evidence on the breadth and depth of a payout to UWBKQ shareholders.
We suspect this preferred issue and possibly other(s) are part of this compensation package. Am not suggesting the FULL dollar amount of series I ($750mm) is earmarked to us, but a portion.
Again, we as investors in UWBKQ are not insiders but individuals like yourself looking for answers from public information.
All in my opinion.
Great question Chaleco...
USB was first noticed on Plainsite bk7 doc. page early 2016. It was not there during 2015 that I saw. It was my brother who found it. The USB I series landed late 2015 and Fred has opined that the NOL's were recognized by BK mid-2016 if am not mistaken. Hope he chimes in.
$27 Thank you kindly.....
The amount of crap by some, directed towards someone
who honestly and repeatedly attempts to share is amazing.
We both know how many times this has been posted:
https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/mx8lmbli/colorado-bankruptcy-court/united-western-bancorp-inc/
U.S. Bancorp Corporation U.S. Bancorp Corporation, Debtor
Officially listed as "United Western Bancorp, Inc."
Gosh, a new debtor in possession....wow
Yet it's as if it just today fell from the sky. Amazing.
And what did the 5th largest bank in the US contribute to gain such a lofting position of owning a negative <$50 million> BK?
This is as close to hard evidence of a confidential settlement as we will ever get. Plainsite's algorithm caught it.
Everything else is circumstantial. Why? This arrangement must maintain secrecy, by it's very nature. To reveal it may void it.
This is my opinion..or BS take your pick.
8k filing released today
Fudge will land after April 15th, based on latest 8k (3/04)
filing by our Debtor-In-Possession. IMO
No need to respond. Had my fill the last time i posted accurate DD.
Hewhocan.....well, not quite but close
Hewhocantrade:
Concurrent trials tripped you up is all. This is what you were referencing circa 2015 when first filed:
UNITED STATES OF AMERlCA
Criminal No.
Filed:
v.
THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC,
Violation: 15 U.S.C. § l
Defendant.
When you were cut and pasting, the part directly above the list of other lawsuits (including UWB) was left out. Here is that paragraph to explain it:
8.
The requirements set forth in Paragraph 7 shall not be construed to limit, restrict,
or impair in any way, directly or indirectly, RBS’s defense of any civil litigation brought by the
FDIC or the FHLB against the Released Parties concerning RMBS investor claims relating to or
arising out the Covered Conduct, including but not limited in:
a.
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. as Receiver for Citizens National Bank and
Receiver for Strategic Capital Bank v. Bear Stearns Asset Backed Sec. I
LLC, et al., No. 12-cv-4000 (S.D.N.Y.);
[goes on to list UWB suit as Hewhocan posted]
Simply stating that this settlement with Justice Department does not taint the defense's (RBS) argument in these other cases going on concurrently, FDIC as receiver for UWB being one of those.
Here is our case, circa 2014 a year before the above:
United Western Bank v. Banc of America Funding Corporation et al
Colorado District Court
Judge: Philip A Brimmer
Referred: N Reid Neureiter
Case #: 1:14-cv-00418
Nature of Suit 850 Other Statutes - Securities/Commodities/Exchange
Cause 15:10 Securities Exchange Act
Case Filed: Feb 14, 2014
Justice department was not a party in this trial.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/2765981/United_Western_Bank_v_Banc_of_America_Funding_Corporation_et_al
Plaintiff
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for United Western Bank
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What am guessing lead to your confusion is the JPM settlement over the very same RMBS scam (different suit) was a combination settlement, for both Justice Department and FDIC. Perhaps you assumed the same happened here.
Just to be clear, and eliminate all confusion, the close out of the FDIC vs. RBS was done this month. Obviously, this involved a settlement though not professed in the docs we are going to read and for amounts which were NEVER ANNOUNCED nor REVEALED.
Hope we are good now.
JPM.....is/was not the greedy one.
Gary,
Going on memory here, so be advised. IMO, UWB was biting deep into high yield RMBS, or junk bonds. So much so, that literally the holding company back-stopped a loan (with it's shares as collateral) with JPM so as to acquire a block or two of Chase's paper. The RMBS would be held by the UWB but UWBK was backing the loan. Why borrow, why lever-up like that. Kinda like doubling down in dicey times, right?
Greed or desperation. Take your pick. JPM did not put a gun to the head here. Was this a back-door way of "elevating" the bank's asset position by way of holding company? Looks that way.
Re: Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/684995/In_Re_LiborBased_Financial_Instruments_Antitrust_Litigation
You will notice the word Antitrust in the case title, expressing the maximum payout potential...could be high. That legal bar has not been ruled on because everyone is settling in this consolidation trial from many different courts.
Again, we have no way of knowing the dollars earmarked to the FDIC UWB receivership, but that they do exist. Does our holding company share in that pie?
Some people believe in reason and the court of law, others in Gibson's efforts to maximize shareholder value of seized property.
Yeah, am going with the latter. Counting pennies or...........dollars?
FDIC [UWB] vs. Royal Bank of Scotland
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/2765981/United_Western_Bank_v_Banc_of_America_Funding_Corporation_et_al
This is all that remains of a trial that would have seen it's 7 year anniversary on the 14th of this month. Originally filed by the FDIC with 3 primary defendants: BofA, Morgan Stanley, & Royal Bank of Scotland.
The first two settled around 5-6 years ago. RBS was in deep trouble financially and staggered their settlements with various parties to survive.
Understand RBS is/was 75% owned by the U.K. gov't (they previously propped up the bank with funds and took an equity position in exchange) so FDIC graciously extended them the courtesy of delayed payment. More dollars in the pocket as Fred would say.
Again, have no knowledge of UWB's RMBS position in RBS paper but guessing that Royal Bank was not the primary RMBS peddler (probably BofA or JPM) at the time so to sweeten the deal better terms were offered. UWB hungry for higher ROR bit on it hard.
FDIC[Receiver/UWB] settlement with RBS
Right on schedule, after the closeout of 10 year seizure records and before the receivership/BK closure, we have one of the long awaited puzzle pieces finally placed.
No, we do not know the amount, as this was a confidential exchange among
"friends".... But recall UWB sued BofA for over $100mm for crap RMBS,
prior to seizure. The case below is solely for UWB recoveries by FDIC from Royal Bank of Scotland.
285 order Minute Order Wed 02/03 12:11 PM
MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 2/03/2021. The parties request that the Court enter an order dismissing this action with prejudice. Docket No. 284. The case was dismissed with prejudice as of the entry of the parties' joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (providing that the "plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing:... a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared") (emphasis added), and (B) (" Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise , the dismissal is without prejudice.") (emphasis added). No order of dismissal is necessary. Text Only Entry (pabsec2)
-----------------------------
To recap, this was a legal claim pursued by the fDIC inherited from the seizure of UWB. United Western Bank had bought RMBS securities from Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) which of course had been triple AAA rated for their superior quality....lol.
But of course, like all the rest of the private RMBS paper bundled by the lying originators, it was covered in SH*T already..
The suit purposely dragged out by both parties -RBS was swamped with this and other suits and, well the FDIC just was not motivated to collect on a soft pitch for some reason...surplus UWB Receivership monies come to mind!?
Literally the case went no where for all of 2020 simple because defendants lawyers did not possess valid licenses to practice law in Colorado. I kid you not. Games like this are proof enough [to me] this was not a squabble over anything less than 100mm.
So perhaps we were waiting for this event to close out to tie this all off?
Wonder what the compounded interest penalty accrued on this puppy was?
5% on product acquired before 2011 @ $100mm? $171mm in recoveries, reads about right. Think any of this comes our way.....with it closing out conveniently as we are burning BK documents?
What is the board suggesting again for UWBKQ final share price? Am confused, the numbers 2-9 keep popping up.
Bear in mind Meritor bank shareholders did not have these kinds of windfalls come to receivership during their 2.4B asset bank suit(UWB 2.2B). No RMBS suits, no Libor potential windfalls. No Gibson.....
If Meritor shareholders (+60 millions shares) had the outstanding share count as UWBKQ (29.6 million), their recoveries per share would have been over $9.00 am recalling, again without all that nasty windfall stuff.
Anyway, carry on with the lowball, my thanks goes to Guy Gibson for top shelf results.
sigh
Conversational Italian w/Calabria.
https://translate.google.com
English (Spoken by shareholder)
"Italian Translation" (Calabria)
FHFA?
"Prendo il tuo pane"
NWS?
"Mangio il tuo cibo"
PSPA?
"Io dormo nel tuo letto
English (Spoken by SCOTUS)
"Italian Translation" (Calabria)
FHFA!
"Perdo il lavoro"
NWS!
"Mangio il mio gatto"
PSPA!
"Dormo fuori"
9 days: Sheila's in & Brickman's out -Coincidence?
They're saying (WSJ today) Brickman is leaving because the GSE chances are dimming on exiting conservatorship. Funny, they didn't suggest the opposite when Sheila Bair was announced to the Chairmanship at FNMA, a day after the elections....hmmm.
So, the ex-head of the FDIC didn't consider that Trump's exit might be a possibility? Hardly.
Am sure Plutzik (soon to be ex-COB) put a workman-like effort in the position (judging by FNMA quarterlies). Just as am sure Brickamn did in his year plus service as CEO at Freddie.
Did Brickman read the GSE tea leaves and pull-his-chute, or was it a gentle push out the plane as Plutzik got, making way for a Marquee player of Sheila's caliber?
ttps://www.cnn.com/2019/07/19/success/ceos-getting-fired/index.html
Up to half of exiting CEOs don't quit. They get fired
"One study suggests that in the past two years, 52% of announced CEO departures from companies on the Russell 3000 Index likely were the result of executives being shown the door. That includes those who say they resigned, stepped down, just felt the time was right to leave or had a sudden urge to spend more time with family.
"In other words, more than one in two CEOs stepped down under high pressure to do so," said Daniel Schauber, founder of Exechange, a service that tracks executive departures.
Exechange assigns departing executives a "push out" score from 0-10. A score of 0 indicates the executive's exit was almost certainly voluntary, while a score of 10 suggests an openly forced departure. Anything over 5 indicates there is reason to believe an executive may have been pushed out.
....For example, a CEO in his early 50s is likely to get a high score when he leaves after a short tenure without explanation and when the company's stock price is flagging, the succession plan is murky..."
Be honest now, was either Brickman or Plutzik a corporate figurehead on the order of a Bair, capable of inspiring institutional confidence in potentially the world's biggest SPO to come? Might the money-men structuring our deal make "suggestions" as to who leads?
Wondering what Brickman thought of Sheila's advancement at FNMA?
August 2019 she arrives on the Board, and November 2020 COB.
Just an opinion.
night
Sunnybrook "position removal" is voluntary.....
Hi S.,
Having gone through nearly the same fate, am sympathetic as am sure others
(BBob, Fred, etc.) are.
Would encourage you to fight this. It cost nothing, and could avoid legal entanglements later. Am no expert, though.
Refer here for a general outline on how to approach the problem:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=155555787
This is post 47052 on the board.
More specifically, and to point, participation in the DTC Position Removal Program is well....voluntary. Vanguard is the culprit here, not the DTC.
https://www.dtcc.com/news/2010/march/01/saying-goodbye-to-worthless-certificates
A voluntary program
DTC destroys certificates only after obtaining permission from the participant that holds a position in that security. “Destruction is voluntary on the part of the participant,” said Joseph Clemente, DTCC product manager, Asset Services.
DTC only wants the fees for holding on to this paper. Vanguard does not want to incur the extra cost of holding a non-transferable on it's books.
No matter what assurances V. offers you, bottom line is they are removing personal property from your account. What is the function of a fiduciary
again? Don't think it includes removing assets from your account without cause.
-Not if the increase in fee is that cause (which it is). Vanguard needs (as a fiduciary) to offer to pass on that fee to the holder (if you decline, by all means they may now remove the security in question), but if you.....
Pays it Stays...kinda like O.J.'s If the glove don't fit you must acquit.
You may also soothe their ruffled ego by explaining the obvious hidden value (NOLS) within UWBKQ. Since when does the fifth largest (by asset) bank in America (U.S. Bank) assume the debtor position for a sad sack bank holding company in BK7, in debt "apparently" to the tune of some $40 or so million?
There is a sample letter in the Ihub post linked above with just such a value proposition enclosed.
If you may be questioning the $$ of our little holding company, maybe weighing that against the efforts, sweat and tears you might experience in this Vanguard tussle.......consider this for a moment:
Meritor Bank, which won their 18 year fight with the FDIC over wrongful seizure (on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court), was awarded a settlement which ultimately amounted to $4.60 per shareholder in 2011 (ironically the year of UWB seizure).
A lone shareholder's suit (Slatherly? s.p.), won these recoveries from the illegal seizure of a 2.4 billion asset bank (2.2 billion UWB). Amazing!
How much f'n harder do you suppose the FOUNDER (Gibson) fought for his offspring UWBKQ? Yeah that hard.....
Closing points: Any idea what the outstanding share count for the Meritor bank stockholders?
Almost 62 million outstanding. UWBKQ has less that half that at 29.6 mm.
So that settlement, won by Slatherly (s.p.), to be properly comparable to us, would mean about $9.60+ a share if put into terms relatable to the UWBKQ shareholder. Again, this was in 2011....
Now, how much more tenaciously do you think Guy Gibson fought -this from a man who co-founded (TradeKing)/founded or acquired 3 firms each handling billions in assets? $$$$$$$
Sunnybrook, Fight for your shares.
P.S. Who is paying for our access on Docketbird so we can read gratis UWBKQ filings? Thank you
Chaleco you should know.................
Chaleco, you should know that they did not respond in writing to the letter, so if you are waiting it could be a long time coming. Would imagine, from a legal standpoint, there is no advantage to do so, especially in the middle of a merger. Would imagine they never responded in writing to Bob with Schwab, but am just stabbing in the dark there.
I called for a response to the letter. If there had been none, as per the correspondence, the next step was to contact E*Trade counterparts (CEO, COO, etc.) at Morgan Stanley (acquirer), and seek resolution to their defective position.
The response was immediate. They had the letter on file in the account tagged with a system-wide halt on removal of UWBKQ shares from all
holder"s accounts. I asked if this applied to my brother, and was told the hold applied to everyone.
Guess we wait and see come mid-May if we have our shares.
If i was E*Trade, the elegant solution to the shareholder's desire of ownership and broker's need for novel revenue streams (esp. in the middle of a fee-free trading environment) and fiduciary integrity is a DTC fee on non-transferable accounts.
Chaleco, could you describe what they told you on your follow-up call, where they said the shares would stay in the account? Thanks
Etrade update on Non-transferable status
Want to thank everyone who has contributed to the E*Trade struggle with share removal.
The Letter:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=155222870
...had been officially recieved and the response, that is system-wide status for all holders of UWBKQ securities, will be that the security stays in our account.
Though the particulars on permanency were not expressed, personal belief is that we will be charged a monthly fee, at some point, for that privilege.
Why?
This is the DTC 2020 fee schedule:
https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/dtc/2018/34-84768-ex5.pdf
In particular:
Stock, bond, registered and
bearer muniIssue that have
been nontransferable for up to 6
years (surcharge)
0.20
Per issue per month
IssueStock, bonds, registered
and bearer muni that remains
nontransferable after 6 years
(surcharge)
$11.00
Per issue per month
--------------------------------
As you can see, big difference! Any broker holding issued stock (non-transferable beyond 6 years), are assessed a fee of $11 per month for each.
In the letter sent to corporate, Ally Invest (Ally Bank's brokerage arm) was given as an example of a broker who passes on such a fee to those shareholders of non-transferable securities of +6 years.
The failure of E^Trade (as a fiduciary) to pass on such a fee, was the fatal flaw in their argument (to clients) to unilaterally remove shares, presumably at the behest of the DTC. This was a fiction on their part.
The DTC will hold the shares, if the broker pays the fee. The DTC wants to make money, just like anyone else, so E^trade, just like other brokers was trying to quickly clean it's books of the non-transferables, to avoid the fee.
What does this mean for all investors of non-transferable securities (like UWBKQ) that have not had a transfer agent in more than 6 years?
Have money in your account, set aside to cover such an event, wherein the broker begins to levy such a charge. And be vigilant for such notifications. I believe they will be coming for all of us here (irregardless of broker) at some point.
Thanks again everyone. It has definitely been a group effort.
pete
E*trade letter to corporate & broker....
This was sent to corporate and the NJ brokerage. Not suggesting
this as a template to other etrade holders of UWBKQ because am using a unique approach to maintaining shares within the account. That is the right to pay the DTC fee charged monthly to the broker for non-transferable shares. Ally Invest, the brokerage arm of Ally bank, passes the cost of the non-transferable security onto the customer.
By denying the shareholder the right to pay such fees, the brokerage violates the fiduciary duty to protect account assets. The shareholder then is unilaterally exposed to seizure of property, simply because a fee (which the shareholder could provide if allowed) is not being made.
If an unfavorable response is receive, will send letters to E^trade counterparts with the merging corporation Morgan Stanley to see if they approve of such a reply to their future customers and hopefully extract a positive resolution.
It's not everyday a customer asks to pay fees!
Would make an interesting lawsuit: Shareholder Sues for the Right to Pay Fees to Prevent Broker Seizure of Account Assets!?
Wonder if the WSJ would run a piece on that.....
I realize that not everyone may wish to take this approach, but it is one my brother and myself are taking.
Special thanks to Bob and Fred for all inspiration. Needed that a lot.
Recipients:
Michael A. Pizzi Chief Executive Officer
Lori S. Sher SVP General Counsel
David Inggs Chief Operations Officer
Corporate Actions Team
Date: 4-22-2020
xxxxxxxxx
Accounts:xxxxxxxx
Address:xxxxxxxx
email: zzzzzzzzzz
xxxxxxxx
Account: xxxxxxxxx
email: xxxxxxxx
Dear E*trade Securities LLC,
On Friday April 17th, I and my brother were informed that personal property, United Western Bancorp (UWBKQ) securities in accounts xxxxxx,xxxxxxx, and xxxxxx would be removed in 30 days for the stated reason:
"...has been classified as non-transferable by the Depository Trust Company (DTC). DTC deems securities for which transfer agent services are not available and have not been available for six years or longer, and which are often inactive or insolvent subject to DTC's position removal program (PREM)."
On Monday April 20, 2020 I contacted the corporate actions team, where it was stated to representative XXX that I do not authorize removal of property from the account, even expressing a willingness to personally pay the monthly maintenance fee the DTC (Depository Trust Company) charges E*trade for holding these non-transferable securities.
After consultation with his superior, the representative stated he could not accommodate such a request. This occurred even after i expressed that ALLY Financial Corporation's (ALLY:NYSE) subsidiary ALLY INVEST (brokerage) addresses the issue of non-transferable securities held in the account by collecting a fee from the shareholder, thus preserving the asset.
As a fiduciary, Ally seems to grasp the duty to client and the liability implied when personal property is removed by the broker's hand without the customer's right to remedy through transactional recourse. [Alas, in this Age of Information, a digital imprint must suffice for property.]
By allowing the shareholder to offset the debt E*trade incurs (at the hand of the DTC) for non-transferable securities, the customer bears the onus or fate of the security, rather than the broker. Failure to pay implies consent to remove the securities in question. Legal liability is lifted, revenue generated, and customer frustration mediated.
Additionally, it should be noted, United Western Bancorp is an active corporation, having favorably concluded a unanimous SCOTUS ruling on their Tax Refund against the FDIC on 2-25-20:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
RODRIGUEZ, AS CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE FOR THE BANKRUPTCY
ESTATE OF UNITED WESTERN BANCORP, INC. v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,
AS RECEIVER FOR UNITED WESTERN BANK
This bancorp is also in the middle of bankruptcy (last filing 2-24-20) by-way-of FDIC bank seizure following losses of $500,000,000 in mortgage backed securities (MBS) held.
https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/mx8lmbli/colorado-bankruptcy-court/united-western-bancorp-inc/
United Western Bancorp, Inc.
Bankruptcy Case Colorado Bankruptcy Court, Case No. 12-13815
District Judge A. Bruce Campbell, presiding
[Logo of US BANK was included as copied from plainsite BK page}
U.S. Bancorp Corporation U.S. Bancorp Corporation, Debtor
Officially listed as "United Western Bancorp, Inc."
The implication in the above statement is important: U.S. Bancorp Corporation, Debtor Officially listed as "United Western Bancorp, Inc."
Through a trace in Change of Ownership, Plainsite.org perceives such a transaction has taken place during bankruptcy, with U.S. Bancorp assuming the debtor position until resolution.
A company such as United Western Bancorp, incurring losses through subsidiaries in excess of $500,000,000, could become a target of acquisition by a larger (read profitable) entity in order to acquire the tax offsets (NOL). It would seem that U.S. Bancorp (holding company for the 5th largest bank in the US) has acquired UWBKQ.
Typical purchase rate is near 30% of loss, placing the value of UWBKQ acquisition at close to $150,000,000, less current bankruptcy debts close to $50 million. $100mm divided among 30mm shares would place the value at $3.33/sh.
This security has substantial value, something am sure the DTC would fret over while destroying the physical non-transferable shares. The combined Etrade accounts in question possess over xxxxxx shares of United Western Bancorp, or nearly x% of the outstanding.
It should be obvious to a brokerage firm in the midst of merger (Morgan Stanley 19th largest U.S. Bank), that maintaining their client's best interests -including preserving a tangible record of account value- is paramount.
To summarize the above: United Western Bancorp is an active company which should allow this security to avoid the non-transferable status and remain in shareholder's account. From other UWBKQ shareholders with Schwab brokerage accounts, this is the conclusion that Schwab made in keeping the non-transferable shares in their respective accounts during the Schwab/TD Ameritrade merger.
If you wish to assess a fee covering the DTC maintenance costs, we would gladly pay. Not often you read a customer stating this am sure! The fee does remove any burden of liability, while generating a novel revenue stream. If the shareholder fails to pay, the brokerage has free rein to remove with implied consent. Customer tranquility is maintained.
If though you persist in removal of personal property, thus denying the right to preserve personal property in an account, i will first contact your counterparts with Morgan Stanley, followed by legal action if this matter is not resolved.
Respond within 14 days of receipt of this document. Legal consideration requested.
Thank you,
xxxxxxxx
and xxxxxxx
20 year customers and counting....
good suggestions....................
Yeah, i forgot to get "if there is a payout it will be placed into the account" in writing. Good save Bob.
And had not thought about gumming up the merger....wild Fred!
Thanks Fred.........................
That is true, there is time still to hire one if no adequate response is received. Just bummed a bit i guess.
feedback from etrade
Spoke with the corporation actions team at etrade this morning, and they failed to resolve the issue. They also gave the line that, if there was a payout, then i still could be paid......
Will be getting a lawyer now. Thanks to all.
The info has been much appreciated..............
Bob, understood. Chaleco, maybe this info will help;
i have multiple accounts with Etrade of which two hold UWBKQ shares.
Received only one notice about the smaller holding, this is in a ROTH account. Am wondering if they waived the fee in the larger one or some problem occurred because of the nature of an IRA account. Not sure, but am going to suggest to them charging a fee to maintain the security if an active corporation argument is not enough.
Bob, that is one great letter man!
Yes, i will be using it, though with a bit of rewording of course, assuming it does not work out satisfactorily Monday with Etrade Corporate Actions Team.
Shocking that Rodriquez would make that kind of statement....unless money was involved!
Thanks, and i will keep you posted on the outcome.
pete
Chaleco thanks man! a question...
18006614587 that's corporate response team
Chaleco, Did this path resolve favorably for you? Would imagine you expressed to them the active nature of this corporation (hard to ignore the SCOTUS)in BK.
Have been with the company since 1999, and they have always handled personal issues very well. Am hoping it is the same with this one. Am even willing to pay a fee to cover any holding costs.
if you have any other suggestions am all ears! Thanks again.
Fred and Bob thanks! Great info.
That helps tremendously. My brother and myself are both
shareholders with Etrade, or soon to be MS.
Will try bending the ear of advocate/arbitration specialist first, since Etrade has been good to me as a customer. But will very quickly transition to legal.
I will keep the board posted on the results.
Thanks much to both of you for such a quick response to my problem.
Bob and the board regarding Etrade non-transferable
Hi Bob & the board,
Have not posted here in eons, but hold shares since litigation and have
no interest in seeing them vanish in 30 days with Etrade.
"You have been identified as the holder of the below-referenced security that has been classified as non-transferable by the Depository Trust Company (DTC). DTC deems securities for which transfer agent services are not available and have not been available for six years or longer, and which are often inactive or insolvent, subject to DTC's position removal program (PREM). The issuer of the security below has not had a transfer agent for six years or more."
You and others were successful with holding onto the security during the Charles Schwab merger.
Let me ask:
1)What is the work-around for the lack of a transfer agent? From their perspective the argument seems airtight. No one officially at the wheel.
Obviously it can be done, but am interested in the mechanics of how the transaction occurs without a transfer agent.
2)Will impressing on the broker the fact this is an active corporate entity involved in bk and a recently concluded SCOTUS case be enough to sway them to maintain account ownership or should legal threat be the first approach?
3) Bob, did you send a cease-and-desist letter, and if so to which departments? Did you band with other shareholders on the board, mentioning this in your correspondence?
Any info that you or other board members could pass on would be much appreciated.
Thanks again.
verycareful"..Write-off losses for 5 years"?
For a corp., this is true. For individual tax payer treatment of both short/long-term loses, it's indefinite carry-forward.
"But let's assume your losses are bigger than your gains, or you don't have any gains. In that case, you can deduct as much as $3,000 a year (or $1,500 if you're married and filing separately from your spouse) of these net capital losses from your ordinary income, says Tim Hanford, a consultant in Bethesda, Md., and a former House Ways and Means tax staffer. "You can carry over any capital loss above that indefinitely into the future," Mr. Hanford says."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323368704578595944049506384.html
Hope this helps
Hew, agreed and why
would BS, who was handling the FDIC/UWBKQ division of IRS refund, complete their services with United Western before the matter is resolved? They are the FDIC experts?
Or is the refund issue no longer relevant and in some way tied to withdrawal of appeal.....
Am sure it's one of the assets the lawyer for the FDIC appointed trustee is working diligently to push into the estate...lol.
Also intriguing is Stratford1's find of UWBKQ's past subsidiaries (in BK) hiring legal to seek litigation or settlement over unknown issues from "certain parties" and hiring one day before BS files for withdrawal from the appeal.
Don't know the answers but got a stake in this that am willing to gamble with.
Peace to everyone.
hi kazorchian, counting the proverbial minutes
before we get there, would not be advantageous with this security. Courts reckon time in their own fashion.
If the appeal had continued and brought us a ruling of retrial in the lower court -Time- would have been measured in units of a year..
Personally, it's not the measure of wait that is important here, but the facts of our case that drags the mind around.
Big Picture
Am of the opinion that OTS, regardless of it's initial structure, was never used to revitalize/rehabilitate banking institutions and at some point became so embarrassing to the gov't it was scraped.
(note: not ONE single CRP was OKed by the OTS in it's entire history....unbelievable.)
UWBK unique banking model and strong-willed founder are two reasons we are here.
Small Picture
Events in the appeals process and language in the BK doc's are encouraging.
I hope you are patient and reviewing the facts. Am betting that the FDIC has positioned this case for discreet disappearance, as it appears to be doing in other situations for differing issues.
peace
Yes VC, but a "very" small purchase
With some spare cash sitting in an account filled at .144 though
the offer to purchase was at .148.
As we have all seen in the present/past, MM's in this security often fill at a discount, hoping to shape the SELL-side of the tape, imo.
Maybe grabbed some of Reters? Would take that as a positive sign from God....
"Floodgates for future litigation"?
VC hope you are enjoying your vacation. Great timing.
Regarding a reoccuring board theme implying past bank seizures suddenly being litigated for reversal as a result of a positive United Western Bank ruling by the courts:
There is a 30 day? (going off memory may be tad more) window given the seized bank to legally challenge the event. United filed within that period. A successful challenge by one institution does not, am believing, wipe away this deadline for another. Thus, no floodgates coming from The Great Recession.
Have a great 4th and hoping for a settlement.
swami