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.
The Proof is in the numbers...........numbers suck!
Fool's GOLD!!!
Great time to load, reload or hedge.
You can't beat .055!
I don't expect .25 by the of the week but .15 my Wednesday.
For real?
buy vol 91,000 sell vol 168,000
Buy vol. 70,000 sell vol 158,000
BLEEDINGBLEEDINGBLEEDING
This will hit .01 and nobody with etrade and scottrade can't thing about it but watch it bleed.
Gold is a great price.........that is why nobody want's to buy it!
now .09x.093!!! break of .109 coming here.
Been on a lot of boards.
This might go down to .01 and this might be a scam!
A lot of people took there profits already in .08's
If UWBK is worth .38 NOW is great time to load and reload.
But I expect a lot of sideways action on Monday till we have some new solid PR.
Do you think? I thought the .07 was the bounce play?
I smell red flags!
I believe that our .075 is our new ground but I don't think this will move any hire till they settle the law suit.
There is nothing wrong with any gold play.
There is something wrong with SUGO!
Bunch of Bagholders here!!!
Face it the 3:1 along with the PR that came with was a bit depressing.
I think everyone was expecting more action but all bagholder sold in the .12's.
I think we've seen the best of TSAS when it was pumped to .53.
In the past 3 weeks only 3 good plays.
Rumor that PR is too expensive....COME ON
I expect this to slowly fade out.
GLTA
We are good...........As long as it stays above .075 we might a good gap on Monday.
Shut Down by Regulators and Seeking to Reopen, Thrift's Managers Sue FDIC, OTS
By Joe Adler, American Banker
February 22, 2011
PrintE-mailReprintsDiscuss this article Share |
¦Advertisement
WASHINGTON — After two and a half years of failures nearly every Friday, and a pile of about 350 collapsed banks, one former management team of a shuttered thrift has decided to fight back.
The former United Western Bank, a $2 billion-asset Denver thrift, along with its holding company and key principals, became the first plaintiffs during the current financial crisis to mount a court challenge to a failure. In a lawsuit filed Friday, they claim that the Office of Thrift Supervision and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. undermined their recovery plan and locked their doors prematurely.
Though some other failed-bank managers have objected to their institution's collapse, arguing that it was unnecessary, United Western executives are suing in an attempt to force the thrift's reopening — an attempt that has not been made for more than a decade.
The plaintiffs' attorney said the suit is a line in the sand against regulators who have become overzealous in the wake of the crisis and are closing banks too hastily.
"We're in a period of time when the regulators are sometimes moving too quickly to seize banks, and once they decide that that's what they want to do, they're working to create a record to close banks rather than working with community banks to try to enable them to succeed," said Andrew Sandler, a partner in BuckleySandler LLP who represents the former thrift's management. "This is an extreme case of that, but it's not the only case."
The lawsuit, Sandler added, "may be helpful in creating a course correction."
Filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., the suit essentially seeks to nullify the failure, transferring control of the institution from the FDIC back to the former managers. (Upon seizing United Western on Jan. 21, the FDIC sold its assets and deposits to First Citizens Bank in Raleigh, N.C.)
The suit alleges that United Western was "economically viable" at the time of its closure and that the two agencies did not appear sincere about engaging with the management team on a recapitalization plan. The suit says the thrift had lined up strong interest from investors, promising $200 million in capital, which was needed to help United Western recover from significant writedowns related to its portfolio of mortgage-backed securities.
But despite the need for regulatory approval before the investors would commit themselves, the OTS and FDIC did not act on the capital plan, the suit alleged. The plaintiffs said the OTS gave the principals seven days to put its capital restoration plan into action, though the regulator could have granted as much as 45 days. The "only reason" the thrift became undercapitalized, they said, was because the OTS forced the writedowns.
"But for the OTS' arbitrary and capricious directive, the bank would have remained with the technical definition of adequately capitalized and not been subject to the requirement that it submit a" capital restoration plan, the suit said.
The plaintiffs also allege that, though regulators had for years supported the thrift's business model, using deposits from institutional investors such as 401(k) plans, they suddenly objected to that strategy and urged the thrift to raise more traditional core deposits.
Institutional deposits had made up more than 70% of the thrift's deposit base.
"In 2010, defendants suddenly rejected the bank's business model and commenced an arbitrary and capricious course of action that culminated in the unlawful seizure of the bank," the lawsuit said.
The OTS, as the primary supervisor, was the agency charged with determining when to close the bank. But the suit also names the FDIC as a defendant, asserting that it participated in the aggressive regulatory actions in the thrift's final days. These included the agency's sudden classification of institutional deposits as "brokered," which led the OTS to view the thrift's funding base as unstable, the suit said. Ultimately, the OTS determined that the thrift was suffering severe liquidity strains.
(The FDIC declined to comment on the pending litigation. An OTS spokesman said, "The OTS had solid grounds for closing United Western. We will vigorously defend the lawsuit.")
"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 the institutional depositors," the suit said.
Attorneys for United Western said the sudden classification of the deposits essentially created a liquidity crisis.
"There was no liquidity crisis. They closed this bank because they prophesied that there could be a liquidity crisis," said Sandler.
Lawrence Kaplan, an attorney at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, who is also representing parties in the case, said the agencies did not do enough homework to make sure their analysis of the institution was correct.
.
"Notwithstanding 17 years of operation, it was clear the agencies did not have a complete understanding of the operations," he said; "nor when they started to question the operations did they want to take the time to listen to the answers."
Former executives had already objected to regulators' tactics. Guy A. Gibson, the chairman of United Western Bancorp Inc. issued a press release the night the thrift failed calling the action "precipitous."
Though former bankers tried to overturn failure decisions during the savings and loan crisis, the United Western case is believed to be the first of its kind since the 2008 turmoil.
Some observers said the boldness of the case, and involvement of Washington law firms, may mean it has some merit.
"What motivates the … chairman in this case to sue when we have had 400-some-odd banks that failed but have not sued?" said Robert DeYoung, a professor at the University of Kansas business school and a former FDIC economist, though he added that he had not seen the case.
But Mark Flannery, a finance professor at the University of Florida, said it is unusual to accuse agencies of closing banks too soon.
"We've all heard the stories about how regulators are treating banks indiscriminately or how their treatment changes over time," he said. "But my experience has been that, when the supervisors actually close the bank, it's probably closing the bank late instead of early."
Flannery, who also had not seen the lawsuit, added that regulators have broad authority to determine when a closure should take place.
"Essentially, if a bank is not operating in a safe and sound manner, the regulator can close the bank. The regulator is also the one that determines what constitutes safety and soundness," he said.
Still, the increasingly positive conditions in the industry have been seen as helping ailing banks recover.
"As the economy improves you would think that the threshold for closing troubled banks might be relaxed some. The cash flows over the next few quarters you would presume would be better than during the depths of a recession when the majority of these banks were closed," said DeYoung.
"I'd be more willing to listen to" United Western's "argument in January of 2011 than in January of 2009," he said.
UWBK confirms illegal siezure, Sues FDIC, going back to nasdaq pre-seizure levels of .30+
AGREE!
I think TSAS is back and everybody didn't get the news yet. The only people active are the ones in it.
TSAS looks solid. A perfect time to buy at under .12 Great News!
tomorrow morning will open with a panic sell....without the PR I don't see it passing .10 again.
Going to load up tomorrow when it drops to .04(how much it's really worth without PR. THC kills cancer and brain cells.
dipping more with out the PR maybe next week.
Is the PR coming today? Did some call?
.10 is the bottom.
Will slowly fade without PR.
Plenty of time to buy weak .........We need some PR!
I understand, something like a 3:1 split takes time.
It is very easy to have bad PR or even fake.
Let's hope for something nice we all can use the help.....
GLTA
taking a dip!
All afternoon PUMP letters have moved on.
Beacon has CBIS on the front page but did not email to users
Great play yesterday.
Not enough evidence to conclude that the stock is worth a bottom of .10
Too much BS on posted with false press and PR not related to CBIS. Including youtube links.
A lot of people suck in the .10s, .11s and .12s expecting this to fly. All the ppl's from the .04s,.06s, and .08s already took their profits and out.
Yesterday there was 600,000 shares in and out at .08
CBIS does not need shorters........already to many red flags for me to go on!
I expect this to drop in the .05's in the afternoon with slow sideway action.
Good play yesterday!
GLTA
Best thing to do is to call the PR person. I've call Robert Gandy from TSAS about the 3:1 split. I am sure they will answer all your questions.
CBIS lost it's push after the first hour.
I thought it would hit .15, or .16 after the first hour.
With delays on Pr and update on confrence call and too much BS on this forum this is a sign of RED FLAGS!!![color=red][/color] I'm out:
In at .06 out at .11
GLTA
Email marketing from BEACOM.......10 is the new bottom
I have scottrade which really sucks for pennystocks. But is shows that I have the shares which I am happy for. Let get some PR and make some MONEY!
We need to break .137 marker for this to go crazy high.
Good to settle in the high .10's. I expect slow action for the next hour and 10 mins. Hour of power coming soon. I can wait for the last 15 min as everyone will panic to buy more before the huge gap tomorrow. I am projecting to close at .15 and open tomorrow at .16 or .17. Watch out for the shorts at .20. If you did not think about buying more or reload now you might want to do so now before it hit .11
Good Luck!