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.
Aha thank you goodsir
Appreciate the knowledge in-kind
The subrogated deposit liability
is 201M on the DRRIP with same amount outstanding in dividends yet to pay out.
With the 4.2M ITR transferred, balance sheet appears clean, with 42M in assets.
Is that 201 the same you claim as recovered??
https://receivership.fdic.gov/drripbal/bank/10331
One serving of tax refund pls
additional servings (Refund...recoveries??) ...are DENIED
FURTHER ORDERS that the Motion for Disbursement is DENIED, in part, without
prejudice, to the extent the FDIC seeks other relief (i.e., pertaining to future tax refunds)
as beyond the scope of the Judgment on Remand in the Adversary Proceeding which
dealt only with the specific Tax Refund
Whether the order is followed
Is another matter homeskillet....
I agree that the ITR may not be transferred; however, the Bankruptcy court DID just issue a motion for transfer of funds, which Denis accounted for. <- so yes, you are correct that it does RELATE to Denis like the forest for a tree and Simon may refuse to follow the order.
Wrong — it’s for us/fdic
Doc 679 refers to 678 to 419 etc
None of these are Denis; they are all ITR
679. 09/22/2020ORDER FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS HELD IN THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT (related document(s):[678] Motion).
678. 09/17/2020MOTION OF THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, AS RECEIVER FOR UNITED WESTERN BANK, FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS HELD IN THE COURTS REGISTRY Filed by William Cross on behalf of Federal Deposit Insurace Corporation, as Receiver for United Western Bank (related document(s)[419] Order on Motion to Deposit Funds into Court Registry).
419 08/28/2014Order Granting Request For Relief Set Forth In Agreed Motion By The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation As Receiver And The Chapter 7 Trustee For An Order Requiring Tax Refunds To Be Deposited With This Court (related document(s):{{404}} Motion to Deposit Funds into Court Registry).
New — here’s the order
Just posted
679. 09/22/2020ORDER FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS HELD IN THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT (related document(s):[678] Motion).
Yes— seconded Senior Bob
A very possible scenario
Your take (thanks) vs reality
Reality:
1) motion just filed to pay ITR from Bk to FDIC. This is expected and directionally correct towards closure.
2) the Denis post is NOT the motion NTG mentioned.
Half-full posted this filing, it’s free and accessible via court listener.
The ITR motion is not, but is more meaningful.
Hey look a squirrel. Go go go. = Denis filing.
follow the big money.
Yes Fred
That was my thought as well; pay into but it’s already there (2014) so recent motion says disperse it to FDIC (2020).
Standard stuff.
Regardless, we’re moving along if this ITR bit is handled, and with no open cases left shouldn’t be any headwind
Denis filing is a red herring.
>>>>>>>***It’s the ITR***<<<<<<<
Funds being placed into bk account
678. 09/17/2020MOTION OF THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, AS RECEIVER FOR UNITED WESTERN BANK, FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS HELD IN THE COURTS REGISTRY Filed by William Cross on behalf of Federal Deposit Insurace Corporation, as Receiver for United Western Bank (related document(s)[419] Order on Motion to Deposit Funds into Court Registry).
419 08/28/2014Order Granting Request For Relief Set Forth In Agreed Motion By The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation As Receiver And The Chapter 7 Trustee For An Order Requiring Tax Refunds To Be Deposited With This Court (related document(s):{{404}} Motion to Deposit Funds into Court Registry).
weak sauce
Trustee must be doin some/many things right if hes got you et goof troop all flustered, opining about panty stuffers
wait wait----twas that wuz in them boxxes??
nah
the CO bk judge isnt throwing out the CO bk trustee for goin too hard, lol
redonkulus
filing -- whose got mail?
Courts Notice or Order and BNC Certificate of Mailing (related document(s)[673] Order on Application to Employ). No. of Notices: 11. Notice Date 08/15/2020.
what's in the boxx??
hedge funds are dumping
"FCNCA was in 17 hedge funds' portfolios at the end of March. There were 23 hedge funds in our database with FCNCA positions at the end of the previous quarter."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/did-hedge-funds-call-first-132750922.html
chill
bk filing
1:2012-bk-13815
THE COURT HAVING BEEN INFORMED concerning the Trustee’s Application to Employ Professional Person, good cause appearing therefor, no additional notice being required,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Trustee is authorized to hire Mark D. Dennis, CPA and SL Biggs as an Accountant to perform services related to any tax issue regarding this estate including but not limited to filing all necessary state and federal tax returns on behalf of the Estate. NO COMPENSATION SHALL BE PAID WITHOUT PRIOR COURT APPROVAL UPON AN ADDITIONAL APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION
what it says
Cerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Byron White United States Courthouse
1823 Stout Street
Denver, Colorado 80257
(303) 844-3157
August 03, 2020
Jane K. Castro
Chief Deputy Clerk
Mr. Jeffrey P. Colwell
United States District Court for the District of Colorado
Office of the Clerk
Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse
901 19th Street
Denver, CO 80294-3589
RE: 17-1281, Rodriguez, et al v. FDIC
Dist/Ag docket: 1:16-CV-02475-WJM
Dear Clerk:
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41, the Tenth Circuit’s mandate in the
above-referenced appeal issued today. The court’s May 26, 2020 judgment takes effect
this date.
Please contact this office if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of the Court
cc: Colleen J. Boles
Joseph Brooks
Mark Haynes
Neal Katyal
Michael M. Lane
Kathryn R. Norcross
Michelle Ognibene
Mitchell Reich
Thomas Schmidt
CMW/lab
oh and the 10 yr thing
difficult to believe that in the third act of ongoing litigation, at 10 yrs -- poof -- no records.
Case(s) will be finished then poof imo
sigh
this is somewhat expected given on remand, the three panel 10th DC applied the same logic as before scotus, less senor Bob; contract law with the TAA language ambiguity favors etc..
and I suppose we recently argued the same points as before too (have not read latest brief though): first line of contract is Co state law applies and when applying state law test, etc..
So Simon et us may be asking the full 10th DC, in person, if them 10 agree with the three.
If yes, please don't try to ask scotus if they agree.
If no, (other team) please don't try ask scotus if they agree.
Do loop
Gracias.
well lets count Bob
"any petition for rehearing ...14 days...Please note, however, that if the appeal is a civil case in which the United States or its officer or agency is a party, any petition for rehearing must
be filed within 45 days after entry of judgment"
JD: 5/26 tuesday
14 days after: 6/9 tuesday
so...assuming this is a civil case and the fdic is a (non-ambiguous) agent for the USA, we're looking at 45 days
45 days after JD: 7/10 friday -- but, USA holidays -- so middle of July +/-
thanks LG, agree
I read it the same way
Here's the filing
petition for rehearing or sit and wait
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca10-17-01281/pdf/USCOURTS-ca10-17-01281-2.pdf
we already asked a judge
thrown out IIRC
Remember this one from five-ish years ago??
https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/finance_etc/2014/01/united-western-shareholders-wheres.html
The shareholders asked Campbell several questions in Friday's letter, including:
When do you expect the bankruptcy trustee to submit his final report to you?
Why did the trustee issue a notice of potential dividend to creditors when the debtor’s last monthly operating report (2/28/13) shows they have no assets and a multitude of liabilities?
Are all of the creditors that were under Chapter 11 case the same creditors under the Chapter 7 case?
Why are the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.) and SEC trustees in this case?
Will JPMorgan be thrown out as a creditor in our case due to their recent settlement with the FDIC?
but on its face Bob,
the whatever agreement, would it be ambiguous??
LOL
HAH cheers
thanks for being here
ah thanks
USB, boa, doa, rbs, more bs - alphabet soup
ok so the key takeaways are
here we sit, waiting
and if recoveries exceed liabilities, we get em
and any thing else that is in the bkrptcy, such as NOL sale or property
but we can't see any of the agreements
or know when anything will happen
more or less, ya?
saw it new
and thanks swami
so then if BoA, and/or FC, buried somewhere in both public statements should be evidence of a "transaction" and use of tax action shenanigans
anyone audit them and look?
also, if anyone has an account with plainsite, the current records are 1.2 years old and requests can be made to update (not sure pending what conditions)
thanks new, so
by that logic, the seizure of the bank cost FDIC 1,623 B and any excess bank derived funds *should/would* rollover to the remaining creditors, albeit us cussipers, via holdco bankrupcy
with ya pard
but im specifically interested in the recoveries...not the NOL, or other assets nic recoveries
and from what I see, those recoveries derived from RMBS libor et al, are initially named to the bank, not holdco, from the filings
now if new bank purchased holdco who (timing?) had rights to those recoveries and not the old bank, ahem, just like the ITR, ... how does the recoveries named to the bank (ITR wasnt) end up with the hold co / new bank??
Unless there are other recoveries not derived from the bank...or agreements in place somewhere
just trying for non-fiction
hope-hope you are right
and LG too, if not undercalling it...
but I dont understand how we access the recoveries if exceeding liabilities, even with the understanding that if the recoveries exceed, then overflow -- but via what mechanism transfers the recoveries due to/from the bank, to the holdco?
the recovery legal suits are with the bank, not holdco -- opposite the ITR which at least was in holdcos name and we know what happened with that.
and fact or fiction remains:
didn't we supposedly agree to give all recoveries to fdic?? this was never proven from what I recall
Hi New!
Yes, was with ya until we lost the ITR.
We have an official agency relationship, therefore because the gains (and losses) stemmed from the bank actions, not the holdco, bank is entitled
My be absolutely wrong here but I don't see how the ITR could go to the bank, and not the recoveries
..unless because we officially have power and control over the bank, and we direct it to give up the recoveries -- something like that
welcome back marco!
hopefully this is over sooner than later - because to BBANs point - what litigation remains??
yah that's hypothetical BS
no offense and thanks for your prediction but there are no facts to support it
imo facts are
whats in the NOL pool - did FC or whoever purchase the NOL? If yes, those funds are ours less expenses plus interest. 150M? I don't think anyone has tracked this down yet...
whats in the other pool - property (coyote creak), etc...
whats in the recoveries pool - looks like we aren't getting because if we didnt get the ITR, we (most likely) won't get the recoveries
in the best, or any
interests of cusippers, I fail to see how it was worth it
Seems like a waste of taxpayer dollars on top
get a clean TAA, pick a path - done.
are these (our) billable hours
for well written op-eds about winning a battle...sliced (fore!) the part about loosing the war
whats your opinion on what the rodriguez decision did and didn't do?? aha
https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report/insight-recent-supreme-court-decision-highlights-need-for-tax-allocation-agreements
im with ya pard
and thanks for being here all these years, appreciate ya
I'm not the greatest of thinkers; I do know that two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left
Not sure what you are lookin at/for (secret, restricted, redacted) .. here is the most recent filing from el decimo
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4756195/rodriguez-v-fdic/
filing before brokerage accts
I'd expect to see a filing in the bk court since the 3 judge panel (10th) remanded it back down to bkct affirming
if that filing is a distribution notification, or fo/pol, or anything of the like - ffffantastic - as it *should* contain specifics ($ and time).
But as history has proven with this mess...on, and on...aand on...aand on...June 23 2023?
*Lost* the 10th relook
ITR stays with the FDIC
https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report/tax-refund-goes-to-subsidiary-following-supreme-court-ruling
Now please hurry the fup, gracias
supposedly
etrade (maybe others) not removing anymore, will post confirmation when I receive.. if true
Did it Bob?? Big red or craps
That's what I was trying to remember: what chapter are we and do we have a secured claim if needed?