Spot liquidity moves with access to US order books.
Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.
Tazzie 97-20-17-12 Moose 12-97-17-1 Chance 97-17-24-20 New 97-17-12-20
GLTA
Tazzie 5-22-24-45 Moose 5-11-7-24 Chance 45-5-7-24 New 5-45-24-19
Tazzie 5-20-19-22 Moose 54-45-19-77 Chance 12-24-19-77 New 5-23-19-77
GLTA
Tazzie-5-19-77-45 Moose 11-5-19-77 New 45-11-19-77 Chance 5-11-19-77
GLTA
Fred you said "the FDIC receiver accumulated $210mm, which has been also verified" enlighten me as to the source .
Fred -please enlighten me as to how the FDIC came up with the $210M
Tazzie 12-45-19-1 Moose 12-11-19-77 Chance 5-11-19-1 New 5-19-54-77
GLTA
yapping ain't winning.. funny you should say that---you have been yapping for years 😆
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court
dismissing the federal claims. Having resolved the main appeal in Defendants’
favor, we dismiss UBS’s cross-appeal as moot. See Weiss v. Nat'l Westminster Bank,
PLC., 993 F.3d 144, 158–59 (2d Cir. 2021).
Verification of Freds statement OMG
Tazzie 20-5-22-54 Moose 11-24-22-60 New 5-12-22-60 Chance 5-11-22-60
GLTA
Tazzie-5-9-19-6 Moose 19-24-9-6 New 5-19-45-6 Chance 45-19-23-6
GLTA
Bank Name Fund Closed Date Dividend Type Priority % Paid Total Paid Pay Date
UNITED WESTERN BANK (Colorado) 10331 01/21/2011 TRADITIONAL DEPOSITOR 3.074% 90.667% 05/27/2021
Bob-----Fred just playing mind games with you!!!!!!!!!
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Tazzie's 5-20-19-24 Moose 12-11-20-24 New 20-11-5-24 Chance 20-12-19-24
Bob, a short time ago, I lost my Mod. position because I hadn't posted in sometime. When I lost the Mod. job they took my sticky down.
Didn't post because ( Fred's BS)
A close friend asked AI Grok some questions. Here is the answer
Here is the answer:
The FDIC does not appear to have appealed Judge Buchwald's September 25, 2025, summary judgment in the U.S. multidistrict litigation (In re LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, No. 11-MDL-2262). No public records or reports indicate that a notice of appeal was filed with the Second Circuit within the applicable 60-day window (which expired around November 24, 2025), and the dismissal has been widely described as a complete resolution of the remaining claims.
This aligns with prior partial settlements in the case (e.g., with Bank of America, Citigroup, and JPMorgan) and the court's rejection of the conspiracy and suppression theories as lacking evidence.
Regarding ongoing pursuit of claims against foreign banks like Barclays or Royal Bank of Scotland (now part of NatWest Group) in England: The FDIC, as receiver for 20 failed banks (including United Western Bank), initiated parallel proceedings in the UK High Court in 2017 (FDIC as Receiver for Amcore Bank, N.A. and Ors v. Barclays Bank PLC & Ors, No. FL-2017-000002). This involved similar allegations of USD LIBOR suppression and collusion under EU/UK competition law and U.S. state tort law, targeting Barclays, Bank of Scotland (part of Lloyds), Rabobank, Deutsche Bank, Lloyds, NatWest/RBS, UBS, and the British Bankers' Association.
A 19-week trial had been scheduled to begin February 23, 2026. However, the FDIC reached global settlements with all defendants in 2025: one with Deutsche Bank AG on April 16, 2025, and another with the remaining seven defendants (including Barclays, Lloyds entities, NatWest/RBS entities, Rabobank, UBS, and BBA entities) on June 30, 2025. These agreements resolved both the UK and U.S. claims without admission of liability, dismissing the actions with prejudice and each party bearing its own costs. As a result, there is no trial proceeding in early 2026 (or at all), and the FDIC has concluded its pursuit of these LIBOR-related claims on behalf of the receiverships.
On your suspicions about a confidential settlement between the FDIC and United Western Bancorp (UWBK) over the 2011 seizure: Public records confirm that UWBK filed suit in February 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (United Western Bancorp, Inc. v. Office of Thrift Supervision et al., No. 1:11-cv-00408) challenged the seizure as arbitrary and sought removal of the FDIC as receiver.
The district court dismissed the case in September 2011, ruling the seizure lawful. UWBK appealed to the D.C. Circuit in November 2011 (No. 11-5320), but voluntarily dismissed the appeal in January 2012—just weeks after filing—without explanation in the public docket. While no settlement terms are publicly disclosed, the abrupt dismissal aligns with your theory of a confidential resolution, especially given the FDIC's subsequent funding to UWBK during its Chapter 7 bankruptcy (as noted in docket entries from In re United Western Bancorp, Inc., No. 12-00223, D. Colo. Bankr., available via public sources like PACER or Docketbird). These payments, described as administrative support or resolution-related, deviated from standard priority (where shareholders are last), suggesting an underlying agreement tied to the dropped appeal.
With the LIBOR claims now fully resolved (via dismissal in the U.S. and settlements in the UK), the FDIC's role in pursuing United Western Bank's assets appears complete. Any proceeds from the LIBOR settlements would flow into the receivership estate for distribution per FDIC resolution processes—creditors and depositors first, then potentially shareholders if funds remain after covering the estimated $312 million Deposit Insurance Fund loss from the seizure.
If your suspected confidential settlement exists, it could influence future distributions, including "additional funds" post-resolution as hinted in bankruptcy filings. For specifics on your shares' potential value or timing, I'd recommend consulting UWBK's bankruptcy trustee or an attorney reviewing the estate's status, as resolutions can take years but seem nearing closure here. Let me know if you'd like me to dig into any particular aspect further!
🙂👍️ and great picking last race
Tazzie's 22-5-20-12 Moose 12-20-24-45 New 22-20-12-5 Chance 22-5-20-45
GLTA
Quite disrespectful to be flying that flag, FRED
Tazzie's picks 45-20-24-9 Moose's picks 97-45-1-23 New 97-45-24-20 Chance45-97-16-17
GLTA
RMB's a weak recovery ???????????? surely you jest---what an a-hole
LOL that was ugly
Moose's picks 12-22-2-24
I'll stop now
Thank you for that, my ignorance was showing. Moose would like to replace 9 with 24.
Jayski has Blaney with 27 points and not in the top ten--aand we were scored with 27 points after the race and that was right! Nascar has given Blaney 26 stage points for the race---hard to get 26 points in a two stage race
Red check out the Nascar board---things are FUBAR and you are the only one on right now
Nascar changed the champion ship format---top 16 in points and you are in?? AND NOW we see that Nascar can't keep track of the points. That or I'm in the twilight-zone????
Per the nascar web sight---Blaney received 26 stage points in a two stage race--when in fact he didn't win a stage????????
??????????? Jayski points and Nascar points don't agree ?????????? We received 27 points for the 12 and nascar says the 12 received 36 points??
Blaney doesn't have 36 points and there isn't three drivers with 39 points ESPN's top ten is in error
Eli--?? I'm a little confused---12 isn't in the top ten in points per Nascar
Tazzie's picks 22-9-20-24 Moose 12-22-2-9 New12-5-2-24 Chance 12-2-48-47
GLTA
Tazzie 9-22-5-19 Moose 22-9-12-19 Chance 5-9-24-48 New 12-19-48-17
And all in the gift card pool 😉
Not against rule changes--shouldn't make it complicated---5 times in 10 races ? going to make it hard for the score keeper. To keep track of all players and the times they have picked a driver ?????. There was times players took three drivers in the top 10. Changes should be kept simple, Working to stay within the rules will be a detriment.
😉👍️👍️👍️👍️
That being said=====this time delay could be caused by having to cash in all of the structured settlements.
A structured payout would take the form of a bond,note, or hybrid instrument, and would come in tranches as monies were recovered
by the FDIC at various times. And an important point: the issuer of the bond/note/hybrid could not be UWBKQ as they were placed into liquidation at the request of the FDIC. That is a nonfunctioning corp.
Funds would have to go to a third entity that specialized in LARGE structured instruments that would also need to obscure payments as much as possible to ensure prying eyes could not easily trace the origin of funds.
HAVE YOY NO SHAME?????????????
HAVE YOY NO SHAME?????????????
Are you saying that we are NOT involved in the appeal?