Replies to post #12205 on United Western Bancorp Inc (fka UWBKQ)

[everett7]

If it comes down to it I'm sure they'll take the cash payment and no charter, over risking it all for nothing . . . . Just remember NOBODY gets paid if we get nothing, including the law firms.

[fredscott36]

...the charter is the biggest issue because it represents the shareholders getting the bank returned - - which is really what we request in the suit................there are capital creation matters but the charter and capital do not cost the gov't anything and I recall the FDIC is the source of the charter/capital structure............the BK POR's silence on the charter is noteworthy unless this was done strategically for some legal reason..........clearly we are navigating between the litigation and the BK resolutions (and any criminal charges - I know, Larry, there aren't any yet).................

...and, if the BK POR and Liquidation Trust are approved and the $200MM settlement is a FACT.......................the shareholders will see an increase in the s/p.........the $82+MM in addition to the future value calculation of the charter - which should be somewhere between $25MM and $50MM.......there might be a recast of the stock....................bottom line = at least $3 and possibly more...............immediately...........no prob with the capital....

...re: the 11-20-12 transcript.........we had trouble getting those.......even requesting them..................we were told this happens when they are sealed, restricted or partially restricted.........although it might be nothing but it only takes a few minutes to transfer those files............I don't want to start a rumor but clearly there are discussions we have not seen yet.....................just mho......

...please do your dd...............we're in a very volatile zone, trading wise..............5-million shares will move the needle, imho................................

[ArtieB]

What is the motivation behind a settlement? If the govt. honestly believes it rightfully and lawfully seized the bank, their would be no reason for settlement, right?

The purpose of a settlement between these two parties is to allow the bank to proceed as if the seizure never happened, right? If so, a charter would be a necessary component bringing the bank back to operational standards and procedures. So, leaving the charter outside of settlement makes no sense. I think the charter is the least of the govt.'s concerns.

Months ago, I stated that the calculation methods of the valuation is the matter at hand, not the charter itself. The last component of the negotiations would be the actual damage award. The govt. has probably already agreed to returning the bank back to pre-seizure capital and operation conditions, but the bank, in my opinion and by default, deserves an award to, minimally, cover the contingency fees.

Charter is the least of the negotiation concerns, imo.

VC