 | From: Deadmau5 (Rep: 157) | Date: 2012-03-06 16:05:14 | | Forum: United Western Bancorp - Thread #673370091 | Msg #1346 - Part 1/7 (Rec: 0) | |
| |
 | From: tokyopua (Rep: 97) reply to Deadmau5 | Date: 2012-03-06 16:12:45 | | Forum: United Western Bancorp - Thread #673370091 | Msg #1347 - Part 2/7 (Rec: 0) | Does seem like the strongest reply yet from any defense responses to date, lots of meat in there in terms of citing prior cases...
I am a pickup artist, not an investment advisor, you would be crazy, stupid, and foolhardy to follow any of my personal investments. Dont buy or short anything I talk about, dont pass go, and dont collect $200. These posts, including my retorts to certain posters, are for entertainment purposes only.
 Reply to Deadmau5 - Msg #2245325 - 03/06/2012 16:05
|
|
| |
| From: Deadmau5 (Rep: 157) reply to Deadmau5 | Date: 2012-03-06 16:14:26 | | Forum: United Western Bancorp - Thread #673370091 | Msg #1348 - Part 3/7 (Rec: 0) | "The document relies on estimates prepared by the FDIC that apply the FDIC’s
confidential internal analytic models to several pieces of data, some of which were
supplied by United Western and some of which were generated internally by the FDIC.
That analysis, therefore, is not simply factual; rather, it represents the sort of opinion and
analysis traditionally protected by the deliberative process and bank examination
privileges."
Holy crap.. they are admitting that this document is an ESTIMATE and not factual, therefore they seized the bank based on estimates rather the cold hard numbers.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84179748/UWBK-3-6-2012-FDIC-CORPORATES-MOTION-FOR-RECONSIDERATION
@deadmau5_trades
Reply to Deadmau5 - Msg #2245325 - 03/06/2012 16:05
|
|
| |
| From: compisnada (Rep: 9) reply to tokyopua | Date: 2012-03-06 16:41:38 | | Forum: United Western Bancorp - Thread #673370091 | Msg #1349 - Part 4/7 (Rec: 0) | That is why they brought in that new attorney, he knows how to handle these. My biggest concern is that, becouse its the FDIC they will be able to get away with this right or wrong.
Its the all mighty Goverment...United western needs to get some PR people on there side to push this into the limelight and only then will you see the FDIC back off. UWBK needs some sort of PR strategy if they are gonna pull this off and it should have been done last year.
Reply to tokyopua - Msg #2245332 - 03/06/2012 16:12
Re: FDIC-CORPORATES MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Does seem like the strongest reply yet from any defense responses to date, lots of meat in there in terms of citing prior cases...
|
|
| |
| From: Deadmau5 (Rep: 157) reply to compisnada | Date: 2012-03-06 16:48:47 | | Forum: United Western Bancorp - Thread #673370091 | Msg #1350 - Part 5/7 (Rec: 0) | UWBK is one step ahead of them as you read in the filing yesterday....
http://www.scribd.com/doc/83991357/UWBK-3-5-2012-PLAINTIFFS-RESPONSE-TO-DEFENDANTS-RESPONSETO-THE-COURTS-FEBRUARY-24-2012-ORDER
Moreover, the Court need not parse whether the Acting
Director relied upon a particular document. This is so because the full record encompasses “all
materials before the agency at the time the decision was made, as well as all materials that might
have influenced the agency’s decision, and not merely those on which the agency relied in its
final decision.” Sara Lee Corp. v. Am. Bakers ****’n Ret. Plan, 512 F. Supp. 2d 32, 38-39
(D.D.C. 2007) (internal marks omitted). Even if the Acting Director ultimately chose not to rely
on particular documents in making the Seizure Decision, he would still have considered them to
the extent necessary to decide to disregard them. Thus, the Acting Director cannot exclude
documents from the record merely by claiming that he ignored them. See Nat’l ****’n of Chain
Drug Stores v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 631 F. Supp. 2d 23, 27 (D.D.C. 2009). As
the Court has already explained, the Acting Director must “give [the Court] everything he looked
at.” 8/11/2011 Tr. at 38.
@deadmau5_trades
Reply to compisnada - Msg #2245352 - 03/06/2012 16:41
Re: FDIC-CORPORATES MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION That is why they brought in that new attorney, he knows how to handle these. My biggest concern is that, becouse its the FDIC they will be able to get away with this right or wrong. Its the all mighty Goverment...United western needs to get some PR people on there side to push this into the limelight and only then will you see the FDIC back off. UWBK needs some sort of PR strategy if they are gonna pull this off and it should have been done l... Full Message |
|
| |
| From: compisnada (Rep: 9) reply to Deadmau5 | Date: 2012-03-06 17:12:11 | | Forum: United Western Bancorp - Thread #673370091 | Msg #1351 - Part 6/7 (Rec: 0) | How they are able to compare the goverments RFP point process to a bank analasys is beyond me.....I thought they checked TX ratios and Teir 1 data and thought they were on that same model. UWBKs attornies should have a field day with this one, also cosidering the fact that the FDIC and US Airforce are to totally seperate entities...this sounds like a stall tactic.
jmt |
| |
| From: compisnada (Rep: 9) reply to compisnada | Date: 2012-03-06 17:18:38 | | Forum: United Western Bancorp - Thread #673370091 | Msg #1352 - Part 7/7 (Rec: 0) | Duh it just hit me...the FDIC is gonna string this one out, UWBK showed there hand by Chapter 11 restructuring obviously to free up financing for this fight in the courts...the FDIC is just going to throw jibberish (which is what that last filing was)...at the courts to waste time and money....you had mentioned they have that 500k note they are living on, well if they keep throwing case studies at the plantiffs that will make legal costs shoot through the roof as it will incurr masive hourly fees..
I may be wrong but it sounds like it could be that simple |
| |
| |
122.84
30.60
