Euro Pacific bank is a scam
- Thread starter sonato
- Start date
- Status
if an authority puts a bank into liquidation (a forced one in epb case) the liquidators job is to liquidate the bank meaning distribute the remaining assets and close it. That's it . It is NOT the liquidators job (his fiduciary duty) to assess whether the bank could be rescued by selling It to new owners. Hence your argument against the receiver is flawed. Of course if you can prove in court that the receiver has been enriching himself due to illicit spendings and/or delaying on purpose , that is another thing. But your argument that the receiver must assess potential buyers is flawed. No one has said it Isn't your right to sue and I don't think anyone has said either you shouldn't sue - you are simply being challenged as you are not 100% accurate including first stating further up that you sued the receiver “personally “ and then later saying you sued him “in his professional capacity only “.
You are wrong. Plus, potential buyers help customers and other creditors, as well as shareholders. As it stands now, due to the failure of the receiver to consider a sale of the bank, all customers may end up losing some money. Had he approved a sale, not only would no customer have lost a dime, but all would have had access to 100% of their deposits over two years ago. However, had he done that he would not have been able to excessively enrich himself over that time period. The receiver is not allowed to squander a bank's capital that may otherwise have been available to creditors or shareholders. What does that not upset you?
All I can say is please get proper legal advice.
For example here in Switzerland Flowbank is currently liquidated also by lawyers (Walder Wyss( without any prior banking experience.
That is totally normal to wind down you need no prior banking experience. You can use the qualification of the bank staff for that.
For example here in Switzerland Flowbank is currently liquidated also by lawyers (Walder Wyss( without any prior banking experience.
That is totally normal to wind down you need no prior banking experience. You can use the qualification of the bank staff for that.
The bank staff is gone. It's just the receiver. But there was nothing to wind down. All that needed to be done was send the cash deposits back to customers. At this point the bank has no employees, no office, no debt, no equipment, no asset, no loans, nothing. It's basically just a checking account and a receiver. I could have liquidated the bank myself. No receiver was necessary and none was required. In fact, prior to my finding buyers for my bank, the OCIF Commissioner assured me and the bank's lawyer, that if the bank ever had to be liquidated, she would allow the bank to liquidate itself, without the need for a receiver. The IRS got her to change her mind. Many insolvent banks are allowed to self-liquidate without receivers. My bank is likely the first completely solvent bank to ever be put into receivership.
Of course not. It is like saying that an appointed liquidator for HiPhi (a Chinese company in bankruptcy) must have experience working with Chinese luxury Electrical Vehicles ! (https://www.batterytechonline.com/a...y-ev-companies-that-have-filed-for-bankruptcy)
And of course, when a government authority (OCIF in this case) declares that a company must be forced to close down citing risk for society (as OCIF did with EPB), it is not a receiver´s job to say: “you know what, I will not liquidate/do the job I am hired to do, I will find a new buyer through current offers so the company can keep going rebranded/with new management”. Of course not. This is basic stuff. And hence of course this is not mentioned in the Cease & Desist order either among the tasks the receiver must do.
In my view, Peter´s best shot against the receiver in his court filing is to prove gross misconduct in his post 30th of June 2022 dealings, maybe through a forensic accounting check of every single spendings the receiver has done.
We can do that too. But he owed a duty on day one to resolve the situation to preserve as much value as possible for all creditors, which includes equity holders. They are last in line, but they are still in line. OCIF can not prove the bank posed any threat to customers, other creditors, or Puerto Rico. There is no legal justification for her actions, and there is no justification for the Receiver going along with it. I'm sure he was handpicked by the Commissioner specifically to rubber stamp everything she wanted to do. That's why more qualified candidates were likely not even considered. I would also like to go over the hiring process to see how he got the job. He is currently the receiver of two other banks in Puerto Rico. No funds have been return to customers of any bank he has been put in charge of.
The use of the word "sure" is based on what evidence you currently possess?
So this is just a fishing expedition without any proof.
Well I guess its America and people can serve you for anything and everything so good luck with this.
Toggle signature
Please note my posts should not be taken as financial or tax advice. Please seek professional advice in that respect.
Not a fishing expatiation. I already posses more than enough hard evidence to prove my case. But I'm sure I will uncover even more during the course of the lawsuit to fill in any gaps.
I feel that the next scandal will be that some of us won't be contacted, then we'll have to run after them to prove we had an account at EPB, they'll drag their feet like they always did, won't reply to emails...
There was no reason for even one customer to lose one penny. There was no reason for one customer to have been denied access to even one penny of their deposits for even one second. Customers have a great class action lawsuit if they want to file one. Just copy and paste a lot of what's already in my lawsuit. The shutdown of the bank resulted from an illegal deal between the IRS and OCIF negotiated on behalf of the J5.
Ok lets stick to topic on this thread thx.
P.S Happy new year in advance and hopefully people get their money back next year and not 2030 if legal proceeding throw a spanner in the works.
Toggle signature
Please note my posts should not be taken as financial or tax advice. Please seek professional advice in that respect.
P.S Happy new year in advance and hopefully people get their money back next year and not 2030 if legal proceeding throw a spanner in the works.
Toggle signature
Please note my posts should not be taken as financial or tax advice. Please seek professional advice in that respect.
It's crazy how quiet they got the last weeks. I'm starting to get more concerned than ever. I think it's really time to do something and not keep quiet watching till we will get our funds back.
- Status