He is not doing his role. He is supposed to be a fiduciary. But he has not acted as one. He has violated his fiduciary duty to me as the bank's shareholder, and to the bank's customers. Plus, I have a one-year statute of limitations to file my lawsuit from the date I discovered proof of the conspiracy. So I can't just wait until customers get their money︀ back to file it.
Ticker tape by TradingView
Euro Pacific bank is a scam
- Thread starter sonato
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
You are not a party to a banking liquidiation! The shareholders rights are ZERO in a banking liquidation!
OCIF is the authority the receiver is bound to report to.
Oh my god it hurts that you are not aware of banking regulations
OCIF is the authority the receiver is bound to report to.
Oh my god it hurts that you are not aware of banking regulations
You are wrong. The trustee owes a fiduciary duty to shareholders as well as creditors. He is required to preserve as much value for shareholders as possible after repaying creditors. The only real creditors are the customers, as the bank had no debt and not much in the way of unpaid bills.
Here is what google reads. Yes, a liquidator of a corporation in receivership does owe a fiduciary duty to the shareholders of the corporation, although their primary responsibility lies with the creditors, meaning they must act in the best interests of all parties involved, including shareholders, while prioritizing the distribution of assets to creditors first
Peter´s main argument against the receiver for not “fulfilling his fiduciary duty” in this liquidation is that 1) the receiver hasn’t been critically enough towards OCIF and 2) he has been slow with the liquidation.
A man like Mr. Wigberto Lugo Mender with decades of experience going to court on a weekly basis knows that:
1) it is extremely hard to prove this against him in court
2) OCIF will obviously be “on his side” in any joint defense
3) he can prepare a defense using the perfect legal jargon when in court
4) this is yet another reason to take more time to do︀ the liquidation.
Also given the receiver is “only” being sued in his official role, he︁ Is likely much more relaxed than had he been sued personally.
A man like Mr. Wigberto Lugo Mender with decades of experience going to court on a weekly basis knows that:
1) it is extremely hard to prove this against him in court
2) OCIF will obviously be “on his side” in any joint defense
3) he can prepare a defense using the perfect legal jargon when in court
4) this is yet another reason to take more time to do︀ the liquidation.
Also given the receiver is “only” being sued in his official role, he︁ Is likely much more relaxed than had he been sued personally.
No, there were buyers who were interested in buying the bank and continue its operation. He had a fiduciary duty to explore the potential of a sale. But he refused to do so as OCIF ddi not want the bank sold. The Commissioner had a secret deal with the IRS to liquidate the bank as a PR stunt for the J5. Also, the receiver had no prior banking experience. I have no idea how he got the job. Also a review of all of his expenses may reveal self-dealing and other violations of his fiduciary duty. I think a more competent receiver could have finished︀ the job in a fraction of the time. I experienced his incompetence first hand when︁ he blew a $500,000 receivable for no reason.
when a bank is put in receivership it can not be sold anymore. Because the banking licence stays valid until winding-up has been finished. Your Google quote is also wrong. This Google quote refers to private companies not financial instituations.
Honestly please ask a competent lawyer in DC to explain you how a banking liquidation works.
I believe personally that you are only here to clean your name, and get compensation for not being able to sell to Qenta.
You don't care about the depositors and just want to repair the "Peter Schiff" brand...
(all views are my personal opinion)
Honestly please ask a competent lawyer in DC to explain you how a banking liquidation works.
I believe personally that you are only here to clean your name, and get compensation for not being able to sell to Qenta.
You don't care about the depositors and just want to repair the "Peter Schiff" brand...
(all views are my personal opinion)
That's not true. The bank could have been sold along with the license. Normally when a bank is in receivership it's bankrupt, so no one wants to buy it. But my bank was completely solvent, and there were multiple buyers. Not just Qenta. Most banks in receivership have a lot of illiquid assets and problem loans to resolve. That's why they end up in receivership. But my bank didn't even have one loan on the books, and it had no debt. So a prudent regulator would have sold the bank as that was in the best interest of all creditors, including depositors, plus shareholders. It︀ will be interesting to hear the OCIF Commissioner why she refused to let anyone buy︁ the bank, when the buyers were willing to infuse the bank with millions in excess︂ capital, fully guarantee all deposits, and retain all local employees.
Not surprised, given how incompetent the owners and management at the bank were that they were able to drive a "full-reserve" bank into insolvency and have it implode and collapse into a burning mess, leaving "depositors" (it was not a FDIC insured bank) in the lurch.
The bank was not insolvent. It had no debt. It had millions more in cash than was owed to depositors. Insolvency was the lie that the OCIF Commissioner told to justify shutting down the bank so the J5 could use the closure in its PR campaign. She also did it to win the praise︀ of the J5, to improve Puerto Rico's banking reputation. How can you still not understand︁ that?
He's probably a troll paid to harass you here. We should clean up this environment. The question is whether we want to. Many people spend time watching this thread only︀ to be told that the money will be returned tomorrow. Not "soon". So much bad︁ energy is being collected here just to play some personal games. It's ridiculous.
What bothers me the most is people thinking I should not even file my lawsuit as it may delay the return of customer funds, that will eventually be returned. I lost over $17 million that will never be returned. Plus I was falsely accused of helping organized criminals launder money and evade taxes by corrupt government officials and a complicit media. I have a right to clear my name and seek damages. Instead of being mad at me, be made at them. An innocent bank and all of its customers were sacrificed for a publicity stunt. The J5 got to publicize its first enforcement "success"︀ and the OCIF Commissioner got to clean up Puerto Rico's banking reputation by winning the︁ public praise of the IRS and other J5 Chiefs.
The saddest truth is that we are all victims here. Apart from the trolls, of course. Some of us have lost money, some have lost their health or lives. I hope you win and I keep my fingers crossed for you. Maybe this will provide some good background for a class action lawsuit later. We ourselves have no chance, according to my rough estimates. Time is already lost and possible income, turnover as well. There is no way to turn back time. Instead, we have unpaid bills and the prospect of being a passive plant on a windowsill in someone else's office. It breaks me︀ because I am not the type of corporate rat. To be happy, I only need︁ what belongs to me.
In June of last year, the Receiver published a very detailed liquidation plan, which included the exact date when we would get our money back. That liquidation plan was subject to the recovery of the funds from Novo bank, since that didn't happen, the plan didn't go through.
At the beginning of August of this year the Receiver finally received all the funds from Novo bank, but this time all that he has told us is that "we cannot provide a firm timeline at the moment,.."
And here we are, almost 5 months︀ later and we still don't know when we will get our money back.
There is︁ no consistency with this Receiver, and there is now no reason to not return the︂ funds.
This is getting very fishy!
At the beginning of August of this year the Receiver finally received all the funds from Novo bank, but this time all that he has told us is that "we cannot provide a firm timeline at the moment,.."
And here we are, almost 5 months︀ later and we still don't know when we will get our money back.
There is︁ no consistency with this Receiver, and there is now no reason to not return the︂ funds.
This is getting very fishy!
Remember the only reason the bank could not return the money to opr out customers and send the opt in customers funds to Qenta, in the fall of 2022 was that the Portugese Government fell for the J5 publicity stunt that the bank was closed for money laundering and tax evasion. The OCIF commissioner refused to clear up that misunderstanding, as she wanted to maintain the pretense that the bank was shut down for money laundering and tax evasion.
Can you give me the email address of the one who contacted you?
So they contacted you last week and me, nothing. Why am I not surprised?
So they contacted you last week and me, nothing. Why am I not surprised?
if an authority puts a bank into liquidation (a forced one in epb case) the liquidators︂ job is to liquidate the bank meaning distribute the remaining assets and close it. That’s︃ it . It is NOT the liquidators job (his fiduciary duty) to assess whether the︄ bank could be rescued by selling It to new owners. Hence your argument against the︅ receiver is flawed. Of course if you can prove in court that the receiver has︆ been enriching himself due to illicit spendings and/or delaying on purpose , that is another︇ thing. But your argument that the receiver must assess potential buyers is flawed. No one︈ has said it Isn’t your right to sue and I don’t think anyone has said︉ 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 then︋ later saying you sued him “in his professional capacity only “.
You are wrong. Plus, potential buyers help customers and other creditors, as well︄ as shareholders. As it stands now, due to the failure of the receiver to consider︅ a sale of the bank, all customers may end up losing some money. Had he︆ approved a sale, not only would no customer have lost a dime, but all would︇ have had access to 100% of their deposits over two years ago. However, had he︈ done that he would not have been able to excessively enrich himself over that time︉ period. The receiver is not allowed to squander a bank's capital that may otherwise have︊ been available to creditors or shareholders. What does that not upset you?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.