Comments by summer

Previous | Page 3 of 3

Posted on December 9 at 9:13 a.m.

"While the plaintiff’s attorneys could get $3.4 million in fees and expenses, the settlement does not call for the plaintiffs to get any cash."

$3.4 million sounds like a lot of money - but it's not much compared to what investors lost after PCB made the deal with Ford. The icing on the cake was when the company declared a reverse split 100/1. So if you had 100 shares of PCB stock, you now had one. This came at a time when the stock price was starting to rebound.

Meanwhile, investors lost retirement savings and income, 30+ year employees lost what they had worked so long for. PCB mandated that most of the employees' retirement investments be held in PCB stock. Retired investors lost substantial income that was their living expense.

I don't get why the attorneys get all of the money & PCB gets "... a full and final dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Pacific Capital Bancorp and the individual defendants..."

I guess that's the end of the story.

On Tentative Ruling in Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Stock Case

Posted on March 13 at 3:53 p.m.

bird: The TARP money was used to support the Refund Anticipation Loans, not fuel the local economy. The RAL program has now had the plug pulled by the Feds.

maggi: The bank's decline is due to poor decisions both by Sr Mgmt & the's not just executive compensation.

limeysue: yes

contactjohn: Don't ever think that the bank is "too big to fail." The Feds are on their backs & they are ripe for a hostile takeover whether it happens or not. The loan portfolios have been in trouble for years!

slowjoe: Rotten is right but Sr Mgmt tried for many years to shield the Board - shame on both of them!

laszlo: SBBT is PCB & vice versa

littlebobeep: Right on! Consumer advocacy has always been the major threat to the RAL program. PCB has always known this but couldn't resist screwing those who needed the money from the tax returns the most in relation to the huge income it provided on the balance sheets!

geekbride: ah yes....

On SB Bank & Trust Downsizing

Posted on March 11 at 3:34 p.m.

"... development in the South Patterson area and the expectation of a school on the Lane Farms property are threats to farming’s future."
How can this statement NOT be true? Preserving our agricultural land should be a priority over another school in these times of educational budget issues. I am sure that plan will call for opening of the dead-end street of Santa Lucia where it meets the Lane Farms property. Does John Lane have anything to say about this? What about the EIR and the impact on a quiet, safe neighborhood of the traffic that will be expected? What about the property values in the affected you want to drive them down even more? It's time for the neighborhood coalitions to get active!

On Noleta Plan Moves Forward

Previous | Page 3 of 3

Multicultural Craft Program: Japan

Join us for the first session of our multicultural craft ... Read More