Mayor Taylor To Give BOK $7 Mil for Great Plains

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007

Why does someone who has given way more than $7 mil to Tulsa , care more about this $7 million than he does of the city financialy.
Whats the big missing picture that makes this $7.1 million so important

I think you're hitting on it...

If one looks more closely at this deal, it's apparent it's NOT BOK doing the dirty work here. It's TIA. TIA has the Metro Chamber as its' TRUSTOR (as opposed to 'TRUSTEE'). And, it's TIA who obtained the loan from BOK, then gave the proceeds to TAIT. TAIT defaulted, leaving TIA obligated. TIA's responsibilities are definitely NOT the City of Tulsa's.

I'm of the opinion Ms. Kitty just gave TIA our money. The suit is TIA v TAIT. BOK is not even involved. I suspect BOK has long been paid by TIA, who now is attempting to pass their own liability off on Tulsans.

And, to answer your question, $7.1 million WOULD be important to the Chamber and its Trustees since it likely would affect their credit rating, cash flow or ability to operate (of course, based upon their own possibly fruadulent use of that money originally). It could be the Chambers' Trustees are on the hook personally as well. That would be meaningful, if so.

Not sure why BOK is standing by taking all the crap over it, however. Guess it could be a question as to how much influence the Chamber has on BOK.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

The city of Tulsa might technically, legally be able to spend a couple of million dollars on lawyers to get out of this debt that the city council and mayor (a previous version) entered into with Bank of Oklahoma. Then again the city probably would not be able to win such a case and then would also probably be responsible for interest on the debt and maybe even the millions Bank of Oklahoma would spend on legal fees pressing the issue.  

I'm not a lawyer, but, the issue seems pretty simple, the city guaranteed a loan to a second party by putting up collateral that was not legal for them to use as collateral. That was the manner the city used to securitize the loan, it does not mean that suddenly the city doesn't "owe" Bank of Oklahoma on the default.

If the courts were to allow the debt to be removed based on this securitization error then shady borrowers all over the nation would start to attempt to use illegal collateral on loans and then upon "discovery" of the error clear the debt of the loan and walk away with the capital from the loan free and clear. That simply makes no sense and for any court to rule in favor of the city would potentially be very damaging to the U.S. banking system. This case is an easy loser for the city of Tulsa.

Even worse if the fact that pressing a lawsuit on this debt that the city certainly did incur (the only question is that city put up illegal collateral) might well, in fact probably would create an acrimonious relationship with one of Tulsa's largest headquarters company and the city's wealthiest citizen and greatest current philanthropist. A positive relationship with Bank of Oklahoma and George Kaiser has mean something in the range $100 million dollars in charitable donations to city needs in just the last couple of years. Would might a difficult and strained relationship yield? To try to save seven million dollars that the city does morally and more than likely legally owe? What if he stopped donating and moved all or part of his company? Would that have been worth the seven million?

A conservative should see that the city owes this money and should pay it. Simple, pay what you owe. Why is the "conservatives" now want to run to the courts just like kid with the stupid slip and fall in another thread?

This is the most twisted logic I've read on anything this year.

[waterboy]

But TIA and TAIT are authorities that have the Mayor or mayoral designates, on their boards. They are set up by the city or county to legally incur debt and to do the peoples work without undue political influence. (Neither one of those elements were accomplished with this deal.) In some instances these authorities receive partial funding from the city/county. If that is true and city officials used their influence to persuade BOK that their money was covered,  then it doesn't take lawyers too long to connect the dotted lines. It just looks more and more like the city would have been dragged into this suit inevitably.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007

Why does someone who has given way more than $7 mil to Tulsa , care more about this $7 million than he does of the city financialy.
Whats the big missing picture that makes this $7.1 million so important

Because BOK is a federally regulated bank and what's more is a publicly traded company. It would be illegal (under the Sarbanes-Oxley law and others) to pick a debt and forgive because you like the creditor. Preferential treatment is not legal.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by swake

The city of Tulsa might technically, legally be able to spend a couple of million dollars on lawyers to get out of this debt that the city council and mayor (a previous version) entered into with Bank of Oklahoma. Then again the city probably would not be able to win such a case and then would also probably be responsible for interest on the debt and maybe even the millions Bank of Oklahoma would spend on legal fees pressing the issue.  

I'm not a lawyer, but, the issue seems pretty simple, the city guaranteed a loan to a second party by putting up collateral that was not legal for them to use as collateral. That was the manner the city used to securitize the loan, it does not mean that suddenly the city doesn't "owe" Bank of Oklahoma on the default.

If the courts were to allow the debt to be removed based on this securitization error then shady borrowers all over the nation would start to attempt to use illegal collateral on loans and then upon "discovery" of the error clear the debt of the loan and walk away with the capital from the loan free and clear. That simply makes no sense and for any court to rule in favor of the city would potentially be very damaging to the U.S. banking system. This case is an easy loser for the city of Tulsa.

Even worse if the fact that pressing a lawsuit on this debt that the city certainly did incur (the only question is that city put up illegal collateral) might well, in fact probably would create an acrimonious relationship with one of Tulsa's largest headquarters company and the city's wealthiest citizen and greatest current philanthropist. A positive relationship with Bank of Oklahoma and George Kaiser has mean something in the range $100 million dollars in charitable donations to city needs in just the last couple of years. Would might a difficult and strained relationship yield? To try to save seven million dollars that the city does morally and more than likely legally owe? What if he stopped donating and moved all or part of his company? Would that have been worth the seven million?

A conservative should see that the city owes this money and should pay it. Simple, pay what you owe. Why is the "conservatives" now want to run to the courts just like kid with the stupid slip and fall in another thread?

A lot of probablies and maybes.

Okay, so let's say it's the "right thing" for the city to repay the debt plus a lot of "if'ns & buts".

The way the law works, not probably, not maybe is:  You have committed fraud when you put up collateral for a loan which is not yours to put up.  If it's a big enough deal, it results in prison time.

How do you feel about Dick Stupidity, Esq. and other co-conspirators walking away with total immunity on this one while they left us holding the bag for BOK?  Fine, pay back BOK who does have some redress under the law, but apply the same redress to the citizens of Tulsa so we can subrogate liability to Stupidity's EOI company.

Meh, who cares, $7mm?  It's not like it was our money or anything.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007

Hmmm... So with the above analogy, I should not give to the city until the city does right with how the city did me wrong. Lets call it the "Kaiser Way"

Oh by the way quit spinning the facts.. It was not the city it was TIA. The city had nothing in this until KT had BOK pull the city in. If BOK lawyers thought the city was responsible, the city would have been named in the original lawsuit. Wonder why the city was not named in the beginning....hmmmm

1 The Tulsa International Airport is leased to Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust (TAIT). TAIT is a trust sponsored by
the City of Tulsa for improving the buildings, structures, and facilities of Tulsa area airports. TAIT is the entity that
the Federal Aviation Administration recognizes for purposes of Airport Improvement Program grants and Passenger
Facility Charges project approvals. All references to the Airport in this memorandum are synonymous with TAIT.

2 The Tulsa Industrial Authority is an agency created to promote the general economic welfare of Tulsa area citizens.
The City of Tulsa directly benefits from activities of the Authority.










[}:)]

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007

Why does someone who has given way more than $7 mil to Tulsa , care more about this $7 million than he does of the city financialy.
Whats the big missing picture that makes this $7.1 million so important

Are you on credit watch?

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by Chris Medlock
Any time you want to compare the "reach" that I have, or Michael Bates has, to the reach you have, I'll happily play.

I am sure you have much more reach around than I have.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by swake

The city of Tulsa might technically, legally be able to spend a couple of million dollars on lawyers to get out of this debt that the city council and mayor (a previous version) entered into with Bank of Oklahoma. Then again the city probably would not be able to win such a case and then would also probably be responsible for interest on the debt and maybe even the millions Bank of Oklahoma would spend on legal fees pressing the issue.  

I'm not a lawyer, but, the issue seems pretty simple, the city guaranteed a loan to a second party by putting up collateral that was not legal for them to use as collateral. That was the manner the city used to securitize the loan, it does not mean that suddenly the city doesn't "owe" Bank of Oklahoma on the default.

If the courts were to allow the debt to be removed based on this securitization error then shady borrowers all over the nation would start to attempt to use illegal collateral on loans and then upon "discovery" of the error clear the debt of the loan and walk away with the capital from the loan free and clear. That simply makes no sense and for any court to rule in favor of the city would potentially be very damaging to the U.S. banking system. This case is an easy loser for the city of Tulsa.

Even worse if the fact that pressing a lawsuit on this debt that the city certainly did incur (the only question is that city put up illegal collateral) might well, in fact probably would create an acrimonious relationship with one of Tulsa's largest headquarters company and the city's wealthiest citizen and greatest current philanthropist. A positive relationship with Bank of Oklahoma and George Kaiser has mean something in the range $100 million dollars in charitable donations to city needs in just the last couple of years. Would might a difficult and strained relationship yield? To try to save seven million dollars that the city does morally and more than likely legally owe? What if he stopped donating and moved all or part of his company? Would that have been worth the seven million?

A conservative should see that the city owes this money and should pay it. Simple, pay what you owe. Why is the "conservatives" now want to run to the courts just like kid with the stupid slip and fall in another thread?

Excellent.....*****^

Wonder if Medlock went to TU to work on an A.M. talk show..?

Wonder if he ever finished TU....?

Wonder exactly how he feels he is qualified to tell Tulsa what it should and should not be doing....

When he was on the Council he spent an overabundance of time on the "Great Plains" issue........no smoking gun.. whole lot of fizz and no pop...

When he was touting himself as an alternative to "Bill" he had not finished TU..(clerical error) for sure..

That is before he and Bates were offered $$$ to work for LaFortuna... Then "Bill was the man.


[]

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I think he started this thread just so he could promote himself and his show. It looks like a desperate effort to get listeners.

We should ban him for spamming.

This is a substantive public policy issue and belongs here. An admin for this site should not be making such dismissive comments and threats. Your attitude does not promote public discourse.

Agree with Michael Bates 1,000%.

Recycle is a certified MetroTulsaChamberPot in viewpoint on this Forum.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I think he started this thread just so he could promote himself and his show. It looks like a desperate effort to get listeners.

We should ban him for spamming.

This is a substantive public policy issue and belongs here. An admin for this site should not be making such dismissive comments and threats. Your attitude does not promote public discourse.

Find a better shil or you take the lead MB and then Medlock's conflict of interest won't be so obvious or odorous.

CM and Michael Bates:

You remind me of the guy at the state fair mud wrestling with a pig.

You forget that the pig is ENJOYING it.

Stay out of the fetid mud that the Forum associates of the MetroTulsaChamberPots are wallowing in.

Return to your normal higher plane of political discourse.

They are sniping and nit-picking you because THEY ARE TRYING TO DEFEND THE INDEFENSIBLE.

And, because you have grown to become SOMEBODIES in this town, while they are still NOBODIES.

[:O]

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

That is before he and Bates were offered $$$ to work for LaFortuna... Then "Bill was the man.[/size=2]


[]

I was never offered money to work in Bill LaFortune's administration. I did some paid computer work for his 2002 campaign. I didn't do any paid campaign work in the 2006 city elections, no one offered me a job, and if they had I would have turned them down.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:Originally posted by Chris Medlock
Any time you want to compare the "reach" that I have, or Michael Bates has, to the reach you have, I'll happily play.

I am sure you have much more reach around than I have.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by swake

The city of Tulsa might technically, legally be able to spend a couple of million dollars on lawyers to get out of this debt that the city council and mayor (a previous version) entered into with Bank of Oklahoma. Then again the city probably would not be able to win such a case and then would also probably be responsible for interest on the debt and maybe even the millions Bank of Oklahoma would spend on legal fees pressing the issue.  

I'm not a lawyer, but, the issue seems pretty simple, the city guaranteed a loan to a second party by putting up collateral that was not legal for them to use as collateral. That was the manner the city used to securitize the loan, it does not mean that suddenly the city doesn't "owe" Bank of Oklahoma on the default.

If the courts were to allow the debt to be removed based on this securitization error then shady borrowers all over the nation would start to attempt to use illegal collateral on loans and then upon "discovery" of the error clear the debt of the loan and walk away with the capital from the loan free and clear. That simply makes no sense and for any court to rule in favor of the city would potentially be very damaging to the U.S. banking system. This case is an easy loser for the city of Tulsa.

Even worse if the fact that pressing a lawsuit on this debt that the city certainly did incur (the only question is that city put up illegal collateral) might well, in fact probably would create an acrimonious relationship with one of Tulsa's largest headquarters company and the city's wealthiest citizen and greatest current philanthropist. A positive relationship with Bank of Oklahoma and George Kaiser has mean something in the range $100 million dollars in charitable donations to city needs in just the last couple of years. Would might a difficult and strained relationship yield? To try to save seven million dollars that the city does morally and more than likely legally owe? What if he stopped donating and moved all or part of his company? Would that have been worth the seven million?

A conservative should see that the city owes this money and should pay it. Simple, pay what you owe. Why is the "conservatives" now want to run to the courts just like kid with the stupid slip and fall in another thread?

A lot of probablies and maybes.

Okay, so let's say it's the "right thing" for the city to repay the debt plus a lot of "if'ns & buts".

The way the law works, not probably, not maybe is:  You have committed fraud when you put up collateral for a loan which is not yours to put up.  If it's a big enough deal, it results in prison time.

How do you feel about Dick Stupidity, Esq. and other co-conspirators walking away with total immunity on this one while they left us holding the bag for BOK?  Fine, pay back BOK who does have some redress under the law, but apply the same redress to the citizens of Tulsa so we can subrogate liability to Stupidity's EOI company.

Meh, who cares, $7mm?  It's not like it was our money or anything.

With fraud you have to prove intent to defraud and proving intent is can be very difficult. Look at all the money that has been spent on Great Plains trying to find fraud.  

Let's try another example. Flooding. You have a mortgage on your home. This is a securitized loan. Your home is destroyed by flood and you do not carry flood insurance. Your debt to the mortgage company is not erased simply because the property used to secure the loan no longer exists. You still have to pay. The city of Tulsa will have to as well.

Now, about going after the former TIA attorney for malpractice. I don't know what the city would stand to gain here. The attorney's mistake didn't create the debt, so I would say that he is not responsible for the debt. He made a (bad) mistake on how a loan was guaranteed. The city owes the debt either way, so from what I can tell the injured party is not the city here, it's Bank of Oklahoma, he could be liable for damages to the bank, but not the city. The city got the loan it wanted and the city is not injured by paying a loan it agreed to. How exactly would it work for the city to sue the attorney because the city was forced to repay a debt it agreed to guarantee?

[tim huntzinger]

Look, no love lost twixt myself and some of the 'guest' posters here, but can we just keep the thread topical instead of using this rare opportunity of CM's participation as an opportunity to 'get even'?  If folk are besieged with nasties every time they deign to poke their heads up to post those people will stop posting.  Venality and pettiness just does not help [pot=kettle].