Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Todd Barfield (Security One Valuation Services, LLC) Speaks


Last week, Appraiser Active mentioned that Todd Barfield, one of the owners of Security One Valuation Services, LLC, gave us a call to provide some explanation about what is going on behind the scenes. He was invited to send us an email with more information and assured it would be posted here. He no longer has control of the Security One web site and says he has no means of communicating with appraisers that have received checks that have been returned unapid.

The email below was received this morning from Todd Barfield. It is reproduced exactly as it was received.



In our efforts to keep the appraisers informed about this unfortunate situation with SecurityOne Valuation Services LLC (SecurityOne), below are some emails providing correspondence with the FDIC to SecurityOne. Please note, SecurityOne representatives and its legal counsel were working diligently to protect the funds and move the money from Platinum Community Bank several weeks prior to it’s closing, however, these requests were denied (the FDIC was not involved at that time). In addition, we encountered several delays once Taylor, Bean & Whitaker (TBW) filed for bankruptcy protection. After discussions with the restructuring group for TBW, SecurityOne was permitted to resume operations and continue paying our appraisers. There are additional investigations we are pursuing in relationship to the account at Platinum Community Bank. At this time, SecurityOne and the FDIC have not been provided the necessary account information to determine if the funds qualify for The Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP). The FDIC has been very cooperative, however, to our understanding, must fully investigate SecurityOne’s affiliation with Taylor, Bean & Whitaker. Realistically, SecurityOne and its vendors are in a very unusual position because the bank funds are frozen.


Without belaboring too much detail, we are all in a similar situation and consequently the payments for SecurityOne’s legal representation have been returned also. Fortunately, our legal counsel believes we are very close to some answers on the insurable status of the funds and they will continue working on this for a limited period of time.

SecurityOne will continue to process payments and replace the returned checks once the funds are released.


Thank you for your understanding and support.

The following program may be applicable to SecurityOne’s account at Platinum. As indicated on the FDIC website, Platinum did not elect to “opt out” of this program, however, the FDIC legal department is researching this matter for clarification.

The Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP) is a program adopted by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) on October 13, 2008 during the Global financial crisis of 2008 to encourage liquidity in the interbank lending market.


Several stated purposes of this program are (1) "to decrease the cost of bank funding so that bank lending to consumers and businesses will normalize." [1] and (2) "to strengthen confidence and encourage liquidity in the banking system by guaranteeing newly issued senior unsecured debt of banks, thrifts, and certain holding company, and by providing full coverage of non-interest bearing deposit transaction accounts, regardless of dollar amount."

The TLG Program became effective on October 14, 2008 and was subsequently revised based on bank feedback. Many FDIC insured entities have chosen to not participate ("opt out") in one or both of these programs.

EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE FROM FDIC TO SECURITYONE VALUATION SERVICES LLC

Monday September 21, 2009 (it appears there is a typo on the date 08.04.2009 which should read 09.04.2009)

We are receiving a tremendous amount of phone calls regarding an appraiser blog reporting on SecurityOne Valuations and the returned checks. It may reduce the volume of calls both to your business and the FDIC and help your business's reputation is people knew the reason the checks were being returned. Perhaps you could post something like this on the blog:

"Platinum Community Bank was closed but the Office of Thrift Supervision on 09.04.2009. The FDIC was appointed as receiver of the institution and paid out the insured deposits. ALL deposit accounts were closed which means that checks that had not cleared our account as of 08.04.2009, are being returned to the payee with a notation "Bank Closed" or something similar. SecurityOne Valuations is working with the FDIC to release our funds so we can begin replacing the returned checks."

People just need to know what is going on. We would appreciate your assistance on this matter.


Wednesday September 16, 2009

I have requested information from my contractors onsite. It may take a few days for a response. However, I did want to let you know that I can not provide any information as to correspondence with the OTS. Number 3 in your letter requests document copies of "instructions or other communications with the OTS." I suggest you contact the OTS for this information. Thank you.


Tuesday September 15, 2009


This email is in response to the SEVERAL emails and phone calls from Security One Valuation Services to the FDIC.

Currently, there is an account hold in place on an account was originally set up with funds from TBW or funds that shared ownership with TBW or an officer of TBW. TBW is now involved in a fraud investigation for both the Platinum Community Bank Receivership and the Colonial Bank Receivership. The Receiver has the ability to hold accounts that may be related to a fraud investigation. If Security One can prove that none of the funds in the account stem from TBW or belong to TBW or any of its officers then we can release the hold.


The FDIC's specific statutory basis for freezing a depositor's funds of a failed bank is codified in 12 U.S.C. § 1822(d), which allows the FDIC to withhold payment of a portion of an "insured deposit" of a depositor pending the determination and payment of a liability of the depositor to the bank involved. The Corporation may withhold payment of such portion of the insured deposit of any depositor in a depository institution in default as may be required to provide for the payment of any liability of such depositor to the depository institution in default or its receiver, which is not offset against a claim due from such depository institution, pending determination and payment of such liability by such depositor or any other person therefore.”


Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thank you.

At this point, that's all I have. We'll stay in touch and provide updates when available

Post a Comment