73 comments on “Lawsuit”

  1. I think we all know the real story already. The real Kim would only be trying to extract more money from the bank, or someone, by implying a “tell all.” I thought there were nondisclosures signed when she was fired and paid off.

  2. I hope you post my comment. You posted the negative ones from the other people. What’s fair is fair

    • If you take just a moment to go to the court house and read the judgement yourself, (and it is well written and entertaining, too) you will find that you are espousing absolute falsehoods which I will not post here on your or your friend’s behalf. We can easily find difference of opinion when the facts are unclear, incomplete, or unavailable, but it is more difficult to differ when dealing with the same set of facts.

  3. What are your true goals, seriously.? Is it “really” to change things?. Because if it was then why would you keep allowing old news to remain the focus and not what you can do to save this bank as you have clearly stated?

    • You are apparently new to this site, so feel free to spend a little time looking around. I think you will realize that the old news is that we have already been there and done that and lost the vote and the fat lady is about to sing. When you read that judgement and see the payoff the bank made, it all makes a little more sense. My question is this; Will the FBI think so, too?

  4. This isn’t actually an ‘open’ forum. There are many, many falsehoods on here regarding the bank that I have read over the past 5 months. It seems pretty clear that unfounded speculation, when it paints the bank in a bad light, makes it on here with ease. How many Friday’s have come and gone only to disappoint several people on here hoping to see a throng of government vehicles in front of the bank? The problem is, the bank today is vastly different than the bank from a couple years ago. Sure, a couple board members are the same, but that’s where it ends. The people there now are not the ones responsible for the mess. They are working hard at cleaning it up, while dealing with the angst from people who are upset by how it was run pre-2009. There also appears to be some hard feelings that the revolt that was planned at the annual meeting never materialized. Motions withdrawn, few questions asked,etc. I heard that once the facts of how the current administration has run things was shared with people in attendance, most of them got it.

    • This isn’t actually an ‘open’ forum. Mm-Hmmmm. Did anybody say it was? There are many, many falsehoods on here regarding the bank that I have read over the past 5 months. Are you including this one? It seems pretty clear that unfounded speculation, when it paints the bank in a bad light, makes it on here with ease. As have most all of the comments until just lately when they primarily attack the person who comments, or when they complain anonymously about this site allowing anonymity, for example. How many Friday’s have come and gone only to disappoint several people on here hoping to see a throng of government vehicles in front of the bank? You know that most of us hope that that will not happen and still hold out faint hope that the bank will pull through intact, but that was a good jab. The problem is, the bank today is vastly different than the bank from a couple years ago. “Vastly”? That covers a lot of territory. Sure, a couple board members are the same, but that’s where it ends. Five members are the same out of how many? The CEO is the same, and the executive committee and the audit committee all contain some of those same board members The people there now are not the ones responsible for the mess. Those five board members for sure, bear a lot of the responsibility, and a few of the senior officers who are still there bear some responsibility. They are working hard at cleaning it up, while dealing with the angst from people who are upset by how it was run pre-2009. There also appears to be some hard feelings that the revolt that was planned at the annual meeting never materialized. Motions withdrawn, few questions asked,etc. There was never a revolt planned, just a vote. There were no motions withdrawn, but the nomination was and that was thoroughly explained on this site, but thanks for adding to the falsehoods on the side of the status quo. I heard that once the facts of how the current administration has run things was shared with people in attendance, most of them got it. I bet you did. I think the numbers speak louder than the words to the shareholders.
      No one has an issue with the staff, except the officers who were part of the problem.

    • They don’t use government cars. They use rental cars that they get reimbursed to drive. What…do you think they drive to Princeton from Washington DC…? Just wanted to make sure there is SOME facts on here.

      Also, from the post you wrote, your comment on the Board Meeting in the third person, so it is apparent that you were not there. From everything I have read on here, many of the commentators WERE present. So although everyone observes things differently, I trust a person’s assessment of the situation that, was present, higher than a third parties account of what, they “HEARD”, from someone else…

  5. I certainly wouldn’t consider a nomination from the floor a “revolt.” Maybe a sincere attempt (tho too late) to try to turn things around for the bank and get it back on a more professional business track would better describe what was going on. I think the nomination was withdrawn at the annual meeting because it had become clear by then–at least to me–that there was no point in putting someone in the position of trying to work with that board. The bank had passed the point of no return. I see no way this bank can pull itself out of the hole it dug itself into. I have sold my 20,000 shares at $3.00 + or – and moved on. I feel very badly for anyone whose portfolio consisted mostly of PNBC stock and for the employees whose retirement plans may be ruined.

Comments are closed.