Key Issue: What is wrong with the Conservative Party & Federal Reserve ?
Corporate History Report: Major Trust Bank
Based on Account of Former CEO of the Holding Company
Executive Summary
This report presents the corporate history of a major trust bank based on information provided by the former CEO of the Holding Company. The account reveals significant discrepancies between the Bank's public corporate narrative and the actual events during the company's formation and early development, including systematic educational credential fraud, business failures, financial irregularities during the 1980s transition period, a sophisticated geothermal investment scheme operated through the Investment Vehicle that resulted in catastrophic client losses during the bank's federal charter conversion process, and the retaliatory destruction of family trust accounts when the Chairman's son attempted to withdraw his funds.
Current Corporate Structure
The Bank operates as a specialized financial institution with approximately $3.8 billion in assets under management. The bank maintains OCC Charter Number 24182, FDIC Certificate Number 57295, and SEC CIK 0001388829, indicating its legitimate current regulatory standing as confirmed through independent regulatory filings.¹ The bank is headquartered at 6295 Greenwood Plaza Blvd., Greenwood Village, Colorado, with additional offices in Boulder, Chicago, Cheyenne, Morristown, and Virginia Beach.²
The True Foundation: The Chairman's Background and Early Deceptions
According to the former CEO's account, the Chairman's educational and professional background contains systematic fabrications that formed the foundation of the Bank's early credibility. The Chairman did not graduate from the Wharton School in 1968 as claimed in official corporate biographies and materials such as the Colorado Business Hall of Fame entry.³ Instead, the former CEO states that the Chairman was terminated from his position at Irwin Miller's family office (Irwin Management Company) in Indiana and subsequently moved to California in 1971 following this dismissal.
Irwin Management Company was J. Irwin Miller's prestigious private wealth management organization, funded from Miller's Cummins Engine Company dividends and staffed by approximately 20 professionals, many with MBA degrees from leading business schools.⁴ Miller himself was a Yale graduate, Oxford scholar, and CEO of Cummins Engine, whom Martin Luther King Jr. called "the most socially responsible businessman in the country."⁵ The Chairman's termination from such a prestigious family office, according to the former CEO, suggests serious performance or conduct issues that would later manifest in his business practices.
Formation Period and the Shearson Hammill Claim (1972-1975)
The former CEO's account challenges the Bank's claims about its formation at Shearson Hammill & Co. While the Bank's corporate materials and the Colorado Business Hall of Fame state that the Chairman and the Co-founder began providing financial counseling "as a unit of Shearson Hammill" in 1972,⁶ no independent verification of this relationship exists in available public records. The former CEO suggests this may be part of the fabricated narrative, as the Chairman's pattern of credential misrepresentation extends to employment history. The timeline coincides with Shearson Hammill's financial difficulties during the 1973-1974 stock market crash and the firm's acquisition by Hayden Stone in 1974,⁷ but the specific connection to the Bank remains unsubstantiated beyond corporate claims.
The Holding Company was incorporated in California on November 24, 1975, according to available records,⁸ representing the actual legal founding of the independent entity following whatever arrangement may have existed with financial services firms during the early 1970s.
The 13-Year Educational Fraud (1972-1985)
According to the former CEO, the Chairman operated the Bank for thirteen years while falsely claiming to possess an MBA from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. This fabricated credential was foundational to the Bank's marketing and client acquisition strategy, providing credibility with high-net-worth clients who relied on educational pedigree when selecting financial advisors. During this period, the business achieved profitability of approximately $400,000, with success largely attributed to the Chairman's claimed academic credentials from one of the nation's most prestigious business schools.
The deception remained undetected for over a decade because clients and staff accepted the credential at face value, particularly given its prominence in corporate marketing materials. The former CEO indicates that the Wharton MBA claim was systematically used in all client presentations and marketing efforts, making it a material misrepresentation affecting business relationships and client investment decisions.
The Discovery Crisis and Business Collapse (Mid-1980s)
The educational fraud was discovered when a sophisticated client conducted due diligence on the Chairman's background, according to the former CEO's account. This investigation revealed that the Chairman had never graduated from Wharton, triggering a devastating credibility crisis that nearly destroyed the company. Financial counselors began leaving "in droves" as news of the deception spread throughout the organization, creating both operational chaos and an ethical crisis among professional staff.
The discovery had immediate business consequences. The former CEO states that the previously profitable $400,000 business collapsed, with cash flow turning negative as client confidence evaporated and staff departures accelerated. The company faced potential bankruptcy as the foundational lie underlying its credibility was exposed to clients and employees.
The Failed Trust Restructuring
During the crisis period, the Chairman attempted to salvage the failing business through a restructuring that created a new trust entity. According to the former CEO, this involved acquiring trust department operations from Guaranty Bank and Trust Company, a Colorado banking institution founded in 1955.⁹ The acquisition provided several strategic benefits during the credibility crisis: institutional legitimacy from an established trust operation, steady fee income from trust services, and prestigious name recognition.
However, the former CEO characterizes this restructuring as a failure. The entity struggled with operational challenges and continued cash flow problems despite the trust department acquisition. The restructured name was eventually abandoned as the company rebuilt its operations and reputation under new management structures.
The Missing Funds Incident
According to the former CEO's account, the trust department acquisition involved a verbal agreement with Ron Moore of Guaranty Bank and Trust Company. However, immediately after this agreement was reached, the trust department was closed, and $1.6 million went missing from the operation. The former CEO states that for a period of three years, the company scrambled to locate the missing funds, creating additional financial stress during an already difficult transition period.
This incident, if accurate, would represent a significant fiduciary breach and potential criminal matter involving client trust assets. The three-year search period described by the former CEO would have coincided with the company's efforts to rebuild credibility following the educational fraud discovery, compounding operational and financial challenges.
The Chairman's Belated Educational Legitimization (1986)
Facing complete business collapse, the Chairman finally enrolled in and completed a legitimate MBA program at the Wharton School in 1986, according to the former CEO. This occurred fourteen years after the Chairman first began claiming the credential, representing a desperate attempt to retroactively legitimize the fraudulent claims that had formed the foundation of the Bank's credibility and marketing.
The 1986 graduation allowed the Chairman to technically claim Wharton credentials in subsequent corporate materials, though current Bank biographies continue to misrepresent the timeline by stating the Chairman received his MBA before beginning his career, when the degree was actually obtained to cover up years of fraudulent claims.
Corporate Recovery and the Charter Conversion Crisis (2007-2008)
According to the former CEO, the Bank's transition to legitimate national bank status was marked by another period of questionable practices during the critical OCC charter conversion process. In 2007, the predecessor entity submitted an application to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for a charter conversion that was approved in 2008. During this application period, OCC regulations required the firm to operate as a national bank while seeking approval to become one, creating heightened regulatory scrutiny.
The Investment Vehicle Geothermal Scheme: A Complex Conflict of Interest
According to the former CEO's detailed account, the geothermal investment scheme was far more sophisticated and problematic than a simple high-risk investment. The structure involved a carefully orchestrated conflict of interest that exploited the Bank's dual entities to bypass normal fiduciary safeguards during the critical OCC charter conversion period, using the Investment Vehicle as the primary investment vehicle.
Investment Structure and Scale
The scheme ultimately raised $45 million across related investment vehicles, beginning with an initial $11 million raised through the Investment Vehicle, a geothermal development company that included investments from notable sources such as a member of a prominent brewing family. The former CEO states this money was "forced through a small non depository trust company's investment committee" by the Chairman and the Co-founder, who simultaneously owned and controlled a "related but unassociated RIA" that was ostensibly providing independent due diligence.
Structural Conflicts and Regulatory Violations
The fundamental problem, according to the former CEO, was that the same two individuals who controlled the trust company's investment decisions also owned the separate RIA entity that was supposed to provide objective due diligence on investments. Instead of providing independent oversight, this structure allowed the Chairman and the Co-founder to essentially approve their own investment recommendations, creating what the former CEO characterizes as "undue influence" and systematic "bias" in the investment process.
This arrangement violated basic fiduciary principles and, critically, occurred while the Bank was required to follow OCC regulations during their charter conversion application. Federal banking regulations specifically address conflicts of interest and require arm's-length transactions precisely to prevent the type of self-dealing that the former CEO describes.
Expertise and Due Diligence Failures
The former CEO emphasizes that neither the firm's staff nor the investment committee members had any experience in geothermal leasing, making the investment particularly inappropriate for a trust company managing client assets. The due diligence process was fundamentally flawed: the due diligence analyst who was hired to complete the analysis was not brought on until after money had already been allocated to Salt Lake City BLM auctioned geothermal leases. This timeline suggests that investment decisions preceded proper evaluation, reversing standard fiduciary procedures.
Escalation and Related Vehicles
Following the initial $11 million investment through the Investment Vehicle, the former CEO states that the Chairman and the Co-founder used this "bias and undue influence" structure to raise an additional $34 million through "related vehicles," bringing the total geothermal investment to $45 million. This escalation suggests that rather than recognizing the structural problems with the initial investment, the founders doubled down and expanded the scheme.
Public Promotion and Ambitious Plans (2013-2016)
While the structural conflicts were occurring behind the scenes, the Investment Vehicle project was being actively promoted to the public with ambitious development plans. In July 2013, the Project Developer, described as a company developer for the Investment Vehicle, made extensive public statements to the Times-News (Magic Valley's primary newspaper) about the project's intentions and scope.¹⁰ The Project Developer announced that "a $150 million geothermal energy facility will be built near Malta and create more than 800 jobs" based on successful drilling results. When asked about the viability after completing three production wells, the Project Developer stated definitively: "The answer after three wells is 'absolutely.'"
The Project Developer outlined specific expansion plans, telling the newspaper that "the Investment Vehicle also plans to remain in the area. It hopes to build two or three more power plants on its Raft River land holdings, as well as building geothermal power plants in the Crane Creek area north of Boise." The company planned to build a 25-megawatt power plant at Walker Ranch, adjacent to the existing US Geothermal facility, with hopes to "have its plant fully operational in 2016." The Project Developer characterized the project as addressing long-standing regional aspirations: "As I've spent time in Idaho talking to people, I think a lot of folks have always thought geothermal can be a strong industry for Idaho."
These public statements, made during the 2013-2016 timeframe, represented the optimistic public face of the same $11 million investment that the former CEO alleges was characterized by structural conflicts, inadequate due diligence, and regulatory violations. The contrast between the Project Developer's confident public projections and the behind-the-scenes problems the former CEO describes illustrates the disconnect between public representation and actual project management during this period.
The Decade-Long Evolution and Cover-Up (2007-2017)
According to the former CEO, the geothermal investment evolved far beyond typical private equity timelines, which generally have 15-17 year maximum project lives. The Bank's geothermal scheme transformed from initial lease acquisitions through actual drilling operations, ultimately producing a capped well head located next to a failed project from US Geothermal (USG) that was later sold to Ormat in 2017.
Project Management and Early Warning Signs
The former CEO identifies the original project manager as someone who recognized the venture's fundamental problems and recommended writing down the investment to zero as early as 2011. However, the Chairman refused to authorize the write-down, instead choosing to continue the project despite clear evidence of failure.
Ultimate Disposal and Asset Misrepresentation
The geothermal project was eventually sold to Ormat in 2017 for what the former CEO characterizes as "a few shekels relative to the investment" - suggesting massive losses for the Bank's clients. This sale should have triggered a revaluation of the property on the Bank's books, but the former CEO states this revaluation did not occur, preventing clients and regulators from understanding the true extent of the losses.
Operational Shutdown and Concealment
By 2016, approximately one year before the Ormat sale, the internal project team stopped receiving payment from the funds that had been raised for the geothermal venture. The former CEO indicates this cessation of payments signaled that the project was effectively broken and should have been written down to zero, as the project manager had recommended five years earlier. This timeline coincides with the Project Developer's 2013 projections that the plant would be "fully operational in 2016," suggesting the public optimism was maintained even as internal operations were collapsing.
The Agricultural Project Deception
Perhaps most seriously, the former CEO alleges that the Chairman transformed the failed geothermal project into what he describes as an agricultural project specifically to deceive regulators about the true nature and status of the investment. This transformation would represent not just poor asset management, but active misrepresentation to federal banking regulators about the composition of client assets under management.
The Three-Class Stock Structure and Valuation Manipulation
The Bank's corporate structure included three distinct classes of stock with different rights and valuation standards, creating financial incentives for discriminatory treatment of certain shareholders. This structure would become central to understanding the aggressive actions taken against David Wright upon his retirement.
The Three Classes of Stock
First Class - Founders Stock: Original shares held by the founders with no special rights or valuation protections.
Second Class - Turnaround Executive Stock: Shares granted to the executive team that transformed the company from $400,000 in profits to $50 million in pretax earnings. These shares carried critical protections: public valuation price in and public valuation price out as the standard of value. Key holders included:
Chief Financial Officer: 10,000+ shares
President: 10,000+ shares
Head of Financial Counseling: 10,000+ shares
Head of Trust: 10,000+ shares
Head of Private Equity: 10,000+ shares
Head of Operations: 10,000+ shares
Third Class - Acquisition Stock: Shares held by unrelated shareholders that resulted from the acquisition of Old Dominion Trust Company before the Bank obtained its commercial charter.
Valuation History and Manipulation
In 2002, when the firm had negative cash flow, a valuation expert working with a Seattle investment bank valued the company at $7 million. By current metrics, with banks trading at approximately 40 times earnings and the Bank generating $50 million in pretax income, the company's valuation would approach $2 billion - representing a potential 285-fold increase in value.
The Bank consistently honored the public valuation standard for the second class of stock from 2010 to 2016, executing trades that allowed employees to select which shares or options to sell and which tax or cost basis to use relative to their vested shares. During divorce proceedings in this period, the company was required to prove they would pay out on these shares at the public valuation standard, and they confirmed this commitment in court.
The Retirement Valuation Switch
When David Wright retired in 2016, the Bank attempted to fundamentally alter the valuation standard for his shares. Instead of the public valuation standard that had been consistently applied and legally confirmed, the Bank tried to force a book value calculation - a dramatically lower valuation typically reserved for the third class of stock. This switch would have:
Devalued David's shares to approximately 10% of their standard value
Preserved the high valuations for other executives' holdings
Created a precedent for selectively devaluing shares of departing executives
This attempted valuation manipulation provides crucial financial context for the extreme measures taken against David Wright, including the trust destruction and criminal prosecution detailed below.
The Wright Family Trust Destruction Case (2016-2018)
The Bank's treatment of family trust accounts reached a crisis point when the Client, son of the Chairman, attempted to retire and transfer his accounts in 2016. This case illustrates how the Bank allegedly used its control over trust assets and share valuations to retaliate against those who challenged their practices, even when those individuals were family members of the Bank's leadership and legitimate shareholders.
The Initial Account Transfer Request
The Client retired in 2016 and requested that his irrevocable trust accounts (the Client's Irrevocable Trust A&B) be transferred to another financial institution. At the time, the Client was in Seattle preparing to relocate to Costa Rica. However, the Chairman, his father and the Bank's Chairman, refused to authorize the transfer of these irrevocable trust accounts, effectively trapping his son's assets within the institution.
Creating an International Financial Crisis
The Chairman's refusal to transfer the accounts created a potentially catastrophic situation for the Client. By unilaterally cancelling the irrevocable trust structure, the Bank created an enormous taxable distribution event. Had the Client been in Costa Rica when this occurred, the distribution would have exceeded the $50,000 FBAR (Foreign Bank Account Report) threshold, potentially creating what the Client describes as an "international hostage situation" where he would have been trapped in Costa Rica unable to resolve the tax implications without proper documentation from the Bank.
Two Years of Silence and Standards of Care Violations
Following the refusal to transfer accounts, the Bank and its staff ceased all communication with the Client for a period of two years (2016-2018). This silence violated basic standards of care for trust administration, which require trustees to maintain communication with beneficiaries and respond to legitimate inquiries about trust assets. During this period, the Client was unable to obtain any information about his own trust accounts or resolve the tax implications of the Bank's actions.
Unilateral Trust Destruction Through Public Notice
In 2018, after two years of refusing to communicate with their client, the Bank took the extraordinary step of unilaterally destroying the Client's Irrevocable Trust A&B through a public notice published in the Denver Post. This action was legally problematic for several reasons:
Irrevocable trusts, by definition, cannot be unilaterally terminated by a trustee
The beneficiary was not consulted or consented to the termination
No documentation was provided to the Client regarding the distribution
The Bank refused to work with any other financial institution to facilitate proper transfer
The timing of this trust destruction in 2018 coincides with the discovery of fundamental legal defects in the geothermal investments, suggesting the action may have been part of broader efforts to conceal financial problems at the institution.
Criminal Prosecution for Attempting Contact
The Bank's response to the Client's attempts to access his own trust funds escalated to criminal prosecution. According to the Client's account, while he was on vacation in Las Vegas, ICE agents detained him, used a taser on him, and placed him in a Las Vegas jail. He was then forcibly transported from Seattle to Colorado and placed before an Arapahoe County court.
For the first time, in front of the court, the Client was informed that he had allegedly violated a provision prohibiting him from calling the company - a provision he states he had never been notified about. The court case, styled as AMG vs. the Client, represents the Bank using the criminal justice system to punish a beneficiary for attempting to contact them about his own trust accounts.
Regulatory Failure and Inaction
Critical to understanding why the Client did not pursue other legal remedies was his prior attempt to work through proper regulatory channels. The Client had made multiple communications directly to an administrator at the Kansas City Federal Reserve, which served as the Bank's primary regulatory authority. The Client observed and reported the Bank's various violations and problematic actions to this administrator.
However, during what the Client describes as a time of "political upheaval," the Federal Reserve administrator and the agency took no action despite being informed of:
The refusal to transfer irrevocable trust accounts
The violation of fiduciary standards of care
The attempted share valuation manipulation
The creation of unauthorized tax liabilities
The lack of communication and documentation
This regulatory silence effectively gave the Bank permission to escalate their actions, culminating in the trust destruction and criminal prosecution. The Federal Reserve's failure to intervene when directly informed of these issues represents a fundamental breakdown in the regulatory oversight system designed to protect banking clients and shareholders.
Pattern of Retaliation and Abuse of Process
This case demonstrates several disturbing patterns:
Regulatory Capture: The Federal Reserve's inaction despite direct notification of violations
Weaponization of Trust Control: Using control over irrevocable trusts to punish and control beneficiaries
Creation of Tax Liabilities: Deliberately creating large taxable events without providing documentation needed for compliance
Violation of Fiduciary Duties: Refusing communication and destroying trusts without beneficiary consent
Abuse of Criminal Process: Using criminal prosecution to silence clients seeking their own funds
Interstate Law Enforcement Manipulation: Coordinating with federal agencies to arrest and transport a client across state lines
The fact that this involved the Chairman's own son, and that federal regulators were informed but took no action, suggests these practices were not only institutional policies but potentially enjoyed regulatory protection or indifference during a period of political instability.
Discovery of Fundamental Legal Defects (2018)
According to the former CEO, the problems with the geothermal investment extended beyond financial failure to fundamental legal invalidity. In 2018, the former CEO met with a consultant in Idaho to investigate the status of the project. The consultant informed him that the original "sui generis geothermal leases conforming to Idaho laws were not perfected and may not hold up" - meaning the legal foundation of the entire $45 million investment was potentially invalid from inception.
The Ormat Acquisition and Valuation Context (2018)
The market valuation context for geothermal assets in the Raft River region became clear with Ormat Technologies' acquisition of US Geothermal Inc. in 2018. According to multiple industry sources,¹¹ Ormat announced the acquisition in January 2018 and completed it in April 2018 for a total consideration of approximately $110 million ($5.45 per share, representing a 28.5% premium to the prior day's closing stock price).
US Geothermal's Operating Portfolio
The acquired company operated three functioning geothermal power plants with established revenue streams:
Raft River, Idaho: 13MW net capacity with 25-year power purchase agreement at $74.32/MWh
Neal Hot Springs, Oregon: 22MW capacity with 25-year PPA at $126.36/MW
San Emidio, Nevada: 10MW capacity with 25-year agreement at $103.52/MW
Total Portfolio: Approximately 38MW net generating capacity with long-term contracted revenue
Scale of Client Losses
The $110 million acquisition price for US Geothermal's entire operating portfolio of three plants generating 38MW provides crucial context for evaluating the disposition of the Bank's adjacent failed project. According to the former CEO, when Ormat acquired the broader portfolio, the specific Bank project was valued at only $100,000 - representing a catastrophic loss of over 99% on the original $45 million investment.
The $100,000 valuation versus the $45 million raised from investors including members of prominent brewing families represents one of the most devastating investment losses in modern financial services history. This near-total loss of client capital occurred while the Bank was operating as a federally regulated national bank with fiduciary responsibilities to protect client assets.
Valuation Manipulation Through Adjacent Acquisitions
The former CEO states that valuations for the Bank's geothermal project had been artificially supported by Ormat and US Geothermal's acquisitions of contiguous land and leases. However, when these companies subsequently acquired the failed Bank project in 2017, proper valuation adjustments were not made to reflect the true market value, allowing the Bank to maintain inflated asset values on their books.
Criminal Implications
The combination of unperfected lease titles, improper valuations, and decade-long misrepresentation to regulators leads the former CEO to characterize the situation as "seems criminal." If accurate, this would suggest that the Bank collected $45 million from investors including members of prominent brewing families for geothermal leases that may not have provided valid legal ownership rights, then maintained false valuations and misrepresented the project's nature to federal banking regulators for over a decade.
Regulatory Implications of Long-Term Deception
If accurate, the former CEO's account describes a systematic ten-year deception that began during the Bank's critical charter conversion period and continued well into their operation as a federally regulated national bank. The alleged transformation of a failed geothermal investment into a misrepresented agricultural project would constitute ongoing regulatory fraud, as banks are required to provide accurate information about their asset composition and investment performance.
The refusal to write down obviously failed investments despite professional recommendations, combined with alleged misrepresentation to regulators and potentially invalid underlying legal titles, would represent a fundamental violation of banking fiduciary duties that persisted for nearly a decade after the Bank achieved its national bank charter. The discovery that the original lease titles may have been legally defective suggests that clients' $45 million investment may have lacked proper legal foundation from the very beginning.
The Wright family trust case adds another dimension to these violations, demonstrating that the Bank was allegedly willing to destroy legitimate trust structures, create unauthorized tax liabilities, and use criminal prosecution to silence clients who attempted to access their own funds - even when those clients were family members of the Bank's leadership.
Regulatory Context and Timing
The timing of this investment scheme during the Bank's OCC charter conversion process makes these allegations particularly serious. During charter conversion applications, banks must demonstrate they can responsibly manage fiduciary relationships and comply with federal banking regulations. Introducing speculative investments through conflicted structures while simultaneously seeking federal banking approval would represent either remarkable regulatory blindness or deliberate misconduct.
The OCC's conversion process specifically evaluates whether applicants can maintain proper governance, avoid conflicts of interest, and protect client assets. If the former CEO's account is accurate, the Bank was systematically violating these principles during the precise period when they needed to demonstrate competency in these areas.
The subsequent destruction of the Wright family trusts and criminal prosecution of a beneficiary for attempting to access his accounts would represent a continuation and escalation of these violations well after the Bank had achieved federal charter status.
Current Operations and Regulatory Standing
Despite the turbulent founding period described by the former CEO, the Bank currently operates as a legitimate financial institution under federal banking regulations. The bank maintains proper regulatory relationships with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency as its primary regulator, FDIC insurance for depositor protection, and SEC registration for its investment advisory activities.
The bank serves approximately 2,000 clients across 47 states, providing comprehensive wealth management, trust administration, and banking services.¹² Current leadership includes the current CEO, with the Chairman remaining as Chairman according to corporate materials.¹³ The transformation from the crisis-ridden entity described by the former CEO to the current legitimate operation represents a significant corporate rehabilitation over several decades.
Implications and Analysis
The former CEO's account, if accurate, reveals that the Bank was built on a foundation of systematic deception including educational credential fraud, employment history misrepresentation, significant financial irregularities during its formative years, and a sophisticated investment scheme that resulted in massive client losses during the critical federal charter conversion period.
The Investment Vehicle geothermal investment represents a particularly egregious case study in alleged fiduciary breach, combining structural conflicts of interest, regulatory violations during charter conversion, public misrepresentation of project viability, and ultimate near-total loss of client capital. The alleged 13-year fraud period combined with the geothermal scheme represents one of the longest-running patterns of deception in the financial services industry.
The Wright family trust destruction case demonstrates that these problematic practices extended beyond investment mismanagement to active retaliation against clients who attempted to exercise their rights. The use of criminal prosecution, interstate law enforcement coordination, and deliberate creation of tax liabilities to punish a beneficiary represents an extraordinary abuse of fiduciary power.
The pattern of misrepresentation described extends beyond individual credentials to corporate history sanitization, with current marketing materials omitting any reference to the crisis periods, business failures, or restructuring efforts that the former CEO describes as central to the company's actual development. The successful transformation to legitimate operations, while noteworthy, does not address the historical pattern of deception that allegedly enabled the company's initial growth and client acquisition.
The contrast between the Project Developer's optimistic public statements in 2013-2016 about the Investment Vehicle's ambitious expansion plans and the project's ultimate failure illustrates the alleged disconnect between public representation and actual project management that characterized the Bank's operations during this period.
Sources and Limitations
This report is based primarily on the account provided by the former CEO of the Holding Company and additional information regarding the Wright family trust case. Independent verification of these allegations would require access to private corporate records, regulatory investigation files, court documents from the AMG vs. David Wright case, and personal interviews with additional former employees or clients from the relevant time periods. Current regulatory standings and financial metrics are verified through public SEC and banking records, but historical allegations remain dependent on insider accounts.
Sources:
SEC EDGAR Database, CIK 0001388829, financial institution records
Corporate website, office locations
Colorado Business Hall of Fame, Chairman profile (noting discrepancies identified by former CEO)
University of Denver Archives, J. Irwin Miller biographical materials
Civil Rights Movement documentation, Martin Luther King Jr. quotes regarding Miller
Corporate history page (claims disputed by former CEO)
Encyclopedia.com, Shearson corporate history and timeline
Corporate incorporation records referenced in public filings
University of Denver Archives, Guaranty Bank and Trust Company history
Times-News (Magic Valley), "800 Jobs Created by $150 Million Geothermal Plant, Developer Says," July 25, 2013
Industry publications: ThinkGeoEnergy, Power Technology, Geothermal News & Insights, Ormat Technologies acquisition coverage, 2018
Corporate marketing materials, client statistics
Corporate leadership information
Account of the Client regarding trust destruction and AMG vs. the Client case, 2016-2018
Denver Post public notices, 2018 (Client's Irrevocable Trust A&B termination notice)
Report Classification: Based on Former CEO Account and Client Testimony
Date: August 16, 2025
Sources: Former CEO of the Holding Company; the Client's account
Verification Status: Independent confirmation required for historical allegations and legal proceedings