It would appear todays announcement of ORT's
settlement with Ca. Ins, Comm. spurs some confidence in
their position (That they did nothing legally wrong)
and hopefully a positive resolution to the SF suit
will follow shortly. (Hand the attorneys a
Check out the new web site for new services (Flood
Certification & Nationwide Appraisal Service)
have the bucks yet I'm slowly selling my profits
from pilt security stocks and puting the profits into
ORI. I've been doubling my money very 2 or 3 years by
buying a beaten down stock and holding. Have 4,000 so
far. I want to get 4,000 more.
I know it's true, but I can't believe all of the
people that have forgotten about big money. Small
accounts I understand, but not thousands.
especially hard to understand any large amounts from RE
closings. (It's not an event that happens everyday, for
I heard a story recently about a
state that was trying to find owners & sometimes they
wouldn't take the money...how stupid is that?
love to read the entire case & see all of the exhibits
& motions. The bank has a reason to keep the money.
(They can loan against it.) Title/escrow companies
don't have a reason. It disturbs me a little to think
this co may have converted funds. At this time I just
want a positive settlement...the fact they keep
referring to "vigorously defend" makes you think that at
least corporate didn't condone this type of action.
The Controller would have you think that they do
due dillingence in finding the proper owners
escheated monies. This is total BS since if you do not know
where to look on the internet there is not a chance in
hell you will ever see the money. I have lived in the
same place for over 20 years and forgot about a small
amount I had in an account at Citibank. Not one letter
or anything did I ever receive from the State nor
Citibank about same. If I did not hear about the web site
accidently I never would have received a dime. As far as I
am concerned the difference is legal stealing vs
illegal stealing. I think the illegal stealing at least
kept records in case the entitled persons asked for
I've never heard of holding fees & conversion,
only of interest earned on accounts.
escheat payments have been made & holding fees, if used &
against Ins Comm regs would have been a story. Recent
release w/regard to comm would indicate otherwise. (A
$330k contribution to educational program I think would
be a slap on the wrist.)
cares) READ the annual report with regards to litigation
cost & nobody disputes they are substantial, but this
is a company that earns $200+ mil/yr and has the
highest ratings of any national title insurer. They will
get through it. And recent developments seem to be
If there was conversion (theft) why no criminal
charges against anyone in the company?
Chicago was sending auditors out west at least every 2-3
years and corporate auditors are like IRS agents. And
it's no joke when they are there. It's hard to believe
they would miss a systematic "theft" of customer
money. It's their job.
With regards to FNF & FAF,
obviously everyone is getting looked at by controller, but
not everyone is being sued by SF. (I've been to the
courthouse - they could use some new computers there...and
it costs about $10 to park for an hour accross the
street! And if the gov sues they don't care, because
you'll never get attorneys fees back even if you
win...it's at least to some degree political
Besides, their charts look just like this one. If I were
picking the trifecta I'd probably go FAF ORI FNF. FNF has
lost a BUNCH of agency business to FAF. They all are
starting to point up, check the charts.
I've been guessing all along that they were
earning interest on escrow deposits & funneling them into
the NV Holding Corp. where former CFO embezzled $1
mil or so. My guess was these were "smaller" deposits
(maybe up to $100-200k) where they were not directed as
to how to invest the money. A bunch of smaller
deposits can add up.
When CFO was turned into
authorities he squealed about anything he could think of. He
wanted the best deal for himself and probably wasn't
think warm thoughts of his former employer at the time.
The stock price was $29 & climbing when the news of
the suit broke.
I'm also guessing their
argument in court was they did nothing legally wrong
because they were never directed how to invest the
(While maybe not ethical, it wasn't illegal.)
I've talked to some title people from Ca. & they say
EVERYONE charges a Reconveyance Fee, sometimes they have
to pay for reconveyances, sometimes not. (Of course
they NEVER refund the reconveyance fee) This maybe
could be considered a customary fee, if the insurance
commissioner doesn't set rates or regulate fees in
The escheat payments to the state have been
made.(Which they were most certainly earning interest from
also) I'm hoping (along with many others) this latest
news leads to a positive resolution of the case, as I
have a few shares and I'd like to see the company
straighten their ship & the price move north for a
Those, I believe were the 3 major points of the suit
against the company. Settling that suit and sending the
lawyers back to their firms couldn't hurt!