hardincap

I think you mean David Thompson from the call. +1 to the part where they call the 7.5% cagr figure "analytically bankrupt", and taht "the Court should not permit this latest abuse of basic financial concepts to help Treasury defend the Net Worth Sweep"

"The Fairholme Funds plaintiffs had access to these additional materials before they filed their first motion. At no point do they explain why they waited until after briefing and oral argument to expand their original request to supplement the record." this is strange. if they had access to these materials why didnt they give judicial notice earlier?

so it seems to me thapur has pretty much made up his mind but is allowing for oral arguments anyway. is it standard procedure to allow for oral even if judge has made up his/her mind?

so thapur indicated that he's ready to rule on the mtd and then orders an oral arg? did he change his mind?

I've been thinking about that as well. agree its low risk but not zero. fwiw, th717:

thapur in robinson case has indicated that he's ready to rule on the govt's motion to dismiss.. do we get that ruling any day now? im assuming sleet in delaware case is ready to rule on the certification motion as well, also due any day now?

seems like the only way the govt can escape appeals now is to convince the panel judges that motivation doesn't matter (as lamberth opined). we know thats not going to work with g, so they have to convince m and b to be successful

im sure rand acolyte brown would be delighted to see this </sarcasm>

+1. lets see how govt tries to weasel out of that one

from hume's opening brief: millett seemed very skeptical of this conflict of interest argument in the oral hearings. hopefully she'll read the latest unsealed docs. whats the process for getting these docs into the hands of the panel judges?

lots of action recently. first the investors unite calls, then launch of fnma secrets site, now cooper conf call. i wonder if this is all coordinated?

it was more of a btw remark. i got the impression that there weren't any settlement discussions. will have to relisten though

agreed, just pointing out that the carney article is largely consistent with lamberth's legal framework. it'll be interesting to see how carney responds if/when we get a remand, essentially voiding lamberth's framework

unfortunately lamberth basically said as much - that no document matters (in regards to motivation) because that would constitute a why not what analysis (the what analysis being whether the Third Amendment actually resulted in a de facto receivership). lamberth further said that changing the flow of profits from private shareholders to the treasury "is in no way sufficient to reclassify a conservatorship into a receivership." edit: where these documents do help in lamberth's framework is to support the argument that FHFA violated hera's prescription “not [to] be subject to the direction or supervision of any other agency of the United States... in the exercise of the rights, powers, and privileges of the Agency.”

tim howard on the unsealed docs https://howardonmortgagefinance.com/2016/05/02/getting-from-here-to-there/#comment-849

that confuses me as well. it would have been useful to refer to these docs in response to millett's questioning of where's the conflict of interest

i see the motion requesting for the removal of the "protected information" designation from these discovery materials, but the motion also says "counsel for robinson was previously granted access to protected information" http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0322.pdf cooper, steele, gibson were all granted access to protected information, so am i correct to assume they and the judges in these cases have seen these docs already?

these docs are not newly discovered materials correct? sweeney has made them public but they were already accessible by perry cap, fairholme and jacobs lawyers, and presumably included in redacted briefs?

How many docs are in the sample?

he could just be describing the nws after the fact, not necessarily their motivations for the nws. we need to see pre-nws communications

agree @steve_berk, if we continue to see things like this at some pt it'll be in the govts best interest to settle

i find it hard to believe he and others (helfman, yoo, etc) would volunteer their time to write articles and do investor conference calls without something in it for them. stern had one thing right - everyone wants money for themselves

do you guys have any strong opinions on hume's breach of k argument? lamberth recognized that hera does not bar breach of k claims, but dismissed it nonetheless on grounds that 1) the claim is not ripe and 2) shareholders can only receive dividends at the sole discretion of the board. hume essentially argues that when viewed in substance over form, the nws prevents shareholder dividends under any circumstances. seems pretty straightforward, but again, im discouraged by the lack of engagement by the judges

He was quoting this: As one of the primary objectives of conservatorship of a regulated entity would be restoring that regulated entity to a sound and solvent condition, allowing capital distributions to deplete the entity's conservatorship assets would be inconsistent with the agency's statutory goals, as they would result in removing capital at a time when the Conservator is charged with rehabilitating the regulated entity. Under the Safety and Soundness Act and HERA, FHFA has a statutory charge to work to restore a regulated entity in conservatorship to a sound and solvent condition, and to take any action authorized by this section, which FHFA determines to be in the best interests of the regulated entity or FHFA. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/06/20/2011-15098/conservatorship-and-receivership

dont mean to beat on a dead horse, but it could go back to the word "may" that steve_berk pointed out, i.e. its permissive not mandatory that the conservator take action necessary to put the agency in sound and solvent. so, if fhfa thought theres no way to liquidate this huge portfolio, they could still lawfully do a slow wind down as conservator. motivation matters here, and g's salting the earth comment tells me he has plenty of reservation about giving the fhfa a free pass by not requiring a full admin record