muscleman

it was all already redacted. P counsel unseals what it wants to unseal (and what it is permitted to unseal). Got it. I guess most of the remaining redacted answers are like, "I can't tell you. I can't tell you. I can't tell you...." But surprisingly Jim Parrot didn't say this for all questions. I wonder if Perry P will now file this new info to the Appeals Court, and FHFA will again file an objection and ask the court not to look at it? :)

Why is Jim Parrot's deposition only partially unsealed? Just two pages?

It seems hard to be an AIG type of win. We have discussed that here a few times before.

Did he really wake up or was he reluctant to work on this case? It has been two weeks since he "woke up" but still no more updates? :(

I definitely hope there is no conspiracy. A potential OT topic: I am concerned with the DNC emails leaked here. It is better than watching House of Cards! https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13830 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5852

Even for Sweeney, it has been taking so long and still not yet ruled on the motion to release the documents. Not to say three judges in the appeals court. I am sure it is Millet pushing hard on these questions and doing a favor for Obama.

Wiki leaks unleashed the Hillary emails that FBI previously said there was no evidence of hackers acquiring them. Checkout how she plays dirty! This is far better than house of cards! https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/

why is FDIC allowed to file the amicus brief without filing a motion to leave first？ I remember a while ago professor John Yoo had to file a motion along with the brief, and his motion got rejected by Sweeney.

Can the FDIC influence the court in that the FHFA has sovereign immunity in spite of FHFA itself not claiming it? pretty weird, right? no, if a party isn't claiming something, an amicus can't do it on the party's behalf. it looks like amateur hour to the judges though... Reading FDIC's statement again, I think FDIC says that the parties claimed that FDIC is not the government but FDIC itself believes it is the government. I don't see anywhere in that brief where FDIC asserts that FHFA is the government. "FDIC does not support the parties’ assertions in the supplemental briefs that the FDIC as conservator or receiver is not the United Statesor not entitled to sovereign immunity." "FDIC expresses no view on whether FHFA as a conservator is the United States for purposes of sovereign immunity or the FTCA" So it sounds like FDIC disagrees with FHFA's brief here, which quoted "(FDIC acting as receiver “is not the United States”);" and " (dismissing claim because the FDIC as conservator “was not acting as the United States”)." http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/fnma-and-fmcc-preferreds-in-search-of-the-elusive-10-bagger/msg269617/#msg269617 Am I right? Why does FDIC track so closely about this case and why do they even care?

Can the FDIC influence the court in that the FHFA has sovereign immunity in spite of FHFA itself not claiming it? pretty weird, right? no, if a party isn't claiming something, an amicus can't do it on the party's behalf. it looks like amateur hour to the judges though... I have an amateur question. Why doesn't FHFA claim sovereign immunity? It seems so convenient for them to do so, and FDIC and probably some other guys high up wanted them to do so.

Why is it unopposed....... I thought the government always oppose to everything the plaintiffs demand.

speaking for myself, i thought we might have gotten a ruling on a MTD by end of july. if in favor of Ps that would have been a big development The court allowed Fairholme to file supplemental briefs, so that would take a bit more time for them to read and discuss. The DE case is not moving and Sweeney's still not deciding on the release of the documents yet. Is it normal for courts to drag on for so long?

Maybe there was the invisible Obama hand trying to manipulate justice. I can tell that from the recent FBI statement about Hillary's email gate. ::) I am sure behind the doors, Obama is pushing the Perry Appeal judges hard as well.

Look at the face! So much alike with Hillary Clinton! ;D http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/55fad9869dd7cc15008bb1ba-480/hillary-clinton-thumbs-up.jpg https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-OU955_0708th_M_20160708012032.jpg

I also find it weird that the DE court is making no progress at this moment. Six weeks have passed and the DE court is not doing anything after knowing the MDL decision. I wonder if this is an implication that the judge there is in the deferential camp like Lamberth.

Prem Watsa has a big deflation bet while LUK is positioned for inflation. It seems to be like Prem is right so far. All commodity prices are down, but have they bottomed out?

I still don't understand the real impact of Brexit. Some banks say they may withdraw business from Britain, but why? If you look at Switzerland and Norwei, they are not in EU but they seem to be doing well. They have negotiated trade treaties with EU. Singapore is out of no where but still thrive as an offshore financial center. However I don't understand the economics of these countries either.

+1. thanks luke Is government allowed to appeal this decision? I searched around but couldn't find any. The panel consists of seven judges so I assume the decision is final.

I'm not a tax expert but I think you may be mixing up a number of tax issues: a) the tax for Liberty from spinning out LTRPA; b) the tax situation on the gains inside LTRPA; and c) from being a shareholder of LTRPA. The 2 years generally references the spinout of LTRPA from Liberty. If a spinout is acquired within that period there is a risk that the tax authorities can look back and put the capital gains tax liability from sale back on the spinner (Liberty). I've heard it is not a hard and fast rule within that 2 years but generally that 2 years is the time period after which this risk is deemed to have been removed for Liberty. Inside LTRPA, the company holds the shares of TRIP with a very low tax basis. If it sells those shares it will be subject to tax on the gains. If it swaps those shares for another asset of equal value then there is no realized gain, the company will just hold that new asset but still have the same tax basis on the new asset. If the company is acquired as a whole, the acquirer will take those assets at the low original tax basis and will not be able to depreciate them. As a shareholder of LTRPA, your tax basis should have been set at the time of the spinout (I think you can get these off the Liberty website). After the spinout, your tax basis should be same as for any other stock - ie. your cost of purchase. Again, not a tax expert but have gone through a number of these between Liberty stocks and the Graham spinoff of CableOne. Thank you very much! Regarding the case when Liberty Trip is acquired by TRIP, TRIP will hold the low cost basis of the shares inside Liberty Trip. Then if trip sells these shares, it has to pay the capital gain, but what if it cancels the shares just like in a buyback program? Another question. Why not directly spin off the trip shares to shareholders? Why go through this entire cycle to spin off Liberty trip, wait for two years, negotiate acquisition, and eventually the shareholder would receive trip shares?

On the same night when FHFA filed the motion to consolidate, I emailed Steel and asked him if the best strategy is to ask the other 3 cases to drop so there is only the DE case, and that would invalidate FHFA's motion. He did not respond. Now it sounds like he might have read my email anyway. :)

That's surprising. How did this happen? And how did government AGREE with Robinson to release these documents? I wonder if Bob Corker made some money shorting FNMA and then loaded the truck on FNMA and released these docs to Robinsons, so the Plantiffs could win and he could win double. ::)

benhacker is an awesome guy. He gave me a lot of help to DIY the RIA documents. I'd like to share a few tips: 1. Use a cheap lawyer for LLC registration or even DIY yourself. It is no big deal! I paid like $800 to http://www.bizfilings.com/ to setup the LLC but I regret it. 2. Get a domain from godaddy.com. No need to buy its email or web hosting service. 3. Get your email and web hosting from zoho.com. It is free. Once you complete step #2, you can transfer the domain to zoho so you can get your corporate email account.

Now he is in big for biopharma companies?

His portfolio shrank from 3.2 bn to 1.6 bn in just 6 months! I bet there is a lot of redemption. But I know in dataroma you don't see his cash positions. Is he sitting on a pile of cash or is the redemption causing the shrank? I can see that he is unwilling to sell the two positions that haven't worked out for 10 years.

Good point.I'll research further "Prior to T11 Capital Management, Mr. Meshkati was General Partner and Principal for Trillian Capital Partners L.P. from 2001-2006." But see this: https://www.linkedin.com/company/trillian-capital-partners Founded 2010 So there is some discrepancy here. I don't know what's going on. I am impressed by his results. He seems to be focusing mostly on financial firms. http://www.t11capital.com/research/ It is a bit disappointing that he didn't talk about every position. Does anyone have his 2012-2014 letters?