Grenville

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-04/buffett-backed-insurer-keeps-getting-sued-over-complex-products complex product combined with sales incentives….

great talk, thanks for posting!

Is there anything preventing her from just turning over the documents to the plaintiffs?

Still no documents produced from the Motion to Compel. This is annoying. What's the point of the order, if the government is allowed to drag its feet and not comply… I hope Judge Sweeney comes down hard and orders the defendant to pay attorney fees or this will continue to drag on... 13-465-0342.pdf

Just listened to the call. The thing that stood out for me was that plaintiffs have not seen any of the 56 documents sampled and may get a better idea on Monday on when they can see them. This just shows what an uphill battle this has been and will continue to be. In relation to the other 11k documents or more, in the motion to compel there was a requirement that the defendants go back and reexamine their privilege and update the logs to be more accurate. This just adds to the continued delay tactics that the government has used and will continue to use to slow this thing down. If and when plaintiffs get access to those 11k documents then they have to sit down and go through them which will also take time…. Sweeney's ruling is a huge win along with the motion to pay legal fees, but this continues to be a huge uphill battle that continues to take valuable time.

podcast of the interview at the top: http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/09/bruce-berkowitz-fannie-freddie-honor-contracts/

I had a question for the board regarding the motion to supplement the record from 5/25/16 (Document#1615013). The supplement was for documents where protected information designation was removed. Both sides put forth arguments around the motion, but we haven't heard any response from the court regarding the motion. Is this normal, i.e. no response means that the court is ignoring it and it's not important to the decision? Should we expect a response to this motion before a decision?

I remember someone mentioning that the staff turns over in August for the courts. Is it fair to assume we won't hear anything substantial from the Perry Case until September?

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. Appreciate all the discussion on this thread. My growing worry is that no judge wants to be the first to rule against the government in the GSE cases. The sums of money involved are large as well… I hope the delay and additional questions are just to be thorough. Judge Thapur decision to remove himself was quite a surprise given his vocalness to rule quickly. I understand the conflict of holding shares, but it seems like a stretch to suddenly realize you own them and then just recuse yourself. Hopefully I'm wrong and we get some decisions in some of these cases instead of either delays or additional topics to brief.

nice interview! thanks for posting.

"Texas train collision triggers fireball; no word on injuries" http://q13fox.com/2016/06/28/texas-train-collision-triggers-fireball-no-word-on-injuries/ I just don't understand how two trains from the same company can collide with the technology we have today.

Thank you for posting! I'm curious to hear Berkshire's response. Seems odd not filing the policy with the state commissioner... Found this article in the WSJ today: "Regulator Faults Berkshire Hathaway Insurance Unit" http://www.wsj.com/articles/regulator-faults-berkshire-hathaway-insurance-unit-1466444329

From what I remember, David Thompson said that the documents may have been referenced in sealed motions before the MDL and therefore caused some pressure for the government to release them. Another angle he mentioned was that given that Sweeney released the previous set of documents for the Merits panel and her tone in that order may have led the government to release here. He also said that he can't be sure on the governments reasoning. If the call is recorded, I would just listen to his response, because the question was asked.

@cherzeca Thanks for the above links to the documents and the call. The call answered some of my questions including the one about why the government agreed to unseal the documents ahead of a ruling.

I was wondering about the rest of the doc's just now. I called Fairholme just now and they don't have all the documents yet and said they may put them up on their site when they get them. I wish they would just put them on pacer and make everyone's life easier. Also, I assumed Sweeney ordered the unsealing, but looking at the order it looks like Robinson and the US came to a joint agreement to remove the protective designation. Withdrawal_of_motion_5-19-16.pdf

It's been interesting to see how things developed with Theranos. If they don't suspend her license, I'll be disappointed in the system. I would have thought the board members would be on top of some of this, but I guess they were just there to give her credibility. I figured someone with public company experience like Richard Kovacevich (WFC) would have done some diligence.

Enjoyed the historical perspective and the future outlook of this talk! Thanks for posting.

Sorry if I missed this, but where do you find the Peter Chapman info regarding the orders this afternoon? I don't see it yet on GSElinks (Is there a site or another msg board?)

Awesome! Thanks.

Hi, Is there a place to go for short interest data on the NYSE? I can't seem to find the official site or where one can peruse the data. I am looking for 2/29 data. THanks!

I had the exact opposite reaction to the Mad Money interview. Listen to her response to Cramer starting at 4:08 when he asked "Why didn't you just speak with the Journal reporter months ago?" Her response was basically "well, the Journal wrote a good piece a year ago, I published an op-ed on the Journal, but in this case the sources focused on detractors who said I would never succeed." She then offers a pretty weak response that the Journal only provided a "three day window" in which she was unavailable before the Journal had to publish. So, that's a bit of a dissembling response in my book. She basically didn't respond for months because she didn't like the article that was being written. Then she says that she finally decided to respond after months of inquiries but by the time she decided to respond, the schedules didn't match up. These are things that wouldn't hold up w/ a cross-examination, but that's not really Cramer's job. No opinion on fraud or anything like that, but I found her answers to Cramer to be questionable. Thanks for sharing your take. I've been wanting to re-listen to the interview, but haven't gotten around to it. I thought I remember other comments but I'll have to confirm that once I listen to it again. Thanks for posting! I haven't heard Jurvetson speak before. His comments are interesting but he does point to Holmes being independent. Did they just invest 500k and that's it?

Listening to Holmes rebuttal on Mad Money is worthwhile. Also Ericopoly, thanks for listing the board members and good point. I'm a bit disappointed with the Journal's reporting…it seems like its hard to find a news source where hidden agendas don't purposefully or inadvertently color the reporting. You also won't ever see a news source ante up to their mistake if they did make one with a full page article.

Casting_Light_on_the_Net_Worth_Sweep.pdf

You can request a copy of a compiled book of his shareholder letters. I requested it back when I owned his mutual funds. I'm not sure how far back the letters go in that book. I couldn't find my copy. Have you tried calling their offices?

the picture with his versa and the two pickups is PRICELESS!