Luke 532

I really wish FMCCL wasn't so illiquid (only 5,000,000 shares outstanding). Trading at a measly 10% of par ($5 on $50 par).

More filings attached. Saxton plaintiffs have asked to amend their complaint based on information obtained from Fairholme's discovery. Saxton_12-3-2015.pdf Saxton_12-3-2015_another.pdf

Filing (attached) in which Judge Reade (Saxton case) denies amicus brief citing she doesn't need to see it to make a decision on the motion to dismiss. Perhaps she has already made up her mind on whether or not she will dismiss the case. The footnote is interesting: "Although the court finds that amicus participation is currently improper, it is not foreclosing the possibility of amicus participation at a later stage in the proceedings." FNMAS_Reade_Denies_Amicus_12-3-2015.pdf

Didn't miss anything negative. Just Chapter 8 of The Intelligent Investor playing out. Have been trying to pick some up - can't get a fill at the prices I want though :/ It's extremely difficult to get fills. FNMAS isn't too bad on liquidity as it has 240,000,000 outstanding, but others are much more difficult as they are highly illiquid.

Didn't miss anything negative. Just Chapter 8 of The Intelligent Investor playing out.

The timing is a big question. Scheduling for Perry below (Delaware is on a similar timeline). I believe the first item has been pushed back 2 weeks. That's around the same time as the Delaware case. Will be an interesting next few months. I wouldn't be surprised if the Administration is waiting on (1) jurisdiction to be upheld by Sweeney, or (2) to see what Egbert Perry said in his deposition (did he reveal the mastermind of the NWS, other damning information, etc.). Administration knows that Plaintiffs will be willing to settle so they might be waiting for a loss in either the jurisdiction decision and/or Egbert's deposition. I still think the settlement/release is the most likely outcome.

Bethany McLean's latest... http://qz.com/557781/the-depressing-reason-obama-and-congress-have-failed-to-fix-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac/

http://financialservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=399999 Congressman Jeb Hensarling Excerpt: "Our nation’s highways shouldn’t be funded out of the functional equivalent of a tax on Americans’ bank accounts or on the backs of home buyers, particularly those who are forced to backstop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But those were two of the Senate’s bad – and completely unacceptable – funding sources we started off with. Chairmen Neugebauer and Huizenga offered an alternative that, while far from ideal, is far superior to the Senate’s new taxes on bank accounts and home buying."

With Vitter’s Departure, Congress Loses Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Reform Champion http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/12/with-vitters-departure-congress-loses-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-reform-champion/

"...I believe that Hindes/Jacobs will survive FHFA's Motion to Dismiss, and Judge Sleet will invalidate the NWS under Section 151 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL)."

Interesting read: http://seekingalpha.com/article/3723466-why-hindes-jacobs-plaintiffs-will-prevail-in-the-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-delaware-litigation Why Hindes/Jacobs Plaintiffs Will Prevail In The Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Delaware Litigation

Case to Watch: U.S. set to defend Fannie, Freddie profit sweep http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/30/fannie-freddie-idUSL1N13P0MG20151130 Nov 30 (Reuters) - The U.S. government is set to defend next month its so-called "sweep" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac profits in the face of lawsuits by private investors in the two mortgage finance giants. Government lawyers are due to file a brief by Dec. 21 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit responding to plaintiffs who say the sweep, which has sent tens of billions of dollars into federal coffers through a 2012 amendment to Fannie and Freddie's financial crisis bailout agreement, has amounted to an illegal confiscation. To read the full story on WestlawNext Practitioner Insights, click here: bit.ly/1SrFMZA

"Damages analyses" They provide a lot of other services, too. Just guesswork as to why the gov't hired them but I wouldn't be surprised if they're assessing damages in the event Sweeney denies their motion to dismiss (i.e. we go to trial and the gov't wants to avoid that taking place).

None of the information below is necessarily important, but it's good to have on the thread in case these names pop up again in the future. Excerpts from bios... Neuberger: "Dr. Neuberger specializes in financial economics, valuation, and damages analysis in complex commercial litigation assignments across a broad range of industries. He has served as both a consulting and testifying expert." Gurrea: "Dr. Gurrea’s consulting experience includes the analysis of antitrust matters, calculation of damages, analysis of the economics of punitive damages, and performing financial analyses." You may recall back in April 2015 the gov't requested other "financial consultants" (same term used in yesterday's filing) to see protected documents for the possible purpose of assessing damages. Somebody back then posted it seemed very early to retain a damages consultant. It seems like they're looking for more help in this area. Anyway, the consultants from April 2015 were from Navigant Consulting. http://www.valueplays.net/2015/04/07/govt-preps-for-trial-before-sweeney/ There are at least 2 people currently working at Economists Incorporated that previously worked for Navigant Consulting. Neither of these people have legal access to the protected documents. Hal Singer, Principal: https://www.linkedin.com/in/haljsinger?trk=seokp-title_posts_secondary_cluster_res_author_name Kevin Caves, Senior Economist: http://www.ei.com/viewprofessional.php?id=72

Gov't has hired financial consultants from Economists Incorporated. Filing attached. The consultants: Jonathan A. Neuberger: http://www.ei.com/viewprofessional.php?id=37 Stuart D. Gurrea: http://www.ei.com/viewprofessional.php?id=20 Yiting Ji: https://www.linkedin.com/in/yiting-ji-302168a6 Rachel Lin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachelclin FNMAS_Economists_Incorporated_11-24-2015.pdf

Hold on to your hats! Merk, anything we dont already know in the article? It's this article in print http://fortune.com/2015/11/13/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-nationalize-housing-finance/

Already did. I got my copy in the mail a day or two ago. Here's hoping people read it.

Will be interesting when this hits newsstands...

He's one of Steele's clients listed on the Delaware lawsuit. Hindes claims it's Egbert Perry. Perry is either scheduled for a deposition or it has already taken place. Perry's deposition order attached. Egbert_Perry_Deposition_Oder_from_Sweeney_11-10-2015.pdf

Wow. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hindes-asserts-white-house-cover-up-regarding-fannie-maefreddie-mac-300183707.html WILMINGTON, Del., Nov. 24, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Calling it "arguably the most egregious example of attempted government secrecy since the Watergate scandal of the 1970s", Gary E. Hindes, chairman of The Delaware Bay Company, LLC and former chairman of the Delaware Democratic Party, asserts in a report published today on his firm's website (http://delawarebayllc.com/images/The_Mystery_Witness.pdf) that the Obama Administration may have tried to cover up its effort to block a key witness from testifying in one of the many lawsuits filed against it in connection with its de-facto 'nationalization' of Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Mortgage Insurance Corporation. The two government chartered, but privately owned, mortgage insurance companies were placed into conservatorship by the Bush Administration during the height of the financial crisis in September 2008 and were subsequently the recipients of $187 billion in government aid – since repaid with an additional $54 billion profit to the government.

Attachment: Sweeney grants Saxton plaintiffs access to Fairholme discovery docs. :) Sweeney_Granting_Saxton_Access_11-18-2015.pdf

Me too! This morning I asked him if he'd like to join COB&F as I feel he'd bring a lot of value to the community.

Thank you, merkhet.

To any attorneys (past or present) out there... do you agree with, disagree with, or have any additional comments about what Christian Herzeca (attorney that followed MBIA/BAC litigation closely via his blog) recently said? Thanks in advance for your feedback! https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/freddienfannie/chQ8Yy5V848 11-16-2015 at 12:33pm: "the fhfa brief is striking in that i) it insists that shareholders do not have a right to bring a direct action, as well a derivative action: i am unaware of any court that has held that a shareholder cant bring a direct action: and ii) that as long as conservator exercises a conservator function (such as amending the SPSP agt,), the court inquiry must stop and court cannot examine whether conservator had power to cause issuance of invalid preferred stock. of course, the exercise of one power (amend ag), which it does have, that leads the conservator to exercise another power (issue invalid stock), which it doesnt have, is an extremely bold reading of HERA, so bold as to give conservators ability to anything they want without court review. fhfa is hanging its hat on this. plaintiffs will simply argue that the conservator never had power to cause GSEs to issue invalid stock, and the anti-injunction provision only insulates conservator from inquiries into the exercise of conservator power, but the court certainly has power to review exercises of actions not within the power of conservator. even lamberth made a (very cursory) inquiry into whether what conservator did was within conservator power, and argued that he was being asked to inquire into the reasons for the exercise of the power (bad faith etc). so this line of argument is to my mind even one step beyond lamberth." 11-16-2015 1:07pm: "fhfa argument that federal law, not del corp law, applies to nws pref is extremely weak. cite that federal law applies to the SPSp agt. fine. fhfa doesnt (and cant) explain why that would make federal law apply to the validity of the nws pref. oh and by the way, there is no federal corp law to apply.."

Sweeney unseals November 10th order (the one allowing Fairholme to depose Egbert Perry). Sweeney_Unsealed_11-17-2015.pdf