Luke 532

Ackman (Rafter case) granted access to jurisdictional discovery materials in the Fairholme case. http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Rafter/14-740-0011.pdf

Somebody just joined the FNMAS party (or added to an existing position). 3.5M shares so far today. Of course, somebody also just left by the same amount :-)

I was just gonna say that. That foot note is interesting but honestly he could have wanted to attend more of his kids soccer games. I agree that we don't know the reason why he left. The timing just seems odd given all the recent developments.

Interesting that Schwind, one of the govt's primary attorneys, recently left the DOJ.

Comments from ValuePlays.net... http://www.valueplays.net/2015/07/13/everyone-but-the-janitor-getting-access/ Things must be getting uncomfortable over at FHFA/Treasury. Plaintiffs from several other suits have filed for access to previously restricted documents from the Fairholme discovery in the $FNMA cases. As she has regularly, Sweeney ruled in favor of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs from the Washington Federal, Cacciapalle and Reid cases may now all gain access to all previously protected documents from Fairholme’s (FAITX) discovery efforts and plaintiffs in Cacciapalle are even able to depose additional witnesses that Fairholme did not. Additionally, attorney’s for all three plaintiffs are now able to attend future depositions conducted by Fairholme (Cacciapalle lawyers are able to question witnesses for 1 hour after Fairholme is done). This is no small thing. The government is getting hit from all sides now and the number of plaintiffs with access to protected documents is mushrooming. This many people cannot hold a secret and word of what is being discovered and its potential ramifications will circulate in Washington putting increasing pressure for settlement on the folks at Treasury/FHFA

Document #162 was the motion for unsealing the DeMarco & Ugoletti depositions. I'm now 100% confident that the Sweeney order above was, at the very least, a motion that allowed for the plaintiffs to file the DeMarco & Ugoletti depositions under seal in the Perry appeal. This is because Sweeney authorized plaintiffs' attorneys in other courts to also access the discovery files under the Protective Order -- so it would be irrational for her not to allow the plaintiffs in the Perry appeal to also access the discovery files. Merkhet, thank you for your continued contributions to the board! This is good stuff.

Larry Kudlow to run Fannie-Gate next week on his radio program. :) Check his Twitter feed.

Sweeney grants more time for depositions and discovery (until September 4th). http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0193.pdf

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/maxine-waters-we-are-a-long-way-from-fannie-freddie-reform-2015-07-09 Maxine Waters: "Of course, Fannie and Freddie look pretty good. Not only have they been performing well, but they have paid back all of the money to the Treasury and they continue to earn money. So that makes them look very, very good."

People that have filed Amicus Briefs on our behalf: a former state chief justice, a former FDIC chief counsel, a former FDIC chairman, and a former Fannie Mae CFO.

Former Delaware Chief Justice files amicus brief Fannie/Freddie sweep suit Calls Treasury’s seizure of profits illegal. Former Chief Justice... very nice!

Many lawyers would probably say the same about financial jargon :)

Document #162 was the motion for unsealing the DeMarco & Ugoletti depositions. Please forgive my ignorance but what is the significance of this, if any?

http://investorsunite.org/iu-hosts-teleconference-to-provide-update-on-fannie-freddie-litigation/ IU Hosts Teleconference to Provide Update on Fannie, Freddie Litigation WASHINGTON, D.C.—On Thursday, July 9 at 2:30pm EDT, Investors Unite Executive Director Tim Pagliara will host a teleconference to update Investors Unite members and the media on the most recent developments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac investors’ efforts to enforce their rights as shareholders in the GSEs. Pagliara will be joined by Matthew D. McGill, partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher representing Perry Capital, and Richard Epstein, the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University and professor emeritus and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago. To join the teleconference, please RSVP to media@investorsunite.org. WHO: Tim Pagliara, Investors Unite Executive Director, CapWealth Advisors Chairman and CEO Matthew D. McGill, Partner, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher Richard Epstein, New York University Law Professor, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, professor emeritus and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago WHAT: IU Hosts Teleconference to Provide Update on Fannie, Freddie Litigation WHEN: July 9, 2015 at 2:30pm EDT DIAL IN: (800) 230-1951 Confirmation: 364133 RSVP: Please RSVP to media@investorsunite.org

Cherry-picked from GSELinks.com http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0179.pdf "New Filing in the Fairholme case. This is a joint filing from both parties to give access to protected information to certain individuals. Barrie Prinz, who works for Deloitte, is on the list. Deloitte might be getting nervous."

If Margaret Sweeney grants the NYT motion then Gretchen Morgenson will likely have a field day. If so, I just might have to name our unborn child "Gretchen" or "Margaret"... and the child is a boy. :)

Yes, that's the way I understood it. But if I'm forced to buy it in will it really be at that much more than $2.70 above wherever FNMAS trades at that given point in time. I would just sell FNMAS the same day.

Of course, that's the risk. I believe that risk would be more than tolerable given the wide spread ($2.70) between the two issues. In theory, could FNMAT be redeemed at par while FNMAS still trades?

Try it. Good luck. ;) These things are not liquid. I'm not sure they are shortable at all. I'm not sure if they're shortable but there was no notice saying they weren't when I ran a pseudo trade order with Interactive Brokers. That leads me to believe they are shortable. They're certainly not liquid, but the spread is nowhere near $2 on FNMAT so there would be a nice arbitrage opportunity available... unless I'm missing something. I imagine I am which is why I mentioned this in the first place. Anybody else have thoughts?

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference between FNMAS and FNMAT? FNMAS at $4.00 and FNMAT at $6.70. As far as I know both have a fixed coupon, 8.25%, non-cumulative, $25 par. I believe FNMAT was the last one issued before conservatorship, if that matters. Anybody have thoughts on long FNMAS/short FNMAT for an arbitrage trade?

Multiple motions filed today to remove protected designation from Deloitte documents. Plaintiffs smell blood.

I would imagine there's something really good. Excerpt: "As explained below, this prejudice is particularly acute because Mr. Ugoletti’s testimony calls into question evidence submitted by FHFA in the district court."

Looks like this was posted today. Haven't read it yet... PLAINTIFFS’ PUBLIC REDACTED MOTION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REMOVE THE “PROTECTED INFORMATION” DESIGNATIONS FROM THE DEPOSITIONS OF EDWARD DEMARCO AND MARIO UGOLETTI

Merkhet, I read that. Thanks for sharing. By the way, GSELinks.com will be posting the Lampert shareholder letter to their site tonight.

As far as I'm concerned, I like seeing more doubt surface on the actions of the government in 2008 as it likely makes winning/settling the 2012 actions much easier. The latter is the only thing I care about as a holder of FNMAS. Correct me if I'm wrong in that line of thinking.