Jump to content

doughishere

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,190

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by doughishere

    FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Just a quick question/comment. I gather that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is completely separate and distinct from the Court of Appeals, DC Circuit.

     

    I guess the idea might be that "executive privilege" is a specialized issue and so they send it to the Federal Circuit rather than the DC Circuit. An implication of that specialization might be that they are "used to" the issue and have procedures in place to deal with it expeditiously. Judge Sweeney already did the in camera review, so the Federal Circuit would look at it again de novo, but with the benefit of having read Judge Sweeney's decision.

     

    As far as I can tell before reading briefs this is an interlocutory appeal (not final judgement) which will be reviewed under a rather stringent clear error of law standard. This is same for all federal courts. Not de novo review

     

    Thats next.

    FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    From Peter A. Chapman...

    The Federal Circuit has directed Fairholme to respond to the government's petition by Thurs., Nov. 2, and the Court has directed the United States to file a reply by Mon., Nov. 7, and submit copies of the 56 documents the government doesn't want to produce to the Federal Circuit for in camera review.  A copy of the Court's order entered this afternoon is attached to this e-mail message.

     

    Seems like a pretty quick turnaround!

     

    All I wanna do is zoom zoom..... Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 21(b)(6) directs that a mandamus "proceeding must be given preference over ordinary civil cases." 

    FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    The Edwards Plaintiffs submitted their response to FHFA's motions for reconsideration and a copy of the settlement agreement yesterday evening.  The Edwards Plaintiffs tell Judge Moreno there's nothing for him to do because the case has concluded and he has no jurisdiction to do anything further.  The Edwards Plaintiffs suggest that Judge Moreno should also cancel the hearing he scheduled for Oct. 31.

     

     

    "Simply stated, there is no longer any case pending before this Court."

     

    lol.

    16-cv-21224-0053.pdf

    FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Since September 20, 2016, when this Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel with respect to all 56 documents that it reviewed in camera, Defendant has repeatedly delayed complying with this Court’s order. On September 29, 2016, Defendant requested, and Plaintiffs agreed, to allow Defendant an additional 10 days to consider whether to seek further review of the Court’s decision. After that time had expired on Tuesday, October 11, Defendant granted itself a further extension over Plaintiffs’ objection until Friday, October 21. On October 21, Defendant informed Plaintiffs that it would not comply with the Court’s order until at least Tuesday, October 25. With those further extensions having now expired, Defendant today informed Plaintiffs that it intends to seek further review of the Court’s decision “in a matter of days.” When asked whether Defendant would seek further review with respect to all of the documents the Court ordered produced, counsel for Defendant said that she was “not at liberty to say at this time.” Counsel for Defendant further stated that she was unable to represent whether Defendant has made a final decision about whether to challenge all aspects of the Court’s ruling and could not commit to seeking further review by any specified date.

     

    God, what assholes.

     

    What would the process be like if the govt did want to receive a writ of mandamus from Federal Circuit?...like I think they want.

    FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    An emergency motion to see a settlement between two private parties... huh?

     

    From Peter A. Chapman...

    "FHFA filed an emergency motion this afternoon asking Judge Moreno to compel the Edwards Plaintiffs to give it a copy of their settlement agreement with PwC, and FHFA wants a copy by Oct. 28.  A copy of FHFA's emergency motion is attached to this e-mail message."

     

    The FHFA wants to see the settlement between two private parties(Edwards v. PWC). Most likely to see how they want to precede elsewhere.

     

    Off Subject: John Lester is 32 and getting paid $20M, for christ sake learn to throw the ball to first base!!!

    Modest Leverage

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Feels like a late bull market syndrome.  Some of the most sophisticated investors that I know of are holding a large amount of cash.  Most of them are doing so not by design but because they feel that opportunity sets are kind of poor at this moment. 

     

    Probably okay following massive market selloff.  But then hindsight bias.

     

    +1

    FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    A part of me thinks this might be settled before Hillary takes office.

     

     

     

    Edit: A large part of my reasoning comes from this latest shareholder lawsuit that got dropped with prejudice....If my reasoning is right, big if, the shareholders really have no reason to settle and if they loose then why drop?Why not at least finish this out and if its a loss then yhy not take it the next step. Also, that conference call a week or so ago with the lawyers from investors unite(I think one of them was an actual lawyer from  they seemed pretty sure of themselves. Also, the govt has 62 reasons to settle.....

     

     

    Edit 2: The govt has 56 reasons and one of the lawyers was a partner with Cooper and Kirk.

    FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

     

    In the United States Court of Federal Claims, the only permissible relief is just compensation for the property taken, plus interest from the time of the taking.

     

     

    This Epstein article is great.

     

     

    A quick look at the above list of demanded documents makes it clear, however, that none of Fairholme’s requests asked the government to turn over anything that involves the give-and-take of various public officials in formulating the policy.  Whatever the officials said among themselves remains private.But what Fairholme did demand was to see the documents that were supplied to the government as the basis for their deliberation. It is only through access to these documents that it is possible to see whether the government in fact had any materials that supported its aggressive defense of the NWS sweep, which of course has been stated publicly many times.

     

     

    The argument was not lost on Judge Sweeney, who repeatedly concluded that “Defendant Has Not Shown That the Documents Are Deliberative but, for the Purpose of Providing an Alternative Analysis, the Court Will Proceed as if Defendant Has Made Such a Showing.”

     

    Huge Respek(what movie) for Judge Sweeney .

     

    On the other side, the information contained in these documents did not include reference to the statements or memos prepared by government officials at the time.  Indeed, they all pertained to events that ran their course with the adoption of the NWS over four years ago in August 2012.

     

     

    The government’s case is still weaker because, as Judge Sweeney repeatedly stressed, it is an interested party in the litigation that has a lot to gain financially by keeping this information out of court.

     

     

    In the end, the case is so one-sided that there is no mystery why Judge Sweeney concluded her opinion by demanding bluntly: “defendant, by no later than October 14, 2016, shall file a memorandum with the court explaining why the court should not require defendant “to pay [plaintiffs’] reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.”  Note that the plaintiffs had not asked for this remedy, and they were not asked to file a responsive memorandum.

     

    Even though this decision is correct, there is a question, however, of whether it goes far enough.  Here are some of the disturbing features about the disposition. The plaintiff filed its complaint on July 9, 2013.  Even if we allow some time for the inevitable pretrial wrangling, it is hard to see why it takes over three years to brief issues and conduct hearings in order to deny a government motion that is laughingly weak on the facts.  In addition, it is puzzling as to, why it is necessary to conduct this discovery analysis individually for each of the 56 documents referenced in the (presumably only the first of more to come) motion to compel, when the analysis is virtually the same with respect to all these documents, and all these privileges, regardless of any subtle distinctions between them.  The balance in this case was as just clearly in favor of the plaintiffs by the end of 2013—nearly 18 months after the NWS—as it is today.

     

     

    Epstein stays on the attack:

     

    Finally, there is the further question of why the entire set of documents is not immediately open to the public at large, and made available to parties in and courts hearing all the other cases now ongoing, including Perry Capital v. Lew, presently on appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court.  My guess is that the information contained in these documents would influence greatly the analysis of the key underlying issues common to the cases: whether the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Department of Treasury were in breach of their fiduciary duties in concocting the NWS.  The Obama Administration has repeatedly publicly claimed that it aspires to be the most transparent administration in history.  Now is a good time to prove it.

     

     

    Anyone know if Epstein and Obama taught at UChicago together back before the President was the President? I dont think this is just about the shareholders of Freddie and Freddie.....this is a mental joust between 2 legal scholars.

     

     

    Edit:I just asked a friend, who attended UChicago Laws School, about Obamas time as an adjunct. They may have taught together.

     

    "His formal title was "senior lecturer," but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor." http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/

     

     

     

    If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Newton

    FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    with only 5 cases left, any strong opinions on the securities prices post-announcement under the 3 core scenarios?

     

    I'll go with 80 cents, $3.25, and $7 for affirm / remand / reverse, respectively, for the common and double each price for the 25-par preferred.

     

    if you look at prices before lamberth decision, you will see 4ish for common and 8ish for pref...anticipating a P win no doubt.  but if you get a remand from appeals ct, i dont know why the price action wouldnt go higher than that (at least confirmation that lamberth was wrong is more valuable than optimism pre-lamberth, no?)...and of course much higher if reversal

     

    https://seventeenmile.com/2015/06/23/special-situations-fannie-mae-raisins-analysis-june-2015/

     

    FNMAS has traded since August 2012 (FNMA’s PPS is in parentheses):

     

        Pre-NWS (August 10, 2012): $2.30 ($.28)

        Post-NWS (October 5, 2012): $.83 ($.28)

        Pre-Fairholme (March 8, 2013): $1.87 ($.29)

        Post-Fairholme MT High (May 24, 2013): $6.14 ($2.97)

        Pre-Lamberth High (March 7, 2014): $12.31 ($5.33)

        Post-Lamberth Low (October 8, 2014): $3.35 ($1.72)

        Post-Lamberth High (May 1, 2015): $5.06 ($2.82)

        Most Recent PPS (June 22, 2015): $3.81 ($2.43)

     

    You know I dont think ive looked at the price in over a year.... Ive had general idea of where it is/was but never actively looked it up.

    FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    What if the preferred was issued in 2003 and paid for four years and then I bought in 2014?

     

    I think damages are still speculation at this point. There would be a combination of factors and I just dont have the time to go through every class and determine the cash flows associate with each class, IF there even are damages. I know lazy.......

     

     

    I know what I own and have an idea of how its going to "payout"....again if they do.

     

    Edit: and by class I mean series.

    FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Notes from today's call:

     

    The United States District Court of DC has heard 308 cases, and we've got 303 opinions. Really should be any day now.

     

    Six key legal issues to look for in Perry:

     

    (1) Whether FHFA exceeded its statutory authority by failing to preserve & conserve assets

    (2) Whether FHFA was acting under the direction/supervision of Treasury

    (3) Whether Treasury exceeded its authority by exceeding the sunset provision

    (4) Whether there was a breach of contract on the dividend stopper

    (5) Whether there was a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and dealing

    (6) Whether there was a breach of fiduciary duty

     

    What are the possible damages for breach of contract?

     

    (1) Expectancy, put the non-breaching party in the same place it would have been without a breach

    (2) Reliance, out of pocket costs with some subtraction

    (3) Restitution, the benefits received by the breaching party minus benefits received from non-breaching party (like dividends)

     

    NOTE: It's possible that not all preferred shares would get paid out the same amount. If you never had dividends, you'd get closer to par value. Unclear though.

     

    I missed the call. Merk, can you elaborate on that last comment?

×
×
  • Create New...