Jump to content

beaufort

Member
  • Posts

    190
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by beaufort

  1. @cherzeca

    Dang, I think South Carolina is my spiritual home.  The manifestation is I had chicken and bbq ribs for lunch today.  Incidentally, beaufort is also an excellent cheese in the gruyere style, but from the French alps. 

     

    5th circuit Appeal

     

    Does anybody have a memory on how fast common/prefs started to move before Lamberth/DC appellate decisions?  Was it days or hours before the decisions were released?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  2. I am sure the jury charge will be the object of much fighting over wording (if Lamberth entertains those submissions).

     

    I agree that a jury on this file is a nightmare for the defendants. 

     

    How long do you think before getting into court for the trial?  A poster on SA, who says he is a lawyer, advises that entering the order will take 8-12 months and 6 months for a date after that.  That will give us some idea as to timing for settlement.  How long for expert reports, assertive and responsive, to be exchanged before trial? 

     

         

  3. @cherzeca, lawyers familiar with rules of civil procedure in Lamberth's jurisdiction

     

    Can Fairholme et al proceed for summary trial on affidavit?  Presumably if summary trial fails, plaintiffs can still go on to a jury trial on the merits.

    How long to get into court in Lamberth's jurisdiction for a long jury trial?  By the time lawyers are coordinating calendars my guess is at least 3 years.   

     

  4. I listened to the Saxton oral argument again a couple of days ago.  Abbie Wright laughs to herself after she says that FnF got relief from the downside quarters, and Treasury got greater upside in positive quarters ie all profit in perpetuity as a result of the third amendment.  I am paraphrasing.  The context was what remains for shareholders as a result of the third amendment. 

     

    I wish I was there to see the expression on the judges' faces when she was laughing.  My read of her laugh is that she is well aware that what she was saying is preposterous.  Of course, there can be nothing that remains for shareholders with the third amendment in place. 

     

    If anybody was in attendance on the day of oral argument, please provide your observations. 

  5. The news of Berkowtiz selling SRG printed hours after we learned that BRK will lend 2B to SRG, relieving SRG of the pressure from constantly decreasing SHLD rents and SRG's funding gap.  The stock is popping today with a significant short float.  Bruce has sold out completely.

     

    I don't like Bruce selling either because he is funding lawsuits.  I don't know how many.  Shareholders need the lawsuits.  I have to assume others will stop in and fund the lawsuits.  Perhaps the lawyers will work on a contingency. 

     

    Bruce's moves are not good from a funding perspective, but my SRG point is that everybody makes mistakes and gets timing wrong.  Bruce has understood the SRG thesis from the beginning of his investment in SHLD, and it didn't work out for him even though he was right.

  6. The capital framework, with numbers, suggested by FHFA is another good fact for plaintiffs and will likely be brought up in future NWS cases.  How can FnF ever have the capital levels the regulator says are appropriate if they can't retain capital?  Another good fact is when plaintiff lawyers are able to allege that the NWS has resulted in Treasury having fully recouped its investment in addition to the 10% dividend.  If Midas' numbers are largely correct, and this 10% moment has been discussed for some time, we are close. 

     

    These two good facts will be very difficult to ignore in future judicial decisions. 

  7. Is it me or does he always excessively raise his eyebrows when talking about fannie and freddie?  Also the pause and careful wording is probably another tell.

     

    And while typing that above I've realized how insane this trade has become.  I still keep taking a step back and think there's only one realistic outcome but I also am conscious of how silly this is becoming.

     

    He always strikes me as being deliberate and careful re FnF.  He seems to be a cautious user of language in general.

  8. @cherzeca

    I read the argument summary for Hindes/Jacob; I'll save the rest for the weekend.  I still have much faith in this one at the appellate level. 

     

    Re Mnuchin Bloomberg video

     

    I watched the video and my initial reaction was he was punting.  After discussing with a colleague, his reaction to the video was that this was a message to Corker (and maybe Watt):  we are not hostage to getting this done before midterms.  If it doesn't get done, we will wait and get FnF 'restructured' in some fashion that keeps taxpayers safe. 

     

    Because I am optimistic, I can see restructuring as raising a bunch of capital and retiring the sr. prefs.  The ball is in Corker's court to get onto draft 30 or whatever it is.

     

     

     

     

  9. Pleadings are allegations of fact.  It would be appropriate to plead the allegation that the government has been paid back in full according to the terms of the contract.

     

    As time goes on, it would make sense that Sweeney or Lambert courts would find that Treasury holds the junior preferred shareholders' interests, among others, in trust.  I am applying equitable principles to the damages claims that are proceeding both with Sweeney and Lambert.  The appellate court decisions have made clear that equitable relief is not available to stop FHFA from doing anything. 

     

     

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...