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

I agree--tea leaf reading is my favorite pasttime. Also agree -- my first impression was very different than my subsequent reads. Initially thought Olson did a terrible job in his opening, but now think he wasn't bad at all. And do think that Millet was trying to explore this thoroughly and not just from one vantage point.

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

I haven't yet reviewed the transcript, but I do recall her questioning Stern about a worst case scenario for the conservator, where the record establishes that they uniformly believed that fannie mae was going to be profitable but did what they did anyhow. She asks whether that would be contrary to acting as a conservator. Stern says they can do that and still act like a conservator without explaining why that's the case (quite a bold statement!), but then goes on to explain why the hypo is problematic, focusing on that instead. Millet doesn't come back and challenge or seek clarification on what Stern said yes to the hypo before he changed the subject. When i was listening, that led me to believe that she was questioning to see how he'd respond and that the lack of a follow-up, if anything, indicates it wasn't a line of questioning that she felt committed to. But you know how it is, reading tea leaves....

 

 

 

Read transcript after having listened to audio. My take is that millett was tough on both sides not just Olson. It is hard to read her. But I am left with view that her hypos betray a willingness to examine conservator action under statute so that it doesn't seem like she is coming from Lamberth-land where the facts don't matter as judicial review is barred. Because I see brown snd Ginsburg as willing to scrutinize conservator more than millett I simply can't get to where affirmance can be entertained as a reasonable expectation as to result. So while court was struggling with what standard to apply to determine whether NWS is valid as a C act I saw no inclination to say facts don't matter let's affirm

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

i think there is something wrong with the file... if you can reload that would be awesome. I've been relying on my imperfect notes

 

Perry Oral Arguments Transcript (attached)

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

I didn't see that--thanks for your help!

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

I may be missing something, but I only see the briefs for the plaintiff:

03/08/2016 - Final Reply Brief for Class Plaintiffs

03/08/2016 - Final Opening Brief for Class Plaintiffs

03/08/2016 - Final Reply Brief for Institutional Plaintiffs

03/08/2016 - Final Opening Brief for Institutional Plaintiffs

 

Does anyone have the briefs for the govt?

 

 

 

You can find the briefs on http://GSELinks.com

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

Hi Guys, just wanted to introduce myself to the board. I've been following this discussion and am a friend of Luke who introduced me to this group.

 

I've been an attorney for 16 years, was federal law clerk at the appellate level and have practiced as a litigator at a big corporate firm in NY and have worked in house at a corporation for the last decade. Been brushing up my litigation/law clerk skills by listening to the oral argument. But one thing that's missing for me is the govt's briefing before the oral arguments. Does anyone have access to a full set of briefs? To me, this is the only real way to evaluate all the arguments, even though the oral arguments were quite comprehensive.

 

Without going into detail, I agree that trying to predict what judges are going to do based on their questions is highly speculative. But there are times in which judges will make definitive statements that do reflect their positions. BTW, i'm pretty heavily invested in this. That's probably the gambler in me though. Look forward to making substantive contributions and digging into the meat of the arguments.