merkhet

No argument here. Assuming a win for the plaintiff....are there more ramifications outside of just who gets the money? Apparently Im not the only one who thinks there's ramifications outside of the who gets the money. https://www.dropbox.com/s/wxpdjrsr8uqy6l7/Complaint%20of%20DoJ%20Attorneys%20%28Doc%201618181%29.pdf Where did you get this?

I think it's better that they just show that the defendants were, once again, lying. If you add in the additional information about 17% to 21% returns, it risks deflecting attention from the lying. Remember, the brief at this point is almost like a secondary chance of arguing. You want the last thought in the judges' minds not to be "which calculation is correct," but rather that "the calculation appellants gave was blatantly false."

I'm pretty sure the last Investors Unite call was with Hamish Hume. Unless there were multiple folks on that call. I particularly liked how they responded to the 7.5% CAGR question. By stating that "overpaying by $125 Billion" under 10% dividends can't possibly reconcile with the idea of earning a 7.5% CAGR under NWS, it makes the argument crystal clear even to the most math phobic of people.

Good reply brief from Perry. That explains why these documents weren't already picked up in the first filing and why Hamish Hume said it was a bit complicated as to why they didn't have the documents referenced in their initial briefs. 2016-06-15_Perrys_Reply_in_Support_of_Their_Motion_for_Further_Judicial_Notice_and_Supplementation_of_the_Record.pdf

I have so much more faith in Epstein than Olsen. They should make him lead counsel. Edit: Theres nothing wrong with Olsen, I just think he lacks the delivery. He needs to summon his inner Johnny Cochran if hes going to sell this. Epstein is a professor. He gets to craft his argument sitting at a desk in front of a computer. It's a different thing to stand in the colosseum.

Good summary. It's part of why I like the breach of K question more than the APA question. That one is very simple. Is there contract? Has it been breached? (roughly translates to is there a liquidation occurring that evades the preferreds' liquidation preference?)

So, globally, we raised $196 billion in IPOs in 2015 versus $249 billion in IPOs in 2014. And people think they can IPO one company w/ $100 billion of private capital in a single year? I want some of what those people are smoking... 2014 - http://for.tn/1UxziYM 2015 - http://bit.ly/1QrAM9J

There is an idea that brexit will be GDP negative for the U.K., and therefore, it will be bad for the world economy. Also, if they leave, others might try to leave, and it will be GDP negative for them too.

Sure, but I was only talking about correctly defining the upper bound. My main point was to not think along the following lines -- "A $2 billion company compounding at 20% for 20 years means that it'll be a $76 billion company. How many $76 billion companies are there today and how likely is this to happen?" The correct inquiry is probably to ask how many $38 billion companies there are rather than $76 billion companies because a 2016 $38 billion company is the functional equivalent of a 2036 $76 billion company.

Very interesting line of thought. I'd add a few more things to think about in terms of compounders. (1) It seems tough to look for a compounder based off revenue growth alone. There are four growth levers in my opinion (revenues, margins, multiple, buybacks). If the company can buy back 5% of shares outstanding for 20 years, that's a 3x off that amount alone. (2) Remember to adjust your ideas of what's possible based on the world 20 years from now and not the current world. Apple's $500 billion market cap might be the upper bound now, but 20 years from now, the upper bound will likely be $1 trillion or higher. The means, if you're trying to go backwards, you can likely raise your search to companies above $10 billion but probably below $25 billion for the 38x return.

Well, Watt has thus far also said he thinks that Congress needs to enact reform.

I think what's interesting is the following: Is there chatter that Mel Watt is thinking about acting unilaterally?

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/283271-why-we-need-to-move-past-recap-and-release

Not that it matters that much, IMHO, but for comparison's sake: S&P 500 from September 7, 2008 to now is +68.34% Net Worth Sweep return from '08 to now is +130.99% I calculated Net Worth Sweep the way that the Treasury currently does by adding the $245.6 billion in dividends purely as a return on capital and then $187.5 billion as a return of capital.

I don't think the oral arguments are signaling anything one way or the other. He just wants to give them the chance to make oral arguments if they so choose.

No, they can still appeal. While they're certifying the question of the preferreds to the Delaware state Supreme Court, the case is being tried in the federal District Court of Delaware. There is a federal court of appeals to which the government could submit an appeal.

http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/28_usc_1407.pdf

Here's the judicial notice request that we've been waiting for... 2016-05-25_Perry_Motion_for_Further_Judicial_Notice.pdf

FWIW, I think there is an immense amount of pressure all happening at once. (1) Perry Appeal opinion is probably coming out by the end of summer. (2) MDL is likely going to break in our favor, which means the Delaware case could see a resolution by end of summer. (3) Government has to provide documents under the motion to compel to Sweeney by EOB today, and they're going to have to get POTUS to sign off on executive privilege by two weeks from now.

http://blog.itil.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/flogging_dead_horse_what.jpg :) Was anyone able to attend the MDL hearing? I'm curious to hear how it went.

I think his point is that if you enforce a two hour rule, you will naturally prioritize your reading. And you'll get a better read of your true preferences amongst information sources.

Similar read here. Also, forces the government's hand re POTUS involvement.

The answer seemed to indicate that some of these documents weren't in the Fairholme discovery. They said that in the next 24 to 48 hours, they will be filing a judicial notice motion.

Yes, that's what they seemed to be saying.

Sucks. Would have been a good Q.