merkhet

All my questions were eventually answered. (1) Why do you need to use judicial notice for these documents? Shouldn't they already have been part of the Fairholme discovery already? Apparently, some things weren't cited because of trying to be economical re the brief. And apparently, they didn't have access to some of these documents. Didn't get into why. (2) What's the timeline for the APA response? Thinks late June or early July. (3) What's the timeline for the MDL response? Thinks first two weeks of June.

Finally, someone asked the settlement question. “If there were settlement discussions, those would be confidential, and I wouldn’t be able to discuss them in this setting."

"Can we get the government lawyers disbarred?" "Why is Carney so mean?" Seriously? You get in the queue and these are the questions you ask?

No one seems to be asking questions that matter. I'm in the queue though.

What's interesting to me is that Berkowitz's e-mail said 53 documents were released into the wild. But we've only seen 27 pages from Morgenson. So... where are the other documents? Will we see another article in a few days?

The fuse is now lit w/ the motion to compel. Tick-tock.

What intrigues me now is what Ginsburg said about the 10-Q. Before the 3rd Amendment, the GSEs had published quarterlies saying that things were doom and gloom ahead -- but this memo shows that's not what they thought at all... so... securities fraud? Things are getting serious very quickly.

Timing is very tricky, but I think the Delaware case could be resolved a few months after the MDL consolidation decision.

As to why they weren't as engaged on the issue, remember, the DC Circuit is essentially the administrative law court, so it's hardly a surprise that they spent a ton of time on the claim covering the Administrative Procedures Act.

its pretty much a tracker position for them. $4m total market value in a $14-15+bn portfolio Yes, it's very small. I'd like to hear their reasoning/analysis anyway though.

Looks like Sequoia picked up some common shares. Would be curious to know if they have some preferred shares as well.

Being good at shoe buttons does not make you good at everything. And with the nature of the geopolitical process the way it is, an intelligent person could also get us all killed. Yes, but the odds seem higher with some than others.

Ha! Pro Bono Legal Team. I like that. @hardincap, one of the things you have to realize (for those who aren't legally trained) is that appellate judges are "trained" (so to speak) to press the edges of arguments. Judges have a lot of power, and, at the risk of being cliché, that power brings with it significant responsibility. Judges have to consider the Garrett Hardin question on ecolacy, "and then what?" You decide that some rule means this, and then what? What repercussions come forth as a result of your decision? So, they're going to press both sides on the legal bounds and consequences of the judges' potential decisions. You asked how Ginsburg can both believe that the NWS prevents things from getting to a "safe and sound" situation, and yet also believe that there could be a lawful explanation for the NWS -- the answer is that he is testing the outer bounds of what it would mean to either reverse or affirm. What makes me think Ginsburg is on our side is that you have to look for the moments of emotion -- and the "salting the Earth" part is the moment of emotion for me. @Eye4Valu My personal belief is that things will roll very quickly if we get even the remand for a full and complete administrative record. The thing is, they came into this knowing they were supposed to give us a full and complete administrative record. If that record could absolve them of the shareholders' allegations, why not provide them and be done with it? The answer is that, for some reason or another, they cannot provide it, and if they are mandated to turn it over, the game is done for them. That's when they will start to think of ways to make this disappear. Add that to the idea that if we get a remand, implicitly, (agree w/ @cherzeca) that means that 4617(f) is not a bar for ultra vires applications of administrative power, and the Delaware case gets to continue -- whether as part of a joint case or back in Delaware.

Being good at shoe buttons does not make you good at everything.

Interestingly, more people have chosen Hillary in the poll but the Trump support seems more vocal.

I think investing based on your temperament is better than investing based on your tax rate.

They could implement Millstein's proposal tomorrow, if they wanted. The spin of four separate entities from the two GSEs would be quick and would release them from the government preferred. Of course, "if they wanted" is the operative phrase here.

Millstein has been out of the picture for a while now hasn't he? He seems to have dropped off the radar. I wonder what his position on the legal matters is.. If I recall correctly he's no longer a shareholder He was vocal (on Twitter anyway) about three months ago. He sold his position a while back when he was accused of just talking his book while trying to get a deal done for the GSEs. He hasn't been a shareholder in any form since maybe 2013/2014.

It's all a bit unclear to me right now. I'm not jumping to any conclusions. Will have to think on it a bit. It just strikes me as weird. The other thing that strikes me as weird is that the HuffPo piece talks about how the big bad hedge funds are spending money lobbying on things like Puerto Rico, but then when they take Jim Millstein to task on his alleged hardball w/ Corker's aide, they don't mention that Millstein & Co. is the adviser for Puerto Rico? If I had to speculate, I'd wonder if they were trying to disqualify Millstein as a possible adviser on the GSEs. Recall that Millstein is the only one we've seen that has proposed an idea for the administration to do a recap and release without any legislative action.

It's all a bit unclear to me right now. I'm not jumping to any conclusions. Will have to think on it a bit. It just strikes me as weird.

Moreover, and rather more interesting to me, from the other side, why discredit Jim Millstein via the HuffPo article?

Revenge is not a useful move, though. What does attacking Corker at this particular junction and/or in this particular way do for the interests involved? It doesn't undo Jump Start. So what does it actually accomplish? Alternatively, what are they trying to accomplish?

That's what I'm getting at though. There's nothing of substance on the legislative agenda at this point, so why would the hard push back through the media? Was this just because Corker has thin skin? Alternatively, what's the point of squeezing Corker in this way? etc.

Corker extended an invitation to Ackman (or maybe the other way around) during the Valeant "ambush." I originally thought that was for show, in that Corker would never follow through, but Corker mentioned again on CNBC a few days ago that he was going through with the meeting. I wonder if Corker is going to try and back channel Ackman into laying off on the ethics complaints. Again, it's perplexing to me that the hill is so aghast at these tactics. (Akin to the British finding the Americans' revolutionary war tactics to be brutish -- I mean, they don't even walk in formation and they shoot at you from trees!) But it's best not to push someone too far, because cornered animals are unpredictable.

Epstein last wrote something two days before oral arguments, so he's been active.