merkhet

Looks like they made a few documents public. This will make Friday very interesting.

Beat me to it. My guess is that it allows them to reference the materials at oral arguments before the courts, but that it did not allow for the removal of the protected designation from the documents wholesale. We will see how this translates into the oral arguments on Friday. As mentioned before, I plan on attending, and I'll report back what transpires.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Opinions.pl?2016 Opinion is from January 19, 2016.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/obama-relents-in-fight-over-fast-and-furious-documents-221741 I haven't read the opinion directly yet, but if the Politico reporting is accurate, that could be interesting for our pending motion to compel.

BG, I recall being able to purchase flights about 10 month prior on United -- but still waited until Southwest released its schedule in late October. (Of course, memories are fallible, so I'm not 100% sure about United -- I have a calendar reminder on Southwest though, so that memory is 100% true.) In theory, webcasting will alleviate some of the logistical burdens of the Berkshire Weekend, but looking at the Garrett Hardin book on my desk right now, I'm inclined to remind myself that "you can never just do one thing," and I suppose it's possible that the webcast increases rather than decreases demand for an in person experience.

I book my flight around October the year before. That's when Southwest releases their flights, and they are almost always much cheaper than other airlines. It usually costs me $400 or so round trip to Omaha. Occasionally, I use points to bring that price down even more. (Chase Sapphire points transfer to Southwest pretty well.) As for hotels, I generally book about two months after the last meeting. Your best bet, again, is to use points.

Jacobs responded to the MDL action by saying what we all know: Their action has nothing to do with the other ones The defendants are forum shopping because none of the four cases is even based in DC

I actually am quite fond of this idea. I wonder to what extent there might be some gaming though. It's hard to take all the gaming off a system that includes human nature. So maybe rating certain AAA bonds as B+ to get extra interest from the bond, etc.

I received mine in about three days.

I'll be there. If it doesn't get disrupted by protestors, I'll report back how the oral arguments go.

HLS students can't let an invited guest speak? I don't think it was Harvard students. I think it was an organized group of people protesting for mortgage principal reductions...

That's unfortunate. Are they rescheduling?

Just sayin' ;) But, yeah, any further BAM discussion probably should go to BAM thread. Peace. Oops, my bad. :)

Reasonably priced might be better description. I did not do a deep dive, not sure I could with their subs, investments, and corporate structure. Surface ratios look OK: P/E, P/B, P/S, but they are perhaps not great for evaluating company like BAM. Presumably good/great management. Cons: Not cheap based on AUM? Cycle? RE asset allocation high? May be lower in the future? This week's Barron's questions some of their accounting. FWIW. Another risk is that they are quite big now based on AUM. In summary, it might be a good company at OK price for some exposure to RE and alternative asset management if you trust the management. I won't pound on the table about it though, since it's rather complex. Don't want to derail this thread, but I believe there was a Barron's article on BAM that talked about how they have some questionable accounting practices in terms of valuing assets. For instance, they kept a high valuation in a pipeline asset they bought when Kinder Morgan (their JV partner) wrote that asset down to zero. etc.

If true, this is very interesting.

while the two are not exactly related, i would think a ruling on lifting seal on brief-cited docs for perry oral argument might indicate a willingness to open at least some privileged-claimed docs to discovery My thought was slightly different. I was wondering if she would lift the seal for the Perry Appeal in order to see what happens and continue to drag on the motion to compel.

Has anyone even seen the technology in person to be sure that it even exists?! The WSJ reporter has seen the tech. It exists. It just doesn't work. As I posted on Twitter, it's a good idea that they have a bunch of non-medical board members -- specifically, super-lawyer David Boise -- because Theranos is going to have to tap his expertise going forward.

Sweeney responded w/ an order directing a response by April 8th.

Some more interesting court filings: Followed by a response from Appellees:

Aren't you missing the forest for the trees here? The point isn't that the regulatory burden was too heavy. The point is that their tech doesn't work. Even within their own allowable variances!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-devices-often-failed-accuracy-requirements-1459465578?mg=id-wsj

Great read. Hopefully, we hear back from Sweeney soon.

The next date to consider is April 15, 2016 for the oral arguments in the Perry Appeal. What is your best guess as to how long the MDL Panel will take to rule? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ May 26, 2016 is the next time the panel meets. No clue how long it takes after that. And I got that from The Site Which Shall Not Be Named. I'm sure it'll be on GSELinks soon. Edited: Changed date as @cherzeca was right re next MDL panel

Well, it'll continue to drag for a little longer: The next date to consider is April 15, 2016 for the oral arguments in the Perry Appeal.

The Jacobs case teleconference is today @ 2pm. Could be an interesting day.