merkhet

Color me confused. I thought that they didn't have to produce an administrative record? http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Saxton/15-00047-0067.pdf

Yea, it was a rather clever response. We will see if the court sides with Steele. It's a waiting game now.

Plaintiffs' Reply for Ceritifcation http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Jacobs_Hindes/15-00708-0034.pdf

Again, I agree with all those things, but the court might not.

Guys, I think Picasso is joking.

my question is who did they ask? perry, berky, acky, or wash federal etc etc. if they want to settle they should find a big table first Sadly, unclear. Anyone have access to the article?

From Jon Prior's twitter:

Excellent. Setting my TiVo. Thanks!

I suppose it's possible, but I'd have to check out the reasoning behind the prior cases.

I can't imagine a derivative claim against FHFA that doesn't "restrain or affect the exercise" of FHFA's powers as conservator. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your statement though.

I'm looking forward to hearing those oral arguments. Should be open to the public.

Yes, that's the right place, and while I agree with you, the court could still find that the HERA powers are so broad that there's nothing that isn't within the power of FHFA to do. (Much like in the Lamberth case.)

he didnt call them negotiations but rather conversations, and he said they went nowhere I was surprised he even brought it up. I thought I heard something similar. We'll have to wait for the transcript.

There are two procedural bars: (A) 4617(f) saying that courts are not allowed to review the exercise of conservator power, and (B) the conservator succeeded to the rights of shareholders The "conflict of interest" exception only deals w/ (B). Plaintiffs have to win (A) & (B). I think that FHFA has a conflict of interest because it's unlikely that they can stand up to Treasury, but you'd have to be able to prove it -- which is what the discovery in Fairholme v. United States is about. I am more worried about how the courts decide to deal w/ (A).

i was thinking that too. let's face it, they talk to each other alot, and i imagine they are both frustrated And yet... Watt still has options available right now that he's not exercising. So the main thing that makes me curious is that Watt is so publicly voicing his displeasure with the situation despite being able to move unilaterally w/o Treasury's sign off.

It depends on which shareholders you're talking about. I can see a world in which preferred shareholders are paid off at par, but the common shareholders are diluted very significantly because of the lack of capital. (Remember, you can either use the capital to pay off the Government preferred or you can use the capital to build capital. You can't use the same dollar for both.) Unclear about the motivation.

Here are the important quotes: Looks like CNBC has basically posted the FT article. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/20/fannie-mae-at-risk-of-needing-a-bailout.html

Watt & Mayopolous' comments seem co-ordinated. Maybe that's just my optimism.

Do they say why? Nope. They just think we will hear on the MTD/Certification in two weeks -- it's a little odd to me because of the fact that the certification reply from Justice Steele isn't even due until February 26, a week from now. http://investorsunite.org/government-offers-nixonian-rationale-for-dismissing-shareholder-rights-in-delaware-case/

Investors Unite seems to think we will get an answer from Jacobs/Hindes in the next two weeks.

in my view there is no end to conservatorship unless NWS invalidated. cant have a return to normality with a full treasury pref intact and no capital. my guess is cooper will make a filing in perry appeal court asking court to take judicial notice that the conservator himself has publicly stated that the NWS makes the goal of a successful conservatorship impossible. I agree. I think that without the legal cases, we wouldn't have Watt's speech yesterday. Moreover, at this point, the legal cases and Watt have somewhat aligned interests.

It's amazing to me that there's even the whiff of independence when Watt indicates that FHFA wants to end the conservatorship and yet is unable to do so.

Agree. Also, page 38-41 of the Jacobs brief is applicable to dismantling Defendants' arguments that they were exercising other powers granted by HERA and that 4617(f) should apply -- and are directly in response to the Rosa and Gross citations. Regardless, I'm just trying to Munger-ize the investment and invert. Figure out what ways the investment could possibly die. Also, try to figure out ways to keep my optimism in check.

Crucial for me. If you pay enough attention to earnings calls, you can find real gems.

my point is that the substantive and procedural are intertwined. the procedural (anti-injunction provision) depends upon the substantive (whether the conservator has the power to issue NWS). the substantive can be either conservator failed to conserve and rehabilitate, as in perry, or conservator had no corporate power to issue NWS with those terms (hindes/jacobs). i just think (hope) sleet has to realize that the procedural question for him is different than it was for lamberth I disagree. There is a non-zero possibility that Judge Sleet can decide that while the conservator "is carrying out one of its statutorily-defined powers or functions" that it can violate state laws. If you read Rosa & Gross, which are cited in Treasury's briefs, the courts have allowed RTC to violate state statutes under those circumstances before. So then the question shifts to whether the conservator was carrying out one of its statutorily-defined powers at the time that it violated the state statute. Of course, the way to characterize it from the Plaintiffs' point of view is that the conservator was doing the exact opposite of their statutorily-defined duties and therefore should be afforded no protection under those cases -- but the possibility still remains. (In Rosa, the RTC was conserving and preserving assets and therefore did something in contravention of what ERISA requires.) It's not necessarily just whether the conservator has the power to issue the Net Worth Sweep -- it could be an analysis of whether the Defendants were exercising a different power that allows them to issue the Net Worth Sweep. I personally think they weren't exercising a different power that allows them to issue the Net Worth Sweep AND that they don't have the power to issue the Net Worth Sweep anyway. But, then again, I'm a bit biased on the matter. And it's not clear that a judge has to agree with me. Sometimes that's true though. It's not entirely inconceivable that there exists wrongs for which there exist no procedural grounds for remedy. It's an odd thought because it is contrary to common sense, but the interplay of procedural and substantive law does not preclude that possibility.