merkhet

Document #162 was the motion for unsealing the DeMarco & Ugoletti depositions. I'm now 100% confident that the Sweeney order above was, at the very least, a motion that allowed for the plaintiffs to file the DeMarco & Ugoletti depositions under seal in the Perry appeal. This is because Sweeney authorized plaintiffs' attorneys in other courts to also access the discovery files under the Protective Order -- so it would be irrational for her not to allow the plaintiffs in the Perry appeal to also access the discovery files.

lol

http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Cacciapalle/13-466-0059.pdf Plaintiffs' lawyers granted access to discovery (and most importantly, depositions) for various cases.

Epstein didn't seem any more or less confident to me from previous times I've listened to him talk.

Epstein always sounds confident.

Matt McGill states that Perry Capital has not engaged in any settlement talks though they're open to the idea of a settlement.

Maybe take a look at Glenn Greenberg?

Sweeney granted Fairholme's motion for an enlargement of time to deal with the motion to dismiss. (Pushed until August 10th, 2015). Sweeney has also rescheduled the status conference. That's a long ways from now.

My guess is that because of the capitalization concerns, they'd likely just convert the preferred shares to common shares -- but that's just a guess. Government still has to respond to a raft of motions to unseal various documents next week on July 13th & July 16th. And I might be missing some additional dates, but those are the important ones in my mind. This is what will keep the pressure on the government. I hope that settlement is on the table at this point, but it's hard to tell. If I were one of the hedge funds (or Fairholme) running the legal show right now, I'd probably be tempted to make a good deal now so that I can reinvest those funds into a market that is shaking loose some bargains. The question is whether the government is ready to come to the table.

So the two parties have agreed to move the discovery deadline from June 29th, 2015 until September 4th, 2015. (I don't see why Sweeney wouldn't approve a joint motion like this.) The government is also set to hand over the final privilege logs this Friday, July 10th, 2015. The movement of the deadline seems to make sense because Fairholme has indicated that it has outstanding subpoenas to depose former Government officials and third-party witnesses. Additionally, Fairholme was able to file an unopposed motion to get an enlargement of time to respond to the government's motion to dismiss until August 10th, 2015. This also makes sense because of the fact that the court is currently considering a stay on the motion, which, if approved, would obviate the need to respond to the motion to dismiss. Also, it sounds like the decision to postpone the status conference set for yesterday came from Sweeney rather than from the parties, which is unfortunate.

Two new motions: Joint Motion to Modify Discovery Schedule: https://www.dropbox.com/s/st8d9lipwy2gx0b/2015-07-08%20Joint%20Motion%20to%20Modify%20Discovery%20Schedule.pdf?dl=0 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for an Enlargement of Time to Respond to Motion to Dismiss: https://www.dropbox.com/s/a4zpw3cxempsozu/2015-07-08%20Plaintiffs%27%20Motion%20for%20an%20Enlargement%20of%20Time%20on%20Response%20to%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss.pdf?dl=0

Where did you see that he was hired to consult on the case?

Former Chief Justice Steele's amicus brief is a big deal.

What if we had an unseal before there was a rebuttal....what if. You actually don't want that to happen. The problem with blackmail is that it's always the threat of exposure that causes the action -- if the exposure happens, there's no reason why the Administration won't just decide to wait out the full trials to see whether they are redeemed with a favorable ruling.

It's merely a guess based on the description. I find it unlikely that Judge Sweeney would unseal the deposition without hearing a response from the Govrernment for why they might "roil the financial markets." As for filing the documents under seal in the case before the appeals court, though, it would seem that there would be absolutely no reason that one court should not have access to the documents another court has in its possession. That makes it the most likely candidate for the limited relief.

If it was straightforward, lawyers couldn't charge a thousand dollars an hour. ;) orthopa, probably a decent chance that the NY Times has a shot of getting it unsealed -- much will depend on how Sweeney comes out on the original motion from Fairholme to unseal the depositions though. As for the filings today, my best guess is that Sweeney decided to allow for the Ugoletti & DeMarco depositions to be filed under seal with the Perry court for the purposes of the appeal. Mostly, I think this is because there's really no reason for her not to do so -- though I'm sure the government would have liked to come up with a few. The government has yet to respond to the original motion to unseal those depositions (their response isn't even due until 7/13/2015) so there's no way for Sweeney to have granted relief in favor of the government, and if she had done so, the wording would be different. (See the screenshot in the linked tweet above.) The remaining fight will be whether there is a public unsealing or not. As for the status conference, I have no idea if that came from Sweeney or if it came from the parties. If it came from Sweeney, it could be all kinds of reasons (sickness, double-booked, etc.) but if it came from the parties, then... my bullish guess is for settlement talks. And, of course, my standard disclaimer that I'm the guy who thought that Perry's case in Lamberth's court would have decided this in shareholders' favor back in September of last year.

So, this happened... ...and this... Document #162 was the motion for unsealing the DeMarco & Ugoletti depositions.

It's too bad that this status conference is closed to the public.

Happy 4th from DC!

Are these relatively new or did Berkshire obtain some type of a waiver? And is there a good primer/guide on these regulations? Or should I be going state to state to find them? Thanks!

This is a bit of an obscure question, but I was reading one of the Berkshire shareholder letters, and I came across a sentence from Buffett indicating that he had 80% of the company's insurance investments in equity securities. Are there specific limits now to how much of an insurance company's investment portfolio can be dedicated to non-fixed-income securities?

Looks like Tim Howard (ex-CFO, not the website guy) is filing a brief amicus curiae.

"Well, that's alright in practice, but it will never work in theory." ~ Warren Buffett, 1984 Letter to Shareholders

I wouldn't worry about it gio. I think most people will attribute it to the language thing and not any disrespect towards Ms. Holmes.

More interesting filings: Status conference next week to discuss Cacciapalle & Washington Federal's requests for limited discovery. http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Cacciapalle/13-466-0055.pdf http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Washington_Federal/13-385-0047.pdf Initial Opening Brief for the Class Action Appeal: http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Perry/14-5243-1560310.pdf