Mephistopheles

If it does, the answer will be "end Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, privatize mortgage market, Obama's fault"

I'd be surprised if there wasn't some sort of pressure by the Paulson Treasury to secure the free warrants from the company. Though, I don't know what must happen to be considered coercion. In addition to a 13(3), Wheeler ruled it as an illegal exaction under the Fifth Amendment. If there was coercion, would this not be the perfect precedent?

Merkhet, if Greenberg gets damages in appeals court, does that set a precedent for FNMA/FMCC common holders to challenge the bailout? In this case the upside would be $100 assuming it's $20 today, making it 50:1 odds. Do you think this case would be at least as strong as Greenberg's, especially in light of the excessive DTA writedowns? It seems the GSEs were in better shape than AIG in 2008. I wonder if Ackman is planning on challenging the original bailout depending on what happens with Greenberg. I don't see why not to give it a shot.

I guess he was driving without a margin of safety

If they're that advanced, maybe they can travel at 95% or 99% the speed of light, at which point the time experienced for those on board would be a fraction of the 1200 years due to time dilation. We shouldn't be so quick to rule out life on planets that may be inhabitable to us. Life comes in so many different forms on Earth, who's to say it can't be vastly different on other planets, with vastly different types of needs and tolerances? Just being devil's advocate. This stuff is fascinating to talk about but I hate how it's all just speculation and nothing more.

Would you go as far to say the government's most logical choices at this point are to either (1) try again to get an extension (delay) beyond the 10th, (2) push to settle or release rather than let Sweeney decide on whether or not to unseal, (3) hope for the best with Sweeney's decision on whether or not to unseal, or (4) other? I would think #1 might not be a possibility since she has already set August 10th as the date after the government asked for August 17th. It's probably an unanswerable question, but I'd be interested in what you believe are the probabilities of 2, 3, or 4? I think you have the order of preference right, but I think assigning probabilities would be a difficult thing to do. Thanks, Merkhet. I agree that assigning probabilities is difficult. It is somewhat exciting when one ponders that outside of asking Sweeney to delay (again), the most logical course of action for the government is to seriously consider release or settlement prior to August 10th. And even if she delays, it will be another month or so max. So really, settling is the best option assuming the documents are bad enough to not show to the public. Allow the Court to possibly throw numerous former & present Obama officials under the bus vs. end the sweep and still earn a huge windfall with the warrants. What would you choose? Not holding my breath but it's certainly exciting to think about.

Not sure if this has been posted...

How many courts, cases, and judges now have access to discovery/depositions? I know there are multiple cases in the Court of Claims and the one in the D.C. Court of Appeals. Any other ones? We just need one of the judges in one of the courts to take our side, and that will be a huge boost for the shares.

I'm long and hopeful for the shares but I think that was just a diplomatic answer, not really signaling anything. They (Treasury) and Congress will take the money for as long as possible to help feed their chronic spending spree. What we need is a Congressman or woman who would like to be a hero and bring what's going on to light. While the sweep is great for everyone in Washington, it would be even better for one person to stand out and expose the wrongdoing.

Hi gamecock, would you mind pming me the database name as well? Thanks in advance!

Interesting, do we know what motion this is referring to?

This can't be good for municipalities that rely on parking tickets, moving violations, DUIs, and all other money making schemes involving vehicles. I guess property taxes will be going up in the future. =(

There's still probably a healthy gap from this sort of document to being certain a court will grant relief, I think. e.g. if you go back to the Lamberth decision, he pretty much concludes that the reasons for the FHFA's actions are not relevant, so depending on the claim it's not clear if these documents would matter much in a court's decision. That said this filing is obviously good news! Lamberth basically spelled out that HERA itself is unconstitutional; and because it says FHFA can't be challenged in court, he threw the case out. Which makes me think - there are so many cases here, some challenging FHFA, some challenging Treasury. Why not open a front against Congress/HERA?

here comes the cavalry. Government should prepare for a nuclear winter.

If the judge grants the motion to unseal, I think the government won't settle. At that point, the damaging information is already out there, and they might as well bet their bottom dollar and see if they can be redeemed through the legal process. Imagine borrowing money from a loan shark to go gambling and losing 80% of the money. Well, you might as well bet the remaining 20% because if you don't, you're going to get your legs broken anyway but if you win, you might come out even. I'm unclear on what happens to the New York Times filing if the government decides to do something to settle this stuff before the judge grants any of the motions to unseal. Oh I see what you mean now, I think. So you're saying that making the documents public will not remove the motivation to settle, but simply the judge granting the motion to unseal will. So it's in our best interest that Judge Sweeney rules in favor of the government??

It could be tomorrow or it could be a year from now. I don't know that I have a ton of insight into the timing of a possible settlement. The motions to unseal are a pretty big deal, so if they are a lynchpin, then a settlement could be close. Say the judge grants the motion to unseal, which makes the government want to settle, and they make a deal with Fairholme which keeps the material private in exchange for an end to the 3rd amendment. Would this mean that NYT and other 3rd parties can't unseal the motions? If the judge grants unsealing, can that mean that anyone can just release them, at which point the use of it as leverage to settle doesn't work anymore?

Yup, the discovery documents were filed in the Perry appeal. This request is incredibly weak. Again, I would love to see Sweeney deny their extension of time. (They don't even bother arguing why they should be granted an extension of time w/ the NY Times inquiry.) Lol wtf, that sounds like they are asking for sympathy. "Fairholme got something they want, so at least give us something we want"

A new angle I'm thinking of. How would a Jeb or Hillary administration help or hurt us? I think it's clear now that there is no reform for Fannie/Freddie and they are here to stay. In that case I imagine Clinton would just keep it status quo, but Bush may lean in favor of private ownership rights. Thoughts anyone?

But say the judge rules against a release because doing so would "destroy the world financial system". At that point the leverage is no longer there, correct?

If they don't come out, why does the government have an incentive to settle? I assume you mean the risk of them being released in the future would be the incentive. If the judge doesn't allow them to be made public, wouldn't that be the end of the story of them being released, at least for long enough that it wouldn't matter?

The Epstein always sounds confident. haven't heard this call, but I remember on one of the previous ones he mentioned how even though Plaintiffs might be morally or even legally correct, the government still has a fair shot simply because Courts tend to give it too much deference. Seemed not too confident imo. He also noted what you said...if you have a 100% seals case against the govt it's only 50% winnable Sorry I'm doing this from my phone H Yep that's what I was referring to..so I think him becoming more confident than that, is a great sign

Epstein always sounds confident. Haven't heard this call, but I remember on one of the previous ones he mentioned how even though Plaintiffs might be morally or even legally correct, the government still has a fair shot simply because Courts tend to give it too much deference. Seemed not too confident imo.

The conservatorship by law suspends dividends except for the senior preferred, with or without the sweep. So imo, it's not a valid legal argument. And no problem, I actually asked this question last year. :) I have a related question regarding the junior preferred dividends. The 8.25% prefs are obviously selling for a premium to the variable rate ones. I know holders of these are banking on them selling above par if we win. So my question is, have you thought about the chances of them being called in this case? This would make the variable ones a better deal. I assume that they'd want to call the high rate ones asap. Or do you think because of capitalization concerns, they may hold off on calling, which would make the fixed rated ones a better deal?

Thanks merkhet. So you're saying that the limited relief was granted for the other case? Or that this is your best guess? What other situations can it be granted for? I was under the impression that limited relief meant selective parts of the depositions are going to be unsealed to the public.

Document #162 was the motion for unsealing the DeMarco & Ugoletti depositions. Please forgive my ignorance but what is the significance of this, if any? +1 From Merkhet's post, it sounds like it could be really bad or really good :P