FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

[Mephistopheles]

When will he admit that Sears is a POS?

[Spekulatius]

When will he admit that Sears is a POS?

 

After he has disposed of it.

[Guest wellmont]

Do you believe the government, in 20trn of debt, will throw away warrant values of $150bn+ for these plans...?

 

they have zero interest in the warrants and every interest in sweeping all the money to us treausury. and not letting one hedge fund see a dime of profit.

[Guest wellmont]

Berko admits on wealthtrack Fannie is a zero if he loses court cases, contradicting his previous statement that Fannie is not a binary outcome based solely on legal victory

 

"how much will you lose? 8 to 10 percent. of your investment? no of the fund."

[Sunrider]

Very odd indeed. Chris/Merkhet- if the motion was granted in full, why would it need redacting?

 

Thanks!

 

here is today's filing re:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jqnfit7jua6i6lm/FF%20Motion%20to%20Intervene%20Denied.pdf

 

I'm sure gselinks will have it soon

 

wonder if this intervenor was a govt plant...anyhow, "in the entirety" is nice to read

[Guest cherzeca]

Very odd indeed. Chris/Merkhet- if the motion was granted in full, why would it need redacting?

 

Thanks!

 

here is today's filing re:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jqnfit7jua6i6lm/FF%20Motion%20to%20Intervene%20Denied.pdf

 

I'm sure gselinks will have it soon

 

wonder if this intervenor was a govt plant...anyhow, "in the entirety" is nice to read

 

she wrote an 81 page opinion granting motion to compel in entirety...and is considering sanctioning govt.  there must be many references in her opinion to the docs which are to be turned over to Ps under seal, so those references must be redacted

[Guest cherzeca]

in a sealed joint status report, it appears fairhome and doj agree on redactions to sweeney's MTC opinion, so that should be released monday

[BargainValueHunter]

Berko admits on wealthtrack Fannie is a zero if he loses court cases, contradicting his previous statement that Fannie is not a binary outcome based solely on legal victory

He says that the whole fund can lose up to 15% if he is wrong. I have to at least give him credit for admitting that.

 

So he may have a scenario where the GSEs are a zero and SHLD is a zero. Kind of a great advertisement for diversification (maybe he and Pabrai can have a stiff drink together at some bar and talk it out).

 

Anyway...he'll still have St. Joe so there's that. 

[Eye4Valu]

Said all the members of the peanut gallery who can't hold a candle to Bruce's record.

[muscleman]

http://rightwingnews.com/hillary-clinton-2/hillarys-case-reopened-now-fbis-comey-asks-immunity-gowdy-says-hell-no-video/

 

"Hillary’s Case Is REOPENED, Now FBI’s Comey Asks For Immunity"

 

Seriously? Is Comey involved in Hillary's corruptions and that's why he got Hillary of the Email Scandal Hook initially?

 

[Guest cherzeca]

berkowitz interviewed by consuelo mack, icymi: 

[doughishere]

berkowitz interviewed by consuelo mack, icymi: 

 

I'm more interested in these 50 docs.

[Sunrider]

berkowitz interviewed by consuelo mack, icymi: 

 

I'm more interested in these 50 docs.

 

Maybe I misunderstood how this works but these docs will only go to p counsel - you won't get to see them anytime soon.

 

 

[Guest cherzeca]

berkowitz interviewed by consuelo mack, icymi: 

 

I'm more interested in these 50 docs.

 

Maybe I misunderstood how this works but these docs will only go to p counsel - you won't get to see them anytime soon.

 

correct...though sweeney has released docs under protective order before...but what we really want to see is sweeney's opinion...at laptops soon...and Ps counsel knows what to do with what's in the docs

[doughishere]

berkowitz interviewed by consuelo mack, icymi: 

 

I'm more interested in these 50 docs.

 

Maybe I misunderstood how this works but these docs will only go to p counsel - you won't get to see them anytime soon.

 

Yeah, youre right and Cherz is right also. I'm sure we might be able to infer some good tidbits on the actual docs so thats what I was kinda referring to.

 

Mea culpa for the confusion.

[Guest cherzeca]

what Ps asked for in motion to compel:

 

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should: (1) to the extent that the documents in question are not covered by any other privilege, direct Defendant to produce deliberative process privilege documents listed in Exhibit 1 because Defendant has not properly asserted that privilege; (2) order that documents that are relevant to Defendant’s purposes, intentions, and motivations for imposing the Net Worth Sweep are not covered by the deliberative process privilege or that Plaintiffs’ need for such documents is sufficient to overcome the qualified privilege; (3) order that documents shared with or produced by FHFA may not be withheld under the deliberative process privilege; (4) order that documents that discuss the Net Worth Sweep and were created after its imposition are not predecisional and therefore may not be withheld under the deliberative process privilege, or that Plaintiffs’ need for those documents overcomes the qualified privilege; (5) order that financial data, models, and projections are not deliberative and therefore may not be withheld under the deliberative process privilege, or that Plaintiffs’ need for those documents overcomes the qualified privilege; (6) to the extent that the Court does not otherwise order all deliberative process privilege documents listed in Exhibit 1 produced, review those documents in camera and determine whether they are deliberative and predecisional and whether Plaintiffs’ need for them overcomes the qualified privilege; (7) order that FHFA’s communications with the Companies are not protected by the bank examination privilege, especially where those communications occurred while the Companies were under FHFA’s control during conservatorship; (8) to the extent that it rules that FHFA may assert the bank examination privilege over documents listed in Exhibit 1, review those documents in camera to determine whether Defendant has properly asserted the privilege and whether Plaintiffs’ need for the documents in question overcomes the privilege; (9) review in camera the documents listed in Exhibit 1 as withheld under the presidential communications privilege and determine whether Defendant has properly asserted the privilege; and (10) order Defendant to re-assess all of its privilege claims in light of the Court’s decision and to produce all documents that are not genuinely privileged.

 

sweeney has said that she granted this motion in its entirety.  we should be able to read it (redacted) soon.

[Sunrider]

Chris et al

 

What's the likely trajectory here - on the premise that the documents demonstrate both that (a) government falsely asserted privilege and is seeking to deceive plaintiffs and that (b) there are juicy bits relevant to the case in the docs?

 

I suppose p counsel will notify perry appeal counsel but won't be able to pass along the documents - nevertheless if the above holds, this should sway the judges to order at least the development of a full administrative record, correct? (to the extent they haven't already decided one way or the other and just not put pen to paper yet)

 

In Fairholme's case - what's next and what are the timelines for the case to develop itself? (As I said in the past, I see the whole notion of a settlement as a bit of a non-started - government can't pay P sufficiently without admitting something, so the only 'settlement' of sorts would be FHFA actually given freedom to move towards release, but then I suppose P would still continue seeking to reverse NWS.

 

Thank you!

 

what Ps asked for in motion to compel:

 

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should: (1) to the extent that the documents in question are not covered by any other privilege, direct Defendant to produce deliberative process privilege documents listed in Exhibit 1 because Defendant has not properly asserted that privilege; (2) order that documents that are relevant to Defendant’s purposes, intentions, and motivations for imposing the Net Worth Sweep are not covered by the deliberative process privilege or that Plaintiffs’ need for such documents is sufficient to overcome the qualified privilege; (3) order that documents shared with or produced by FHFA may not be withheld under the deliberative process privilege; (4) order that documents that discuss the Net Worth Sweep and were created after its imposition are not predecisional and therefore may not be withheld under the deliberative process privilege, or that Plaintiffs’ need for those documents overcomes the qualified privilege; (5) order that financial data, models, and projections are not deliberative and therefore may not be withheld under the deliberative process privilege, or that Plaintiffs’ need for those documents overcomes the qualified privilege; (6) to the extent that the Court does not otherwise order all deliberative process privilege documents listed in Exhibit 1 produced, review those documents in camera and determine whether they are deliberative and predecisional and whether Plaintiffs’ need for them overcomes the qualified privilege; (7) order that FHFA’s communications with the Companies are not protected by the bank examination privilege, especially where those communications occurred while the Companies were under FHFA’s control during conservatorship; (8) to the extent that it rules that FHFA may assert the bank examination privilege over documents listed in Exhibit 1, review those documents in camera to determine whether Defendant has properly asserted the privilege and whether Plaintiffs’ need for the documents in question overcomes the privilege; (9) review in camera the documents listed in Exhibit 1 as withheld under the presidential communications privilege and determine whether Defendant has properly asserted the privilege; and (10) order Defendant to re-assess all of its privilege claims in light of the Court’s decision and to produce all documents that are not genuinely privileged.

 

sweeney has said that she granted this motion in its entirety.  we should be able to read it (redacted) soon.

[muscleman]

Morning star warns the liquidity risks of Fairholme. If RIAs follow the warnings and all want to exit, how will that impact the case here?

I heard mutual funds can stay in slow liquidation mode and slowly return the capital right?

 

That would be something similar to Third Avenue.

"The remaining assets in the fund will be put into a liquidating trust and sold off gradually, the company said, the idea being to not drive down prices too sharply. This process could last more than a year"

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/business/dealbook/high-yield-fund-blocks-investor-withdrawals.html?_r=0

 

So if everyone follows the Morning star advice, then everyone would want to exit TODAY, to avoid having to wait for over a year to get their money back. I expect redemption requests to flood in today and Fairholme fund announces something similar soon.  ::)

 

 

 

[Guest cherzeca]

Chris et al

 

What's the likely trajectory here - on the premise that the documents demonstrate both that (a) government falsely asserted privilege and is seeking to deceive plaintiffs and that (b) there are juicy bits relevant to the case in the docs?

 

I suppose p counsel will notify perry appeal counsel but won't be able to pass along the documents - nevertheless if the above holds, this should sway the judges to order at least the development of a full administrative record, correct? (to the extent they haven't already decided one way or the other and just not put pen to paper yet)

 

In Fairholme's case - what's next and what are the timelines for the case to develop itself? (As I said in the past, I see the whole notion of a settlement as a bit of a non-started - government can't pay P sufficiently without admitting something, so the only 'settlement' of sorts would be FHFA actually given freedom to move towards release, but then I suppose P would still continue seeking to reverse NWS.

 

Thank you!

 

what Ps asked for in motion to compel:

 

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should: (1) to the extent that the documents in question are not covered by any other privilege, direct Defendant to produce deliberative process privilege documents listed in Exhibit 1 because Defendant has not properly asserted that privilege; (2) order that documents that are relevant to Defendant’s purposes, intentions, and motivations for imposing the Net Worth Sweep are not covered by the deliberative process privilege or that Plaintiffs’ need for such documents is sufficient to overcome the qualified privilege; (3) order that documents shared with or produced by FHFA may not be withheld under the deliberative process privilege; (4) order that documents that discuss the Net Worth Sweep and were created after its imposition are not predecisional and therefore may not be withheld under the deliberative process privilege, or that Plaintiffs’ need for those documents overcomes the qualified privilege; (5) order that financial data, models, and projections are not deliberative and therefore may not be withheld under the deliberative process privilege, or that Plaintiffs’ need for those documents overcomes the qualified privilege; (6) to the extent that the Court does not otherwise order all deliberative process privilege documents listed in Exhibit 1 produced, review those documents in camera and determine whether they are deliberative and predecisional and whether Plaintiffs’ need for them overcomes the qualified privilege; (7) order that FHFA’s communications with the Companies are not protected by the bank examination privilege, especially where those communications occurred while the Companies were under FHFA’s control during conservatorship; (8) to the extent that it rules that FHFA may assert the bank examination privilege over documents listed in Exhibit 1, review those documents in camera to determine whether Defendant has properly asserted the privilege and whether Plaintiffs’ need for the documents in question overcomes the privilege; (9) review in camera the documents listed in Exhibit 1 as withheld under the presidential communications privilege and determine whether Defendant has properly asserted the privilege; and (10) order Defendant to re-assess all of its privilege claims in light of the Court’s decision and to produce all documents that are not genuinely privileged.

 

sweeney has said that she granted this motion in its entirety.  we should be able to read it (redacted) soon.

 

fairholme counsel has already filed sweeney's opinion under seal with perry appeal.  likely too late to have any real effect if the case is decided and awaiting a judge's final opinion edits

[Sunrider]

Ok what about timing to see any real movement (also viz. fairholme will wind up panic in the other thread)?

 

Also, if I may - if sweeney decided that privilege doesn't apply then why should these docs stay sealed? At what point do these become public (surely in public interest)?

 

Thank you

 

[doughishere]

Here's Sweeney's opinion granting the GSE shareholders' motion to compel "in its entirety" https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/doc1/01512374709 … (free but needs login)

 

Attached.

13-465-0340.pdf

[hardincap]

no redactions?  would have liked to get some clues on what is in these docs

[Guest cherzeca]

no redactions?  would have liked to get some clues on what is in these docs

 

all 50 docs submitted for in camera review must be produced. clean sweep (no pun intended). but what about the other 11000 not yet submitted for in camera review?

[Potato]

Thanks doughishere, some of this is crazy.

 

"The decision to approve the Net Worth Sweep was made by Secretary Geithner on August 16, 2012. [...] The privilege log also indicates that Document 14 was sent by S. Miller to B. Mlynarczyk and M. Stegman on July 30, 2012. [...] Document 14 is undated. Therefore, defendant has not established that this document is predecisional."

 

I mean, if it got sent before it had to have been created before, but I guess lawyers and judges have to allow for time machines, or that documents can be sent that have not yet been created? It's hard to believe legalese is really like this sometimes.

[Guest cherzeca]

Thanks doughishere, some of this is crazy.

 

"The decision to approve the Net Worth Sweep was made by Secretary Geithner on August 16, 2012. [...] The privilege log also indicates that Document 14 was sent by S. Miller to B. Mlynarczyk and M. Stegman on July 30, 2012. [...] Document 14 is undated. Therefore, defendant has not established that this document is predecisional."

 

I mean, if it got sent before it had to have been created before, but I guess lawyers and judges have to allow for time machines, or that documents can be sent that have not yet been created? It's hard to believe legalese is really like this sometimes.

 

predecisional means more than pre or before.  it means that this document contained a discussion that served as the background analysis for the decision.  not the basis for the decision, as that is discoverable (reasons for adopting a course of action are always relevant). but the part of the to and fro that informed the process.  if you claim a privilege, you have to prove the privilege.  that's the govt's burden.

 

in the event, she found with respect to almost all of these docs that even if govt met its burden, Ps need for evidence was greater in balance.