hardincap Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Did I hear him right when he said there were settlement negotiations in 2015? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Did I hear him right when he said there were settlement negotiations in 2015? I got called away during the good part....last thing i heard was him talking about how the Govt isnt really dealing in good faith.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Did I hear him right when he said there were settlement negotiations in 2015? he didnt call them negotiations but rather conversations, and he said they went nowhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 4617(f) is pretty short. Am i in the right place? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/4617 (f) Limitation on court action Except as provided in this section or at the request of the Director, no court may take any action to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the Agency as a conservator or a receiver. My answer would be that the FHFH isnt acting like a conservator........Mel said that the other day. Edit: Found this....http://seekingalpha.com/article/2578025-fannie-mae-an-analysis-of-the-cases-and-statutes-that-require-judge-lamberth-to-be-reversed-on-appeal Not ROLG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Did I hear him right when he said there were settlement negotiations in 2015? he didnt call them negotiations but rather conversations, and he said they went nowhere I was surprised he even brought it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Did I hear him right when he said there were settlement negotiations in 2015? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 At 33-minute mark of the call: https://engage.vevent.com/index.jsp?eid=4711&seid=18 "In late 2015 there were settlement communications between plaintiffs and the government. But frankly, given how deep treasury has dug in its heels and has tried to hide the truth by withholding evidence, it remains unclear to me whether treasury is capable of having an earnest conversation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Johnny on the spot, Luke. I was just going to get to that. Sullivan twetered this Berkowitz "In late 2015 there were settlement negotiations between plaintiffs and defendants" in GSE litigation $FNMA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardincap Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 "In late 2015 there were settlement communications between plaintiffs and the government. Sullivan twetered this Berkowitz "In late 2015 there were settlement negotiations between plaintiffs and defendants" in GSE litigation $FNMA We hear what we want to hear... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 "In late 2015 there were settlement communications between plaintiffs and the government. Sullivan twetered this Berkowitz "In late 2015 there were settlement negotiations between plaintiffs and defendants" in GSE litigation $FNMA We hear what we want to hear... personally, i decided to hold my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I'm thinking we hear one way or another from the Delaware court in March. The MTD is fully briefed as of yesterday and the certification application will be fully briefed by February 26. Can't imagine it will take too long to get a response. you may be right, but sleet may want oral argument. if so that will move the decision back a couple of months. on a case like this, i sure would want oral arg From Peter A. Chapman... (1) FHFA, Fannie and Freddie (but not Treasury) are asking Judge Sleet to hear oral argument on Treasury and FHFA's motions to dismiss. FHFA and the GSEs are not requesting oral argument on the Motions to Certify or any other matter. A copy of the request for oral argument, filed this afternoon, is attached to this e-mail message. (2) Messrs. Jacobs and Hindes are also asking Judge Sleet to entertain oral argument on FHFA and Treasury's motions to dismiss, and a copy of this afternoon's filing making that request is attached to this e-mail messsage. (3) It's unanimous; everybody wants oral argument on FHFA and Treasury's Motions to Dismiss before Judge Sleet. A copy of Treasury's request for oral argument on its motion to dismiss is attached to this e-mail message.15-00708-0031.pdf15-00708-0032.pdf15-00708-0033.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 4617(f) is pretty short. Am i in the right place? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/4617 (f) Limitation on court action Except as provided in this section or at the request of the Director, no court may take any action to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the Agency as a conservator or a receiver. My answer would be that the FHFH isnt acting like a conservator........Mel said that the other day. 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.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Late 2015... Mr. BROWN. I will say to my colleague from New York that it does not. That is not the effect of the language. Any number of decisions could be made after that date, when a new Congress and a new President will be in place. Nor does this provision have any effect on the court cases and settlements currently underway challenging the validity of the third amendment. As the Senator from Tennessee said yesterday, ``this legislation does not prejudice'' any of those cases. Today... At 33-minute mark of the call: https://engage.vevent.com/index.jsp?eid=4711&seid=18 "In late 2015 there were settlement communications between plaintiffs and the government. But frankly, given how deep treasury has dug in its heels and has tried to hide the truth by withholding evidence, it remains unclear to me whether treasury is capable of having an earnest conversation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Late 2015... Mr. BROWN. I will say to my colleague from New York that it does not. That is not the effect of the language. Any number of decisions could be made after that date, when a new Congress and a new President will be in place. Nor does this provision have any effect on the court cases and settlements currently underway challenging the validity of the third amendment. As the Senator from Tennessee said yesterday, ``this legislation does not prejudice'' any of those cases. Today... At 33-minute mark of the call: https://engage.vevent.com/index.jsp?eid=4711&seid=18 "In late 2015 there were settlement communications between plaintiffs and the government. But frankly, given how deep treasury has dug in its heels and has tried to hide the truth by withholding evidence, it remains unclear to me whether treasury is capable of having an earnest conversation." Touché Luke. Putting sh*t together. Me Likey. God my emotions swing so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Touché Luke. Putting sh*t together. Me Likey. God my emotions swing so much. Read the book below if you haven't already. Read it again if you've read it previously :-) I read it at least once a year. http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Behavioral-Investing-worst/dp/0470686022/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456261660&sr=8-1&keywords=the+little+book+of+behavioral+investing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I'm looking forward to hearing those oral arguments. Should be open to the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eye4Valu Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 My 2 cents is there is 0 chance of a settlement. This will either be resolved by the courts or congress, or both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 @merkhet i am of the view that the HERA anti-injunction bar applies to direct claims against fhfa, but not derivative claims, assuming the validity of the conflict of interest exemption. do you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 @merkhet i am of the view that the HERA anti-injunction bar applies to direct claims against fhfa, but not derivative claims, assuming the validity of the conflict of interest exemption. do you agree? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 the anti-injunction bar seems to me to preclude actions brought against fhfa, not in the name of fhfa. other cases that have found the derivative action permitted due to conflict of interest haven't seemed to be worried by the anti-injunction bar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I suppose it's possible, but I'd have to check out the reasoning behind the prior cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 put another way, direct claims have to surmount anti-inj bar, while deriv claims have to show that fhfa's stepping in shoes of shareholders doesnt bar deriv action where manifest conflict Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Fannie Mae's former CFO, Tim Howard (the real one), had this to say in the comments section of his most recent blog post. http://howardonmortgagefinance.com/2016/02/23/the-takeover-and-the-terms/ "I don’t want to start making predictions. The outcome of the various legal cases will depend on the response of the judges (or a jury), but I believe the facts in both the net worth sweep cases and the challenge to the 2008 conservatorships strongly favor the plaintiffs. It’s also possible that, seeing this, the current or the next administration could elect to change the Third Amendment or the SPSAs (including voiding the warrants)." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 At 33-minute mark of the call: https://engage.vevent.com/index.jsp?eid=4711&seid=18 "In late 2015 there were settlement communications between plaintiffs and the government. But frankly, given how deep treasury has dug in its heels and has tried to hide the truth by withholding evidence, it remains unclear to me whether treasury is capable of having an earnest conversation." Immediately following the above statement, Berkowitz went on to add: "And the fact that Treasury has sent some staffers to work next door at the White House really raises the specter that the President and his most senior advisers are being purposely misled." I sort of like how Berkowitz is painting this in a way that Obama would be off-the-hook, still even today after all these shenanigans, if he were to go ahead and do the right thing (i.e. tell Watt to release, encourage or strong-arm Congress in a particular direction, etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Are you saying Mel is taking his stance at the guidance from the Commander an Chief himself? Thats the reason for his sudden change of heart? Tha'd be rich if he was. We are in an election year. Hillary is gonna need some coinage if shes gonna go up against trump come November. Pure speculation. But fun to entertain non the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now