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

[Eye4Valu]

A settlement would work similar to the way AIG was released from government control, with shareholders dropping their claims/lawsuits. With the Jr. Pref having a liquidation preference at par, I don't see why holders of it would agree to settle for less than par. Perhaps they would agree to convert it to common pursuant to some kind of rights offering.

 

Edit: I agree with CH that it would have to take the form of a 4th Amendment.

[Guest cherzeca]

this much i really do think i know:

 

there will be a settlement only if there is perry remand, and the judges offer a statement of the duty applicable to fhfa as conservator that the govt will not want to litigate under, especially given the prospect of P's use of govt docs free from exec priv.

 

a reversal or affirmance will just result in further appeals

 

even if remand, no settlement before govt goes for en banc rehearing (which is likely to be denied).

 

what i dont understand is, who is making decisions for govt on this question?

[muscleman]

 

what i dont understand is, who is making decisions for govt on this question?

 

 

Probably no one. Obama was too busy golfing and didn't even respond to Louisiana's flooding until a week later. His housing advisors are likely all gone.

Also, why do anything now instead of just dragging it out until after election? There is too much headline risk for his beloved Hillary at this moment.

 

[investorG]

regarding a potential settlement, the plaintiffs would likely only drop their cases for upfront certainty / payments.  otherwise they will likely plow on in the courts, and accept the risks (0 value) and time (years) that entails.  a 4th amendment could be later overturned by the next president or congress. 

 

[Eye4Valu]

The potential returns for a favorable outcome for either pref or common far outweigh any time value or opportunity cost considerations. It's well worth challenging in the courts for the next five years if necessary. I think the whole case is about more than just the potential returns, even for the hedge funds. This is about the nationalization of private companies and the rights of shareholders in the same. Its about what a conservatorship stands for legally, and what fiduciary responsibilities that entails. FNMA and FMCC are essential for all Americans. This is a fight worth fighting at all costs, for however long it takes, and I think the Plaintiffs are willing to take it that far. Let's find out if our system of checks and balances actually works. 

[Sunrider]

regarding a potential settlement, the plaintiffs would likely only drop their cases for upfront certainty / payments.  otherwise they will likely plow on in the courts, and accept the risks (0 value) and time (years) that entails.  a 4th amendment could be later overturned by the next president or congress.

Besides - such a settlement couldn't guarantee that another party takes up the case again and re-sues, not really possible for current plaintiffs through their settlement to bar future plaintiffs ... :)

[Eye4Valu]

regarding a potential settlement, the plaintiffs would likely only drop their cases for upfront certainty / payments.  otherwise they will likely plow on in the courts, and accept the risks (0 value) and time (years) that entails.  a 4th amendment could be later overturned by the next president or congress.

Besides - such a settlement couldn't guarantee that another party takes up the case again and re-sues, not really possible for current plaintiffs through their settlement to bar future plaintiffs ... :)

 

What about dismissing cases with prejudice and the statute of limitations on all actions? A settlement is possible.

[doughishere]

This is all speculation.

[investorG]

yes, it is speculation.  in that regard it's important how damaging any released documents are and if they come out before the election.  if any released documents are mild and come out in december, a settlement is less likely and vice versa. 

 

i understand many want the truth, warrants canceled, and everything freed, etc, but ultimately I believe the plaintiffs would be satisfied at this point with a solid financial victory that enables all stakeholders to benefit from the companies' profits.

[hardincap]

settlement is wishful thinking. these bureaucrats have no skin in the game, and have backed themselves into a corner with their dogmatic fannie must die rhetoric. yes, emails made public will be embarrassing, but does the public really care about 8 years ago? most ppl have no idea what fannie even does. the Ps have tried to rile the public to no avail.

 

that said, we can still wish.

[merkhet]

From Fairholme

 

Dear Investor,

 

Earlier this week, we received a favorable ruling from Judge Margaret Sweeney in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granting our motion to compel the United States to produce dozens of documents that had been withheld due to assertions of deliberative process privilege, bank examiner privilege, and presidential communications privilege.  In our Motion to Compel, we asserted that the Government has used “haphazard, inconsistent, and in at least some cases plainly unwarranted” privilege assertions to “shield over eleven thousand responsive documents from discovery.” 

 

While the court’s Opinion and Order is currently under seal, we anticipate that it will be made public (in part or in whole) in the near future. 

 

In the interim, we have informed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia of Judge Sweeney’s ruling so it has the benefit of this additional information while evaluating our appeal in Perry Capital LLC v. Lew.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Investor Relations

 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

From Fairholme

 

Dear Investor,

 

Earlier this week, we received a favorable ruling from Judge Margaret Sweeney in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granting our motion to compel the United States to produce dozens of documents that had been withheld due to assertions of deliberative process privilege, bank examiner privilege, and presidential communications privilege.  In our Motion to Compel, we asserted that the Government has used “haphazard, inconsistent, and in at least some cases plainly unwarranted” privilege assertions to “shield over eleven thousand responsive documents from discovery.” 

 

While the court’s Opinion and Order is currently under seal, we anticipate that it will be made public (in part or in whole) in the near future. 

 

In the interim, we have informed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia of Judge Sweeney’s ruling so it has the benefit of this additional information while evaluating our appeal in Perry Capital LLC v. Lew.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Investor Relations

 

 

Woot!

[merkhet]

[Guest cherzeca]

 

i wonder why this letter is sealed?  they couldnt have included any of the documents that havent been produced yet...

 

 

[doughishere]

You two are un-real.....MVPs.

 

 

Citation of Supplemental Authorities right?

 

(j) Citation of Supplemental Authorities. If pertinent and significant authorities come to a party's attention after the party's brief has been filed—or after oral argument but before decision—a party may promptly advise the circuit clerk by letter, with a copy to all other parties, setting forth the citations. The letter must state the reasons for the supplemental citations, referring either to the page of the brief or to a point argued orally. The body of the letter must not exceed 350 words. Any response must be made promptly and must be similarly limited.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_28

 

 

Is someone new involved in the story? Who did they work for? the WH?......hows that for some speculation!!!

[doughishere]

Rule 28. Briefs  Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure

 

 

FRAP 28j

[Guest cherzeca]

the supp auth is sweeney's decision.  i suppose it was sealed because it was filed in full with perry merits panel.

 

here's my guess.  someone has to redact sweeney's order before it is released publicly. now, sweeney could do that, but judges usually prefer to have the parties do this type of housekeeping, so i am guessing that cooper & kirk and DOJ have the text of sweeney's opinion in hand to do this redaction.

 

now, cooper & kirk believe that there is something in sweeney's order that very much needs to get to the eyes of the perry merits panel.  i would have thought that this decision just discussed executive privilege law as it applies to the documents sweeney reviewed in camera. but perhaps, given sweeney's distemper in asking DOJ why govt shouldn't pay costs, there is something somewhat extraordinary in that opinion that is important for the perry court.

[Guest cherzeca]

rosner on twitter speculates that POTUS saw GSEs as way to get around debt ceiling limitations.  if this is clearly set forth in anything in sweeney's opinion or the docs she reviewed, this would be huge. trumplike huge

[doughishere]

rosner on twitter speculates that POTUS saw GSEs as way to get around debt ceiling limitations.  if this is clearly set forth in anything in sweeney's opinion or the docs she reviewed, this would be huge. trumplike huge

 

Please see my post from last night

[doughishere]

Bruce Berkowitz on closing bell with Kelly Evans today.

 

[doughishere]

Bruce Berkowitz on banks, Fannie Mae and Trump

 

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/23/bruce-berkowitz-on-banks-fannie-mae-and-trump.html

[doughishere]

Berkowitz "just show the documents, we will quickly find out who's right or wrong and we can move on"

[ValueMaven]

Yes, Bruce makes a very interesting case!  If I wanted to look at the Preferred's he is referencing, which ones should I look at? 

 

Sincerely,

ValueMaven

[Grenville]

Berkowitz "just show the documents, we will quickly find out who's right or wrong and we can move on"

 

podcast of the interview at the top:

http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/09/bruce-berkowitz-fannie-freddie-honor-contracts/

[Eye4Valu]

Not much new from Bruce, but I think that's why I like him.