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

[Luke 532]

Since September 20, 2016, when this Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel with respect to all 56 documents that it reviewed in camera, Defendant has repeatedly delayed complying with this Court’s order. On September 29, 2016, Defendant requested, and Plaintiffs agreed, to allow Defendant an additional 10 days to consider whether to seek further review of the Court’s decision. After that time had expired on Tuesday, October 11, Defendant granted itself a further extension over Plaintiffs’ objection until Friday, October 21. On October 21, Defendant informed Plaintiffs that it would not comply with the Court’s order until at least Tuesday, October 25. With those further extensions having now expired, Defendant today informed Plaintiffs that it intends to seek further review of the Court’s decision “in a matter of days.” When asked whether Defendant would seek further review with respect to all of the documents the Court ordered produced, counsel for Defendant said that she was “not at liberty to say at this time.” Counsel for Defendant further stated that she was unable to represent whether Defendant has made a final decision about whether to challenge all aspects of the Court’s ruling and could not commit to seeking further review by any specified date.

 

God, what assholes.

 

Yep.  They're certainly not making friends with Sweeney as I'm sure her blood pressure is through the roof at this point.

[onyx1]

Since September 20, 2016, when this Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel with respect to all 56 documents that it reviewed in camera, Defendant has repeatedly delayed complying with this Court’s order. On September 29, 2016, Defendant requested, and Plaintiffs agreed, to allow Defendant an additional 10 days to consider whether to seek further review of the Court’s decision. After that time had expired on Tuesday, October 11, Defendant granted itself a further extension over Plaintiffs’ objection until Friday, October 21. On October 21, Defendant informed Plaintiffs that it would not comply with the Court’s order until at least Tuesday, October 25. With those further extensions having now expired, Defendant today informed Plaintiffs that it intends to seek further review of the Court’s decision “in a matter of days.” When asked whether Defendant would seek further review with respect to all of the documents the Court ordered produced, counsel for Defendant said that she was “not at liberty to say at this time.” Counsel for Defendant further stated that she was unable to represent whether Defendant has made a final decision about whether to challenge all aspects of the Court’s ruling and could not commit to seeking further review by any specified date.

 

God, what assholes.

 

 

The harder they fight it, the more likely it's damning to the Government's case.  I suspect Document 19 is so damning that they are waiting on an occupant of a house on Pennsylvania Avenue to give instructions on how to proceed.

[muscleman]

Do you know if Sweeney will jump onto the emergency motion right away? Based on Fairholme's request of tomorrow noon's timeline, Sweeney has to rule today for this motion to make sense.

[doughishere]

Since September 20, 2016, when this Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel with respect to all 56 documents that it reviewed in camera, Defendant has repeatedly delayed complying with this Court’s order. On September 29, 2016, Defendant requested, and Plaintiffs agreed, to allow Defendant an additional 10 days to consider whether to seek further review of the Court’s decision. After that time had expired on Tuesday, October 11, Defendant granted itself a further extension over Plaintiffs’ objection until Friday, October 21. On October 21, Defendant informed Plaintiffs that it would not comply with the Court’s order until at least Tuesday, October 25. With those further extensions having now expired, Defendant today informed Plaintiffs that it intends to seek further review of the Court’s decision “in a matter of days.” When asked whether Defendant would seek further review with respect to all of the documents the Court ordered produced, counsel for Defendant said that she was “not at liberty to say at this time.” Counsel for Defendant further stated that she was unable to represent whether Defendant has made a final decision about whether to challenge all aspects of the Court’s ruling and could not commit to seeking further review by any specified date.

 

God, what assholes.

 

What would the process be like if the govt did want to receive a writ of mandamus from Federal Circuit?...like I think they want.

[doughishere]

The Edwards Plaintiffs submitted their response to FHFA's motions for reconsideration and a copy of the settlement agreement yesterday evening.  The Edwards Plaintiffs tell Judge Moreno there's nothing for him to do because the case has concluded and he has no jurisdiction to do anything further.  The Edwards Plaintiffs suggest that Judge Moreno should also cancel the hearing he scheduled for Oct. 31.

 

 

"Simply stated, there is no longer any case pending before this Court."

 

lol.

16-cv-21224-0053.pdf

[merkhet]

Since September 20, 2016, when this Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel with respect to all 56 documents that it reviewed in camera, Defendant has repeatedly delayed complying with this Court’s order. On September 29, 2016, Defendant requested, and Plaintiffs agreed, to allow Defendant an additional 10 days to consider whether to seek further review of the Court’s decision. After that time had expired on Tuesday, October 11, Defendant granted itself a further extension over Plaintiffs’ objection until Friday, October 21. On October 21, Defendant informed Plaintiffs that it would not comply with the Court’s order until at least Tuesday, October 25. With those further extensions having now expired, Defendant today informed Plaintiffs that it intends to seek further review of the Court’s decision “in a matter of days.” When asked whether Defendant would seek further review with respect to all of the documents the Court ordered produced, counsel for Defendant said that she was “not at liberty to say at this time.” Counsel for Defendant further stated that she was unable to represent whether Defendant has made a final decision about whether to challenge all aspects of the Court’s ruling and could not commit to seeking further review by any specified date.

 

God, what assholes.

 

 

The harder they fight it, the more likely it's damning to the Government's case.  I suspect Document 19 is so damning that they are waiting on an occupant of a house on Pennsylvania Avenue to give instructions on how to proceed.

 

Agreed. Let's not forget about Document 19.

 

Document 19, UST 00521902, is an unnumbered eleven-page document that is a draft of a memorandum from the President’s senior economic advisors—it relates to the lifespan of the conservatorships and the relationship between the FHFA and the Treasury Department.

[Guest cherzeca]

I am traveling and using mobile. Can someone post a link to cooper's emergency motion?  Tia

[merkhet]

I am traveling and using mobile. Can someone post a link to cooper's emergency motion?  Tia

 

I DM'd you a link on Twitter.

[doughishere]

I am traveling and using mobile. Can someone post a link to cooper's emergency motion?  Tia

 

Attached above. It only 3 pages long.

 

 

1

The appeal was argued over six months ago, and the D.C. Circuit already has decided

the overwhelming majority, by our account well over 95%, of the cases heard last term.

[doughishere]

This is ending up being like teh end of a basketball game where one of the teams is down 10 points with 5 seconds left and keeps hacking just to stop the clock and the only thing its doing is sending the winning team to the line for 2.

[doughishere]

http://fortune.com/2016/10/26/freddie-mac-pwc-auditor-suit-settled/

 

U.S. Angered as Freddie Mac Auditor Settles Investor Suit

[Luke 532]

Fairholme motion granted.  Gov't has until this Friday to let Sweeney know what they will do (further review vs. produce docs).  If they plan on producing the 56 docs, they need to do so by Tuesday, November 1st.

[muscleman]

I am sure they will say they need further review. Then what? Drag out another month?

[doughishere]

Our government has advised Judge Sweeney that it intends to seek review of her Sept. 20 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and a copy of the government's notice of appeal is attached.

13-465-0346.pdf

[Luke 532]

Our government has advised Judge Sweeney that it intends to seek review of her Sept. 20 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and a copy of the government's notice of appeal is attached.

 

Given Sweeney's rock solid 81 page reasoning behind her order to produce the 50+ docs, how long do we think it will take for this to reach a final appeal decision?

 

Additionally, will this appeal of the motion to compel delay the Perry appeal decision or is there no impact on the timing of that case (at least in theory)?

 

Thanks in advance.

[muscleman]

How long can the government drag this out?

This is just the 56 documents. How about the 11000 documents? If Sweeney enters another order to release all of them later, will government appeal for that again?

[Guest cherzeca]

Our government has advised Judge Sweeney that it intends to seek review of her Sept. 20 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and a copy of the government's notice of appeal is attached.

 

Given Sweeney's rock solid 81 page reasoning behind her order to produce the 50+ docs, how long do we think it will take for this to reach a final appeal decision?

 

Additionally, will this appeal of the motion to compel delay the Perry appeal decision or is there no impact on the timing of that case (at least in theory)?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

I don't see these docs as affecting the perry appeal decision. Ps will definitely want these docs if there is remand but the perry appeals court clearly knows that there is a factual dispute. Their question is whether lamberth was right as a matter of law that there is no jurisdiction and that Ps can't assert a claim because C acquired all shareholder rights

[investorG]

probably rules out reversal in Perry, assuming the mandamus review will take some time.

 

 

[Sunrider]

Erm different courts - perry appeal decision entirely unrelated to sweeney court and reversal of Perry would simply say that Lambeth was wrong re no jurisdiction and no claim of contract due to transfer to fhfa. These docs may have 'helped' but it seems to me they are not as such dispositive to question before perry panel (I'm not a lawyer though so perhaps Steve, Merkhet or Chris can clarify).

 

 

probably rules out reversal in Perry, assuming the mandamus review will take some time.

[Luke 532]

From Peter A. Chapman...

The Federal Circuit has directed Fairholme to respond to the government's petition by Thurs., Nov. 2, and the Court has directed the United States to file a reply by Mon., Nov. 7, and submit copies of the 56 documents the government doesn't want to produce to the Federal Circuit for in camera review.  A copy of the Court's order entered this afternoon is attached to this e-mail message.

17-104-0005.pdf

[Luke 532]

From Peter A. Chapman...

The Federal Circuit has directed Fairholme to respond to the government's petition by Thurs., Nov. 2, and the Court has directed the United States to file a reply by Mon., Nov. 7, and submit copies of the 56 documents the government doesn't want to produce to the Federal Circuit for in camera review.  A copy of the Court's order entered this afternoon is attached to this e-mail message.

 

Seems like a pretty quick turnaround!

[doughishere]

From Peter A. Chapman...

The Federal Circuit has directed Fairholme to respond to the government's petition by Thurs., Nov. 2, and the Court has directed the United States to file a reply by Mon., Nov. 7, and submit copies of the 56 documents the government doesn't want to produce to the Federal Circuit for in camera review.  A copy of the Court's order entered this afternoon is attached to this e-mail message.

 

Seems like a pretty quick turnaround!

 

All I wanna do is zoom zoom..... Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 21(b)(6) directs that a mandamus "proceeding must be given preference over ordinary civil cases." 

[investorG]

well they got their way, no additional documents released pre-election.

 

our near term outlook rests on three judges and trump (maybe).

 

hope those four feel inspired stand up for the little guy...the govt and taxpayer can still have a home run investment while at the same time sharing some of the upside.

 

[waynepolsonAtoZ]

Just a quick question/comment. I gather that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is completely separate and distinct from the Court of Appeals, DC Circuit.

 

I guess the idea might be that "executive privilege" is a specialized issue and so they send it to the Federal Circuit rather than the DC Circuit. An implication of that specialization might be that they are "used to" the issue and have procedures in place to deal with it expeditiously. Judge Sweeney already did the in camera review, so the Federal Circuit would look at it again de novo, but with the benefit of having read Judge Sweeney's decision.

[Guest cherzeca]

Just a quick question/comment. I gather that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is completely separate and distinct from the Court of Appeals, DC Circuit.

 

I guess the idea might be that "executive privilege" is a specialized issue and so they send it to the Federal Circuit rather than the DC Circuit. An implication of that specialization might be that they are "used to" the issue and have procedures in place to deal with it expeditiously. Judge Sweeney already did the in camera review, so the Federal Circuit would look at it again de novo, but with the benefit of having read Judge Sweeney's decision.

 

As far as I can tell before reading briefs this is an interlocutory appeal (not final judgement) which will be reviewed under a rather stringent clear error of law standard. This is same for all federal courts. Not de novo review