Flynnstone5 Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 "You received money as part of the PwC settlement." Not true. Who are you, the Amazing Kreskin? Ok. Were you a party to that suit? Did you settle? What did you receive in order to agree to settle? http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/PWC/Complaint.pdf http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Deloitte-Fannie.pdf Just trying to establish what happened and why, fact from fiction. You could just provide a clear answer.......just saying.
rros Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 "You received money as part of the PwC settlement." Not true. Who are you, the Amazing Kreskin? Ok. Were you a party to that suit? Did you settle? What did you receive in order to agree to settle? FHFA filed a motion to find just that. And you think he can disclose this publicly? lol.
Flynnstone5 Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 "You received money as part of the PwC settlement." Not true. Who are you, the Amazing Kreskin? Ok. Were you a party to that suit? Did you settle? What did you receive in order to agree to settle? FHFA filed a motion to find just that. And you think he can disclose this publicly? lol. Didn't know FHFA filed motion so I get that. Just trying to understand what is going on with these other cases including motives of some of the P's. Lots of $$$ on the line.
SnarkyPuppy Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 In all practicality wouldn't fairholme need to liquidate their positions prior to any settlement disadvantageous to shareholders not involved in the litigation? I do think it's a key risk, and I think Berkowitz may be willing to do something like this given the Sears debacle, but significant liquidations would probably become obvious to the public ahead of an announcement?
Mephistopheles Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 No, because the Fairholme shareholders can benefit, along with Paulson investors, etc. The issue is with private individual shareholders such as us. Makes me want to sell and invest through fairholme.
SnarkyPuppy Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 No, because the Fairholme shareholders can benefit, along with Paulson investors, etc. The issue is with private individual shareholders such as us. Makes me want to sell and invest through fairholme. I understand the premise- just not sure a deal would be done while fairholme holds public shares.
SnarkyPuppy Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 "Just trying to establish what happened and why, fact from fiction. You could just provide a clear answer.......just saying." The reality is the FnF attract wingnuts. There is nothing I can say that would satisfy people like that. No offense intended. His question is very reasonable.
Mephistopheles Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 "Just trying to establish what happened and why, fact from fiction. You could just provide a clear answer.......just saying." The reality is the FnF attract wingnuts. There is nothing I can say that would satisfy people like that. No offense intended. His question is very reasonable. +1 I really don't understand the hostility. Any lawyers want to comment or is your guess as good as mine? In my limited knowledge of law, from time to time I get notices of settlements involving stocks I owned or own, and I get to decide whether I want to be in the class or not. Is this similar?
Flynnstone5 Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 "Just trying to establish what happened and why, fact from fiction. You could just provide a clear answer.......just saying." The reality is the FnF attract wingnuts. There is nothing I can say that would satisfy people like that. No offense intended. Seriously!? What kind of a response is that. I'm a well educated individual investor with a successful background in medical products. I see you commenting here and on SA, your name is on both suits and I know the PwC suit was settled. How in the hell asking you to clarify is that considered wingnut? You sound like HRC back in the day responding to accusations against Bill as "the vast right wing conspiracy".
investorG Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 the accounting fraud lawsuits are likely a sideshow barring a true smoking gun. anyone who has studied accounting or researched financials stocks knows that DTA writedowns and reserve builds that drive earnings negative are reasonable even if 'cash' earnings stay positive. especially in a mini-depression when people believe the world is crashing. i'd encourage investors to focus on the big prizes of justice: NWS legality + political compromise. it was a good sign that Carson (the most anti-govt-involvement person) reiterated in his hearing (and thru a spokesman afterwards) the importance of the 30yr mortgage, which is the GSE's specialty. there have been other small victories like this in recent weeks but the reality is this stock is working off a massive overbought reading (the daily macd still hasn't even reset to 0) and for whatever reason the GSE shares rise on either good news or after a plunge, virtually never on any 'anticipation'. Moreover there is likely re-balancing going on --- if the GSEs were 20pct of Fairholme's portfolio and then they doubled, he likely doesnt want to carry around a 35-40pct position even if he is max bullish on the outcome. right now the opponents of the GSEs are the loudest because maybe their poker hand looks inferior, which is the opposite of the situation prior. this is likely why th717 shut down his site.
Flynnstone5 Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 CNBC reporting Mnuchin hearing set for Jan 19th
orthopa Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 Again, Niave viewpoint here but how can Berkowitz, Paulson etc sue on the "rule of law", the fact that the preferred stock was a contract and shareholder property destruction when the premise they are suing on applies to all that hold the same securities they do? It would be ironic if "the rule of law" applied only to litigants when others hold identical property.
HalfMeasure Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 If the Gov't/Treasury want the legal problems to go away, they are not going to negotiate a settlement that unfairly benefits certain shareholders - they will want the solution to be as optically palatable as possible. EDIT: At least, they won't be unfair between shareholders within the same part of the capital structure. The only way a class of shareholders gets screwed is if the restructuring is more friendly to either the prefs or the common.
rros Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 If the Gov't/Treasury want the legal problems to go away, they are not going to negotiate a settlement that unfairly benefits certain shareholders - they will want the solution to be as optically palatable as possible. EDIT: At least, they won't be unfair between shareholders within the same part of the capital structure. The only way a class of shareholders gets screwed is if the restructuring is more friendly to either the prefs or the common. Did you mean shareholders getting screwed depending on whether they supported a Bloomberg presidential run as Ackman did or they supported Trump right after winning the presidential nomination as John Paulson did?
HalfMeasure Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 If the Gov't/Treasury want the legal problems to go away, they are not going to negotiate a settlement that unfairly benefits certain shareholders - they will want the solution to be as optically palatable as possible. EDIT: At least, they won't be unfair between shareholders within the same part of the capital structure. The only way a class of shareholders gets screwed is if the restructuring is more friendly to either the prefs or the common. Did you mean shareholders getting screwed depending on whether they supported a Bloomberg presidential run as Ackman did or they supported Trump right after winning the presidential nomination as John Paulson did? Not that particularly. Just that the only way shareholders get unfair treatment is between different slices of the capital structure, not within the same - i.e. all FNMAS shareholders will be treated the same, but FNMA and FNMAS are fundamentally different claims and thus will be treated differently.
SnarkyPuppy Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 If the Gov't/Treasury want the legal problems to go away, they are not going to negotiate a settlement that unfairly benefits certain shareholders - they will want the solution to be as optically palatable as possible. EDIT: At least, they won't be unfair between shareholders within the same part of the capital structure. The only way a class of shareholders gets screwed is if the restructuring is more friendly to either the prefs or the common. Did you mean shareholders getting screwed depending on whether they supported a Bloomberg presidential run as Ackman did or they supported Trump right after winning the presidential nomination as John Paulson did? Not that particularly. Just that the only way shareholders get unfair treatment is between different slices of the capital structure, not within the same - i.e. all FNMAS shareholders will be treated the same, but FNMA and FNMAS are fundamentally different claims and thus will be treated differently. They are discussing the risk of a settlement between Fairholme, Paulson, and US Govt to end the related litigation. In practice I'm not sure how probable this is
HalfMeasure Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 They are discussing the risk of a settlement between Fairholme, Paulson, and US Govt to end the related litigation. In practice I'm not sure how probable this is Yeah that doesn't make any sense from the Gov't/Treasury perspective as whatever solution they move toward, they will want to remove the risk of all future litigation. And again, they will want to do something optically palatable (i.e. not favoring specific preferred shareholders over other preferred shareholders).
Guest cherzeca Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 http://abovethelaw.com/2017/01/the-case-for-chuck-cooper-as-solicitor-general/ and if you have read above, here is the prior post referred to: http://abovethelaw.com/2017/01/the-latest-in-the-solicitor-general-sweepstakes/?rf=1
hardincap Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 wow, what would happen to all the court cases if cooper becomes solicitor general?
Guest cherzeca Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 this article intimates that cooper has a big role advising sessions over who to appoint to DOJ senior sttaff generally: http://abovethelaw.com/2017/01/a-deep-drive-into-the-department-of-justice-transition/?rf=1
orthopa Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 From above article. "The biggest factor in Cooper’s favor: his close friendship with incoming attorney general Jeff Sessions, his fellow Alabaman, University of Alabama law school graduate, and Reagan-era DOJ lawyer. Cooper played a key role in prepping Sessions for his hearings. After Sessions’s hearings concluded so successfully, Cooper’s stock in Trumpworld went way up — to the point where he was basically redoing the Trump DOJ org chart (and writing himself in as SG)." The stars seem to continually align.
Guest cherzeca Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 wow, what would happen to all the court cases if cooper becomes solicitor general? Certainly one way for cooper to read all of the privileged documents! Edit: if cooper becomes SG he won't be able to "work" on GSE cases due to conflict concerns but I imagine he might become an influential voice within DOJ
HalfMeasure Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 wow, what would happen to all the court cases if cooper becomes solicitor general? Certainly one way for cooper to read all of the privileged documents! Edit: if cooper becomes SG he won't be able to "work" on GSE cases due to conflict concerns but I imagine he might become an influential voice within DOJ Could Cooper & Kirk still represent Fairholme? I would imagine that would be a conflict of interests too.
hardincap Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 pretty sure cooper would have to recuse himself on both sides, but we can hope he'd have some influence as SG over the cases
Guest cherzeca Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 pretty sure cooper would have to recuse himself on both sides, but we can hope he'd have some influence as SG over the cases if cooper withdraws from law firm no reason why firm cant continue to rep fairholme as long as cooper doesnt work on GSE cases at DOJ. however i imagine he could make his view known within DOJ that these cases deserve a hard relook by the trump admin DOJ (for the sake of the DOJ as an institution). must say i have never seen this situation before...
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