Jump to content

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


twacowfca

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 17.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Here's my brief update from the status conference:

 

(1) Apparently, some crazy person mass faxed everyone at the Court of Claims a few days ago. Seriously, there are some nutty folks out there. Sweeney called in the U.S. Marshals to investigate.

 

(2) The disagreement between the government and Cooper seems to be on the timing of the depositions. The government would like to wait until after the document production is finished AND they've settled all the issues with the privileged documents. Cooper wants to be able to depose the witnesses immediately after the document production with the ability to come back to those witnesses if he is able to successfully challenge the privilege on various documents. Sweeney basically said to wait until the document production is finished, and we'll go from there.

 

(3) The government has stated that document production will be finished by the end of April with the final privilege log done by the end of May. If Cooper needs more time for the depositions, Sweeney will grant an extension to the end of June deadline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, yup -- ya got me!

 

Here's my view on why Cooper wants the depositions to occur prior to the privilege fight, and, concomitantly, why the government wants to wait until afterwards.

 

Imagine you're a former government official, such as DeMarco, and you're called to show up at a deposition. Opposing counsel is basically going to try and push you to the point of perjury (much like the Starr case) and you'll have to ask yourself whether you're willing to risk flirting with perjury on the possibility that privilege gets lifted later down the line. Of course, you could sit back and say that you're not going to answer any questions, but then that provides Cooper with the ammunition to go back to Sweeney and say that lifting the privilege on those documents is the only way to get at the truth.

 

It's rather shrewd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, yup -- ya got me!

 

Here's my view on why Cooper wants the depositions to occur prior to the privilege fight, and, concomitantly, why the government wants to wait until afterwards.

 

Imagine you're a former government official, such as DeMarco, and you're called to show up at a deposition. Opposing counsel is basically going to try and push you to the point of perjury (much like the Starr case) and you'll have to ask yourself whether you're willing to risk flirting with perjury on the possibility that privilege gets lifted later down the line. Of course, you could sit back and say that you're not going to answer any questions, but then that provides Cooper with the ammunition to go back to Sweeney and say that lifting the privilege on those documents is the only way to get at the truth.

 

It's rather shrewd.

 

Nice thought, thanks for the update.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the update merkhet. Do you actually go to court for the updates?

 

 

 

Fool Article: A Step in the Right Direction for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Shareholders By Matthew Frankel

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/04/01/a-step-in-the-right-direction-for-fannie-mae-and-f.aspx

 

Yes, I go to the court to get my updates. It's only about a mile from my apartment.

 

Has there been any progress on the Perry Case?  Last I heard that they were going to appeal the judges decision but I haven't heard anything since.  Can anyone shed some light on this?

 

Not much movement at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/business/charles-grassley-questions-diversion-of-fannie-and-freddie-earnings.html?_r=2

 

Charles Grassley Questions Diversion of Fannie and Freddie Earnings

 

For almost two years, shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been asking the United States government about its 2012 decision to divert all of the mortgage finance giants’ earnings to the Treasury rather than let them repay taxpayers under the original bailout agreement.

 

But the government has declined to disclose documents relating to that decision, contending that some may be subject to presidential privilege.

 

Now, this cloak of secrecy has drawn the scrutiny of Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. On Tuesday, Mr. Grassley sent letters to the Justice Department and the Treasury asking for details about the decision and why the government has kept such a tight lid on documents relating to it.

 

“The taxpayer has a right to know what has transpired,” Mr. Grassley wrote in letters to both Eric H. Holder Jr., the United States attorney general, and Jacob Lew, the Treasury secretary. “But, instead of transparency, there appears to be an invocation of executive privilege. If true, this is cause for concern.” A Justice Department spokeswoman said that its officials were reviewing the letter. A spokeswoman at the Treasury Department said its officials had not received the letter from Mr. Grassley’s office.

 

...

 

Mr. Grassley asked Mr. Holder and Mr. Lew to respond to his questions by April 20.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...