Luke 532 Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 If Margaret Sweeney grants the NYT motion then Gretchen Morgenson will likely have a field day. If so, I just might have to name our unborn child "Gretchen" or "Margaret"... and the child is a boy. :)
jawn619 Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Fannie, Freddie CEOs to Get $3.4 Million Raises LOLOLOL I think it's hilarious and so smart. FNMA is owned by shareholders....but they care more about getting profits back while the fed has no control to affect compensation plan. Very smart play from the CEOs #greed
merkhet Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 More interesting filings: Status conference next week to discuss Cacciapalle & Washington Federal's requests for limited discovery. http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Cacciapalle/13-466-0055.pdf http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Washington_Federal/13-385-0047.pdf Initial Opening Brief for the Class Action Appeal: http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Perry/14-5243-1560310.pdf
merkhet Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Looks like Tim Howard (ex-CFO, not the website guy) is filing a brief amicus curiae. NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 29(b), Timothy Howard, the former chief financial officer of the Federal National Mortgage Association (a.k.a. Fannie Mae), hereby notifies this Court of his intent to file a brief amicus curiae in support of Appellants in this matter. All parties have consented to such participation.
Luke 532 Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 Cherry-picked from GSELinks.com http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0179.pdf "New Filing in the Fairholme case. This is a joint filing from both parties to give access to protected information to certain individuals. Barrie Prinz, who works for Deloitte, is on the list. Deloitte might be getting nervous."
merkhet Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 It's too bad that this status conference is closed to the public. This Court scheduled a status conference for July 7, 2015 at 1 p.m. Doc. 174 (June 29, 2014) (“June 29 Order”). The parties hereby notify the Court that they expect to discuss the following topics at the July 7 status conference: (1) the current status of the discovery authorized by the Court; (2) the current discovery schedule and the need for an additional extension of the discovery deadline; and (3) the timing of motions to remove the “Protected Information” designation from materials produced during discovery. In addition, Plaintiffs propose to discuss two additional topics: (4) the need for guidance from the Court regarding certain issues that have arisen during depositions, and are likely to arise at future depositions, including, for example, the propriety of certain instructions not to answer; and (5) Plaintiffs’ pending motion to stay briefing on the Government’s supplemental motion to dismiss. Consistent with the June 29 Order, all attorneys who will appear for the parties have been admitted to the Protective Order in this case. Because the Court directed that the July 7 status conference shall be closed to the public, counsel for the parties in this case has not made arrangements for attorneys for the plaintiffs in related cases to listen to the status conference via telephone. The Government requests that a telephone line be made available for Katherine Brandes, counsel from the Department of the Treasury, to listen to the status conference.
doughishere Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 AIG v. FRBNY In The Crosshairs: It's Time To Rethink Fannie And Freddie Richard Epstein http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardepstein/2015/07/06/aig-v-frbny-in-the-crosshairs-its-time-to-rethink-fannie-and-freddie-in-light-of-aig/
Luke 532 Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 http://investorsunite.org/iu-hosts-teleconference-to-provide-update-on-fannie-freddie-litigation/ IU Hosts Teleconference to Provide Update on Fannie, Freddie Litigation WASHINGTON, D.C.—On Thursday, July 9 at 2:30pm EDT, Investors Unite Executive Director Tim Pagliara will host a teleconference to update Investors Unite members and the media on the most recent developments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac investors’ efforts to enforce their rights as shareholders in the GSEs. Pagliara will be joined by Matthew D. McGill, partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher representing Perry Capital, and Richard Epstein, the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University and professor emeritus and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago. To join the teleconference, please RSVP to [email protected]. WHO: Tim Pagliara, Investors Unite Executive Director, CapWealth Advisors Chairman and CEO Matthew D. McGill, Partner, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher Richard Epstein, New York University Law Professor, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, professor emeritus and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago WHAT: IU Hosts Teleconference to Provide Update on Fannie, Freddie Litigation WHEN: July 9, 2015 at 2:30pm EDT DIAL IN: (800) 230-1951 Confirmation: 364133 RSVP: Please RSVP to [email protected]
merkhet Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 So, this happened... The status conference scheduled for Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. EDT in the above-captioned case is VACATED. The court will contact the parties to reschedule the status conference and will issue an order setting a new date and time. IT IS SO ORDERED. ...and this... Full docket text for document 186: **SEALED** ORDER granting limited relief as to [162]. Signed by Judge Margaret M. Sweeney. (ta) Copy to parties. Document #162 was the motion for unsealing the DeMarco & Ugoletti depositions.
Luke 532 Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 ...and this... Full docket text for document 186: **SEALED** ORDER granting limited relief as to [162]. Signed by Judge Margaret M. Sweeney. (ta) Copy to parties. Document #162 was the motion for unsealing the DeMarco & Ugoletti depositions. Please forgive my ignorance but what is the significance of this, if any?
Mephistopheles Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 ...and this... Full docket text for document 186: **SEALED** ORDER granting limited relief as to [162]. Signed by Judge Margaret M. Sweeney. (ta) Copy to parties. Document #162 was the motion for unsealing the DeMarco & Ugoletti depositions. Please forgive my ignorance but what is the significance of this, if any? +1 From Merkhet's post, it sounds like it could be really bad or really good :P
orthopa Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Meaningful in what way? Like, does the Times filing have a shot? Yes, or is it just looked at as non sense.
orthopa Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 ...and this... Full docket text for document 186: **SEALED** ORDER granting limited relief as to [162]. Signed by Judge Margaret M. Sweeney. (ta) Copy to parties. Document #162 was the motion for unsealing the DeMarco & Ugoletti depositions. Please forgive my ignorance but what is the significance of this, if any? +2. Why cant legal speak be straight forward?
Luke 532 Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 +2. Why cant legal speak be straight forward? Many lawyers would probably say the same about financial jargon :)
merkhet Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 If it was straightforward, lawyers couldn't charge a thousand dollars an hour. ;) orthopa, probably a decent chance that the NY Times has a shot of getting it unsealed -- much will depend on how Sweeney comes out on the original motion from Fairholme to unseal the depositions though. As for the filings today, my best guess is that Sweeney decided to allow for the Ugoletti & DeMarco depositions to be filed under seal with the Perry court for the purposes of the appeal. Mostly, I think this is because there's really no reason for her not to do so -- though I'm sure the government would have liked to come up with a few. The government has yet to respond to the original motion to unseal those depositions (their response isn't even due until 7/13/2015) so there's no way for Sweeney to have granted relief in favor of the government, and if she had done so, the wording would be different. (See the screenshot in the linked tweet above.) The remaining fight will be whether there is a public unsealing or not. As for the status conference, I have no idea if that came from Sweeney or if it came from the parties. If it came from Sweeney, it could be all kinds of reasons (sickness, double-booked, etc.) but if it came from the parties, then... my bullish guess is for settlement talks. And, of course, my standard disclaimer that I'm the guy who thought that Perry's case in Lamberth's court would have decided this in shareholders' favor back in September of last year.
Mephistopheles Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 If it was straightforward, lawyers couldn't charge a thousand dollars an hour. ;) orthopa, probably a decent chance that the NY Times has a shot of getting it unsealed -- much will depend on how Sweeney comes out on the original motion from Fairholme to unseal the depositions though. As for the filings today, my best guess is that Sweeney decided to allow for the Ugoletti & DeMarco depositions to be filed under seal with the Perry court for the purposes of the appeal. Mostly, I think this is because there's really no reason for her not to do so -- though I'm sure the government would have liked to come up with a few. The government has yet to respond to the original motion to unseal those depositions (their response isn't even due until 7/13/2015) so there's no way for Sweeney to have granted relief in favor of the government, and if she had done so, the wording would be different. (See the screenshot in the linked tweet above.) The remaining fight will be whether there is a public unsealing or not. As for the status conference, I have no idea if that came from Sweeney or if it came from the parties. If it came from Sweeney, it could be all kinds of reasons (sickness, double-booked, etc.) but if it came from the parties, then... my bullish guess is for settlement talks. And, of course, my standard disclaimer that I'm the guy who thought that Perry's case in Lamberth's court would have decided this in shareholders' favor back in September of last year. Thanks merkhet. So you're saying that the limited relief was granted for the other case? Or that this is your best guess? What other situations can it be granted for? I was under the impression that limited relief meant selective parts of the depositions are going to be unsealed to the public.
merkhet Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 It's merely a guess based on the description. I find it unlikely that Judge Sweeney would unseal the deposition without hearing a response from the Govrernment for why they might "roil the financial markets." As for filing the documents under seal in the case before the appeals court, though, it would seem that there would be absolutely no reason that one court should not have access to the documents another court has in its possession. That makes it the most likely candidate for the limited relief.
doughishere Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 It's merely a guess based on the description. I find it unlikely that Judge Sweeney would unseal the deposition without hearing a response from the Govrernment for why they might "roil the financial markets." As for filing the documents under seal in the case before the appeals court, though, it would seem that there would be absolutely no reason that one court should not have access to the documents another court has in its possession. That makes it the most likely candidate for the limited relief. What if we had an unseal before there was a rebuttal....what if.
merkhet Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 It's merely a guess based on the description. I find it unlikely that Judge Sweeney would unseal the deposition without hearing a response from the Govrernment for why they might "roil the financial markets." As for filing the documents under seal in the case before the appeals court, though, it would seem that there would be absolutely no reason that one court should not have access to the documents another court has in its possession. That makes it the most likely candidate for the limited relief. What if we had an unseal before there was a rebuttal....what if. You actually don't want that to happen. The problem with blackmail is that it's always the threat of exposure that causes the action -- if the exposure happens, there's no reason why the Administration won't just decide to wait out the full trials to see whether they are redeemed with a favorable ruling.
Luke 532 Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Former Delaware Chief Justice files amicus brief Fannie/Freddie sweep suit Calls Treasury’s seizure of profits illegal. Former Chief Justice... very nice!
Luke 532 Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Former Delaware Chief Justice files amicus brief Fannie/Freddie sweep suit Calls Treasury’s seizure of profits illegal. Former Chief Justice... very nice! People that have filed Amicus Briefs on our behalf: a former state chief justice, a former FDIC chief counsel, a former FDIC chairman, and a former Fannie Mae CFO.
merkhet Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Former Chief Justice Steele's amicus brief is a big deal.
muscleman Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Former Chief Justice Steele's amicus brief is a big deal. Just curious, why would he do this?
doughishere Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 He was hired by investors to consult on the cases. He works for a lawfirm now. Edit: http://www.housingwire.com/articles/34415-former-delaware-chief-justice-files-amicus-brief-fanniefreddie-sweep-suit?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=housingwire
merkhet Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 He was hired by investors to consult on the cases. He works for a lawfirm now. Edit: http://www.housingwire.com/articles/34415-former-delaware-chief-justice-files-amicus-brief-fanniefreddie-sweep-suit?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=housingwire Where did you see that he was hired to consult on the case?
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