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

[merkhet]

Yes. The blackmail potential is strongest with the threat of release. Once it's released, we would have to wait for the legal process. Still fine but just longer.

[doughishere]

Yes. The blackmail potential is strongest with the threat of release. Once it's released, we would have to wait for the legal process. Still fine but just longer.

 

I just dont see the govt...settling. I think that they are gonna drag it out and go out like the band on the titanic.

 

I'd love to see the testimony from a purely drama point of view. This is all in the hands of fairholme lawyers.  Bruce should get a book deal after this is all over.

[Luke 532]

Comments from ValuePlays.net...

 

http://www.valueplays.net/2015/07/13/everyone-but-the-janitor-getting-access/

 

Things must be getting uncomfortable over at FHFA/Treasury. Plaintiffs from several other suits have filed for access to previously restricted documents from the Fairholme discovery in the $FNMA cases.

 

As she has regularly, Sweeney ruled in favor of plaintiffs.

 

Plaintiffs from the Washington Federal, Cacciapalle and Reid cases may now all gain access to all previously protected documents from Fairholme’s (FAITX) discovery efforts and plaintiffs in Cacciapalle are even able to depose additional witnesses that Fairholme did not. Additionally, attorney’s for all three plaintiffs are now able to attend future depositions conducted by Fairholme (Cacciapalle lawyers are able to question witnesses for 1 hour after Fairholme is done).

 

This is no small thing. The government is getting hit from all sides now and the number of plaintiffs with access to protected documents is mushrooming. This many people cannot hold a secret and word of what is being discovered and its potential ramifications will circulate in Washington putting increasing pressure for settlement on the folks at Treasury/FHFA

[doughishere]

Somethings going down......

[merkhet]

Somethings going down......

 

What do you mean?

[Mephistopheles]

Yes. The blackmail potential is strongest with the threat of release. Once it's released, we would have to wait for the legal process. Still fine but just longer.

 

But say the judge rules against a release because doing so would "destroy the world financial system". At that point the leverage is no longer there, correct?

[doughishere]

Somethings going down......

 

What do you mean?

 

Merkhet, just anxious about all this secondary news.

[merkhet]

But say the judge rules against a release because doing so would "destroy the world financial system". At that point the leverage is no longer their, correct?

 

Correct, then we would proceed again along the legal lines of the Perry appeal, the Fairholme case, etc.

 

Merkhet, just anxious about all this secondary news.

 

Secondary news about Fannie & Freddie? What news is making you anxious?

[Mephistopheles]

A new angle I'm thinking of. How would a Jeb or Hillary administration help or hurt us? I think it's clear now that there is no reform for Fannie/Freddie and they are here to stay. In that case I imagine Clinton would just keep it status quo, but Bush may lean in favor of private ownership rights. Thoughts anyone?

[doughishere]

But say the judge rules against a release because doing so would "destroy the world financial system". At that point the leverage is no longer their, correct?

 

Correct, then we would proceed again along the legal lines of the Perry appeal, the Fairholme case, etc.

 

Merkhet, just anxious about all this secondary news.

 

Secondary news about Fannie & Freddie? What news is making you anxious?

 

I'd like to know what are in the depositions and the redacted Filings. This is what i was referring to as secondary news, primary being the actual depositions.  Anxious may be a bad word....excited, giddy in anticipation may be more appropriate.

[merkhet]

Two motions to extend the unsealing of depositions until August 17th.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/syfynjdvdjjkfy3/2015-07-13%20Motion%20for%20Extension%20of%20Time%20for%20Grant%20Thorton%20Documents.pdf?dl=0

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ux0tpt3mqsvk0by/2015-07-13%20Motion%20for%20Extension%20of%20Time%20for%20Various%20Responses.pdf?dl=0

 

The second one is more interesting because it notes the following:

 

At the time Respondents accepted Plaintiffs’ condition, they did not know that the Government and Grant Thornton were going to seek an extension until August 17, 2015, to respond to the de-designation motions pending as to them. To the extent the Court grants the Government and Grant Thornton until August 17, 2015, judicial economy would support extending Respondents’ deadline until August 17, 2015.

 

There is good cause for an enlargement of time. Given Freddie Mac’s significant efforts to prepare for the deposition of former Freddie Mac Chief Financial Officer, Ross Kari, which took place on July 10, 2015, in Eugene, Oregon, and Fannie Mae’s significant efforts to prepare for the deposition of former Fannie Mae Chief Financial Officer, Susan MacFarland, which is scheduled for July 15, 2015, in Houston, Texas, an enlargement of time is needed to meaningfully and appropriately respond to the De-Designation Motions. As noted above, Plaintiffs have consented to these extensions, and the Court already permitted Plaintiffs to file the documents that are the subject of the De-Designation Motions under seal in Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, No. 14-5254 (D.C. Cir.).

 

Confirms my hunch that the court has allowed for documents to be filed under seal in the Perry appeal.

 

The reason that Grant Thorton wants a motion for extension is pretty thin. (I suspect that the Government's will be thin as well.) Both of them have had an extension already to boot. I would love to see Sweeney deny them the extension, but I don't know if she's willing to do that.

[muscleman]

Two motions to extend the unsealing of depositions until August 17th.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/syfynjdvdjjkfy3/2015-07-13%20Motion%20for%20Extension%20of%20Time%20for%20Grant%20Thorton%20Documents.pdf?dl=0

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ux0tpt3mqsvk0by/2015-07-13%20Motion%20for%20Extension%20of%20Time%20for%20Various%20Responses.pdf?dl=0

 

The second one is more interesting because it notes the following:

 

At the time Respondents accepted Plaintiffs’ condition, they did not know that the Government and Grant Thornton were going to seek an extension until August 17, 2015, to respond to the de-designation motions pending as to them. To the extent the Court grants the Government and Grant Thornton until August 17, 2015, judicial economy would support extending Respondents’ deadline until August 17, 2015.

 

There is good cause for an enlargement of time. Given Freddie Mac’s significant efforts to prepare for the deposition of former Freddie Mac Chief Financial Officer, Ross Kari, which took place on July 10, 2015, in Eugene, Oregon, and Fannie Mae’s significant efforts to prepare for the deposition of former Fannie Mae Chief Financial Officer, Susan MacFarland, which is scheduled for July 15, 2015, in Houston, Texas, an enlargement of time is needed to meaningfully and appropriately respond to the De-Designation Motions. As noted above, Plaintiffs have consented to these extensions, and the Court already permitted Plaintiffs to file the documents that are the subject of the De-Designation Motions under seal in Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, No. 14-5254 (D.C. Cir.).

 

Confirms my hunch that the court has allowed for documents to be filed under seal in the Perry appeal.

 

The reason that Grant Thorton wants a motion for extension is pretty thin. (I suspect that the Government's will be thin as well.) Both of them have had an extension already to boot. I would love to see Sweeney deny them the extension, but I don't know if she's willing to do that.

 

But I saw this: "Plaintiffs have consented to these extensions". So this means plaintiffs have agreed to this extension? That's weird. Isn't the plaintiff pushing for quicker response? Maybe they are trying to settle?

[merkhet]

If you read the actual motions, you'll see that plaintiffs have only consented to an extension until July 27th and not August 17th.

[merkhet]

Finally, the filing from the Government for an extension of time.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vxvllqbzei9b4c4/2015-07-13%20Motion%20for%20Extension%20of%20Time%20for%20Depositions%20and%20New%20York%20Times.pdf?dl=0

 

Moreover, the Court has already provided Fairholme limited relief when it permitted Fairholme file the documents at issue, albeit under seal, in Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, No. 14-5254 (D.C. Cir.). Order, July 9, 2015, ECF No. 194. In light of the fact that Fairholme is free to use the protected documents in this litigation, and in the related litigation pending in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the modest enlargement of time sought – which would delay only the determination of whether these discovery materials should also be made public – is not unreasonable.

 

Yup, the discovery documents were filed in the Perry appeal. This request is incredibly weak. Again, I would love to see Sweeney deny their extension of time. (They don't even bother arguing why they should be granted an extension of time w/ the NY Times inquiry.)

[Luke 532]

Interesting that Schwind, one of the govt's primary attorneys, recently left the DOJ.

 

[doughishere]

Interesting that Schwind, one of the govt's primary attorneys, recently left the DOJ.

 

I was just gonna say that. That foot note is interesting but honestly he could have wanted to attend more of his kids soccer games.

[doughishere]

Interesting that Schwind, one of the govt's primary attorneys, recently left the DOJ.

 

schwind has been in a number of the transcripts from past court dates

 

 

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/freddienfannie/ED33TPc67C8

[Luke 532]

Interesting that Schwind, one of the govt's primary attorneys, recently left the DOJ.

 

I was just gonna say that. That foot note is interesting but honestly he could have wanted to attend more of his kids soccer games.

 

I agree that we don't know the reason why he left.  The timing just seems odd given all the recent developments.

[merkhet]

I don't know why everyone keeps pointing that out. It's not that big a deal.

 

He probably left to go into a private law firm. At the DOJ he was probably making $150K when he'd be making over $400K on the private side -- if not more.

[doughishere]

Gossip, merkhet

[Mephistopheles]

Finally, the filing from the Government for an extension of time.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vxvllqbzei9b4c4/2015-07-13%20Motion%20for%20Extension%20of%20Time%20for%20Depositions%20and%20New%20York%20Times.pdf?dl=0

 

Moreover, the Court has already provided Fairholme limited relief when it permitted Fairholme file the documents at issue, albeit under seal, in Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, No. 14-5254 (D.C. Cir.). Order, July 9, 2015, ECF No. 194. In light of the fact that Fairholme is free to use the protected documents in this litigation, and in the related litigation pending in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the modest enlargement of time sought – which would delay only the determination of whether these discovery materials should also be made public – is not unreasonable.

 

Yup, the discovery documents were filed in the Perry appeal. This request is incredibly weak. Again, I would love to see Sweeney deny their extension of time. (They don't even bother arguing why they should be granted an extension of time w/ the NY Times inquiry.)

 

Lol wtf, that sounds like they are asking for sympathy. "Fairholme got something they want, so at least give us something we want"

[merkhet]

The New York Times & Fairholme oppose an extension past July 27th, 2015.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9c8u95j8zz3kcqj/2015-07-14%20New%20York%20Times%27%20Opposition%20to%20Motion%20for%20Extension.pdf?dl=0

 

Tellingly, the Government addresses the question of whether Plaintiffs will be prejudiced by the delay but stands silent on how delay will affect The Times and the public. (See Enlargement Motion at 3.) That disregard for the public interest is sadly of a piece with the Government's decision to make the depositions confidential in the first place.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xfh3gbhxplo3fmu/2015-07-14%20Plaintiffs%27%20Opposition%20to%20Motion%20for%20Extension.pdf?dl=0

 

The motions have been pend- ing for weeks, and in one case (Doc. 162) for more than a month, and Plaintiffs have already agreed to multiple deadline extensions, including a recent request to extend the deadline for re- sponding to the motions for another two weeks, until July 27. Moreover, since Plaintiffs con- sulted with the producing parties regarding their de-designation requests before filing their mo- tions, the producing parties have known about – and have presumably been thinking about – the issues raised by the motion for a long time.

[doughishere]

Notably, although it tries to do so, Defendant can no longer credibly point to its other discovery obligations as an excuse for putting off responding to the motions.

 

Although Defendant notes that it “anticipate” that additional depositions will take place, Doc. 198 at 2, none have yet been noticed, and there is no realistic prospect that any depositions that may eventually be noticed will take place between now and July 27.  The mere possibility that additional deposi-tions may be scheduled for August or early September, therefore, provides no support for yet an-other extension of the deadline.

 

Grant Thornton, for its part, does not even attempt to identify any particular discovery item that it is currently working on, and Plaintiffs know of only one such item (the preparation of a corrected privilege log that is much smaller than the FHFA and Treasury privi-lege logs prepared by Defendant).

 

Grant Thornton is an accounting firm here in chicago....why do they care so much?

[merkhet]

You mean why wouldn't Grant Thorton just immediately cooperate? I suppose someone put in a call and asked them to delay -- when you get into a litigation situation, there's a very strong behavioral aspect where you develop an us vs. them perspective. All the plaintiffs are part of a "tribe" and all the others are part of another "tribe."

[Luke 532]

Somebody just joined the FNMAS party (or added to an existing position).  3.5M shares so far today.  Of course, somebody also just left by the same amount :-)