doughishere Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Lukes article links this directly from him: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/28/bove-fannie-and-freddie-settlement-near-commentary.html White House was probably not aware of what the Treasury and FHFA were doing in the name of executive privilege and without the White House ever seeing the documents in question. Several civil-rights organizations, including the NAACP, according to my sources, have approached the White House requesting some help for low-income households that have been shut out of the housing market by the administration's directives for tighter lending standards. Stated simply: The White House needs Fannie and Freddie to go back to work to do what they were meant to do in the first place – i.e., assist the nation's housing markets to stimulate economic growth. Settling these cases would accomplish just that. Voted for the guy twice but really? All in the game yo, all in the game. - Omar little, The Wire Edit: I should be at the bar right now but instead Im here... Joe Light @joelight 4h4 hours ago White House spox says it’s standard practice for WH counsel to review docs in litigation that references the WH Second Edit: Carney and I agree. No way Obama didnt know it. Now i really need a beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 http://nypost.com/2015/08/29/fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-settlements-loom-on-horizon/ Some honest exposure in the article above. Can't believe I'm linking to The New York Post... probably the worst publication on the planet behind National Enquirer. ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 I'm praying for a settlement. There is no better time for one than a market crash! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 http://nypost.com/2015/08/29/fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-settlements-loom-on-horizon/ Some honest exposure in the article above. Can't believe I'm linking to The New York Post... probably the worst publication on the planet behind National Enquirer. ;D The only people that read the NYP is New Yorkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 http://www.valueplays.net/2015/09/01/more-on-golf-settlement-and-the-wsj-on-the-gses/ More on Golf, Settlement and the WSJ on the GSE’s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 http://www.valueplays.net/2015/09/01/more-on-golf-settlement-and-the-wsj-on-the-gses/ More on Golf, Settlement and the WSJ on the GSE’s From Todd This is the reason for the full court press by the government to keep them hidden and the reason the NYT has filed to have them released…….I would point out here that oddly enough the WSJ has not requested they be released…….like I said before, actions speak louder. Now we also have to live in fairy tale land to assume a senior partner at a law firm is wholly unaware a client of his firm is embroiled in a lawsuit vs the government that could be potentially worth over $200B in damages……..yeah, that kind of thing is always kept on the DL at law firm partner lunches. Anyone have that full text of the WSJ article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brker_guy Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 By now, I hope you guys can discount everything that John Carney ever writes, right? That guy is a freaking clown!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 By now, I hope you guys can discount everything that John Carney ever writes, wright? That guy is a freaking clown!!!!! Yes, of course. I don't think anybody was claiming Carney writes valid content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Is it just my imagination or has there been a noticeable lack of filings over the past 11 days since 8/21 filings of document 233 (White House counsel requesting access) and document 235 (Sweeney setting September 4th as status conference)? At the rate filings were being submitted the past few months it seems odd to have very minimal activity over the past nearly 2 weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 From two Yale legal scholars... http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423467/fannie-freddie-profits-government "The government is illegally taking their profits." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 From two Yale legal scholars... http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423467/fannie-freddie-profits-government "The government is illegally taking their profits." Macey also wrote an amicus brief for the appellate case in DC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 A bit surprising the WSJ ran this op-ed given all their negative GSE stuff. http://www.wsj.com/articles/fannie-freddie-and-smaller-banks-1441308871 Fannie, Freddie and Smaller Banks Edward DeMarco’s plan would effectively hand the $4 trillion secondary mortgage market over to too-big-to-fail firms. September 4, 2015 Community bankers agree it’s time to “Put Fannie and Freddie Out of Taxpayers’ Misery” (op-ed, Aug. 21). However, Edward DeMarco’s plan would effectively hand the keys of the $4 trillion secondary mortgage market over to the too-big-to-fail firms that cratered the housing market to begin with. To prevent another mortgage-backed security meltdown, regulators should require market participants that provide upfront loss protection in the loans they sell to the GSEs to keep equity capital behind those loans. Fannie and Freddie should also adjust the guarantee fees of these entities to prevent them from having a superior price advantage which would drive further market consolidation. Turning over the ownership of the common securitization platform currently under construction would result in the too-big-to-fail cartel controlling access to the platform, forcing lenders to access the secondary market only through the largest aggregators. To prevent this, the Federal Housing Finance Agency should become a part owner of the platform and ensure it is available to all qualified entities. Finally, the FHFA and Treasury Department should use their authority to allow Fannie and Freddie to start rebuilding capital—the only real protection for taxpayers. Bleeding two of the largest financial firms in the country of their capital only to feed the coffers of the Treasury is irresponsible and puts the housing market and taxpayers at risk of another bailout. Reforming Fannie and Freddie can be done, but policy makers should not lock out Main Street institutions in favor of the nation’s largest and riskiest lenders. Camden R. Fine President and CEO Independent Community Bankers of America Washington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 because this case is in the jurisdictional discovery phase, the court finds that it ispremature to grant at this juncture plaintiffs’ various motions to remove the “protected information” designation from certain deposition transcripts and documents produced during jurisdictional discovery.Consequently,the court DENIES as premature Plaintiffs’ oral motion during the status conference to extend jurisdictional discovery is GRANTED. Jurisdictional discovery shall be completed by Thursday, December 31, 2015. The parties shall file a joint status report suggesting future proceedings by no later than Thursday, January 21, 201 Because plaintiffs’various aforementioned motions for de-designation of certain discovery materials are denied, consequently, the court DENIESAS MOOTThe NewYork TimesCompany’s motion to intervene and for an order de-designating discovery materials (Docket #177) last but not least Motions to de-designate or unseal, if such a request is madeby a party or a proposedintervenor, will be entertained by the court after the conclusion of briefing of defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’complaint http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/sweeneydocdecision.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Court Documents Stay Sealed in Fannie, Freddie Case -- Market Talk Last update: 04/09/2015 1:57:43 pm 16:57 EDT - A judge in the US Court of Federal Claims today denies motions to make public certain documents and depositions in a case between shareholders of Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC) and the US government. The shareholders are challenging the government's 2012 decision to sweep nearly all of Fannie's and Freddie's profits when they make one, but not require dividends when they don't. The plaintiffs in the case, which include mutual fund manager Fairholme Funds, in redacted court filings have said the documents undermine the government's public reasoning for the sweep--namely that government officials were afraid that Fannie and Freddie would need to draw on bailout funds to pay dividends. The decision is a small blow to shareholders, who are also fighting a public relations battle to win over the public and policymakers and perhaps drive the government towards a settlement. (joe.light@wsj.com; @joelight) (END) Dow Jones Newswires Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Well, that's a setback. Also, why would plaintiffs extend discovery so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brker_guy Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 That's not a good way to start a long weekend for all of us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 I feel like its kind of neutral. L Why would the plantifs want to extend Discovery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 I'm not sure why this is being perceived as negative. because this case is in the jurisdictional discovery phase, the court finds that it ispremature to grant at this juncture plaintiffs’ various motions to remove the “protected information” designation from certain deposition transcripts and documents produced during jurisdictional discovery.Consequently,the court DENIES as premature The part cut off discussed that it was premature until discovery is complete (in other words, "not yet"). And if it's premature to disclose documents to the public then of course it's premature to disclose them to the NYT. It's not denied with no reason, and Sweeney welcomes future unseal requests per the language below... Motions to de-designate or unseal, if such a request is madeby a party or a proposedintervenor, will be entertained by the court after the conclusion of briefing of defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’complaint Extension on discovery... Plaintiffs’ oral motion during the status conference to extend jurisdictional discovery is GRANTED. Jurisdictional discovery shall be completed by Thursday, December 31, 2015. The parties shall file a joint status report suggesting future proceedings by no later than Thursday, January 21, 201 Why? Anybody's guess. Perhaps they want to accumulate more information to make the case stronger. Perhaps the government wants more time to negotiate a settlement and in exchange for giving them more time the Plaintiffs asked that they are allowed to dig deeper to further strengthen their case. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 I just dont buy the rumors of a settlement. Think there are going to be more depositions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 It's a setback because the pressure is off for a few more months. Earlier is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 It's a setback because the pressure is off for a few more months. Earlier is better. Fairholme's the ones that wanted the extension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 because this case is in the jurisdictional discovery phase, the court finds that it ispremature to grant at this juncture plaintiffs’ various motions to remove the “protected information” designation from certain deposition transcripts and documents produced during jurisdictional discovery.Consequently,the court DENIES as premature Further, she did not say it was denied for any legal reason. Wouldn't she outright deny the motion if it were based on some legal reason? I think it speaks volumes that she simply delayed her decision claiming it was premature at this point in discovery. How weird would it be if in the future Sweeney said "motion DENIED due to it being an unlawful request by NYT" (or something along those liens) after today saying it's simply premature? Merkhet/others, am I wrong in this line of thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Motions to de-designate or unseal, if such a request is madeby a party or a proposedintervenor, will be entertained by the court after the conclusion of briefing of defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’complaint. She just kinda kicked the ball down the field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 It's a setback because the pressure is off for a few more months. Earlier is better. Would it be better to give Obama a few more months to do the right thing (release), or would it bet better to have documents released to the public today (taking away any incentive to release/settle) and have it be entirely in the hands of the courts? I'm not sure of the answer to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 It's a setback because the pressure is off for a few more months. Earlier is better. Fairholme's the ones that wanted the extension. I know that. I just can't figure out why. And Luke, you can't assume that on the motions to unseal. If it's premature, she doesn't even have to consider the legal arguments, so it wouldn't be incongruous to say later that the legal reasoning doesn't fly. Even if I think that's unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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