Jump to content

FFH news on lawsuit


Stone19
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't see why we should be happy that much with this news. Yes, the judge recognize that Fairfax suffered a loss, but dismissed the complain against a lot of defendants and suffering a loss is far from enough to win a case. That being said, if we ultimately win and the defendent is solvant, the judge has already recognized the damage being done to Fairfax.

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I bump this up again,... some interesting weeks are ahead.

 

Sep. 10th, 3 claims go to trail in Fairfax case

 

-------

Fairfax Had ‘Massive’ Loss in Morgan Keegan Case: Judge

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-28/fairfax-had-massive-loss-in-morgan-keegan-case-judge-says-1-.html?cmpid=yhoo

 

 

 

Canadian insurer Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. (FFH) suffered “massive” economic loss because of a campaign of negative information that led it to sue broker-dealer Morgan Keegan & Co. and Exis Capital Management Inc., a judge ruled.

 

A state judge in Morristown, New Jersey, narrowed the lawsuit yesterday, dismissing a claim against Morgan Keegan, Exis and two others, while allowing three claims to go to trial on Sept. 10. Fairfax seeks $8 billion in damages through its lawsuit, filed in 2006.

 

Fairfax, which owns stakes in Canadian and U.S. insurers, claims that Morgan Keegan and Exis coordinated with stock analysts to drive down its stock price by spreading false rumors in a so-called bear raid.

 

There is no question that there was a campaign of negative information being circulated about Fairfax,” Superior Court Judge Stephan Hansbury ruled. “There is absolutely no question in this litigation, and defendants do not contest, that plaintiffs’ suffered massive pecuniary/economic loss in this case.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i been looking into FFH for sometime.

 

their insurance operations are decent but you're really buying Prem's investment power on FFH (unlike BRK where the operating assets are excellent).

 

problem I have are these equity hedges which if i'm not mistaken, means you're going to gain largely on the insurance operations alone. I think the stock can trade down from here and if I were to buy an insurance company, I think I can find better (or maybe not).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep coming back to some comment in Lowenstein from Buffett about an "empty bag not standing very tall".  FFH may get a small amount out of Morgan Keegan, but are unlikely to ever see a cent from Exis Capital. 

 

FrankArabia,  Read all the posts here and FFhs Annual Reports and decide for yourself.  I have reasons to make this my largest holding, always.  always hedged

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep coming back to some comment in Lowenstein from Buffett about an "empty bag not standing very tall".  FFH may get a small amount out of Morgan Keegan, but are unlikely to ever see a cent from Exis Capital. 

 

FrankArabia,  Read all the posts here and FFhs Annual Reports and decide for yourself.  I have reasons to make this my largest holding, always.  always hedged

 

Yeah, I'd say that the prospect getting meaningful money out of the lawsuit is remote.  My way of thinking about it is that the expected value equals:

 

Probability of winning in court X

Value of the ultimate award X

Probability of winning the dozen appeals that will be launched X

Probability of sufficient assets being available to make payment X

Time value of money for the next 10 or so years -

Costs of litigating

 

Plug in the probabilities and the award amounts based on your subjective assessment of the situation, but if you're like me, you'll get a result somewhere close to zero.

 

 

SJ

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest longinvestor

I keep coming back to some comment in Lowenstein from Buffett about an "empty bag not standing very tall".  FFH may get a small amount out of Morgan Keegan, but are unlikely to ever see a cent from Exis Capital. 

 

FrankArabia,  Read all the posts here and FFhs Annual Reports and decide for yourself.  I have reasons to make this my largest holding, always.  always hedged

 

Yeah, I'd say that the prospect getting meaningful money out of the lawsuit is remote.  My way of thinking about it is that the expected value equals:

 

Probability of winning in court X

Value of the ultimate award X

Probability of winning the dozen appeals that will be launched X

Probability of sufficient assets being available to make payment X

Time value of money for the next 10 or so years -

Costs of litigating

 

Plug in the probabilities and the award amounts based on your subjective assessment of the situation, but if you're like me, you'll get a result somewhere close to zero.

 

 

SJ

 

 

The primary purpose of the lawsuit was served the day it was announced in 2006. Arguable if the market has priced FFH correctly now, but it was certainly wrong then. Does this not explain how many on this board made their big bucks on FFH? If I look back at the last 7 years and FFH has done the "heavy lifting" of my investment performance.  This is real money I've already made, not a probability calculation of what I will be making when the lawsuit is decided.

 

Someday, I would like to hear from FFH (Prem) some more "color" on their decision to leave the NYSE. I believe they are related.  FFH suffered mightily from their 6 year foray into the NYSE(2002-08). "Nothing good came out of it" about describes it. FFH strategy today is all about "other than USA" (Canada, Asia, Eastern EU etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep coming back to some comment in Lowenstein from Buffett about an "empty bag not standing very tall".  FFH may get a small amount out of Morgan Keegan, but are unlikely to ever see a cent from Exis Capital. 

 

FrankArabia,  Read all the posts here and FFhs Annual Reports and decide for yourself.  I have reasons to make this my largest holding, always.  always hedged

 

Yeah, I'd say that the prospect getting meaningful money out of the lawsuit is remote.  My way of thinking about it is that the expected value equals:

 

Probability of winning in court X

Value of the ultimate award X

Probability of winning the dozen appeals that will be launched X

Probability of sufficient assets being available to make payment X

Time value of money for the next 10 or so years -

Costs of litigating

 

Plug in the probabilities and the award amounts based on your subjective assessment of the situation, but if you're like me, you'll get a result somewhere close to zero.

 

 

SJ

 

 

The primary purpose of the lawsuit was served the day it was announced in 2006. Arguable if the market has priced FFH correctly now, but it was certainly wrong then. Does this not explain how many on this board made their big bucks on FFH? If I look back at the last 7 years and FFH has done the "heavy lifting" of my investment performance.  This is real money I've already made, not a probability calculation of what I will be making when the lawsuit is decided.

 

Someday, I would like to hear from FFH (Prem) some more "color" on their decision to leave the NYSE. I believe they are related.  FFH suffered mightily from their 6 year foray into the NYSE(2002-08). "Nothing good came out of it" about describes it. FFH strategy today is all about "other than USA" (Canada, Asia, Eastern EU etc.)

 

 

I agree entirely about when the value was obtained from the lawsuit.  I also presume that you agree with me that we should not hold our breath for a meaningful cash windfall on a going-forward basis?

 

SJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Some endess dirt campaign,...

 

now the former NY Post journalist Roddy Boyd wrote some weird article, accusing Fairfax hindering free speech. He accuses Fairfax of spending $100 million in legal and public relations fees over six years to hinder free speech. I would rather look with what people this Roody Boyd associates, because they seem to be the real shady characters.

 

Patrick Byrne publicly — and explicitly — denounced journalists such as Roddy Boyd and Herb Greenberg, saying that they are carrying water for their short selling sources in order to bring huge financial gain to hedge funds.

 

-----

 

How financial lawsuits muzzle free speech

Sep. 20, 2012 - Reuters Blog

 

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/09/20/how-financial-lawsuits-muzzle-free-speech/

 

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...