Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
How to Recap & Release F&F my gut feeling says he will go public in sharing his ideas on how to end Cship to help govt on its resolution plan. Last time he went public was at Ira Sohn in 2014 and those 110 slides on FnF need to be updated now imo.
Ackman will speak at CNBC Delivering Alpha 9/28 after long time. Hope it’s on F&F :)
Ackman’s Pershing square semi annual report
https://assets.pershingsquareholdings.com/2023/08/18112040/Pershing-Square-Holdings-Ltd.-June-2023-Interim.pdf
Ackman’s Pershing square semi annual report
https://assets.pershingsquareholdings.com/2023/08/18112040/Pershing-Square-Holdings-Ltd.-June-2023-Interim.pdf
Judge Davis granted the Kelly Plaintiffs permission to file their amended complaint and placed her stamp of approval on a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss to conclude in early-July.
In the motion filed yesterday, the Berkley Plaintiffs ask Judge Lamberth to allow the jury to hear about reliance damages in the second trial.
We continue to believe that the economic and political rationale for Fannie and Freddie’s independence remains intact. Both entities continue to build capital through retained earnings which has increased their combined capital to $97 billion approaching a fortress-level of capital. We believe that it is simply a matter of when, not if, that Fannie and Freddie will be released from conservatorship.
Pershing latest report….
https://assets.pershingsquareholdings.com/2023/03/29160536/Pershing-Square-Holdings-Ltd.-2022-Annual-Report.pdf
Case 1:13-mc-01288-RCL Document 276 Filed 02/17/23 Page 2 of 18
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................. 2
I. Professor Dharan’s Supplemental Report Should Be Permitted............................. 4
A. The Supplemental Report Addresses Topics Covered in Dr. Dharan’s Prior Expert Reports and Trial Testimony........................................................... 4
B. Dr. Dharan’s Supplemental Report Will Not Prejudice Defendants .......... 7
II. Dr. Mason’s Supplemental Report Relates to His Pre-existing Opinion That There Was At Least $1.6 Billion in Damages and to Defense Counsel’s Unfounded Suggestion That There Was a “Recovery” of the Value Lost Due to The Net Worth Sweep........................................................................................................... 8
A. Background of Dr. Mason’s Testimony...................................................... 8
B. Dr. Mason’s Supplemental Report Describes Why He Previously Concluded There Was No Value “Recovery” Tied to the Net Worth Sweep........................................................................................................ 10
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 13
They ignore the fact that smartest investor in F&F have bought 10% stake, the largest common shareholder who will prove why he bought common.
The class plaintiffs want to present updated testimony from Drs. Dharan and Mason to the jury this summer based on supplemental reports those expert witnesses have prepared. The motion attached to this e-mail message asks Judge Lamberth to permit those updated reports to be used in this litigation.
Moreover, in its re-examination of the documents attached to Perry Capital appellants’ motion, the court notes that the contents of these documents refer to, among other things, events— including decisions and forecasts—that occurred more than three years ago. For that reason, the court finds that sufficient time has passed to alleviate its initial concerns that disclosure of certain information to the public had the potential to adversely influence United States financial markets. With the passage of time, the court’s initial concern regarding a negative impact on the Nation’s financial markets or financial institutions has dissipated.
At issue here are excerpts from three deposition transcripts, as well as excerpts from four documents that are more than three years old. As a result, the government’s continued reliance on the May 29, 2014 declaration of Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) Director Melvin L. Watt no longer retains the same potency that it did when originally supplied to the court in support of the entry of a protective order. Nevertheless, the government reiterates its original arguments when it asserts that “the futures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still uncertain and subject of vigorous debate,” Def.’s Opp. 5, once again relying on the Declarations of Melvin L. Watt and Michael A. Stegman, the Director of the FHFA and Former Counselor to the Treasury Secretary for Housing Finance Policy at the United States Department of the Treasury, respectively. While the court recognizes that protection of the Nation’s financial markets and fledgling financial institutions were legitimate goals when the court first entered its order, with the passage of time, the potential for harm to the Nation’s markets and then-fledgling financial institutions no longer exists. Instead of harm to the Nation resulting from disclosure, the only “harm” presented is the potential for criticism of an agency, institution, and the decision-makers of those entities. The court will not condone the misuse of a protective order as a shield to insulate public officials from criticism in the way they execute their public duties. Thus, avoidance of “second-guessing” an agency’s decisions several years after the fact, as described by Mr. Watt, is, with the passage of time no longer a legitimate basis to maintain documents under a protective order. The court notes that from the inception of this litigation, the government has consistently maintained that the court lacks jurisdiction over this case because the United States had no control over the enterprises. Taking the government at its word, it is surprising that defendant is concerned with the unsealing of government officials’ deposition testimony.
Moreover, there can be no serious dispute that it is extremely rare for a document filed under seal in a civil case to remain so for all time. There is no suggestion that the documents subject to the protective order are classified as relating to national security. Nor do these documents contain trade secrets or proprietary information. However, even cases in which trade secrets and proprietary information are filed under seal and subject to a protective order, it is not unusual that after the passage of time, that same information is eventually unsealed because the protective order has outlived its usefulness. Indeed, because the government does not argue that information that it requests remain protected concerns matters involving national security, trade secrets, or proprietary information, or that specific privileges attach to any of the seven documents, it is clear that there is no longer a need to maintain the protected designation for them.
Ultimately, there is nothing contained in these documents that gives the court pause regarding de-designation. Although defendant seeks to preserve the status quo and maintain the
3
Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 313 Filed 04/13/16 Page 4 of 4
protected status of all of the documents at issue, proposing that discussion of protected material could be conducted in a closed session at the end of the oral argument, the information contained within the seven documents no longer needs to be subject to the protective order. Further, as Perry Capital appellants assert, preventing them from discussing the documents during other parts of the oral argument would potentially undermine their ability to fully prosecute their case, as these documents may be relevant to all aspects of their appeal. Consequently, this court does not deem it necessary to constrain that proceeding in the manner that defendant suggests.
Accordingly, Perry Capital appellants’ motion to de-designate the seven documents attached thereto is GRANTED. However, plaintiffs’ renewed motions to de-designate other documents not contained in those seven attachments are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. As the court indicated previously, it will address those requests after briefing regarding the renewed motion to dismiss has been completed. The court has filed this order under seal. The parties shall confer to determine proposed redactions that are agreeable to all parties. Then, by no later than Monday, April 18, 2016, the parties shall file a joint status report indicating their agreement with the proposed redactions and attaching a complete copy of the court’s order with all redactions clearly indicated.
NO COSTS.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Margaret M. Sweeney MARGARET M. SWEENEY
Ackman is one of the most famous investors and one that, without a doubt, must be followed closely to keep abreast of his power to move the market in the sectors in which he puts his hand.
We like to own Cos where we can predict its future with high degree of Confidence. Our fav period is to never have to sell.
Have to have skin in the game so we have 26% stake in our portfolio & we like to own extremely resilient & durable Cos.
There have been no material updates for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2022. Both entities continue to build capital through retained earnings and now hold combined capital of $91 billion, up from nearly zero. As we have stated previously, as principally common shareholders (we own a small amount of preferred stock), we own valuable perpetual options on both entities that over the long term we believe will be worth many multiples of today’s prices once re-privatization occurs.
https://assets.pershingsquareholdings.com/2022/08/19172838/Pershing-Square-Holdings-Ltd.-June-2022-Interim.pdf
Why not post on Fannie preferred group, why repeat same thing year after year. People are smart enough to figure out what to buy. Better email Pershing square you may save them from loss of $400M.
As per latest year end updates from Tim Pagliara & Gary Hindes it seems admin solution is around the corner.
Will get updated by Ackman on 9th at his annual shareholders meeting in London.
Totally agree with you. Ackman is naive to buy common instead of pref. He is the smartest investor among all FnF investors imo. Great post Chess. Thanks.
Ackman ave price for fmcc is $2.14 & fnma is $2.29 and haven’t sold a single share in 9 yrs.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/bill-ackman-closed-end-fund-discount-fees-51649116159
It says above 1.5% base fee plus 16% incentive fees
I remember last time he raised his fees from 20% to like 25% as performance fees I think in 2017.
I believe in Ackman, Hindes & Pagliara. People pay fees to invest & manage their retirement, pension money
Police, Firefighters, Teachers, Union employees pension funds pay about 20-25% to Ackman’s Pershing Sq as fees
Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P.
cordially invites you to the
Annual Investor Meeting
of
Pershing Square Holdings, Ltd.
Thursday, February 9th, 2023
The Berkeley
Wilton Place
Knightsbridge
London, SW1X 7RL
14:30 GMT – Registration
15:00 GMT – Presentation and Q&A
Cocktails and Canapés to follow
The Bhatti Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal yesterday.
Judge Davis entered an order yesterday telling the Kelly Plaintiffs to file their motion to substitute counsel by Jan. 20
Sorry I wasn’t aware of Brydon case.
I don’t think we can avoid govt cashing in on its 80% warrants unless we win the cases like Wazee or Kelly that challenge the cship, imo
Warrants were in 2008 deal not 2012
You mean we cross $5 on Mon? ;)
Thanks Navy….we getting close to exit from cship….then…floodgates open
So Hindes does know what’s cooking behind the scene but since we not his investors we got to wait till we see it announced publicly.
A spokesperson for FHFA said that terminating the suspensions would be a “coordinated process,” and conversations about changes to the PSPAs are regularly conducted at the “highest levels.”
Formal changes to the document that contains the provisions -PSPA- are haggled over by the Treasury and the FHFA.
Negotiating on behalf of the government sponsored enterprises, as their conservator, is FHFA Director Thompson. On the other side of the table is Treasury Sec. Janet Yellen, since her agency holds a majority stake in the GS Both FHA and Treasury declined to provide information about the specific s responsible for the agreement which governs most of the mortgage market.
- July 27, 2022
Happy Holidays all :)
Thanks for sharing. Sounds great. Here comes 2023, our year of freedom from cship.
Jan 6th scotus has conference to decide on our Takings case whether to accept or not.
(best read with an ice cold beer that made Milwaukee famous, because when you're out of Schlitz, you're out of beer !):
Let us know if anything positive thats in his opinion, I thought since he took more time than Rop judges he must be looking things differently & maybe in favor of us :)