Hi H! In one of their latest filings, they mention estimate of a status conference late August also. Not sure if they'll keep tomorrow's as well?

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1593549/000161577415002155/s101624_10q.htm

GLTY & All as well JJ8!

Good article someone tweeted
http://www.mortgageorb.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.17082#.VcsRZCSUZMk.twitter

A clip from that filing
"In this context, denying Applicants access to filings in their own litigation would be unfair and would raise serious due process concerns. It is extremely rare and unusual for parties to a litigation to be barred from viewing documents filed in their case. Cf. Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1060-61 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (explaining the limited circumstances under which courts may “dispose of the merits of a case on the basis of ex parte, in camera submissions”), aff’d, 484 U.S. 1 (1987); U.S. ex rel. v. Morton Thiokol, Inc., No. Civ. A. 87-0209, 1987 WL 10232, at *4 (D.D.C. Apr. 15, 1987) (lifting seal on documents to allow a litigating party access to documents). Indeed, one-sided protective orders that prevent a party from reviewing materials filed under seal usually arise only when national security interests are at stake, such as in the prosecution of terrorism suspects. Cf. In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Afr., 552 F.3d 93, 120-21 (2d Cir. 2008) (affirming district court’s order preventing terrorism defendants from reviewing evidence filed against them due to “the ‘ongoing’ nature of the government’s investigation” and because “unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to the instant case could result in ‘a particularly disastrous security breach’”). This Court thus should grant Applicants access to Protected Information. And because the Court of Appeals has suspended its merits briefing schedule to resolve a motion that Perry Capital’s counsel cannot review or meaningfully respond to, this Court should grant access as expeditiously as possible."

Filed in Sweeney's court
NOTICE, filed by PERRY CAPITAL LLC re 217 Protective Order of Filing of Applications of Certain Counsel Representing Perry Capital LLC for Access to Protected Information (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Text of Proposed Order (Exhibit D), # 5 Text of Proposed Order (Exhibit E))(Chesley, John) (Entered: 08/11/2015)

same videos and marketing? link?

It's the appeals case with Perry as the lead, Fairholme is one of the consolidated cases.

"That agreement effectively terminated in October 2014 and is the subject of a separate arbitration with KI and Kathy Ireland before the American Arbitration Association. The Company believes that this complaint is without merit and intends a vigorous defense in this matter."

YW, Sogo! That was Valuewalk's summary. Here's their link to the audio. Fannie, Freddie talk starts about 41:30 in. Good Fannie, Freddie questions during Q & A also.

http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/08/pershing-square-conference-call/99999/

While on vacation :)

I posted earlier that everyone was on vacation! UST schedule says no events scheduled this week as well. I should have stayed in the mountains this week!! :)
"3. The requested 7-day extension is necessary because the Department of Justice attorney with primary responsibility for supervising Treasury’s response has been on vacation for the past week and will not be returning to the office until after the current due date. The extension will also provide the Department of Justice with needed time to consult with the Treasury Department and FHFA regarding defendants’ responses to the motion. "

[ORAL ARGUMENT NOT SCHEDULED]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
??FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-5254
?DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A 7-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE THEIR RESPONSES TO SEALED MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE RECORD
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and D.C. Circuit Rule 27(h), defendants-appellees Department of the Treasury and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), respectfully request a 7-day extension of time, from August 13, 2015, to and including August 20, 2015, in which to file their responses to plaintiffs-appellants’ Sealed Motion For Judicial Notice And Supplementation Of The Record. This is defendants-appellees’ first request for an extension. Plaintiffs- appellants consent to this request.
1. On July 29, 2015, plaintiffs in case No. 14-5254 (Fairholme Funds, Inc. et al.) filed a sealed motion asking this Court to take judicial notice of deposition transcripts and documents that plaintiffs obtained through discovery in litigation
USCA Case #14-5243 Document #1566954 Filed: 08/10/2015 Page 2 of 4
before the Court of Federal Claims and to supplement the administrative record in this case with those materials. Plaintiffs’ motion and attached materials exceed 500 pages.
Per Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a)(3) and this Court’s order, defendants’ sealed responses are due on August 13, 2015. Defendants have not previously sought an extension of their time to respond to the motion.
3. The requested 7-day extension is necessary because the Department of Justice attorney with primary responsibility for supervising Treasury’s response has been on vacation for the past week and will not be returning to the office until after the current due date. The extension will also provide the Department of Justice with needed time to consult with the Treasury Department and FHFA regarding defendants’ responses to the motion.
4. Counsel for defendants have consulted with counsel for the Fairholme plaintiffs. Plaintiffs consent to this motion.
2
USCA Case #14-5243 Document #1566954 Filed: 08/10/2015 Page 3 of 4
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should extend the time for filing the defendants-appellees’ responses by 7 days, to and including August 20, 2015.
Howard N. Cayne Asim Varma
David B. Bergman Michael A.F. Johnson Dirk C. Phillips
Ian S. Hoffman
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 555 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004
(202) 942-5000
(202) 942-5999 (fax) Howard.Cayne@aporter.com
Attorneys for Appellee Federal Housing Finance Agency
AUGUST 2015
Respectfully submitted,
MARK B. STERN (202) 514-5089
ABBY C. WRIGHT (202) 514-0664
s/ Gerard Sinzdak GERARD SINZDAK
(202) 514-0718
Attorneys
Civil Division, Appellate Staff
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Rm. 7242 Washington, D.C. 20530
Attorneys for Appellee Department of the Treasury
?3
USCA Case #14-5243 Document #1566954 Filed: 08/10/2015 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 10, 2015, I filed and served the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by causing a copy to be electronically filed via the appellate CM/ECF system. I also hereby certify that the participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and will be served via the CM/ECF system.
s/ Gerard Sinzdak Gerard Sinzdak

"To date, the United States has produced approximately 550,000 pages of documents and defended seven depositions"

That's probably true! :)

I wonder if NYT will catch it? :)

Must be overwhelmed. They should fold.

On page 1 they have Wheeler, page 7 Sweeney. :) Oops! Defendants must have made a typo. :)

Yes, that's dated 6/30, defendant's response dated 8/10 shows Wheeler,
Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 221 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 29 No. 13-465C (Judge Wheeler) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY’S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND FOR AN ORDER DE-DESIGNATING DISCOVERY MATERIALS August 10, 2015 BENJAMIN C. MIZER Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR. Director FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR. ELIZABETH M. HOSFORD Assistant Directors Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 480 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Tel: (202) 307-6462 Fax: (202) 514-8624 Attorneys for Defendant

and so what are you saying? :)

and so?

Did you figure it out yet?

Everybody's on summer break! :)
Treasury Department Public Engagements Schedule for the Week of August 10 – August 14, 201502015
8/10/2015
?
There are no public events scheduled for the week of August 10 – August 14, 2015. Updates to the Public Engagements Schedule will be provided as additional information becomes available.
Last Updated: 8/10/2015 9:19 AM

Not usually. Could be tonight, tomorrow, could be a while. (for judges in general) In the past she has ruled in a predictable manner, unless there is something that doesn't need an immediate answer. As a shareholder myself, the sooner the better, but it "is what it is" at the moment.

Thinking clerk's error, but new puppy keeps destroying my documents. :) That's why I said someone can fill in now! :) Every time I sort a pile, she thinks it's hers to wrestle to the ground! She must not like the discussion right now. :)

That's the copy. Someone else is going to have to fill in!! :)

I was going back to that. :) After I saw my own post, I thought, why does it say Wheeler? :) I got distracted responding to others.

Once they get started in a pattern of CYA, it's hard to get out. The Truth will prevail. (hope I still have some $$$ left when it does) :)

Yep!

It won't link, because it's through Pacer. I'm sure someone will have it up soon. I bet NYT, etc are waiting for Sweeney's response. If just the 2 depositions that NYT are not allowed, I'm guessing NYT might have more to say. :)

Same stuff,
"The Court has recognized the ongoing potential for harm should sensitive material be released publicly. For example, the Court relied on the declarations of Melvin L. Watt, Director of the FHFA, and Michael A. Stegman, former Counselor to the Treasury Secretary for Housing Finance Policy at the Department of Treasury, in deciding to issue the protective order. Howard Order at 3 (“Based upon the information provided in these two declarations and defendant’s arguments, the court granted defendant’s motion for a protective order[.]”). In his declaration, Director Watt explained that “disclosure of projections that suggested (or that market participants interpreted as suggesting) that the Enterprises’ financial conditions were worse than previously assumed, could . . . increase current prices in the primary and secondary markets.” Def. Mot. for Protective Order, Watt Decl. ¶ 9 (A4) (May 30, 2014), ECF No. 49 (Watt Decl.) (emphasis added). Furthermore,”[m]aking available . . . the type of non-public and confidential information relating to the Conservator’s conduct of the ongoing and future operations . . . could also adversely affect the Conservator’s ability to operate the conservatorships because it would enable the Enterprises to gain access to . . . documents that were not intended to be shared or reviewed[.]” Id. ¶ 11 (A5); see also Howard Order at 6. The Court has acknowledged that risk of these serious harms to FHFA and to the markets more generally should sensitive material be
released publicly. Id. (“[D]ire harm would flow from the disclosure of the sensitive material that is the subject of the protective order.”)."

The 2 dockets posted today that were not sealed, I posted just the table of contents, since they are 20+pages. We'll have to just guess about the sealed ones. :)

Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 222 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 24 No. 13-465C (Judge Sweeney) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ SEALED MOTIONS TO REMOVE THE “PROTECTED INFORMATION” DESIGNATION FROM CERTAIN DISCOVERY MATERIALS August 10, 2015 BENJAMIN C. MIZER Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR. Director KENNETH M. DINTZER Deputy Director FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR. ELIZABETH M. HOSFORD Assistant Directors Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 480 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Tel: (202) 307-6462 Fax: (202) 514-8624 Attorneys for Defendant

Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 222 Filed 08/10/15 Page 2 of 24 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 3 ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................. 5 I. Fairholme Cannot Satisfy Its Burden Of Establishing That The Documents Are Improperly Designated Or That Their Disclosure Should Be Otherwise Allowed ............................................................. 5 A. The Documents Contain Confidential Information .................................... 6 B. The Authority Upon Which Fairholme Relies Does Not Undermine Our Position That The Documents Are Properly Designated And That Disclosure To The Public Should Not Be Allowed............................................................ 7 II. Fairholme Cannot Establish That Its Inability To Release Confidential Information To The Public Prejudices Its Ability To Prosecute Its Claims In This Court ..................................................... 10 A. There Is No Public Right Of Access To Protected Pretrial Discovery Materials ..................................................................... 11 B. The Purpose Of The Instant Litigation In This Court Is Not To Promote Public Debate ............................................................. 15 III. Fairholme’s Requests For Public Release Of Discovery Materials, In Whole Or In Part, Are An Unnecessary Distraction Not Required By The Protective Order.............................................. 16 A. De-Designation Of Portions Of The Documents Is Not Contemplated By The Protective Order............................................. 17 B. Fairholme’s Extensive Requests For Release Of Discovery Materials Impose Significant Delay And Costs On The Government And On This Court................................ 18 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 19

221
08/10/2015 RESPONSE to 177 MOTION to Intervene And For Order De-Designating Discovery Materials , filed by USA.Reply due by 8/20/2015. (Koprowski, Agatha)

222
08/10/2015 RESPONSE to 166 MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Certain Treasury and FHFA Documents , 162 MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designations from Depositions , 165 MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Certain Grant Thornton Documents , filed by USA.Reply due by 8/20/2015. (Schiavetti, Anthony)

223
08/10/2015 **SEALED**RESPONSE to 170 MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by Fannie Mae , 169 MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by Deloitte , filed by FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION.Reply due by 8/20/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Hudson, David)

224
08/10/2015 **SEALED**RESPONSE to 165 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, TO REMOVE THE PROTECTED INFORMATION DESIGNATION FROM CERTAIN GRANT THORNTON DOCUMENTS, filed by GRANT THORNTON LLP.(Harper, Richard)

224
08/10/2015 **SEALED**RESPONSE to 165 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, TO REMOVE THE PROTECTED INFORMATION DESIGNATION FROM CERTAIN GRANT THORNTON DOCUMENTS, filed by GRANT THORNTON LLP.(Harper, Richard)

As far as Perry, the next date was September. The clerk suspended until further notice.

No. 13-465C (Judge Wheeler) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY’S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND FOR AN ORDER DE-DESIGNATING DISCOVERY MATERIALS August 10, 2015 BENJAMIN C. MIZER Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR. Director FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR. ELIZABETH M. HOSFORD Assistant Directors Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 480 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Tel: (202) 307-6462 Fax: (202) 514-8624 Attorneys for Defendant

I. The Court Should Deny The Times’s Request To Intervene ................................................. 5 A. The Times Does Not Possess A “Claim Or Defense” That Shares A Common Question Of Law Or Fact With This Action............................................................................................. 6 B. The Times Does Not Possess Article III Standing To Permissively Intervene.................... 8 C. The Times Cannot Demonstrate That The Court Would Possess Independent Jurisdiction To Decide Any Claim Or Defense That It Could Assert ................................................... 10 D. The United States Would Be Prejudiced And Adjudication Of Its Rights Would Be Unduly Delayed If The Times Were Allowed To Intervene.............................................. 12 The Transcripts Are Properly Designated As Protected Information.................................... 14 A. The Burden Of Proof Rests With The Party Seeking De-Designation .............................. 14 B. The Deposition Transcripts Contain Confidential Information ......................................... 15 II. Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 221 Filed 08/10/15 Page 2 of 29 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 4 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 5 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 22

Which one?

No doubt about that!

If they're getting close to injunctive relief, the lower price might be better for the big guns, than a double digit price at the moment. Not saying anyone is holding it down on purpose, but I don't know that the big guns would be trying to prop the price up while waiting for the court ruling. Just my own opinion. Tough for us to wait it out, but maybe it just "is what it is." So hurry up courts! :)

11:45 Treasury still taking every penny - conservator-ship is supposed to be temporary but in next month it will be seven years - shareholders are suing in two jurisdictions for net sweep - shareholders are taking discovery - we do not have access although we are getting access- it sounds like Fairholme found that the Govt knew Fannie and Freddie were becoming profitable before net sweep decision - in other case, we think its a strong case - eight parties are in the brief including us - many important parties including FDIC official who says net sweep overturns 80 years of prior precedent - also net worth sweep could dry up the markets - Tim Howard ex-CFO says the accounting decisions forced upon Fannie were the cause of the net sweep.

DC circuit dealing with Fairholme has suspended briefing - this should be good for shareholders - many positive developments during Q

http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/08/pershing-square-conference-call/