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.
AIG v. FRBNY in the Crosshairs It's time to rethink Fannie and Freddie in light of AIG -by Richard Epstein
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardepstein/2015/07/06/aig-v-frbny-in-the-crosshairs-its-time-to-rethink-fannie-and-freddie-in-light-of-aig/?utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix
To me, it means they're hired in a position of weakness rather then strength. My guess is they've found something they are going to have to try and either defend or resolve.
Seeing some similarities on the lawyers below.
CYA ... and could be the beginnings of a settlement offer ? smile
Barrie Prinz
Associate General Counsel at Deloitte LLP/Management Principal
Greater New York City AreaLaw Practice
Hallie Goldblatt
Associate at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Greater New York City Area Law Practice
Paul D. Clement
Former U.S. Solicitor General
Argued over 75 cases in U.S. Supreme Court
Practice focuses on appellate litigation and strategic consultingt is a partner at Bancroft PLLC. Mr. Clement served as the 43rd Solicitor General of the United States from June 2005 until June 2008
H. Christopher Bartolomucci
Former Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2003.
Practice focuses on appellate and complex trial litigation, and he has briefed and argued appeals in a number of different areas including criminal law, employment discrimination, energy regulation, and securities fraud.
is a partner at Bancroft PLLC.
D. Zachary Hudson
Is counsel at Bancroft PLLC. Mr. Hudson previously served as a law clerk to Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in the Supreme Court of the United States and Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Mr. Hudson’s practice focuses on appellate litigation and strategic counseling, and spans a wide range of legal fields.
Grace Rodriguez is a litigation partner in King & Spalding’s Washington, D.C. office. Her practice focuses on complex civil litigation, antitrust matters, whistleblower actions, and internal investigations. She has been recognized in Chambers USA and as a Washington “Super Lawyer.”
Merritt McAlister is a partner in the firm’s national appellate and strategic counseling practice. Prior to joining the firm, she served as a law clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens of the Supreme Court of the United States and to Judge R. Lanier Anderson III of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. King & Spalding’s Washington, D.C. office
Taylor Lankford is an associate in King & Spalding’s Business Litigation Practice Group in Washington, D.C. and is also a member of the firm’s Insurance Coverage and Recovery Practice Group. He has experience in a variety of complex civil litigation matters with a particular focus on insurance litigation and appeals. In his insurance practice, he exclusively represents policyholders.
Michael Ciatti is a partner in King & Spalding’s Washington, D.C., office. He is a member of the firm’s Litigation and Antitrust Practice Group. His practice includes a broad range of civil and criminal matters that span a variety of industries, including financial services, professional services, and pharmaceuticals. Mr. Ciatti is Deputy Office Managing Partner for the Washington, D.C., office and serves on the firm’s Associate Evaluation Committee.
Christopher Davies
Wilmerhale Partner
Vice Chair, Securities Department Litigation/Controversy
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and Anti-Corruption
International Litigation
Investigations and Criminal Litigation
Securities Litigation
Securities
Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Working Group
Laura Schwalbe’s practice focuses on advising clients in government and internal investigations of potential securities law violations. She has represented institutional and individual clients in a variety of investigations before government regulators, including the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the US Department of Justice, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, as well as in regulatory investigations before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
In addition, Ms. Schwalbe has represented clients in litigated actions involving the SEC, recently serving as trial counsel and obtaining a split jury verdict for individual and corporate defendants in an action involving multiple allegations of securities fraud by the SEC.
Raises are needed to retain strong leadership. A great indication that the GSE's are not going to be wound down.
Now it makes sense why the USG lawyers are pushing so hard for 3rd party discovery to be halted. The evidence that Fairholme is getting from Deloitte could be very damaging.
Technicals are pointing to FNMA making a big move this week. This tweet will send us in the right direction.
Agreed. I don't recall AIG ever getting this much recognition at congressional hearings, and Greenberg won his case.
Here's a link with a little wider view. Any idea who he turns to look at at 59:35? The guy nods yes when Lew looks at him.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?326614-1/secretary-jack-lew-testimony-financial-stability-report
Wow I just watched the video again. Congressman Capuano asked the question "Have Fannie and Freddie paid back every penny they've BORROWED from the American taxpayer"
Didn't the USG lawyers say it wasn't a loan it was an investment and you can't pay back an investment?
2:50 Capuano called it a loan and Lew didn't correct him and say it was an investment.
It is difficult getting a straight yes or no answer from Lew. I was just as surprised that he didn't dance around it more than he did and actually gave an answer. Does anyone know who he was looking back at?
Lew is one of the best as far as not giving a direct answer or an answer that could be used against him later. Believe is different from knowing in the legal sense. Should he have said yes they have or I know they have, it would have been different than from him saying "I believe they have." We all know the answer to that question though.
Added 5000 yesterday morning. Too much good new yesterday and ahead for me not to.
Pump to $10 is just a way to get people to sell. He pumps it knowing it won't happen, then suckers get scared when it doesn't run and they sell.
Page 67.
No surprise. Treasury still controls this stock's trading IMO.
"The Government’s unduly harsh treatment of AIG in comparison to other institutions seemingly was misguided and had no legitimate purpose, even considering concerns about “moral hazard.”4 The question is not whether this treatment was inequitable or unfair, but whether the Government’s actions created a legal right of recovery for AIG’s shareholders."
If Wheeler ruled that the treatment of AIG was "unduly harsh" what will Sweeney consider treatment of the GSE's as? Just got done reading it and it's a pretty scathing ruling.
Today's action explains the big buys in the PFDS last week.
Wheeler ruled in favor of Greenberg without damages.
He ruled that "There is no law permitting the Federal Reserve to take over a company and run it's business in the commercial world as consideration for a loan"
Resistance at $2.65.
Volume is still pretty low. Going to buy another 5000 @ $2.63.
Look at the overlay of FNMA & AIG charts today. Direct reaction to the verdict for all those who said there wasn't any similarities in the cases.
Damages would have been icing on the cake for us. The fact that Fairholme is not asking for damages gives this win a even stronger impact for us. Looks like the market is still digesting the news.
Shares are being bought at the ask.
Like you said; it seems like a hail mary. If it were that simple, why not make this motion when this case was brought up and prior to discovery, depositions, privilege logs, etc, . They're in desperation mode at this point IMO.
So they are saying they are not admitting to a taking, but if a taking is found to have taken place, this group of plaintiffs should not be included. Now that's funny.
Ill admit I'm not a retirement plan manager, but how are you able to assume today's volume and share price is due to that? This would indicate nobody in the plan rolled it over to another plan, and everyone still holding shares closed out positions today.
Looks like a whole lot of prearranged sales, or MM accumulating for a certain buyer. This is in advance of the AIG verdict. When will it end is the question.
Something is going on. Etrade is showing 100k premarket and down .02c
The coil is getting wound pretty tight. It can't continue to trade in this range much longer.
I think the thing that most of retail doesnt know is that hedge funds actually prefer that retail is not involved in their trades and are buying when most of retail is selling. For example Ackman buying on the day of the Lamberth ruling.
Paraphrasing, but in the call they said FnF's business is doing quite well, but because of mark to market, it's not reflected in the earnings and TSY is sweeping less then FnF is actually making
Notice $6.50 is still under pre-conservatorship price. One may ask, if the stock started trading at levels above pre-cship prices, how could you justify a wind-down?
Not sure on the legality. This is just my opinion.
How else is this done without MM cooperation?
http://www.fasab.gov/pdffiles/oct08mins.pdf
Mr. Werfel indicated that the intent at this time is that the control is intended to be temporary and the FASAB, FASB and GASB literature provide that temporary control should not lead to consolidation. The intent of Treasury is not to exercise the warrants that provide 79.9% ownership. The purpose of the warrants was to drive the stock price down to next to nothing. When the government steps in to aid a publicly traded entity it does not invite fair trading. The Treasury wished to freeze the market for this stock and the warrant accomplished that goal. They have no voting interest and only own an option to own the entities.
IMO they are holding it back because they only want the UST to profit while FnF are in c-ship. That was the reasons for the warrants correct? IMO that's the only reason it has not traded at pre-conservatorship levels.
It is a known fact that by 2018 the USG's
will run out of cash and I don't have to remind you what
that means.
What was the BOD of FnF's fiduciary responsibility when accepting this "investment" from the UST? If it's found that the UST knew of the rebound in housing and the future profitability of FNF before they enacted the 3rd PSPA, wouldn't that be considered insider trading?
Nice gappa this morning.
You see that #fanniegate was mentioned?