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.
Lol good luck with that.
My google is working. Most financial info comes from the EST and it didn't specify the time zone. We should expect news to come out after hours.
Does anyone know if it's 11am PST or EST?
We must be going up Monday.
Weekends give the market more time to digest the news. They were also put into cship on the weekend.
I don't think the OTC could handle it.
Interesting with the 400k shares traded PM today. Something must be up.
I'm not seeing many orders go through on my L2. Only about 8k shares traded in the last 10 minutes.
It's trading again.
Just saw a $6.50 last price pop up on my etrade mobile app.
Very weird bid x ask on L2. Anyone else seeing this?
Release will come on a weekend.
Low volume and high percentage increase points to retail running back in.
Why not use Fannie and Freddie to make a better primary market?
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20141011/entlife/141019965/
Dimon to Holder: Make it only 13B on the 33B of bad loans sold to FnF and I'll have a job for you later.
Holder to Dimon: It's a deal.
I'm in no way a legal expert, but reading this points to the appeals court being able to overturn a ruling or further appeals to a supreme court.
http://litigation.findlaw.com/filing-a-lawsuit/appealing-a-court-decision-or-judgment.html
After the Appeals Court Decision
The party that loses in a state or federal appeals court may appeal to the state supreme court, or the U.S. Supreme Court. (Most states call their highest court "supreme court," though Maryland and New York call theirs the Court of Appeals.) Review in these courts, however, is discretionary with the court. Because these courts receive many more requests for review than they can handle, they typically grant review only to cases involving unsettled questions of law. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court can only review cases that raise some federal or constitutional issue; cases that concern state law exclusively are beyond its jurisdiction. At this point, the parties have already had the case reviewed once, reducing their tendency to see the decisions as biased or contrary to law.
- See more at: http://litigation.findlaw.com/filing-a-lawsuit/appealing-a-court-decision-or-judgment.html#sthash.B53FvvVd.dpuf
Reading this article, it looks like the pathway is that it goes to the appellate court for review by three judges, so I don't believe it goes back to Lambreth.
http://originatortimes.com/fannie-mae/fannie-mae-perry-capitals-path-to-the-appellate-court-and-reversal-fnma/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellate_court
This CNN article from says their shares fell more 80% the Friday before. That was the inside information leak prior to the announcement.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/07/news/companies/fannie_freddie/
"Sunday's announcement brings an end to months of speculation about the fate of the two firms. Shares of Fannie and Freddie, which have fallen more than 80% as of the end of Friday's session, were hammered this summer among concerns they would need to raise additional funds to cover future losses or need to be taken over by its federal regulator. Investors feared that either step would reduce or wipe out the value of current shareholders' stakes."
It looks like it was first released through the Treasury's website.
http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp1129.aspx
It is interesting to hear about China's involvement with the AIG bailout. I wonder how much of a part they played in FnF's conservatorship.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94369826
http://originatortimes.com/fannie-mae/fannie-mae-perry-capitals-path-to-the-appellate-court-and-reversal-fnma/
Now that Judge Lamberth’s September 30, 2014, Memorandum Order dismissing the claims against Fannie Mae (OTCQB:FNMA) in his court have been appealed, it seems appropriate to discuss the federal appellate process and the likelihood Judge Lamberth will be reversed. Reversal with a remand for further proceedings before Judge Lamberth is highly likely.
As background, remember that a trial court can make findings of fact, findings of law or both. A finding of fact is determining
what
happened. A finding of law is the
rule
to be applied to that fact. In all cases, the trial court must apply the law. This is critical; the appellate court will apply different standards depending on whether, or the extent, to which the lower court determined the facts or just applied the law. The more fact intense the ruling, the more deference the appellate court will show to the lower court decision.
The reasoning is that the trial court heard the evidence and viewed the witness demeanor, placing the trial court in the best position to ascertain the facts. If the trial court is not determining facts but only determining the law or applying the law, the appellate court will give the least deference to the trial court since the appellate court is in an equal position with the trial court to determine or apply the law.
That leads to the “Standard of Review.”
The standard of review is a legal way of defining how much deference an appellate court will give to the decision of a lower court. There are four main standards of review:
1. Abuse of Discretion
2. Substantial Error
3. Clearly Erroneous, and
4. De novo (a Latin phrase meaning “from the new”).
Abuse of discretion the most deferential of all the reviews. The reviewing court will not reverse unless the decision is unreasonable or arbitrary, based on an error of law or the record contains no evidence upon which the lower court could rationally have based its decision.
Substantial Error is slightly less deferential to the lower court. The reviewing court will not reverse unless there is no evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the ruling.
Clearly erroneous is less deferential still. The reviewing court will only reverse if it is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.
Finally, de novo is the least deferential. Here, the trial court has only made rulings of law or applied the law to undisputed facts. The appellate court feels free to look at the record for itself and make a clean ruling with no deference to the trial court.
To understand the standard of review the appellate court must use in this case, recall the “procedural posture” of the case. The FHFA and Treasury asked the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s (Perry) claims. In a motion to dismiss, the court must “accept as true all well pled facts.” In other words, in a motion to dismiss, the court makes no findings of fact but only determines or applies the law.
Thus, in ruling on the motion to dismiss, Judge Lamberth only made rulings of law, not fact. So the appropriate standard of review by the appellate court will be de novo, the least deferential. In other words, the three judges of the federal appellate court for the District of Columbia will accept Perry’s facts as true (solely for the purposes of the motion) and decide whether Judge Lamberth correctly applied the law. Only two of three appellate justices have to agree that Judge Lamberth made an error on only one material point of law to reverse his ruling.
Consider the length of the Memorandum opinion dismissing the claims, 52 pages, and the complexity of the legal issues (very complex). In my view, one of the most critical issues revolves around 12 USC 4617(f):
[N]o court may take any action to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the Agency as a conservator or a receiver.
Based in part on his reading of this statute, Judge Lamberth dismissed Perry’s claims. Yet, recall Judge Sweeney of the Federal Court of claims, quoted at length in a prior Seeking Alpha article, who took a diametrically different view of the critical HERA §4617(f) reasoning.
The likelihood that Judge Lamberth interpreted HERA §4617(f) correctly and was correct on every other material point of law in a 52-page opinion is very slight.
My money, and my long position in Fannie common, is on Judge Lamberth being reversed on at least one significant issue with the case sent back down to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s ruling on the law.
They were put into conservatorship on the weekend and they will be released from conservatorship on a weekend.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102077419
Fairholme Fund Files Notice Of Appeals Hearing.
Bid x ask is now showing an imbalance.
http://www.nysun.com/national/why-the-aig-case-is-no-joke/88872/
On Sept. 18, President George W. Bush said he thought the government takeover of AIG and Fannie Mae would “improve investor confidence.” AIG’s management seemed to lack confidence that its shareholders would approve the deal. On the 19th, it turned around and amended its filing with the SEC, deleting the promise of a shareholder vote.
This is the exact opposite when we look at the treasury memo: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/Tab25.pdf
I'm sure he wasn't alone. Great news!
The dismissal was bad, so the appeal should be good IMO.
If the "we" is the Treasury, the Sweeney case is in the bag. Geithner's name is all over the 3rd amendment.
The question was asked if the USG would lose the AIG case, and there was awkward silence.
We may be heading for a green close. Ask is very thin right now.
New buyers and sellers with the price drop.
$1.97 is the resistance I have marked as well.
Resistance at $1.97, then it's off to the races.
The market is closed.
This is not a dismissal of the Sweeney case (Fairholme vs The United States). Discovery is still in full affect.
Sounds like a bunch of finger pointing to me and no one wants to make a decision. Wasn't it Crapo who said that the courts will decide FnF's fate?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-13/fannie-mae-investors-fate-to-be-decided-by-courts-crapo-says.html
About to retest the HOD.
"More erroneous" meaning there has already been some.
It's getting bought up hard.
The last time I recall them being this close in price was when Ackman was buying.