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.
lawsuits cost $$$ , lots of it
according to rosner today, arnold & porter alone rec’d $100mm for putting tsy (and taxpayer who has REALLY paid) into an untenable “lose-lose” position in scotus
wait - guido, golf, pigskin et al can set up gofundme page?
bove rosner call today:
common not wipeout, worth 3-3.50 at best but who know how long. jps minimum 100% appreciation within 6 mos.
doesn’t know why own common when jps much more profitable and safer
sorry to bore you with facts
“Quite sure President Trump doesn’t expect you or me to implement it. “
that’s 100% assured
lmao
look at patswils link ... i only copied and pasted. don’t you want to know what OUR guy said?????
bhatti: reading WRONG letter and still time to switch from common to JPS
Michael E. Gans
Clerk of Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse
111 South 10th Street
St. Louis, MO 63102
Re: Bhatti v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, No. 18-2506 Dear Mr. Gans:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Seila Law v. CFPB, No. 19-7 (U.S. June 29, 2020), disposes of most of FHFA’s arguments against vacatur of the Net Worth Sweep.
Like the CFPB, FHFA is “an independent agency that wields significant executive power and is run by a single individual who cannot be removed by the President unless certain statutory criteria are met.” Seila Law, Slip Op. at 2. The Supreme Court held in Seila Law that this arrangement violates the separation of powers, and it can no longer be credibly argued that FHFA’s structure is constitutional. See Br. of Defs.-Appellees Federal Housing Finance Agency and Melvin L. Watt at 6–38 (Nov. 14, 2018) (“FHFA Br.”).
The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims relating to this issue on the theory that the Net Worth Sweep would have happened even if FHFA had been constitutionally structured. See FHFA Br. 15–17. After Seila Law, there is no doubt that this was error: “We have held that a litigant challenging governmental action as void on the basis of the separation of powers is not required to prove that the Government’s course of conduct would have been different in a ‘counterfactual world’ in which the Government had acted with constitutional authority.” Seila Law, Slip Op. at 10 (quoting Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, 561 U.S. 477, 512 n.12 (2010)).
Finally, in Seila Law, the Supreme Court remanded the case so that the lower courts could decide in the first instance whether the civil investigative demand at issue in that case had been properly ratified. Seila Law, Slip Op. at 30–31, 37. This remand presupposes the availability of backward-looking relief in presidential removal cases, thus foreclosing FHFA’s argument that the only remedy for a violation of the President’s removal power is to prospectively sever the unconstitutional statutory provision. FHFA Br. 18–20.
cc:
Counsel of Record (by ECF)
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ David H. Thompson David H. Thompson
Counsel for Appellants
watch the tape ... quit making a fool of yourself
congrats that the lightbulb has finally flashed re the dilution risk to existing common.
capital structures do matter in bankruptcies/reorganizations and, while think your example way too extreme, yes it could happen
curious why existing common don’t take advantage of the currently mispriced jps and swap? what a shame to have endured this battle and not maximize gains
as holdenwalker said in an earlier post, consider this a public service announcement
mods - sticky pls
Burnem Churnem and How are waiting for the call
old news!
mods - pls sticky
call was yesterday...
law firm of “dewey cheatem and how” will handle the case ... will they take contingency payment.?
sticky!!!!
he’s also forecasting ALL of jps exchanges to common ....
pigskin, why you protest so much ... getting worried huh
lmao
don’t know why bad info continues to be posted. thx
Note: Paulson & Company is known to have a huge position in Fannie/Freddie (OTCQB:FNMA) (OTCQB:FMCC), although the details have not been disclosed.
i copied and pasted for you ... lmao
good luck
excuse me, but you were one who didnt know it ... fortunately. I've attended Paulson investor meetings
and golfbum, dont forget the 13f info guido provided also.... know the acronym GIGO?
golfbum knows what I'm talking about and, just like your 13f knowledge, it appears you're out of your league again.
re my position, are you a physic too? FWIW, there's quite a bit of strategy involved in fairholme filing and I believe that was the query
ummm, according to counsel not quite accurate ... not being flip, curious if you care to share if you feel you are qualified to give legal opinions here
edit: fwiw, gselinks site not updated since mid January
this is why people pay $ for the “secret” meetings
nomura update out, reaffirms targets. everybody - common included - projected to be winner, but pref wins lot more
sticky!
tell me about the 13f filings first ....
garbage in garbage out truly describes the due diligence here on paulson position
check the 9/31 13f and the 12/31 13f .... paulson does not disclose his position in gse pref .
in your words - FACTS MATTER!!!!
aka “cram it down their throats”
What is the court's 'cram down' power in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy? ... Section 1129(b) gives the court the power to approve a proposed plan even if one creditor or a class of creditors asserts that its claims or interests will be impaired if the plan is confirmed. This is known as the “cram down” power.Feb 22, 2018
double sticky....
guido - found it!
i rarely read your posts - obvious reasons - but here is MY source. if yank misstated your comments, take it up with him
YanksGhost Sunday, 05/24/20 06:44:40 AM
Re: JosephS post# 611157 0
Post # of 611456
Unless declared SIFI, CET1 only applies to depository institutions like banks as part of the Basel III Accords. Unless FSOC reverses course, which seems highly unlikely, this has no impact on Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac and confers no advantage to JPS holders seeking any conversion to commons.
I see the conversion concept largely as moot. As Guido pointed out the other day, the bank conversions were based on an average preceding 30 day share closing price and were, basically, no different that simply selling JPS and buying common shares on the open market.
not talking about treasury conversion, talking about your 100% inaccurate description of the citi pref conversion terms ... where is your link?
re acg, sorry, gotta be a paying customer. i’m just sharing the info. you can choose to ignore if you want, but facts matter and all that jazz
sticky pls!!!
acg ... where is your link for the citi conversion terms
facts matter and all that jazz
4-5/ yrs is OPTIMISTIC according to counsel. your “call’” on this is as accurate as your info on the citi conversion.
sweeney decision at least 4-5 yrs away
facts do matter and all that jazz
"Exceptions for both common and preferred. New common can’t receive dividend ahead of legacy JPS. Capital structures are so important in restructurings."
facts matter