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.
Maybe they will try to streamline the message during the next trial, but there will likely be more than the 8 Jurors next time to convince.
Seems like 50% of the Jurors saw the injustice here. But 50% didn't and both sides stuck to their views.
We'll see how it goes on the next round, but I'm not sure anything has been scheduled yet.
I don't know, by the time we got to trial (after 5+ years and tens of millions of Plaintiff Shareholders money expended) the federal government had sanitized many of the Smoking Guns that would have given any trier of fact the real facts needed to see what really happened behind closed doors in the federal government.
You can thank Executive Privilege and National Security exemptions to the rules of Discovery in the courts.
Lamberth quipped about all the evidentiary holes one time to the Gubmint lawyers (here Arnold & Porter) noting one time to their never ending objections, in essence - "that's your problem when the evidence is excluded".
Btw, whose picking up the legal bills for Arnold & Porter to represent the federal government agency here, FHFA?
That's the problem, you don't really know what they were thinking. One thing I did notice, that those poor Jurors had to sit through two weeks or so of experts talking about economics, accounting, finance, and MBS. Plus, the Arnold & Porter team representing the federal government FHFA kept interrupting the proceedings by constantly objecting and everyone had to hear the "white noise" so the Plaintiffs and Defendants could argue amongst themselves with the Judge listening and ruling on each objection.
Mostly they seemed to take their Jury duty seriously and I think both the Plaintiffs and Defendants may have had the opportunity to get their take afterwards if they wanted to share and the Judge allowed them the opportunity.
Believe me, Hamish Hume and their team had a a bar chart showing the outrageous take by the US Government versus the $1.6B that Plaintiff Shareholders were asking the Jurors for.
Visually it was stunning to see.
When asked why he did the NWS, DeMarco testified that he did almost no consultation with his senior staff and believed that the US Congress was going to decide the future of the Secondary Mortgage Market in America and that he was worried about the expiration of the SPSA funding line of credit on 12/31/12.
Hamish Hume and the Plaintiff Shareholders Expert witnesses drilled home the point that DeMarco had plenty of other MUCH MORE VIABLE and WORKABLE options that would have taken care of his HERA mandate to preserve and conserve the GSES assets and not Nationalize the GSES.
DeMarco didn't seem to consider those other options at all.
DeMarco was the most incompetent Director of a federal government agency conservator in the history of the world or he partnered with the US Treasury to Nationalize our Corporations since it was "in the best interests of the FHFA and the public it serves".
So your vision here is that new investors are going to pony up $100B+ in fresh capital, where the FHFA and Treasury took 7 years of Net Profits (in CASH) after artificially inflating noncash expenses, writing down a $50B tax deferred asset to zero, then reversing those subsequent to the NWS?
Nice timing by the federal government on the DOJ mortgage settlements that should have been used to rebuild capital instead of being transferred to the Treasury.
Shareholders can keep the garbage loans, the government keeps the cash settlements.
Btw, in return for NOTHING, despite HERA's primary responsibility to conserve and preserve the assets of the GSES?
So the federal government is primarily in the profit maximization business here?
Sounds right. Clarence, you're going to love this, take a look at the clothes Joshua Thompson wore (it was during the height of the pandemic and he argued from his office or home) when he won the Cedar Point Nursery case!
There the Justices ruled that property rights include the right to exclude, a right we lost when the GSES entered the CONservatorships 14+ YEARS AGO and which means we don't have any 5th Amendment rights in our property!
https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/03/justices-try-to-draw-lines-in-california-property-rights-dispute/
Another PLF attorney is doing the new case to be heard this fall.
I might go down there to watch the Oral arguments on that one. Wouldn't the case likely be heard in the fall or will they squeeze it in this term?
I think the Government saw the writing on the wall and skipped the request for an EnBanc Panel hearing and went straight to the SCOTUS since the DC Circuit ruled differently on the issue and there now exits a split amongst the Circuits.
Also, it's kind of important for the SCOTUS to take it as there is some uncertainty as to whether whatever the CFPB does going forward could eventually be overturned, as well as past agency decisions, by the courts in more than just the 5th Circuit (i.e., Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi).
I'm pretty sure that's right.
A 3 Judge Panel in the 5th Circuit ruled that the CFPB was Unconstitutionally Structured since the CFPB bypasses Congressional Appropriations Oversight. The court ruled that because of the Constitutional Infirmity the Plaintiff's Remedy would be invalidation of the challenged agency action.
Currently, there is a Petition for a Writ of Certerrori from the Government, challenging BOTH the Separation of Powers ruling AND the courts remedy.
It's anticipated that UNLIKE OUR TAKINGS CASE PETITION the Government will likely have their Petition granted since there may be a split on this issue between the federal Circuits.
Time will tell.
From the PLF brief to be heard by SCOTUS:
"unjust enrichment, an
equitable claim arising under common law that is available when there
is not an adequate remedy at law. See Southtown Plumbing, Inc., 493
N.W.2d at 140. “To establish an unjust enrichment claim it must be
shown that a party has knowingly received something of value, not being
entitled to the benefit, and under circumstances that would make it
unjust to permit its retention.”
"Similarly, here, even though the County follows the tax statute, by
taking a windfall at Tyler’s expense, it took a benefit that in fairness and
justice belongs to Tyler. Outside of Minnesota, at least one state high
court has held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment could require
government to return the windfall to a former owner. See Dean, 247
N.W.2d at 880. If this injustice is not fully remedied by Tyler’s
constitutional and statutory claims, then unjust enrichment should
provide relief. "
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-takes-property-theft-dispute-unpaid-taxes-rcna65320
Clarence, did you see this? On Friday SCOTUS granted a Writ for ANOTHER Pacific Legal Foundation case (PLF has been slam dunking the ball in the Supremes court for awhile!)
The case is: Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota
ONCE AGAIN they have a sympathetic Plaintiff American who has been the unfortunate victim of Gubmint overreach (this time, it's a county). Seems the county actioned off a 94 yr old ladys condo for $15k in delinquent county real estate taxes and fees for $40k and put the $25k left over into the county operating budget).
Issues: (1) Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Fifth Amendment's takings clause; and (2) whether the forfeiture of property worth far more than needed to satisfy a debt, plus interest, penalties, and costs, is a fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/tyler-v-hennepin-county-minnesota/
From the PLF brief: "Tyler also alleged in the alternative that the
County unjustly enriched itself by reaping the windfall at her expense.
At common law in
England and the United States, government could only take as much as
it was owed in taxes, penalties, interest, and costs. When government
took property and sold it for more than the debt, any surplus proceeds
belonged to the former owner. By failing to honor this traditional
property right and refund the $25,000 to Tyler or otherwise pay her for
her equity interest, the County took her property without just compensation.
In the event that Tyler’s constitutional and statutory claims fail to
provide relief, then her claim of unjust enrichment should ensure that
the government is not unjustly enriched at her expense. The district court
erred in dismissing her claim.
This Court should reverse and remand."
Administrative exit from the 14+ year CONservatorships is likely quicker BUT we heard Sandra L Thompson say that it's the US Congress that "should decide the future direction of the GSES."
Plus with the dearth of capital from draining much needed capital from earnings from 2012-19 and transferring the capital to the Treasury, they may not be in a position to exit.
Throw in uncertainty over the outcome of pending litigation coupled with JB unwilling to disorient the progressive left leaning members of his party and voters in the 2024 election by "throwing the 'evil hedge fund guys'/mortgage banksters/corporate America" a bone, the exit may take awhile.
Who in the JB administration and FHFA is really working on administrative release, have you seen anything?
IF the courts are the impetus for a change that accelerates the exit from the status quo, it could take some time, how long exactly is hard to estimate, but any favorable ruling for the Plaintiff Shareholders from any court could be the catalyst necessary to provide political cover for the Executive and/or Legislative Branch to exit the CONservatorships.
"Hensarling and Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), who requested the inspector general’s report, said that based on the new inspector general’s estimate, the renovation would cost about $590 per square foot. That is more than it cost to construct the Trump World Tower in New York City, the Bellagio Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, and the world’s tallest building, the Burj Khalifa, in Dubai, they said.
“The continuously growing price tag is a tremendous waste of funds and, amazingly, there is still no assurance the $216-million price tag won’t grow higher,” McHenry said."
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-cfpb-headquarters-20140702-story.html
how does all this resolve our situation
Always enjoy your insights, as you like me have been in the area a long time. Your life time working with federal agencies offers a nice perspective.
Professor Philip Hamburger wrote an interesting book on the history of federal agencies in America and is very knowledgeable about the interaction between the Law and federal agencies.
From my limited understanding the federal agencies have expanded from the 1st one, the ICC (created to reign in some of the anti competitive behavior of the railroad barrons in the late 1800's) to today. President Woodrow Wilson advocated for a strong administrative state and both FDR (Fannie Mae's birth as a government agency) and LBJ (Fannie Mae's birth as GSES) expanded them rapidly.
The 1984 Chevron decision, as I'm sure you're aware, expanded the deference and latitude of freedom for the federal agencies to interpret the meaning of their enabling statutes.
However lately it seems the SCOTUS is beginning to reign in these federal agencies so it will be interesting to watch and see.
Not sure, but as I recall they sold quite a bit during 2022. Wouldn't any institutions have to report any ownership positions greater than 10%?
Maybe during conservatorships that rule doesn't apply.
Thanks again Clarence! In Collins, given the crystal clear precedent in Seila Law, I think the Supremes were focused on the reasoning the insulated FHFA Director is like the CFPB Director.
As I'm sure you're aware, during orals in Collins, some of the Justices mentioned the idea of Nationalization. Whether or not that was a head fake to get Moopar (the government attorney) to "dig deep" and give us your best arguments or sincere remains a mystery since the Takings Case denial centered on this "right to exclude others" bundle of rights that doesn't exist for federally chartered banks and the GSES under HERA.
One way to find out for sure though, would be to initiate a lawsuit in the federal court.
Thanks again for your time and contributions and enlightenment on the Nondelegation Doctrine!
Thanks to some posters here (and the grueling 14- year conservatorships), I've enhanced my basic knowledge of federal government agencies and specifically the idea of the Seperation of Powers, which is a powerful doctrine at the very foundation of our way of life as Americans.
If you ever get a chance read some of Philip Hamburger's (Law Professor at Columbia University and CEO of NCLA- I think retired Judge Brown is on the Board - you know the "Banana republic" dissenting Judge https://nclalegal.org/), here's the professor giving a speech he delivered awhile back, it's pretty good.
Just make it one or two pages and zero in on the relevant points:
(1). The GSES conservatorships were suppose to be temporary but are now in their 15th year.
(2). The Net Worth Sweep or 3rd Amendment to the SPSA created a Defacto Nationalization of the GSES, this is inconsistent with the primary duty of the FHFA to "conserve and preserve" the assets of the GSES in HERA.
(3). Ask Patrick McHenry to hold a meeting or at least send a letter to ask Director Thompson to see if she can work with Treasury to consider the cash sweeps as payback of both principal and the 10% annual return to expedite the exit of the federal government from the conservatorships, instead of letting the issue languish in the courts.
(4). Ending the defacto nationalization of the GSES will ensure that the federal government doesn't nationalize mortgage lending, like it did with direct student loan lending and the revocation of Sallie Mae's charter.
Excellent, thanks! I just don't see the SCOTUS bulldozing Dodd Frank given that it's been in existence for about a dozen years and CFPB is really the consolidation of over a dozen agencies.
All we want is the NWS to be reversed and I believe David Thompson offered a solution in Collins for the SOP violation to the USSCT that BOTH limited the impact of finding the HERA unconstitutional AND allowed for what we have always wanted from initiating the litigation to begin with.
It's a win for the taxpayers, FHFA, and the public it serves as it will protect everyone by rebuilding capital and giving the federal government a 10% return on the $187.5B, plus the federal government gets its principal back.
What do you think about the double insulated from Congressional Appropriations Oversight issue coming out of the 5th Circuit 3 Judge Panel and pending a Petition for a Writ of Certerrori from the federal government?
"The basis of the ruling was that the CFPB was “double-insulated” from oversight. Dodd-Frank allowed the agency to ask for money with only a statutory cap setting the limit, setting it outside annual appropriations. And the CFPB seeks money from the Fed, which itself is funded from investments in securities and other sources outside the appropriations process."
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/banking-law/whats-next-for-cfpb-funding-after-appellate-ruling-explained
If there is any future IPO, under the MATERIAL RISKS SECTION this Disclosure would seem necessary:
"Under HERA during any future conservatorship there would be no violation of a Shareholders property rights under the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution if the federal government takes all the future profits for itself into perpetuity in order to salt the Earth with the shareholders carcasses and make sure that they never go private again, despite upcoming world record profitability."
I think this is it..."While it is true that California requires all state-chartered savings and loans to be federally insured, Saratoga’s decision to enter the savings and loan business in California was voluntary. Upon so deciding, Saratoga understood, with what may only be viewed as a historically rooted expectation, that the federal government would take possession of its premises and holdings as conservator or receiver if it substantially dissipated its “assets or earnings due to any violation or violations of law or regulations, or to any unsafe or unsound practice or practices[.]” 12 U.S.C. § 1464(d)(6)(A)(ii) (1988) (amended 1989). Saratoga also understood that such an occupation and seizure would not leave Sara-toga without rights. Saratoga could have reasonably expected to be able to contest the appointment of the conservator and the receiver in a U.S. district court. 12 U.S.C. § 1464(d)(6)(A)(v) (1988) (amended 1989). *959What neither Saratoga nor CHS could have expected was to be compensated for a regulatory possession by OTS and the RTC of its property if that possession were to occur following a determination that Saratoga’s financial situation mandated federal conservatorship or receivership."
Hence, no right of shareholders to exclude Uncle Suggy from their property and therefore no right to exclude others from their property therefore NO TAKINGS!
Uncle Suggy wins, yet again!
But what's ESPECIALLY PERNICIOUS about this fact pattern is that the Net Worth Swipe was implemented approximately 4 years AFTER they were placed in the CONservatorships with an intent by the evil Uncle Suggy, according to our best buddy, Jimmy Parrot, at the UST to "make sure that they NEVER go private again and to salt the Earth with the Shareholders Carcasses!"
That's my Uncle Suggy ! I'm sure other Americans can't wait to risk their limited resources by putting their own capital in a 1st Loss Position, in this Public Mission/Private Capital business and partnership.
What could possibly go wrong?
Okay. The fundamental problem here is the gargantuan transfer of much needed (and earned) capital from the GSES balance sheets transferred to the UST and in return for nothing to build up Tier 1 Capital.
The slow methodical rehabilitation of the GSES balance sheets seems to be fine with all stakeholders EXCEPT us beleaguered and battered shareholders.
It also seems clear that: (1) no one wants a repeat of 2008-9 and (2) Tier 1 Capital is important to financial intermediaries during times of crisis, especially one that is so active in the US Secondary Mortgage Market.
Sure politicians love to spend money, but what is the catalyst that will move the federal government to do a recap?
Thanks for your response! How this most bizarre drama in US Corporate History ends seems to be anyone's guess at this point. It's also difficult to watch the courts continually bypassing the shareholders any meaningful remedy in these constitutional violations.
We'll see how it goes.
Clarence, I can't thank you enough, first I'm learning more about the Nondelegation Doctrine (and its been apparently a hot topic at both the USSCT as well as Academia lately) and now, I can't wait to read the case you conveniently linked for me!
I still believe that the NWS may have been a violation of the Major Questions Doctrine. I noticed in the final brief by the government in the student loan forgiveness lawsuit to be heard by SCOTUS next month that Collins somehow represents the argument that the Major Questions Doctrine DOESN'T apply to the student loan forgiveness issue, did you ever see that? I thought Collins was a SOP case about insulated agency Directors.
From the government's brief:
4. The major questions doctrine provides no
reason to depart from the statutory text ....... 46
Collins is referenced on page 47.
brief - In the Supreme Court of the United States
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-535/251437/20230104223200307_22-506tsUnitedStates.pdf
Thanks! Not really sure how this drama ends, but reversing the NWS is always a worthy goal.
The NWS IS the most anti conservator thing to do and the FHFA and UST may or may not have difficulty attracting Private Capital in a 1st Loss Position in the future if they decide to pick winners and losers in the capital stack.
I think MC said he would leave it up to the board of the GSES to decide how to raise capital, if that day ever comes, but reversing the NWS seems like it might give them more flexibility.
Well hopefully slowly but surely the SCOTUS can someone reign in these federal agencies as POTUS (from BOTH parties) continue using them to get things done that would never make it through Congress.
Okay, I see your point. I don't think anyone knows for sure how exactly this now 15th YEAR of 'temporary' conservatorships ends, but I hope we all see it at some point.
Oh ok, but don't Marcus Collins and the other Plaintiffs own common and jps or JPS only, or does anyone know?
BTW, I like the CFPB decision, but realistically I wonder if the SCOTUS will be hesitant about invalidating ALL past CFPB (and FHFA?) decisions or I wonder if they could limit somehow the potential disruptions it may cause.
Didn't David Thompson recently amend the Compliant adding the additional SOP violation given the CFPB Appealate Panel Decision in the 5th, currently awaiting a decision from the SCOTUS on the federal governments Petition for a Writ of Certerrori?
You don't have a link to that to share do you?
Todays WP: Agencies and workers could be targeted for program and wage cuts
The rules package House Republicans approved late Monday includes a provision allowing lawmakers to reduce or eliminate federal agency programs and to slash the salaries of individual federal employees.
Called the Holman Rule, the measure was proposed in 1876 but was used sparingly until it was reinstated by Republicans in 2017 and then dropped by Democrats two years later. In theory, it could apply to any federal worker or agency - but for now the move is seen as mostly symbolic, as the Democratic Senate could block Republicans from using the provision.
Even if an attempt to use the rule is ultimately blocked, though, "It's the potential use that makes it so concerning," said Max Stier, president and CEO of the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service. "If you're a federal employee, this now becomes a risk that you have to think 'I may get myself in hot water or have my salary dropped to zero or my job could get axed' " when making a professional decision.
"Symbols can cause harm. We need a workforce that is committed to the public good and feels safe to make that choice. That's what's at risk here," he said.
Republicans have embraced the Holman Rule as part of the party's aggressive stance toward the federal government, including President Donald Trump's attempts to create new job classifications that would make it easier to fire government workers and his decision to move federal agencies like the Bureau of Land Management out of D.C.
The GOP on Monday touted the revived measure as a critical check on the Biden administration.
During the House floor debate, Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.), an ally of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), blasted federal officials as "unelected bureaucrats, the true, real swamp creatures here in D.C.," saying they had "run roughshod over the American people without consequence."
She added, "Today marks our first move, and certainly not our last, to hold them accountable."
Democrats and union leaders, though, denounced the rule's revival as an opening for the GOP to attack federal agencies and the people working in them for political reasons. Democrats warned that Republicans could abuse the power to lessen federal workers' salaries or fire them outright - particularly at a time when the government is investigating Trump.
Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) said the GOP approach would put at risk "any federal official that draws the wrath of the Republican majority." A group of nine House and Senate members from the District, Maryland and Virginia denounced the rule as an attack on federal programs and individual employees.
"We are all too familiar with House Republican efforts to vilify and punish hardworking federal civil servants for doing their jobs. But while moderates and experienced leaders among their ranks tried to prevent the return of the Holman Rule in 2017, sadly it appears that no one in today's House Republican conference seems willing to take that stand now," said a joint statement.
The rule is named for a House member who proposed it nearly 150 years ago as an exception to the general practice of keeping policy decisions separate from spending decisions.
After reviving it in 2017, Republicans had little success in using the rule. Only two attempts to employ it made even partial progress, according to a Congressional Research Service report.
One attempt in 2017 would have transferred a division of the Congressional Budget Office with about 90 employees to another office. Republican sponsors argued that the change would have improved the agency's assessment of the impact of legislation, but Democrats contended that it was designed to punish the CBO for negative assessments of GOP bills intended to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
The other attempt, in 2018, would have reduced to $1 the pay of a federal employee in charge of an office that had been the subject of whistleblower complaints; opponents called the move an attempt to punish without due process one individual who was involved in a wide-ranging dispute.
In both cases, the amendments were defeated in bipartisan votes.
Republican backers on Monday, though, said that reinstating the rule would provide an important check on the federal government. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.) - a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus - said the Holman Rule would "restore the people's House" in the face of administrative action.
Federal employee unions and Democrats said that reviving the rule invites more chances to try to target agencies or individuals for partisan reasons.
"I think it's another intimidation tool for civil servants who are simply doing their job," Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.) said in an interview. "It is designed to provide a chill effect on the ability of civil servants to do their jobs and carry out enforcement regulations and compliance with the law."
"The whole point of it is to use it recklessly. There's no way to use it responsibly," said the public policy director of the American Federation of Government Employees, Jacqueline Simon. "It goes around everything that protects the civil service from political corruption - not just federal employees but entire agencies."
"It is precisely for theater and to create chaos and disrupt the operation of federal agencies, including law enforcement agencies," she said.
Tony Reardon, the head of the National Treasury Employees Union, argued that reinstating the rule insults the integrity of federal workers.
"Taxpayers want a federal workforce that is based on merit and employees who carry out their agency missions with professionalism and integrity," Reardon said in a statement. "For Congress to upend those standards and punish individuals because of the work that they are assigned is outrageous."
The heart of the problem is that the FHFA is funded by bypassing Congressional Appropriations, accountable to NO ONE IN GOVERNMENT until the POTUS recently, and their power is limited only to "what's in the FHFA's best interests or of the public it serves".
The USSCT could help but given the Chevron Doctrine, the federal courts give the Unelected Bureaucrats in these federal agencies WIDE latitude to do as they please. Plus, I don't think the SCOTUS has a clue what is going on here.
Some people want to leave the US Government better off for others so they don't pull this type of garbage on others in the future, plus there's always a possibility that we get our companies back.
Todays WSJ: "As with its $400 billion loan write-off, the Administration is spending money that Congress didn't appropriate. Once again, it is using regulation to enact a progressive policy it can't get Congress to pass."
The FHFA according to the Collins and the COFC decision, "isn't your normal conservator", that is the "CONservator" can expropriate corporate assets at will if it's related to "the best interests of the the FHFA or the public it serves".
Why did the FHFA and UST extract $100B+ in CASH from the GSES balance sheets and transfer it to the coffers of the UST in 2013?
Was it to fund Obamacare since the Obama administration couldn't get the needed funding from the US Congress?
That's PROTECTED information that will likely not see the light of day due to "National Security and Executive Privilege" that prevents its disclosure to any public forum.
When I was in Lamberth's trial, listening to DeMarco (NO QUESTION he was prepped by the team at Arnold and Porter, but that happens in every case) I realized that given Arnold and Porter's success after 7 years of pretrial motions to EXCLUDE THE JUICY FACTS FROM THE PUBLIC through EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND NATIONAL SECURITY that DeMarco would have been unable to testify as to the nature and content about his conversations with high ranking Gubmint officials at Treasury and the White House.
Lamberth even quipped about the dearth of evidence available one time to the Arnold and Porter attorneys during one of their over 10 million objections.
But I don't know if DeMarco perjured himself or not.
I do believe that DeMarco (just like Watt) really put a lot of time and effort (and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paid for it all) studying what was publically know at the time as the "Mortgage Loan Forgiveness" program which would have been a yuge win for the Obama administrations folks. DeMarco rejected it. Then boom, the NWS on August 17, 2012.
So why did DeMarco really sign the 3rd Amendment to the SPSPA?
He says "Because I was concerned that the SPSA funding commitment was expiring at the end of 2012 and the US Congress was going to fix the secondary mortgage markets in the US with new legislation".
But that seems dubious to me and in the end 1/2 of the Jury didn't buy it.
Hamish and his experts spent the good part of a day explaining to the Jurors why the reversal of the DTA showed the federal government implemented the Net Worth Sweep to enrich the federal government coffers and not for other reasons.
The Net Worth Sweep for 2013 was over $100B check the internet and Fannie Mae or sec website for annual reports, a WORLDWIDE RECORD AT THE TIME FOR 2 CORPORATIONS.
Plus with all the outstanding litigation slogging through the courts surrounding some pretty hefty issues, I just don't see how the "quick recap" scenario unfolds.
Meanwhile we rebuild capital organically.