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.
What is your opinion on the CFC cases assuming it survives the motion do dismiss with regards to a judgement for either
A) Takings
B) Illegal Exaction
C) Something in the alternative
D) Verdict in favor of defendants
What is the remedy for scenario A and B?
My opinion is eventually B.
My speculative opinion about whether Judge Sweeney will deny dismissal of or dismiss these cases is inconsequential to what she will eventually decide and order.
If the cases are not dismissed, my speculations on how Judge Sweeney may judicially treat and remedy the Plaintiffs claims, or to the contrary uphold some or all of the Defendants' arguments against those claims in a bench trial, do not contribute to Judge Sweeney's final decision and order.
Consequently, such opinions are not formed. I prefer to wait and see the actual outcome that will eventually, in time, occur.
?
Agree
So - where are we with Sweeney ?
What is next step ?
Judge Sweeney is to make an order to dismiss or not to dismiss one or more of the consolidated cases.
And - does she still have to resolve her own issue of date certain ownership or all owners?
Yes.
Implications in Wash Fed pleading?
The oral arguments are vocal representations of the briefs already submitted. There is nothing new in the oral arguments.
What is new is Judge Sweeney's extended responses to select parts of the US narrative. She restates in her own words seasoned with pejorative flavors select aspects of Treasury's and FHFA's actions discovered in the case. However, such flavoring of the narrative facts that seem to support the Plaintiffs' narrative is not a clear indication of Judge Sweeney's legal opinion on the arguments, which is what counts in the end. Of course, a positive outcome can be read into these selected statements to say that Judge Sweeney may or will deny the proposed dismissal of the case. Even so, my horses are held.
thots? https://www.acg-analytics.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Fairholme-Condensed-Transcript.pdf
Courtroom drama. Enjoyed using the word index beginning on page 393.
Where are you, man?
Here now observing the tangled knots of this mortal coil.
Yep, that's exactly the reason I asked. I googled variations of 14 to 2 and looked through the first 40 pages of the en banc ruling. I couldn't find it and I'm surprised because we were all discussing the topic. I'll redouble my efforts and see if I can't find the info.
Such a vote count will not be found if one goes through all 123 pages.
ust a follow up Question. I thought Judge Sweeney already had possession of these privileged documents. Would it not be up to her to release to the Collins P's.? Why does the Mooch get to decide this. He is the defendant.
A document request was not made to Judge Sweeney by the Plaintiffs or Judge Lamberth. So there is no decision for Judge Sweeney to make.
Obi
thanks for all your time and contributions
You are welcome.
question
what are your thoughts on lamberth's friday release?
A straightforward opinion and simple order for Treasury to comply with the Plaintiffs' subpoena and to produce a privilege log.
i thought extremely positive, market shows nothingburger
If and when the documents are produced and if the documents submitted can be publicly reviewed, the nothingburger may be replaced with something more substantial.
You are welcome bcde.
could you clarify the difference between the 5th circuit 14 to 2 opinion compared to the 9 to 7 opinion?
Rumple, which Count (Count I, II, III, IV) had a 14-2 5th Circuit vote? I could not determine that vote count from the September 6, 2019 Court of Appeal decisions.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-20364-CV2.pdf
Hi Obi Isn't there an OIG for the FHFA?
Hi FOFreddie,
Yes.
Doesnt the OIG have a responsiblility to investigate wrongdoing regarding the GSEs?
Yes. See: https://www.fhfaoig.gov/About/WhatWeDo
Can anyone look into if any one on the Senate Banking Committee staff was trading on inside information.
One can examine the publicly available personal financial disclosures of all members of the Senate Banking Committee. To discover if any member or staff of that committee is or was trading using non-public inside information requires more than personal financial disclosures. Insider trading for members of Congress and employees is prohibited by the The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act. See:
https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ105/PLAW-112publ105.htm An official or covert investigation is required. Anyone cannot do this.
It is possible the rumors that Mark Warner and Bob Corker were shorting are true but guys like Ed Mills with close Congressional connections could possibly have been helping others trade on material non public info?
It is possible.
Can Senate Banking Committee staff trade on inside info
No. Trading on non-public inside information is prohibited as noted above.
Maybe everyone at the UST and the Senate Banking Committee were on the same page to liquidate the GSE's back when the NWS was imposed? They may not have cared if laws were stretched?
I do not know.
You are always welcome 955.
warrant is an illegal exaction”
Hi Obi, would like your opinion on:
In the AIG Starr v. United States, Case 1:11-cv-00779-TCW Document 443 https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/StarrvUS06152015.pdf
Judge Wheeler ruled the warrant is an illegal exaction,(details below) later this case was overruled because of lack of standing and AIG did not participate in the suit, and then the supreme court refused to hear the case, but the initial order of Judge Wheeler was not overruled and keeps applying to FnF, so it is impossible for the government to even own, let alone execute the warrant, these legal texts cannot be misunderstood right?
Obi,
Referencing a previous post by bcde,
There is very clear evidence that financial establishment, its lobbyists and previous employees in Gov political positions engaged in organized activities (conspired) to
1. undermine/destroy systemically important public policy institutions
2. undermine/destroy private shareholder companies
3. destroy fair competition and monopolize MBS business
4. systemic misinformation campaign to distort the financial markets.
One can add more and more such unlawful activities.
If there is clear and substantial evidence of criminal activities, these must be reported to or made available to state and federal prosecutors for investigation.
See the link below for the federal criminal process.
https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/steps-federal-criminal-process
Why no RICO
RICO involves criminal law and racketeering. All GSEs are civil cases under civil law.
please refresh my memory, on appeal AIG won a case but was awarded no damages.
The Court of Federal Claims (CFC) case: See the petition for writ of certiorari and the CFC and Appeals cases in this document: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/17-540-petition.pdf
what was that in reference to?
Illegal exaction.
and can they use it in our cases?
There are cases currently before the Court of Federal Claims claiming illegal exaction. These cases cannot use AIG as a model. The arguments used in claims sought are different. See the petition and the cases in this document: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/17-540-petition.pdf
“warrant is an illegal exaction”
Hi Obi, would like your opinion on:
In the AIG Starr v. United States, Case 1:11-cv-00779-TCW Document 443 https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/StarrvUS06152015.pdf
Judge Wheeler ruled the warrant is an illegal exaction,(details below) later this case was overruled because of lack of standing and AIG did not participate in the suit, and then the supreme court refused to hear the case, but the initial order of Judge Wheeler was not overruled and keeps applying to FnF, so it is impossible for the government to even own, let alone execute the warrant, these legal texts cannot be misunderstood right?
Ano, let's narrow it down to specifics.
Please specify Judge Wheeler's initial order that was not overruled that applies specifically to a warrant?
Is it an order concerning warrants in general?
Or is it Judge Wheeler's opinion about an illegal exaction by a warrant being converted into Senior C preferred shares with voting rights in a deal made by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York under the Federal Reserve Act 13(3) with AIG that was not disagreed with by the Court of Appeals for the Federal District?
For example, the Court of Appeals for the Federal District in Note 25 Appendix A, p. 41a states:
BTW, Obi, if you are still here, do you know if there is any way the govt could move to rship, wipe out all common but somehow preserve the warrants for exercising post-rship? Thanks
do you know if there is any way the govt could move to rship?
Insolvency: Mandatory Receivership: 12 USC 4617(a)(4)(A-D) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/4617
wipe out all common but somehow preserve the warrants for exercising post-rship?
Liquidation Distribution and Transfer or Sale of Assets and Liabilities: 12 USC 4617(b)(2)(E-H) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/4617
Warrant disposition is determined in part by the different possible actions of the FHFA Director, which cannot be known without actual circumstances and actions that are taken. For example, if the GSEs' assets are liquidated and distributed and the GSEs as companies are dissolved, all shareholding will end including the common shareholders. There can be no exercise of the two warrants when the common stock is no longer extant. If there is a reorganization rather than a dissolution of the GSEs in receivership, shareholders, hypothetically, could survive and in that circumstance, the warrants could be exercised.
Hi Obiterdictum,
Thank you for the reply.
You are welcome.
I asked the question because I am assuming that any recapitalization plan would have to be approved by shareholders and the question will be what the UST stake will be at that time.
Under what conditions is that assumption made? Does the speculated recapitalization plan occur while in conservatorship? During post-conservatorship with an FHFA consent order? Post-conservatorship without a consent order?... What about the SPSPAs during these times? How could the UST stake be known at these different times given pending lawsuit outcomes?
Also - I am wondering how the function of the usual Special Committee and Fairness Opinion will be handled if this restructuring is similiar to the standard practice for corporate restructurings for large public entities.
What are the functions of the usual "Special Committee and Fairness Opinion?"
What are the standard practices for corporate restructurings for large public entities? What types or types of corporate restructuring are being considered? Who is directing the corporate restructuring?...
These assumptions and wonderings are vague and undefined, very broad in scope, and omit unresolved issues (e.g. lawsuits and SPSPAs). This makes useful consideration more than difficult. Try to narrow the scope to fit the GSEs and add sufficient details so it can be understood what is sought.
Thanks again.
You are welcome.
You are welcome imtheshadow.
You are welcome Barron4664.
This issue doesnt make a whole lot of sense. If Hera says that FHFA is to be an independant agency but the single director removal for cause is unconstitutional, the remedy is what?
The ruling made by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals en banc was to declare that “for cause” removal limitation in 12 USC § 4512(b)(2) is unconstitutional. This was an en banc rendition of judgment. Count IV judgment was reversed and remanded to Judge Atlas' District Court for entry of judgment.
You are welcome Vancmike.
If FHFA is ruled to be unconstitutional, does it limit Calabria’s authority to make decisions regarding FnF?
FHFA as an agency has not been ruled unconstitutional and there are no lawsuits attempting to challenge the constitutionality of the FHFA as a federal agency. The “for cause” removal limitation in 12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2) is unconstitutional and was struck down by the 5th Circuit en banc court order and it does not limit Calabria’s authority to make decisions regarding FnF.
How does it affect his authority?
No effect.
Can he set capital limits for FnF?
Yes.
Does it change where FHFA reports?
No.
Does it change the funding for FHFA?
No.
Does Calabria loose his parking space?
Does Calabria have one?
Hi Obi - Do You Have Any Details of What At Oct. 30th Did Happen At SCOTUS ?
Hi Doc.007,
On Oct 30, 2019, two briefs were filed in the Collins et al. v. Treasury et al.:
1. Respondents Mnuchin, Steven T., et al. filed a brief in opposition.
2. An Amicus brief of Blackwells Capital LLC was submitted.
Also on October 30, 2019, in Seila Law, "there was a joint motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix, petitioner's brief on the merits, and respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 9, 2019. The time to file the brief on the merits of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below on the question presented by the petition is extended to and including January 15, 2020."
This information and more is readily available online for review. There are two pending petitions directly related to shareholder interests, one petition indirectly related, and one case in action also indirectly related to shareholders' interest.
Below are the document numbers and links to the docket.
Pending Petitions
Collins et al. v. Treasury et al. - No. 19-422
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-422.html
Treasury et al. v. Collins et al. - No. 19-563
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-563.html
All American Check Cashing, Inc., et al. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - No. 19-432
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-432.html
CASE
Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - No. 19-7
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-7.html
You are welcome Robertus.
What is Conservatorship capital, anyone knows?
See: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151082126&txt2find=%22conservatorship|capital%22
You are welcome Rumple.
Obiterdictum, do you know why this government appeal is not showing on SCOTUSBLOG?
No.
The petition can be found in the Supreme Court docket.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-563.html
obiter, which 5th circuit count is being appealed to SCOTUS? Is it the 14 to 2 opinion (count 1) Or the 9 to 7 opinion (count 4?)? Typing from phone so apologies for brevity.
The 9-7 vote for Count 1 Rumple.