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.
I'm sure that I will get another letter from the brokerage company and a check later in 2023.
Plaintiffs legal team obtain list of the FMCC common holders from Brokerage companies, and this letter
actually is from the Plaintiffs legal team.
In April of 2022 I've received a letter from the Brokerage company. This letter stated,that as an owner of FMCC common shares prior to December 2021,I've included to the list of the Lamberth court participants and would be entitled to receive a reward. If I agree to became a participant of this court, I'm no longer entitled to participate in any other FMCC common rewards courts. If I disagree to became a participant of the Lamberth court, I should notify Brokerage company within 3 month grace period( until June 2022).
What happened to 1.6B reward,why only 600M? Where is the explanation of this decision? Unbelievable. What a shame!
Correct
FMCC common shareholders just got 5 cent per share reward,also theFMCC common shareholders that would receive this award, are not entitled to participate in any FMCC reward related court.
ROP VS FHFA status: previous petition denied on June,12. Modified petition had to be submitted by August 11th.
May 23 2023 Reply of petitioners Michael Rop, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jun 12 2023 Petition DENIED.
Next is ROP VS FHFA
This case represents yet another attempt by shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to undo an agreement struck by the conservator of those entities, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), with the Department of the Treasury. That agreement secured unlimited funding for Fannie and Freddie from Treasury in exchange for almost all of Fannie's and Freddie's future profits. The shareholders were understandably disappointed by this arrangement because it rendered their shares worthless.
So far FNMA volume is anemic: just 3,3 M
Wait on Rop case decision for the FNMA
Lambertville, NJ is waiting for a familiar name to move in upon retirement. It could happened soon.
It needs to be forwarded to the members of the US House Committee on Financial Services
It a 100% fault of the plaintiffs team that Lamberth is in charge of this case. They had to request
his removal long time ago,somewhere in 2019. To me it's unexplainable,why they didn't ask for his removal.
Also,why they agreed to over 50 delays requested by the defendants. The same applied to stakeholders and Fairholme organization.
Who provide lamberth with authority to deny jurors request to see HERA annual report as of 2012.
Plaintiffs team had to request Lamberth removal off this case few years ago,somewhere in 2019,
after Scotus and 5th Circuit decided, that his 2014 decision not to reward plaintiffs was incorrect. Highly incompetent and openly bias decisions made by him.
Plaintiffs team had to request Lamberth removal off this case few years ago,somewhere in 2019,
after Scotus and 5th Circuit decided, that his 2014 decision not to reward plaintiffs was incorrect. Highly incompetent and openly bias decisions made by him.
If at least one of the juror is an accountant/finance person and other a lawyer they would never agree to
come up with a verdict, unless all of the required documentation provided.
It could be the same situation that happened in October 2022, when jurors response would be,that they are unable to come up with a verdict.
It's not yet a Hung jury. It's reasonable to have 2 days for a discussion.
As per Lamberth court schedule for Monday, he has been assigned to another case in the afternoon.It could be changed later,
but looks it was expected that he would free up by Monday.
Correct.That filing also say that jury deliberation starts Monday. But it was not clear,since Kathy specified that it would start today at 10 AM. My guess, jurors could spend today just watching received testimony video.
The following transcripts of the video testimony were submitted to be utilized by jurors:
1. Joseph Cacciapalle (Exhibit A)
2. Mukarram Attari, Ph.D. (Exhibit B)
3. Mario Ugoletti (Exhibit C)
4. David Benson (Exhibit D)
5. Timothy Mayopoulos (Exhibit E)
6. James Lockhart (Exhibit F)
7. James Lockhart (Exhibit G)
8. Timothy Mayopoulos (Exhibit H)
9. Donald Layton (Exhibit I)
The parties hereby submit the transcript of the video testimony presented to the jury during
the cross-examination of Mr. DeMarco at trial.
10. Edward DeMarco (Exhibit J)
At the previous trial back in October, jurors asked for the transcripts of the video testimony presented,but were denied by lamberth asking jurors to utilize their own notes. What happened next is known.
Jurors responded to lamberth with a written note,that they are unable to proceed and come up with a verdict.
My own comment to the lamberth decision: even if All of the jurors held Masters of Business Administartion degree, they wouldn't be able to come up with a verdict.
It's a case with such a complexity,that come up with a verdict just by utilizing brief notes is practically impossible.
But what happened late yesterday is different:
JOINT SUBMISSION OF DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS AS PLAYED DURING TRIAL
The parties (both plaintiffs and defendants) hereby submit the transcripts of the video testimony presented to the jury by deposition designation at trial.
After the case is won, both FnF go up more than 10 cents. I agree, it would be an attempt to bring them back to $0.50. Let's wait and see what would happened.
Most of the jurors already made up their mind,so this letter wouldn't change it.
The jury will begin deliberations in the case at 10 a.m. tomorrow.My guess, that plaintiffs would win. And lamberth wouldn't stand against it,just because he wants to avoid another re-trial.
Current status of FNMA/FMCC is beyond anybody's comprehension: two of the most profitable companies have their PPS at 0.45.
But the guys who did it, constantly trying to convince shareholders that they should be happy with their status. What a sarcasm.
And if the shareholders are not happy,go to see lamberth, the most "objective" and "qualified" person. Unbelievable.
My guess,that lamberth would do his best to avoid another mistrial.
Jury Trial (closing arguments) set for 8/10/2023 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 15 (in person). Expected that this Trial should be done either on 08/10 or 08/11.
It's expected to be done by Friday
Shareholders disaster caused not only by lamberth,but also by plaintiffs team. They agreed to all of the delays of the court sessions asked by defendants team (over 50 delays in 8 years) and as a result it became 8 years long process. I'm surprised, that Fairholme didn't intervene
and hadn't replaced plaintiffs team. And now the team members would get decent award fees. But the FMCC commons shareholders reward would be 6-9 cents per share. What a shame!
Guido2,Rodney5 could you please create a draft of this letter on behalf of all shareholders.
Anyone willing to participate please join this effort.
Impartial or not impartial it doesn't matter. Officially he is in charge of all of the judges at Federal Court.
There is no manager,who likes to get negative feedbacks regarding his subordinates.
To send an e-mail or write a letter doesn't require a lot of time. Let lamberth to see what majority think about his performance.
Regardless of the outcome of this trial, Lamberth deserves an open letter on behalf of All FNMA/FMCC shareholders to Chief Judge James E. Boasberg. This letter should describe all the bad things he did starting with 2014 up to 2023. I know it would't help us, but at least to raise
our voice and provide our opinion.
It's pretty simple, what he did: plaintiffs asked for the jurors court and they got it. But lamberth did the following two things:
1. FMCC commons shareholders wouldn't be rewarded: reward of 6-9 cents per share
it's not a reward, it's nothing.
2. Blocked a portion of information to be delivered to jurors by the plaintiffs team.
Bottom line, the winners in this court are lamberth and defendants. Losers are the FMCC common shareholders. Also, the winners are the members of the plaintiffs legal team due to fee to be received.
Guys it's time to wake up,just read the below mentioned:
Lamberth had to be removed off this case long time ago, and it's complete failure of the plaintiffs team.
For the FMCC commons shareholders even a win is a loss,reward of 6-9cents per share is nothing,and doesn't deserve our participation in this court.As for the ongoing court,he would do everything to complete and close it ASAP
For the FMCC commons shareholders even a win is a loss,reward of 6-9cents per share is nothing,and doesn't deserve our participation in this court. Just ignore it.
Lamberth had to be removed off this case long time ago, and it's complete failure of the plaintiffs team.
For the FMCC commons shareholders even a win is a loss,reward of 6-9cents per share is nothing,and doesn't deserve our participation in this court.
Shareholders submitted a reply in support of their request to modify the verdict form:
as reflected in the jury instructions and has been true since the start of
this case, Plaintiffs’ claim is that the Net Worth Sweep violated the implied covenant, and the
verdict form should be conformed with the instructions to focus on that claim.
It doesn't matter what actually happened to the FNMA/FMCC, the team that manipulates their stock PPS
continue to do it as assigned: trying to keep PPS at 0.44.
And they would continue to do it,even as temporarily PPS would increase.
Investors are not buying FNMA/FMCC, therefore it's easy to keep PPS at 0.44.
Neither Dem not GOP are looking to release FNMA/FMCC and I do not invision it happened in the nearest future. All this courts could only bring some minor changes to the PPS,but not release.Shareholders need to continue send letters to congressmen,but if it would be helpful
is questionable.