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.
Cmdr, I have only had a chance to watch the last 20 minutes, but if the rest is as good, I agree, they are knocking out of the park. Hopefully we see major news coverage from it. I'll watch the rest later tonight.
Thanks D1, I see there was another Fairholme filing today, but I'm mobile and haven't seen it yet.
I believe same o same o. Probably trade in a small range close to Ackman's average. This is news driven for the most part imo.
I as thinking the same thing cmdr. Unusual for sure, but then again I've come to expect the unusual with FnF and the OTC.
Good stuff, hv. Keep them coming and the tide will turn soon enough.
Not when the Gov't is judge, jury and executioner. Talk about fox guarding the henhouse, geeezsh!
In our case, it should read...
When our government puts profits and politics before prudence and the law, it creates a dangerous environment for all investors and threatens the integrity of our financial markets,” said Steven Perez, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Housing Finance Agency Office of Inspector General, in a statement.
Nice work cmdr. Thanks for your efforts!
Yep, hole's just gonna keep get'n deeper for the Gov't.
Great minds D1. haha You got me by 17 seconds.
Lots of good stuff in there for us. I like it. More discovery and then we can unseal the docs.!
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 13-465C
(Filed: September 4, 2015) 3:45pm
*************************************
FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC. et al., *
*
Plaintiffs, *
*
v. *
*
THE UNITED STATES, *
*
Defendant. *
*************************************
ORDER
The court conducted a status conference in the above-captioned case on September 4, 2015 concerning several matters, including various motions filed by the parties. As discussed during the status conference, the court resolves the following motions as follows:
1. Plaintiffs’ oral motion during the status conference to extend jurisdictional discovery is GRANTED. Jurisdictional discovery shall be completed by Thursday, December 31, 2015. The parties shall file a joint status report suggesting future proceedings by no later than Thursday, January 21, 2016.
2. In the interest of judicial economy, plaintiffs’ motion to stay briefing on defendant’s supplemental motion to dismiss (Docket #164) is GRANTED.
3. Briefing regarding defendant’s supplemental motion to dismiss (Docket #161) is STAYED.
4. Because this case is in the jurisdictional discovery phase, the court finds that it is premature to grant at this juncture plaintiffs’ various motions to remove the “protected information” designation from certain deposition transcripts and documents produced during jurisdictional discovery. Consequently, the court DENIES as premature the following motions:
• Plaintiffs’ Sealed Motion to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Defendant’s March 20 Provisional Privilege Log (Docket #148)
• Plaintiffs’ Sealed Motion to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from the Depositions of Edward DeMarco and Mario Ugoletti (Docket #162)
Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 240 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 2
• Plaintiffs’ Sealed Motion to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Certain Grant Thornton Documents (Docket #165)
• Plaintiffs’ Sealed Motion to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Certain Treasury and FHFA Documents (Docket #166)
• Plaintiffs’ Sealed Motion to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by Deloitte (Docket #169)
• Plaintiffs’ Sealed Motion to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by Fannie Mae (Docket #170)
• Plaintiffs’ Sealed Motion to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by Freddie Mac (Docket #171)
5. The court GRANTS plaintiffs’ request in Docket #166 to file under seal, and subject to the protective order, the unredacted transcripts and documents at issue in the aforementioned motions in any case challenging the Net Worth Sweep in which plaintiffs appear as parties or amici.
6. Based upon plaintiffs’ counsel’s representations, the court DENIES AS MOOT plaintiffs’ motion to remove the “protected information” designation from certain unredacted information in documents produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers (Docket #172).
7. Because plaintiffs’ various aforementioned motions for de-designation of certain discovery materials are denied, consequently, the court DENIES AS MOOT The New York Times Company’s motion to intervene and for an order de-designating discovery materials (Docket #177).
Motions to de-designate or unseal, if such a request is made by a party or a proposed
intervenor, will be entertained by the court after the conclusion of briefing of defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Margaret M. Sweeney
MARGARET M. SWEENEY
Judge
2
Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 240 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 2
Thanks D1. Just saw that too. Yes, my understanding is that it was closed to the public.
You're welcome hv. Thanks for the Ackman filing update. When I clicked on doc. # 239 all it states is that I don't have access to it, no total page numbers listed. When I run the docket report from # 239 I get charged .40 for 4 pages, but I believe that's how many pages long the report is basically. So, no idea how long the conf. ran. Hopefully a lot was accomplished and the Defendant's got their asses handed to them. Guess we'll know soon enough.
Hope this helps.
Date Filed: 09/02/2015 # 239
Docket Text: **SEALED**JOINT STATUS REPORT Regarding September 4 Status Conference, filed by All Plaintiffs. (Cooper, Charles) (Entered: 09/02/2015)
Also, I believe Ackman (Rafter) filed a new Amended Complaint this afternoon, but haven't had time to look into it yet.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 14-740C
(Filed: September 2, 2015)
Case 1:14-cv-00740-MMS Document 18 Filed 09/02/15 Page 1 of 1
*************************************
LOUISE RAFTER et al., *
*
Plaintiffs, *
*
v. *
*
THE UNITED STATES, *
*
Defendant. *
*************************************
ORDER
Plaintiffs in the above-captioned case have filed an unopposed motion to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs’ motion is hereby GRANTED. The clerk of the court shall file plaintiffs’ amended complaint, which is the attachment to Docket #16, on the electronic docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Margaret M. Sweeney
MARGARET M. SWEENEY
Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
LOUISE RAFTER, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)No. 14-740C
v. ) (Judge Sweeney)
)
THE UNITED STATES, )
)
Defendant. )
Case 1:14-cv-00740-MMS Document 17 Filed 09/01/15 Page 1 of 3
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
Pursuant to Rule 7.2 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC), defendant, the United States, respectfully responds to the motion for leave to file an amended complaint filed by plaintiffs on August 17, 2015. As noted in plaintiffs’ motion, plaintiffs asked, shortly before filing, whether we would consent to the motion, and we were unable to confer with our client and notify counsel of our position within that limited time frame. Having considered plaintiffs’ request, however, we do not oppose the filing of plaintiffs’ amended complaint, although we reserve our right to raise any and all defenses, including jurisdictional defenses, arising from the amended complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
BENJAMIN C. MIZER
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
s/ Robert E. Kirschman, Jr.
ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.
Director
s/ Kenneth M. Dintzer
KENNETH M. DINTZER
Deputy Director
Commercial Litigation Branch
Civil Division
Department of Justice
P.O. Box 480
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 616-0385
(202) 307-0972 fax
kenneth.dintzer@usdoj.gov
September 1, 2015 Attorneys for Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF FILING
I hereby certify that on October 10, 2014, a copy of the foregoing “DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME” was filed electronically. I understand that notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.
/s Elizabeth M. Hosford
UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 238 Filed 09/01/15 Page 1 of 2
NOTICE OF FILING OF APPLICATIONS OF JENNIFER FOUNTAIN CONNOLLY,
ROBERT M. ROSEMAN AND JOSHUA B. KAPLAN FOR ACCESS TO PROTECTED
INFORMATION
Pursuant to ¶ 7 of the Amended Protective Order entered by this Court on July 29, 2015
(Dkt. No. 217), Plaintiffs in Washington Federal v. United States, No. 13-385C (“Washington
Federal Plaintiffs”), respectfully submit the attached applications of Jennifer Fountain Connolly,
Robert M. Roseman and Joshua B. Kaplan for access to Protected Information. Under the
procedures established under ¶ 7 of the Amended Protective Order, Washington Federal
Plaintiffs have consulted with counsel for Defendant regarding this application, and counsel has
informed Washington Federal Plaintiffs that Defendant does not oppose access to Protected
Information by Jennifer Fountain Connolly, Robert M. Roseman and Joshua B. Kaplan. .............
If that's the case, you might want to somehow remove your username from your posts.
Interesting how you had to actually take the time to remove Carney's name from the article. Everyone knows his credibility is at zero, but by removing his name to fool people it shows you have the same credibility...zero.
Nice summary hv! Haven't been around as much lately as I've been traveling, but I'm back in time for the September fireworks hopefully. Thanks to you, D1, Cmdr and everyone else for holding down the fort.
Thanks D1, I figured that filing would be coming soon.
Sweeney Orders Ackman's new claim STRICKEN from the docket.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 14-740C
(Filed: August 17, 2015)
*************************************
LOUISE RAFTER et al., *
*
Plaintiffs, *
*
v. *
*
THE UNITED STATES, *
*
Defendant. *
*************************************
ORDER
Plaintiffs in the above-captioned case have filed an amended complaint. Because more than twenty-one days have passed since the filing of their original complaint, plaintiffs must provide defendant’s written consent to the amendment, or file a motion to amend the complaint, pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims. Plaintiffs here have failed to do either. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ submission is STRICKEN from the docket. Plaintiffs may refile their amended complaint with defendant’s written consent, or may submit a motion to file an amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Margaret M. Sweeney
MARGARET M. SWEENEY
Judge
Case 1:14-cv-00740-MMS Document 15 Filed 08/17/15 Page 1 of 1
Thanks. What I thought, just making sure.
Like I said to HV the other day, with all these motions after motions after motions...man, I think I've got "motion sickness" :o~~-- -
lol
D1, thanks for posting this. Question...does the govt get to respond to this filing or is it time for Sweeney to talk next?
Yes, he may have consulted Carl on LNG a while back and Carl could have mentioned his FnF position to him, who knows? It's kinda fun trying to connect the dots though.
Been following him for a little while now and I'd sure like to know this guys angle on FnF.
I will say this...he has been touting LNG commons for quite some time now and all of the sudden uncle Carl buys an 8.18% stake in the company...hmmm...
Seems he might be smarter than the av-er-age bear, hey Boo-boo?
...and motions after motions after motions...man, I think I've got "motion sickness" :o~~-- -
Yes, thanks D1!
I'm 99.9% sure, but just to be clear, there was not a Status Conference yesterday, correct?
Thanks again.
Thanks D1. I was just about to post that.
Ordered...the motion to substitute counsel for amici
curiae Louise Rafter, et al....Ackman's new guy.
If you can't be a fly in the courtroom it sure would be nice to be buddies with one or both of the Marks...
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY: /s/
Mark A. Butler
Deputy Clerk
I'm not sure what's going to happen to FnF, but Bill Maloni has about 100 times more credibility than the "Fake" Tim Howard in my book.
Thanks D1. Been busy and haven't downloaded either response yet. Anything worth reading or just the same mumbo jumbo?
TIA
My suggestion to Bill would be to make sure he uses crayons because it's equivalent to Carney's intellect.
WSJ (Heard on the Street)= John Carney.
Bill's comment was a direct shot at the bozo Carney, for sure!
Yep. He is confident!
Sweeney Order just filed in response to yesterday's Fairholme filing asking for additional 30 days...
ORDER
On August 6, 2015, plaintiffs in the above-captioned case filed an unopposed motion for
enlargement of time, seeking an additional thirty days in which to respond to defendant’s
supplemental motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion is
GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file their response no later than Wednesday, September 9, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Margaret M. Sweeney
MARGARET M. SWEENEY
Judge
Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 220 Filed 08/07/15 Page 1 of 1
I agree cmdr, the market definitely reacted shortly after the Perry court order. As a long-termer I hope you're right and this move is for real. Hope it's not just the mo-mo traders looking for a quick little pop and drop. Big sustained volume should tell the story. I guess we'll know soon enough.
Hi Obit,
Thanks for your quick and insightful response. No doubt the link will come in handy and it's yet another example of how I always learn something from your comments.
Thanks again...
Good night, and good luck.
Fairholme just filed...UNOPPOSED, SECOND MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DISMISS
(see bolded text for reason)
Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 219 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC., et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) No. 13-465C
v. ) (Judge Sweeney)
)
THE UNITED STATES, )
)
Defendant. )
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED, SECOND MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT’S
SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DISMISS
Pursuant to RCFC 6.1(a), Plaintiffs respectfully move for an enlargement of time of 30
days to file a response to the Government’s supplemental motion to dismiss, Doc. 161. On June
17, Plaintiffs moved to stay briefing (Doc. 164) on the Government’s supplemental motion, and
briefing on Plaintiffs’ stay motion is now complete, see Docs. 182 and 210.
Without an enlargement of time, Plaintiffs’ response to the Government’s supplemental
motion would be due on Monday, August 10. This is Plaintiffs’ second request for an
enlargement of time to respond to the Government’s supplemental motion, and the same good
cause that supported Plaintiffs’ first 30-day request (which this Court granted on July 8, see Doc.
191) supports their present motion. This Court is currently considering Plaintiffs’ motion to stay
briefing on the Government’s supplemental motion, and the stay motion would be rendered moot
if Plaintiffs had to file a response to the Government’s supplemental motion before this Court
has an opportunity to rule on the stay motion. To preserve the status quo and provide the Court
additional time to consider Plaintiffs’ stay motion, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court
enter an order enlarging the amount of time Plaintiffs have to file their response to the
1
Government’s supplemental motion by 30 days, such that Plaintiffs’ response would be due on
September 9, 2015.
The parties have been consulting on possible dates for a status conference, and Plaintiffs
are hopeful that a date in late August will be convenient for both parties. See Doc. 208. A status
conference held before September 9th would give the parties and the Court an opportunity to
address Plaintiffs’ stay motion (assuming the stay motion is still pending at that time) before the
new deadline proposed by this motion for enlargement.
In accordance with RCFC 6.1(b), Plaintiffs have consulted with opposing counsel,
and the Government does not oppose this motion.
Date: August 6, 2015 Respectfully submitted,
Of counsel:
Vincent J. Colatriano
David H. Thompson
Peter A. Patterson
Brian W. Barnes
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 220-9600
(202) 220-9601 (fax)
s/ Charles J. Cooper
Charles J. Cooper
Counsel of Record
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 220-9600
(202) 220-9601 (fax)
ccooper@cooperkirk.com
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was served upon all
counsel of record on this 6th day of August, 2015, via the Court’s Electronic Case Filing system.
s/ Charles J. Cooper
Charles J. Cooper
It could be just traders and flippers, but on the other hand, something might seriously be up as almost half of the day's volume took place in the last 30 minutes, right after the Perry court order came out.
I guess time will tell soon enough...
Obit, I know you're not the type of person that likes to speculate much, but would you care to enlighten us with your thoughts of today's Perry Capital case Order?
What could be the possible reason the court would do this? In order of likelihood maybe?
As always, thanks in advance for your legal enlightenment!
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 14-5243 September Term, 2014
1:13-cv-01025-RCL
1:13-cv-01053-RCL
1:13-cv-01439-RCL
1:13-mc-01288-RCL
Filed On: August 6, 2015
Perry Capital LLC, for and on behalf of
investment funds for which it acts as
investment manager,
Appellant
v.
Jacob J. Lew, in his official capacity as the
Secretary of the Department of the Treasury,
et al.,
Appellees
------------------------------
Consolidated with 14-5254, 14-5260, 14-5262
O R D E R
It is ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that the revised briefing schedule
established by the court’s order filed July 7, 2015, be suspended pending further order
of the court.
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY: /s/
Amy Yacisin
Deputy Clerk
Freddie Mac: Aggregate Cash Dividends Paid to Treasury Will Total $96.5B >FMCC
Freddie Mac: Have Received Aggregate Funding of $71.3B from Treasury Through June 30
Freddie Mac: Treasury will have received $25.2B more than they loaned Freddie Mac!!!