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.
Boies, Cooper & Gibson working on same side is very rare, its deadly combination for opposing party imo
https://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/07/plaintiffs-firms-line-up-for-fanniefreddie-lawsuits.html
13 opinions released today by 6th circuit, Rop is coming soon
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions/opinions.php
Does not include punitive damages that jury may add to that $16.92 per share compensatory damages imo.
His emails are enough to prove it was not even close to good faith and fair dealing imo
2. As an alternative measure, Plaintiffs also asked Prof. Mason to evaluate damages
for the junior preferred stock holders based on a restitution theory under which Defendants would disgorge the net benefits they have received under the shareholder contracts, which would be unwound in their entirety. Plaintiffs would receive the present value as of August 2012 (the date of the Net Worth Sweep) of the sums initially paid for shares ("issuer-received cash flows"), and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would receive the present value as of the same date of dividends it paid since issuance ("purchaser-received cash flows"). Damages are equal to the issuer-received cash flows minus the purchaser-received cash flows, which amounts to $16.337 billion for owners of the Fannie Preferred prior to the application of prejudgment interest and $26.939 billion after the application of prejudgment interest, and S11.809 billion for owners of the Freddie Preferred prior to the application of prejudgment interest and $20.989 billion after the application of prejudgment interest.
3. Plaintiffs also seek reimbursement of attorneys' fees and expenses. Counsel will
present the Court with an application for attorneys' fees and costs after trial.
VIL.
PLAINTIFFS' ITEMIZATION OF DAMAGES
Plaintiffs claims total damages in the amounts as set forth below:
1. Plaintiffs seek expectancy damages arising from Defendants' breaches as a result of the Net Worth Sweep based on Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's realized performance up to the second quarter of 2021 and projected performance thereafter. This method seeks to measure the net present value of future dividends that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders would have earned but for the Net Worth Sweep based on Prof. Mason's conservative assumptions. Under this method of expectancy damages, assuming no periodic commitment fee, damages are $10.321billion for owners of the Fannie Mae Preferred, S5.887 billion for owners of the Freddie Mac Preferred, and $11.002 billion for owners of the Freddie Mac Common. In a scenario where the Court determines that a periodic commitment fee would have been imposed, damages are $9.357 billion for owners of the Fannie Mae Preferred, $5.337 billion for owners of the Freddie Preferred, and $9.288 billion for owners of the Freddie Mac Common.'
Ackman’s semi annual report
There have been no material updates for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2022. Both entities continue to build capital through retained earnings and now hold combined capital of $91 billion, up from nearly zero. As we have stated previously, as principally common shareholders (we own a small amount of preferred stock), we own valuable perpetual options on both entities that over the long term we believe will be worth many multiples of today’s prices once re-privatization occurs.
https://assets.pershingsquareholdings.com/2022/08/19172838/Pershing-Square-Holdings-Ltd.-June-2022-Interim.pdf
3. Pretrial Statements, which must include (i) all of the information and disclosures required under Local Rule 16.5(b), (ii) any stipulations of fact agreed upon or proposed by the Parties, and (iii) proposed voir dire questions, jury instructions and verdict forms, shall be filed by August 19, 2022;
4. The parties shall exchange electronic copies of the exhibits identified on their lists of exhibits, pre-marked with PX and DX numbers, by August 19, 2022
-Judge Lamberth
Not sure what PX & DX numbers means :)
Same three judges Cook, Gibbons, Thapar in Rop case delivered opinion yesterday for a case that was argued on 6/15. Rop was argued on 6/9, so any day……
Just sell if you feel there is dead end ahead for next 20 yrs in FnF. Whats stopping you. Few of us here will always be positive & optimistic.
Hamish Hume and his team has many yrs of experience in litigating against federal govt, this not the first time for them.
Lamberth has different set of ethics than any other judges we have seen so far.
Here is what we know about him…..
Yet it is also an example of the tenacity, creative boldness, courage, and willingness to challenge authority and convention that have marked the career of Royce C. Lamberth, chief U.S. district judge for the District of Columbia. In a public service ca- reer that has spanned the Army, the District of Columbia’s U.S. attorney’s office, and 20 years on the federal bench, Judge Lamberth has never been afraid to come under fire for what he thought was right.
A sense of integrity of maintaining consistent beliefs and conforming words and actions to them, of following through on commitments, and of refusing to compromise certain core principles has been apparent throughout Lamberth’s career.
Lamberth “believes every person whether it’s the president of the United States or an administrative clerk has a duty to serve the American people and do their duty as required under the law.”
Even though Lamberth’s scolding of government lawyers who show a lack of diligence or candor “may feel extremely cutting, and even derisive at times if you’re the recipient of his critique,” Leonnig observes, “if you’re the taxpayer or the employee or the everyday Joe whose life is affected by government policy or decision making, it would seem like the right standard.” For instance, for a decade, Lamberth prodded along the massive, lumbering Indian trust fund case, cementing his reputation as something of a maverick who demanded that government agencies live up to the standards of good faith and fair dealing that the public deserves. That case is finally inching its way toward resolution before another judge, and scores of Native Americans have expressed their gratitude to Judge Lamberth for taking the time to understand their story and for applying unrelenting pressure to see that justice was done.
Despite his success, he works just as much as his clerks do—if not more—and he admits that “there’s no substitute for hard work. I don’t think I ever did well for any reason other than that I worked hard.” While Lamberth is known in some quarters as quick to crack down on lawyers who don’t meet his expectations, Mark Nagle points out that “he is just as quick and generous with words of praise and words of recognition.” The judge’s clerks have seen his many sides, as has any lawyer who has practiced before him for long. Judge Lamberth’s natural impulse is to like people and to sympathize with them. He has a hearty, often irreverent, but always good-natured sense of humor, and when the guffaws start to ema- nate from his office, his clerks know that he is soon to burst out with another “Can you believe this?” story. They also know that, even though he tries, in his words, to “give each case my best shot and not worry about it after the fact,” Judge Lamberth sees and appreciates the human side of every case that comes before him—whether it involves high government officials, big-money litigation, or the individual men and women caught on the wrong side of D.C.’s drug trade.
That ability to focus on the practical reality of each case is a skill Lamberth honed over the course of many major cases with significant consequences. Judge John Sirica, the Watergate judge who also served as chief judge of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, once said that “a great intellectual doesn’t make a great trial judge. A man who’s been a trial lawyer is a better judge of human nature than Professor X at Harvard, who’s probably never been in the well of a courtroom. ... The important question is whether a judge is honest and does he have the courage of his convictions to do what is right at the moment.”
Royce Lamberth has faced many a tough moment ever since Vietnam, each time drawing on the courage of his convictions to do what is right without hesitation.
“Mr. Integrity”
Judge Lamberth was born in 1943 in San Antonio, Texas. His mother was a former teacher turned homemaker and his father was chief of the motor pool at Kelly Air Force Base, then the world’s larg- est air base. Lamberth grew up with a strong work ethic in high school he rose before dawn to work at a doughnut shop and he does not hesitate when asked to name a role model: “For role models, there’s my father. He was Mr. Integrity, and for me it was best to be that, to have everyone know you as Mr. Integrity.
Stephen B. Ashley @ManningNapier: the Jury by trial in judge Lamberth's court is set for Oct 17, 2022, hope you are aware the outcome is either YOU Breached or FHFA Breached “for acts or omissions not in good faith or which involve intentional misconduct” #fanniemae #freddiemac pic.twitter.com/dEImICpXKk
— Ano (@Ano3020100) August 17, 2022
On Saturday, August 18, 2012, the day after the “Net Worth Sweep” was announced, Jim Parrott, a senior White House official serving on the National Economic Council who was intimately involved in devising and implementing the Net Worth Sweep, sent an email with the subject “Great Job” to Under Secretary of Domestic Finance Mary Miller and other Treasury officials. This e-mail, and others recently unsealed, make it clear that FHFA was not acting as an independent agency under HERA’s reuuirement that: “When acting as conservator or receiver, the Agency shall not be subject to the direction or supervision of any other agency of the United States or any State in the exercise of the rights, powers, and privileges of the Agency.”v The email states: “You guys did a remarkable job on the PSPAs this week. You delivered on a policy change of enormous importance that’s actually being recognized as such by the outside world (or the reasonable parts anyway), and as a credit to the Secretary and the President. It was a very high risk exercise, which could have gone sideways on us any number of ways, but it didn't – great great work.”
Another internal e-mail from Mario Ugoletti (former Senior Advisor to the Director at FHFA, and previously a senior official at Treasury), clearly shows that Treasury – not FHFA – was clearly calling the shots:
“Close Hold: As a heads up, there appears to be a renewed push to move forward on PSPA amendments. I have not seen the proposed documents yet, but my understanding is that largely the same as previous versions we had reviewed in terms of net income sweep, eliminating the commitment fee, faster portfolio wind down, and a de minimis safe harbor for ordinary course transactions.”
Of course, this is simply confirmation of that which former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson articulated in his 2010 book On the Brink: “FHFA had been balky all along. That was a big problem because only FHFA had the statutory power to put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship. We had to convince its people that this was the right thing to do, while making sure to let them feel they were still in charge.”
Email correspondence transmitted by Jim Parrott also lays bare the motivation in implementing the Net Worth Sweep as to ensuring Fannie and Freddie would not be able to use their substantial profits to repay the government, rebuild capital, and return to normal business operations – all in direct opposition to the clear statutory requirements of HERA.
In what appears to be his first action on the day that the Net Worth Sweep was announced, Mr. Parrott emailed Peter Wallison of the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute to give him a “heads up” and coordinate messages. The email states: “Hey guys. If you’re interested, be glad to talk you through the changes we’re announcing on pspas today. Feel like fellow travelers at this point so I owe it to you. Just let me know and suggest a few times. I’m also looping in Tim [Bowler], who runs the capital markets show over at [Treasury] and is more adept at the mechanics should we want to go there.”ix
Later that day, in a separate email, Mr. Parrott states that Wallison’s comments to Bloomberg News about the Net Worth Sweep were “exactly right on substance and intent.”x The comments to which Mr. Parrott appears to refer are Mr. Wallison in a Bloomberg News article: “The most significant issue here is whether Fannie and Freddie will come back to life because their profits will enable them to re-capitalize themselves and then it will look as though it is feasible for them to return as private companies backed by the government . . . What the Treasury Department seems to be doing here, and I think it’s a really good idea, is to deprive them of all their capital so that doesn’t happen.”xi In other emails sent around the same time, Parrott said that under the Net Worth Sweep, the “Dividend is variable, set at whatever profit for quarter is, eliminating ability to pay down principal (so they can’t repay their debt and escape as it were).”xii Parrott also indicated that the aim of the Net Worth Sweep was “ensuring that [the Companies] can’t recapitalize” by “clos[ing] off the possibility that they ever go ... private again.”
In yet another email exchange, Parrott notes that “all the investors will get this very quickly” in response to a message from Mary Goodman, a managing director at James Caird Asset Management (and a former Senior Advisor to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner who later served as Special Assistant to the President for Financial Markets at the National Economic Council), who stated that the Net Worth Sweep “should lay to rest permanently the idea that the outstanding privately held pref will ever get turned back on.
The day before the announcement of the Third Amendment, an internal Treasury document makes clear that the Administration’s goal was tied to its willingness to violate HERA and “desire to wind down the GSEs as quickly as possible ... by taking all of their profits going forward, we are making clear that the GSEs will not ever be allowed to return to profitable entities at the center of our housing finance system.”
Keenly aware that the GSEs would be profitable and able to pay the 10% dividend required by the original PSPA, Treasury misled the public and the judiciary when it asserted that the key reason for imposing the Net Worth Sweep on August 17, 2012, was to “end the circular practice of advancing funds to the GSEs simply to have them pay dividends back to Treasury”.
As we have shown previously, financial projections possessed by Treasury and FHFA just prior to the Net Worth Sweep showed that both agencies were well aware that the GSEs were on the verge of massive profitability. We now know that Treasury, and the government’s lawyers, passed off old projections to the District Court as if they had come from the time of the Net Worth Sweep. Such actions are very troubling, as demonstrated by another recent case in which the federal government, as defendant, knowingly misled a federal court.
Treasury and FHFA contend that the Third Amendment was necessary because the GSEs would not be able to meet the 10% dividend required under the prior PSPA terms. Yet even the stale Grant Thornton projections – which did not account for improvements in the housing market that occurred after September 2011 – show that Fannie would be able to pay a 10% cash dividend on Treasury’s investment until 2026 and that Freddie would be able to pay its dividend in cash until 2039. Even so, Treasury’s stated concern about the ability of the companies to make dividend payments is spurious as, prior to the Net Worth Sweep, the Companies maintained the option to pay Treasury its dividends “in kind” at a 12% rate rather than the 10% cash rate. This “PIK” would increase the Treasury’s liquidation preference and could be paid with additional preferred stock to the extent that they could not afford to pay the dividends in cash. Recently unsealed documents repeatedly acknowledge this fact.
Govt tried their best to keep those docs secret under various privileges we all know. Now nyt, wsj, everybody will see those docs, can they afford that right before midterms? I don’t think so. Two more months and we will see about $20 in dividend alone since 2013 imo. Recap & release is just around the corner. Time for release of roadmap that MS, JPM and Houlihan has been working on, last two yrs.
I don’t think govt will go thru trial open to public with all those sealed docs made public and shown to jury and audience in the court room, they will very likely settle before Oct 17.
The Collins Plaintiffs filed their response opposing the government's motion to dismiss the amended complaint before Judge Ellison. The Collins Plaintiffs argue their constitutional claims should not be dismissed, are adequately pled, and should proceed to determine the appropriate remedy.
This type of opportunity comes once in a lifetime, and Ackman certainly knows how to take advantage of them and make billions of dollars.
https://medium.datadriveninvestor.com/bill-ackmans-greatest-trade-408360030b09
Let’s see how many billions he makes in FnF
Its time to bury their lies with evidence
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/opinion/nocera-the-big-lie.html
Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request a 7 day extension for their opposition brief—from August 17, 2022, to August 24, 2022, and an enlargement of Plaintiffs’ time for filing a reply by 2 days—from August 31, 2022, to September 2, 2022.
The Plaintiffs’ Motion involves a significant number of documents and raises multiple evidentiary and related issues. Moreover, a large number of parties and counsel must coordinate in connection with the briefing
The Class Plaintiffs and Fairholme want Judge Lamberth to extend one of the pre-trial briefing deadlines by one week. The filing indicates the Class Plaintiffs' Aug. 3 filing under seal was a request to allow certain evidence to be used at trial which the government is presumably saying is hearsay.
Plaintiff Joshua J. Angel is a resident of New York, and owns Junior Preferred Shares of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in amount in excess of $1 million face amount.
Plaintiffs have directed claims under the Tucker Act that are worth more than $55 billion. Plaintiff’s claims emanate from Treasury Agency unauthorized taking for itself of approximately $20 billion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac funds which by law should have remained with the companies, and Treasury breach of its contractual guaranty of GSE Junior Preferred share payments, and concurrently rendering $33 billion of Junior Preferred shares (i.e., par value) as permanently impaired and otherwise immediately redeemable as damages, at either termination of this action, or the conservatorship.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court:
A. Determining that this action is a proper class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, appointing Plaintiff as Class representative and Plaintiff’s counsel as Class counsel;
B. Award $20 billion in compensatory damages under Counts I and II to the Class against Treasury;
C. Award $55 billion in compensatory damages under Count III to the Class against Treasury;
D. Award prejudgment and post-judgment interest on those compensatory damages;
E. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees (based on a percentage of not less than 2% of the awarded damages) and costs; and
F. Order such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
Mr. Angel filed a fresh complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Monday. This new lawsuit against the government has been assigned to Judge Sweeney. The current deadline for the government to answer or otherwise respond is Fri., Oct. 7.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court:
A. Determining that this action is a proper class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, appointing Plaintiff as Class representative and Plaintiff’s counsel as Class counsel;
B. Award $20 billion in compensatory damages under Counts I and II to the Class against Treasury;
C. Award $55 billion in compensatory damages under Count III to the Class against Treasury;
D. Award prejudgment and post-judgment interest on those compensatory damages;
E. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees (based on a percentage of not less than 2% of the awarded damages) and costs; and
F. Order such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
Mr. Angel filed a fresh complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Monday. This new lawsuit against the government has been assigned to Judge Sweeney. The current deadline for the government to answer or otherwise respond is Fri., Oct. 7.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court:
A. Determining that this action is a proper class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, appointing Plaintiff as Class representative and Plaintiff’s counsel as Class counsel;
B. Award $20 billion in compensatory damages under Counts I and II to the Class against Treasury;
C. Award $55 billion in compensatory damages under Count III to the Class against Treasury;
D. Award prejudgment and post-judgment interest on those compensatory damages;
E. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees (based on a percentage of not less than 2% of the awarded damages) and costs; and
F. Order such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
Mr. Angel filed a fresh complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Monday. This new lawsuit against the government has been assigned to Judge Sweeney. The current deadline for the government to answer or otherwise respond is Fri., Oct. 7.
Totally agree, there will be financial experts who will be called, who will calculate the damages and over payments to UST.
Plus it’s class action so we all will be rewarded not just the plaintiffs.
Jury will make huge difference in Lamberth court this time imo.
And jury can’t decide if those docs are not unsealed for them. After all it’s question of $150B, the most criminal theft in nation’s history. Hamish Hume will layout in detail for them to understand what Govt said in 2008 and what they did in 2012 when sun was shinning and Cos about see 8 golden yrs of profit ahead.
We haven’t seen even 1% of about 75k docs/700k pages of still sealed docs received by plaintiffs lawyers, so it’s like tsunami coming for the govt. I expect Yellen and her legal team loosing sleep these days wondering how can they escape in Lamberth court in front of jury. It’s hard to imagine whose names would be in those 99% docs and what they wrote to each other before cship and nws.
The new phrase of Mel Watt for ST now would be like, “I do lay awake thinking about whats good for shareholders”
Sixth circuit opinions after oral arguments
6mo
3mo
3mo
5days
1mo 18d
3mo 6d
3mo 6d
1mo 11d
3mo less 2d
3mo 7d
Ok trial will be postponed to 2032 so lawyers make more money in fees than from judgement, and shares will trade at 2 cents until that delayed trial date, does that make you happy?
Lawyers hired are much smarter than anybody here, its sad it took them 9 yrs to go thru discovery, depos & other stuff. But finally they are at trial level so real game starts now imo.
Jury 3 days ago awarded $45M to plaintiffs from defendant who lied under oath in court room as punitive damages plus additional compensatory damages in TX.
As common shareholders, we own valuable perpetual options on both entities that we believe will be worth many multiples of today’s prices once re-privatization occurs.
-Bill, 2021 annual report
Imo many will soon learn who Ackman is and what Pershing Sq does for other shareholders. By that time FnF won’t be value investment anymore so they will have to eagerly wait for his another multi bagger investment.
It will be game changer for all other cases, will prompt settlement in very short time. Lamberth imo will help us cross $20, let’s keep our eyes on that finish line which seems very close to me.
“It seems that some Government officials never learn that the cover-up can be worse than the underlying conduct. Most shocking to this court, and deeply disappointing, is that the Department of Justice would participate in such conduct.''
Go judge Lamberth, get us the dividend owed plus damages from cover up of Fanniegate
Two more weeks, fireworks already ordered….bring it Judge Lamberth lets show the world what happens when you lie to a Reagan picked federal judge who wants to be known as Mr Integrity just like his father.
When Judge Ginsburg described the government’s decision to take the net worth sweep, the terms he used were not exactly flattering.
“When the third amendment was announced, Treasury said we’re going to wind this thing down, we going to kill it, we’re going to drive a stake through its heart, we’re going to salt the earth so it can never grow back,” the judge said.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-MBB-48673