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.
Thanks Obit! Just logged on again.
You are welcome.
Oh no, “there will be blood,” but I sort of suspected that would be the case.
We are flies on the wall watching the events unfold. The future outcome is uncertain.
Too bad this current one could not finish the job with the GSEs.
A legally binding consent order can be made before January 20, 2021.
As mentioned previously:
As may be known, both GSEs operated under consent orders in the past. Freddie Mac operated under a consent order issued by OFHEO on December 9, 2003, that required Freddie Mac to implement recommended corporate governance practices and other remedial steps (https://bit.ly/2VJguiy). Fannie operated under a consent order issued by OFHEO on May 23, 2006 that required the Board of Directors and senior management to take steps to improve corporate governance, establish policies and procedures to ensure appropriate oversight, follow a OFHEO capital restoration plan, limit mortgage portfolio assets as directed, follow new personnel compensation rules, and a host of other matters (https://bit.ly/2q7m2rg).
See: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151705104
A FHFA consent order can be written and executed. If there will be a new administration, Calabria and Mnuchin need to make up their minds and do so before January 20. Where there is a will there is a way. No will, no way. A result or lack of a result will be seen over the next month and 3/4 or so.
Nice to hear from you Obit,
A pleasure to serve.
Do you have any thoughts on why Mnuchin is taking back the $455B from the fed designated for Covid relief.
He does it because he and the executive administration can.
He says there are better ways to use this money.
Mnuchin says "Congress can make better use of the money by re-allocating it toward small-business grants and extended unemployment assistance." Mnuchin argues that "the decision will allow Congress to re-appropriate $455 billion to other coronavirus programs."
Can he spend it without congress approval?
No.
Could he capitalize the GSE’s?
Mnuchin alone? No.
Source:
https://apnews.com/article/steven-mnuchin-deny-hindering-joe-biden-bca2ddfe1e3fa5452ad2dc0e78bf7373
There was a final capital ruling yesterday by FHFA. Do you see this as a step in the right direction?
The beginning of that step in the "right direction" occurred some time ago and the step is now a footfall. Still more to go regarding the GSE capital rule (https://www.fhfa.gov/SupervisionRegulation/Rules/Pages/Enterprise-Regulatory-Capital-Framework-Final-Rule.aspx) and the accumulation of a combined GSE capital buffer of $283 billion.
The ruling may not even have any meaning when there is another president that will be in office. I’m not too sure.
To have meaning beyond words on paper, the rule must be enacted now by the GSEs along with an FHFA consent order guiding the exit from the conservatorships.
More than anything I just wanted to know your general thoughts regarding the stock. You tend to give a clearer picture of events when they transpire, despite all the moving parts. I know it gets hit when the general market is uncertain or under pressure and does not rebound until some good specific news.
That is correct. Instead of business fundamentals and actual economic climate playing key roles, political and economic uncertainty and positive and negative news cycles and reports greatly determine trading patterns and share price. If a Democrat executive administration is installed there will be blood.
We have not heard from you lately obit. Any thoughts on the latest developments?
Not sure basesloaded what is being referred to when writing "the latest developments." Please specify what latest developments are in mind.
I don't think its because of anything special. In my opinion this was way oversold like the rest of the market this will go back to where it was 12 days ago and even more if any favorable court news comes our way.
FYI- About the virus its nothing to worry about just like the yearly Winter flu in the USA that we have every year except it does attack the respiratory system more aggressively.. and if you have underlying health issues … Its being hyped because of the Trump Effect .
Think about this..The yearly flu KILLS ON AVERAGE 68,000 PEOPLE IN THE USA every year is accepted.. Why are they blowing this up???
Here are CDC stats on influenza and the coronavirus in the US
INFLUENZA IN THE US
"The latest FluView surveillance from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that as of January 18, 2020, there have been 15 million cases of flu, 140,000 hospitalizations, and 8200 deaths in the US this influenza season."
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm
US INFLUENZA DISEASE BURDEN
“CDC estimates that influenza has resulted in between 9 million – 45 million illnesses, between 140,000 – 810,000 hospitalizations and between 12,000 – 61,000 deaths annually since 2010.”
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html
CORONAVIRUS IN THE US
91 cases in the US with 2 deaths since January 21, 2020.
Travel-related - 17 cases
Person-to-person spread - 26 cases
Repatriations from Wuhan, China - 3
Diamond Princess cruise ship - 45 cases
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-in-us.html
You are welcome FFFacts.
Interesting court ruling on the appointments clause and ultra vires conduct. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.210960/gov.uscourts.dcd.210960.34.0.pdf
Does it have any weight on any of the current cases with FHFA and it's previous director demarco?
The question above address this issue: Was Edward DeMarco lawfully appointed to serve as the acting Director of FHFA, and if not, must the NWS be set aside under the Appointments Clause (US Constitution, Article II, § 2, Clause 2), The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (5 U.S.C. § 3348(d)(1)), the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A)), and as ultra vires?
The relevance to GSE cases depends on allegations and legal arguments made.
For example, the Plaintiffs in Bhatti et. al. v. FHFA et. al. alleged, in part, that "Mr. DeMarco’s service as the acting Director of FHFA for more than two years without Senate confirmation or appointment under the Recess appointments Clause violated the Constitution and requires vacatur of the Net Worth Sweep."
This allegation was decided negatively and the case was dismissed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz in the United States District Court, District of Minnesota. See: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mnd-0_17-cv-02185/pdf/USCOURTS-mnd-0_17-cv-02185-0.pdf pp. 21-35.
The Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. Briefs were submitted and oral arguments were given on October 15, 2019. A final decision is pending. See: http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/18-2506-4701599.pdf and https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/65849/atif-bhatti-v-federal-housing-finance-agency/
If there is any additional legal relevance found in the March 1, 2020 L.M.-M., et al., v. KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI II decision, a notice of supplemental authority will be filed by Bhatti et. al. with the United States Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit and the same submission can be filed by other Plaintiffs if relevant to their respective cases.
L.M.-M., et al., v. KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI II decision is, at best, a supplementary citation that can be used in asking for retrospective relief.
Direct vs. Derivative - How to Tell the Difference
"Direct" claims are based on legal rights that belong to the individual shareholder. The plaintiff shareholder brings his own claim in his own name to vindicate the violation of legal duties to himself and seeking a legal remedy for his own benefit. "Derivative" claims are very different. The cause of action in a derivative claim belongs to the corporation, not the shareholder. The shareholder asserts the cause of action in a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation, as a sort of legal representative or "next friend," because the management of the corporation refuses to do so. The legal duties in a derivative claim are duties that are owed to the corporation, not the shareholder, and the legal remedy that the court awards is for the benefit of the corporation, not the individual shareholder. While the shareholder is the named plaintiff in a derivative action and the corporation is named as a nominal defendant, the corporation is the true plaintiff, and the shareholder as the representative of the plaintiff owes fiduciary duties to the corporation and to the shareholders collectively in conducting the lawsuit.
Hope the above helps.
It adds pertinent additional information such as shareholder rights, true plaintiff, and nominal defendant.
The source of the above content has additional information.
See: https://www.shareholderoppression.com/derivative-claims
Sweeney WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Obit, do you concur with my view?
Not sure what the view is. What is the win?
Im not completely sure the difference between "derivitave" and "direct".
In these cases, shareholders as plaintiffs can file direct claims or derivative claims against defendants (US, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc).
A direct claim asserts that such defendants directly harmed the shareholders by the defendants violating their fiduciary duties. The direct claim seeks to obtain damages for the harm that was suffered by shareholders. If the direct claim suit is successful, the proceeds go to the shareholders or class of shareholders (class action) filing the suit.
A derivative claim asserts that defendants harmed the corporation, not the shareholder. Unlike a direct claim, a derivative claim belongs to the corporation. That is if the defendants harmed the corporation, the corporation would bring the suit against the defendants (e.g. Fannie Mae vs. FHFA), However, if the corporations (Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac) are unwilling or unable to do file a suit, a derivative suit can be brought by a current shareholder on behalf of the corporation as a representative of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In this case, derivative claims were raised because of indications of statutory violations, fraud, self-dealing, mismanagement, dishonesty, etc., which were not publicly considered or handled by Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's corporate officers and the Board of Directors.
If the derivative claim suit is successful, the proceeds go to the corporation, not to the shareholder(s) filing the suit or any other shareholders.
You are welcome ZZ Fannie.
You are correct chessmaster315. It is a typo. December 6, 2019 is the correct date for the Sweeney sealed order (https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2013cv0465-449-0).
December 6, 2020 is incorrect.
You are welcome action8101, Double Black Diamond, bradford86,
10bambam, Lotto65.
Notes on the upcoming interlocutory appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Origin of the Interlocutory Appeal - Judge Sweeney
In anticipation of disagreements with her rulings by one or both parties, Judge Sweeney suggested during the recent oral arguments that next steps after her ruling would be the certification of questions of law to be filed with the Federal Circuit in order to receive guidance for further proceedings.
Thanks for the great conversation. Much liked.
You are welcome. It was a conversation and it explored legal issues not usually discussed concerning the GSEs. A pleasure.
Your attention to detail is appreciated.
An inherent predilection present from youthful days spent collecting categorizing and examining minerals, rocks, insects, amphibians, reptiles, tropical fish, mammals to the present and continuous exploration of the humanities and the practical pursuits of the law, social science, and neuroscience.
Missed that quote regarding efficiency. And sometimes I tend to be hyperbolic (more than half =28%). Good Call
It happens...
Thanks for the article obit.
You are welcome Barron4664.
A good read. The article does not address Congress’s rationale for creating the new court of claims at all.
It does so in fact address succinctly the specific purposes and rationale for upgrading the status, jurisdiction and procedures of the old Court of Claims which was done in the context of establishing the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
See p. 389 and notes 24 to 28 and pages 400-407 in The Federal Courts Improvement Act: a Practitioner's Perspective.
For example:
Thanks Obit,
You are welcome Barron4664.
everything you say seems well and ok and probably is but at the same time none of what you said will remove “the appearance of a conflict of interest” of the executive branch adjudicating the executive branch on issues of money damages. At least it doesnt to my perception.
In empirical actuality, in the US, neither the executive branch nor the legislative branches of government perform the constitutionally prescribed duties of Article I and Article III courts. The President and the administration and agency personnel under his aegis and the members of the Senate and House do not materially sit in courts on benches interpreting existing law and the Constitution and adjudicating cases.
Nevertheless, the President and his administrative personnel select and nominate both Article I and Article III judges and the US Senate confirms (or not) the appointments made. In doing this constitutionally directed action of appointment and confirmation, the President and a Senate majority install judges that suit their political and judicial preferences, ideologies, interests, values and standards. There is nothing random or neutral in this process of installing hundreds of judges.
The justices and judges of the Federal US Supreme Court, Appellate, District, Tax and Bankruptcy Courts to the specialized Article I and military courts are human. Being human they will inexorably lean towards personal political and judicial preferences, ideologies, interests, values, standards and loyalities. Presidents and their administrations and Senate members know this, as the Founding Fathers knew well, and select those who will dance to the same music. Over time the political and ideological leanings of the US Court System shift according to political party power dynamics.
The appearance of a conflict of interest is perceived in courts because such conflict is built into the US Constitution that tries to balance the power that is situated in each branch of government through the separation of powers. However, the US Constitution as statute and the separation of powers it designs is not perfect and the powers of each branch will bleed into and influence one another through changing human conditions and choices.
For example, see how the 5th Circuit was shaped with the inevitable change in the appearance of a conflict of interest for parties on the opposing side of the Circuit's majority's predilections. FHFA was on the opposing side of the en banc since the en banc "served" Plaintiffs Collins et. al. claims better than any other court: https://www.texastribune.org/2018/08/30/under-trump-5th-circuit-becoming-even-more-conservative/
Is this not also the appearance of a conflict of interest?
So, it can be asked:
Does a conflict of interest appear as a perception only when a court courts rule against one's claim?
Does a conflict of interest not appear when the court rules in favor of one's claim?
The US Supreme Court is unavoidably human:. See how the SCOTUS changes ideologically over time here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Graph_of_Martin-Quinn_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1937-Now.png.
Of course, the appearance of conflicts of interests are brought up when SCOTUS leans more Conservative than Liberal or Liberal than Conservative and decisions do not resonate with favored positions and desired outcomes.
But maybe avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest doesnt apply.
It cannot be avoided since it is organic to US Constitution's process of appointment and confirmation that unavoidably is carried out in accordance with the political and judicial preferences, ideologies, interests, values, and standards of the selectors, confirmers, and appointees.
Interestingly lots of mainstream news this morning on how the constitution replaces the vice president with the chief justice for senate impeachment to avoid conflict of interest. But no one can agree what happens in a 50-50 tie.
That is partially because of an unresolved debate concerning tie breaking votes cast by Chief Justice Chase during President Johnson's impeachment trial see 40-42 - PROCEDURE AND GUIDELINES FOR
IMPEACHMENT TRIALS IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-99sdoc33/pdf/CDOC-99sdoc33.pdf Since there are no certain rules governing the Presiding Officer's vote in breaking a tie, there is unnecessary confusion in media reports due to the inability to deal with nuance and uncertainty.
However, the House Managers, Trump's defense team and Senate members when faced with a 50-50 tie for whatever impeachment article, rule, or issue, Chief Justice Roberts may or may not vote to break the tie. It is his decision to do so or not. In the procedural rules and guidelines, there is no mandate or rule that the Presiding Officer (Chief Justice Roberts) cannot vote or must vote in the case of a tie. If he does vote, his vote can be challenged by Senate members. If the Presiding Officer refrains from voting, the tie will be decided in the negative.
I wouldnt know how to answer your question as I am not versed enough in the rules of civil procedure.
How about the level of understanding of case management and judicial discretion?
Could you answer your question?
Yes.
I will note that none of the courts addressed whether or not an article I Judge is less independent than an Article III Judge and whether or not that has any bearing on hearing a Tucker Act complaint. And as you say that was the main contention of Mr. Sammons.
That is so, and this is one reason the question was raised here.
Mr. Sammons was keen on having his complaint heard in an Article III court, where he believed the judges are more independent than Article I judges. On that account, Mr. Sammons resisted the jurisdictional direction given in the Tucker Act to put his case in the US Court of Federal Claims. Mr. Sammons did not present a cogent argument about judicial independence and a possible differential treatment of his complaint if handled in different courts by different typed judges. He simply asserted it without demonstration. Judicial discretion and judicial independence were not central issues that were argued and demonstrated in any of the courts. Thus, the courts and the oppositional party had little to say about it. It was an unsupported assertion presented with little persuasive merit.
Too bad no judges would give an opinion.
There was no substantial issue of that kind on which to present an opinion.
I wonder what the rationale was for Congress changing the Court.
That information is readily available. For example, The Federal Courts Improvement Act: a Practitioner's Perspective - https://bit.ly/2uRRbkM
My gut tells me that an Article 1 judge is less dependent and likely to side with the government due to the lack of tenure. Just the nature of being human.In my non lawyer view it has the appearance of a conflict of interest to have a term limited judge under the executive branch hear and render opinions on fifth amendment takings claims against actions from the executive branch.
How does being less dependent (is it meant here more dependent?) and having a lack of tenure lead to siding with the government?
Article I judges have 1) 15 years terms, 2) removal only for incompetency, misconduct, neglect of duty, engaging in the practice of law, or physical or mental disability, 3) reappointment opportunities, 4) lucrative retirement options and 5) senior judge statuses that would seem to give a great deal of independence from President and legislative influence as long as Article I judges behave themselves in office.
Article III judges appear to have greater insulation from the executive and legislative branches influence since they can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. Article III judges also serve until they die, retire, or are convicted by the Senate.
However, siding with the government may be more due to personal ideological preference, predilection, prejudice and bias that operates in decisions made regardless of Article I or Article III status. Consider the recorded judicial activism of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the lone support of the 5th Circuit en banc against 4617(f) and the seeming support of government arguments made over plaintiffs in most GSE cases.
See:
Bias and Judging
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/msen/files/bias-judging-arps.pdf
Well the answer to your question is obvious and speaks to the thread I was interjecting in.
Here is the question again. Please try to answer as stated:
As always this is just my opinion. I feel that Judge Sweeny’s opinion in the Sammons case when she was directed by the Appeals Court to address Sammons Claim seemed to be an argument for protecting her jurisdiction rather than addressing whether or not an Article I tribunal created in the 1980s to handle 5th ammendment claims is constitutional. This opinion should have been addressed by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. They remanded the question back to Sweeny to address. Seems no one wants to address the Constitutional Issue at hand that Congress created in their so called reform. Why would this argument even be addressed by her? Seems a conflict of interest.
Before addressing the arguments made in Michael Sammons, a question for you.
Being familiar with the Sammons case, from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to the SCOTUS denial of the Sammons petition for writ of certiorari, and the arguments presented therein, a question remained unanswered. Perhaps, you have an answer.
What differences in procedural steps, case management, and judicial discretion would there be or could there be between an Article I judge in the US Court of Federal Claims and Article III judge in the Federal Judiciary adjudicating Sammons' complaint involving a 5th amendment takings claim seeking $900,000 in just compensation?
In this court (claims) can a judge "sort of retire" and then come back for cases
Yes.
28 USC § 178 (d) and (e)
Wow
This is not good news
Thinking of most of the logical possibilities, perhaps it is not good news or perhaps it is good news or perhaps it is both good and not good news or perhaps it is neither good news nor not good news. Since no outcome has occurred, how is one to know for certain which possibility is more probable than another?
What will happen to the cases she has in court concerning the GSEs if this goes past 12/14/20?
The case will continue towards adjudication whether or not Judge Sweeney is reappointed by the winner of the 2020 election or replaced by a new Chief Judge designated by the winner of the 2020 election or continues on as a Senior Judge in retirement.
New judge who has to review everything all over again?
Sweeney knows these cases.
Yes. A newly designated Chief Judge who may replace Chief Judge Sweeney or a currently sitting Judge may have to review everything from the beginning if there is an order reassigning the case under Rule 40.1 - Assigning and Transferring Cases - https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CFC%20Rules%2007.10.2019_1.pdf
What will happen cannot be precisely known with certainty at this moment.
Judges in the CFC court have term limits of 15 years.
Yes.
Sweeney will have been a Judge and a Chief Judge for 15 years in the CFC sometime this year as her original appointment was in 2005.
Yes. Judge Sweeney's 15-year appointment as a CFC Judge occurred when Sweeney was confirmed by the Senate on December 14, 2005 and she entered directly into her duties. President Trump designated her as Chief Judge on July 12, 2018. Chief Judge Sweeney's term expires around December 14, 2020. Chief Judge Sweeney is currently 64-65 years old.
Chief Judge Sweeney replaced Chief Judge Susan G. Braden who was appointed to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims by President George W. Bush on July 14, 2003 and appointed chief judge by President Trump on March 13, 2017. Braden's Term ended on July 12, 2018, 15 years after her 2003 appointment. She became a Senior Judge of the US Court of Federal Claims on July 13, 2018. Braden will be 70 years old on November 8, 2020
Does she need to be reappointed when her term is over by the President and consent by senate?
No, Judge Sweeney does not need to be reappointed. Chief Judge Sweeney can be replaced as she replaced Chief Judge Braden. So, a replacement can be designated or a reappointment can be made by the winner of the 2020 presidential election in accordance with the provisions of 28 USC Chapter 7. 28 U.S. Code CHAPTER 7—UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-I/chapter-7
Or can she just become a Senior Judge
Yes, as did Chief Judge Braden. Or retire (28 USC 178)
and/or remain a Chief Judge after her term expires
Only if Chief Judge Sweeney is reappointed and only until she reaches 70 years in age (28 USC Section 171(b) and Section 178(b)).
but she cannot be a regular Judge?
Not sure what is meant by a regular judge.
Thanks justradin.
You are welcome.
Listening at ~5:20 min into Thompson’s briefing he says they believe it is “likely the plaintiff’s will prevail and the CFPB will be invalidated” (paraphrasing) meaning Seila Law will win and the CFPB will be invalidated.
That is what I heard.
Here is what was said:
Judge Atlas will most likely be entertaining a motion for summary judgement against the gov this summer as there is no stay pending SCOTUS’ Seila v CFPB decision in the SDoT. Sweeney at end of 2020 or beginning of 2021. November election. Many reasons to settle so the government can proceed on its timeline to end the insanity. End the liquidation pref, end the NWS, and negotiate warrants like all other baillout recipients.
Yes, per Thompson's report. - https://investorsunite.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/1-24-IU-Teleconference-Audio.mp3
Allow FnF to determine how best to recapitalize to meet standards.
A message for Calabria and Mnuchin.
The gov needs to follow the rule of law and get FnF off their books to prepare for another severe economic downturn. Plus, Trump and Ackman are buds.
No worries here since Fannie and Freddie are not on the US government's books.
did Thompson say he likes Seila’s chances in Seila vs CFPB in front of SCOTUS? CFPB isn’t going to defend the single director structure.
No. Just possiblities, beliefs and speculations. https://investorsunite.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/1-24-IU-Teleconference-Audio.mp3
Any thoughts on the above?
No. Time will tell.
It's about the same NYSE or NASDAQ at $ 2 PS or more Listing or Relisting Possible.
What does this mean?
You are welcome Fully Diluted.
I think Rosner is wrong here: The stock price requirements for NYSE listing are not $4 a share, as he says. According to an official NYSE document the minimum price can even be $2 a share, see Standard 3:
https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/listing/NYSE_MKT_Listing_Standards.pdf
Therefore, there is no need for a reverse split.
It would be best if you call the NYSE to clarify this.
The link provided is not to the NYSE (New York Stock Exchange) initial listing chart. That link refers to the NYSE American LLC, formerly known as the American Stock Exchange (AMEX) and NYSE MKT.
The NYSE initial listing chart is found here:
https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/listing/NYSE_Initial_Listing_Standards_Summary.pdf
The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) Manual is found here:
https://bit.ly/2mdn8ji
I think Rosner is wrong here: The stock price requirements for NYSE listing are not $4 a share, as he says. According to an official NYSE document the minimum price can even be $2 a share, see Standard 3:
https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/listing/NYSE_MKT_Listing_Standards.pdf
Therefore, there is no need for a reverse split.
It would be best if you call the NYSE to clarify this.
To relist to a major exchange (i.e. NYSE) The GSEs must be able to return to compliance by fulfilling the rules and standards given by the major exchange.
NYSE
Rule 103B. Security Allocation and Reallocation
VI. POLICY NOTES
(B) Relistings
Relistings are treated as new listings and will be allocated through the allocation process pursuant to Exchange Rule 103B, Section III. If the relisting chooses to have its DMM unit selected by the Exchange pursuant to NYSE Rule 103B, Section III(B), and requests not to be allocated to its former DMM unit, such request will be honored. DMM units that are ineligible to receive a new allocation due to its failure to meet the requirements of NYSE Rule 103B, Section II(D) and (E) will remain eligible to receive an allocation pursuant to this section. - Exchange Rule 103B - https://bit.ly/2miW2rj
Here is the NYSE listing process:
https://bit.ly/2mdn8ji
Note: DMM - Designated Market Maker - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/designated-market-maker-dmm.asp
Source:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151169535
Thank you so much.
You are welcome.
Another question, as a shareholder yourself in your opinion would you make a claim?
If the notice is legitimate and was qualified as a settlement class member, a claim would be made.
Is it worth it the time and $$$ to do it??
Don't know. Not a class settlement member. Did not research.
Yes, providing the ss# and info isn't it risky??
If the offer is illegitimate and merely phishing, it would be extremely risky. Caveat emptor.
I only bought commons, FNMA, FMCC AND THE PREFERREDS FNMAS, FMCKJ NOT the bonds though; why would they send me such the letter?
From the site:
THANK YOU FOR YOUR INSIGHTS;
You are welcome.
CAN YOU PLEASE ADVISE THAT WE AS SHAREHOLDERS OF COMMON AND PREFERRED SHOULD MAKE A CLAIM FOR THE GSE LITIGATION ?
Advisement and recommendation are not given in this matter. Just general information.
Generally, if a person qualifies as a member of the stated settlement class and is not excluded as defined, then a claim can be made. There is no mandate to make a claim.
It would be prudent to first accurately determine if one is a member of a settlement class before filing a claim and to have the assurance through own research that such a filing is not a scam or phishing. A great deal of private information must be submitted with the claim.
Concerning the GSE Bond Litigation, one can read carefully the long-form notice found at http://www.gsebondantitrustsettlement.com/FileDownload.aspx?FileID=6366.
A phone number and an email address is given where this information may also be found. Questions can be asked.
The phone number was called but there is an automated run around back to the online site or if one presses 4 after answering begins to speak to the settlement administrator, a request to leave a message is made.
Settlement Administrator:
Mailing Address:
GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173084
Milwaukee, WI 53217
877-317-7944
info@GSEBondAntitrustSEttlement.com
The law offices of co-counsel for the litigation are another option.
Christopher M. Burke
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619-233-4565
cburke@scott-scott.com
Vincent Briganti
Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 733-7221
vbriganti@lowey.com
With all due respect, this makes no sense. Remember, the bondholders were not damaged...Bondholders got their applicable interest rate(s) as well as the bond principal returned.
The GSE's paid out as insurance claims, to the bondholder, in the event the borrower defaulted on the applicable mortgage. So, the bondholder suffered no financial "injury".
The "injured party" was the shareholders, not the bondholders.
AGAIN, bondholders lost no money, instead the toxic loans were dumped on FNMA and the applicable losses ultimately were paid for out of shareholder earnings pockets.
The bondholders were not "injured", instead, the FNMA shareholders bore the blunt of bondholder manipulations as FNMA was the "insurance company".
Fnma does not MAKE loans, we insure the loans against default, with the premiums paid by the mortgage borrower.
The settlement class's property and business were damaged.
I concur with substantially all of your writings on this matter. My only disagreement was with the below.
To get a listing on the NYSE, a corporation needs at least 400 round-lot holders, or stockholders with 100 shares apiece. The company must have at least 1.1 million outstanding shares worth $40 million or more, and a price-per-share can be no lower than $4.
https://finance.zacks.com/new-york-stock-exchange-listing-delisting-requirements-7504.html
Please see this link for complete NYSE listing requirements: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151169535
Do you have an opinion on "The GSE BOND TRUST Settlement" letter that many of us have received?
No.
My letter says, "In re: GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation Settlemen".
The letter says its a "Court approveed Notice". and the address is Milwaukee Wi.
See: In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation (1:19-cv-01704) - District Court, S.D. New York
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14573344/in-re-gse-bonds-antitrust-litigation/ - there are three pages of document listings.
My question is in regard to the bonds. It would appear the Bondholders were not harmed, but rather the shareholders.
This is a class action suit concerning GSE bond transactions.
In previous settlements, the money (apparently) wound up in the USTreasury, as dividends, because of the net worth sweep.
Its curious as I have never owned "GSE BONDS", so I am guessing that this settlement applies to at least some shareholders who owned shares at a specific period of time.
No. The settlement class is:
All persons and entities who or which entered into a GSE Bond Transaction with one or more Defendants or a direct or indirect parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or division of a Defendant during the Settlement Class Period.
Not in the settlement class:
You are not included in the Settlement Class if you are a Defendant or a direct or indirect parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or division of a Defendant. In addition, all federal government entities and any judicial officer presiding over this Action and the members of his or her immediate family and judicial staff and any juror assigned to this Action are excluded from the Settlement Class. - http://www.gsebondantitrustsettlement.com/
Glossary
Defendants are Barclays Capital Inc.; BNP Paribas Securities Corp.; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.; First Tennessee Bank, N.A.; FTN Financial Securities Corp.; Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC; J. P. Morgan Securities LLC; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.; TD Securities (USA) LLC; Nomura Securities International, Inc.; HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.; Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.; SG Americas Securities LLC; Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC; and UBS Securities LLC.
“GSE Bond Transaction” means any purchase, sale, or other transaction in the secondary market with respect to any GSE Bond.
“GSE Bond” means any and each unsecured bond or debt instrument (i.e., senior debt, subordinated debt, and junior subordinated debt) regardless of currency or credit quality, issued by Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Federal Farm Credit Banks, and Federal Home Loan Banks.
“Settlement Class Period” means the period from January 1, 2009 through and including January 1, 2019.
I would appreciate your opinion on this settlement, specifically if it applies to shareholders or bondholders alone. (I cant see how bondholders were damaged, just shareholders, since FNMA guarantees the bonds).
The settlement class is given above.
GSE Bonds are not guaranteed by the GSEs or the US Government.