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.
You are welcome Guido2.
You are welcome jcromeenes.
Can you point out the corporations in attached list where the government exercised the warrants? If Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Wells Fargo warrants were not exercised, why would Fannie and Freddie? Especially, when they overpaid $116 billion? Or $124 billion according to Judge Sweeney?
https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list/index
Please see: https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list/simple
https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/reports/Documents/08-27-12%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2008-24-12_INVESTMENT.pdf
https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/reports/Documents/December%202012%20Warrant%20Disposition%20Report.pdf
https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/reports/Pages/Warrant-Disposition-Reports.aspx
yes
Understood
Good.
spoke with son who is attorney for a few years (and did well in school)
this claims court -- with I think at this point 8 judges - sort of stands "aside" of the district circuit scotus line - I thought
Apparently it is all bench decisions
Yes. Only bench trials. No juries.
Now I learn - from you - that like a circuit court decision (very different court purpose and type) the appeal goes to Circuit
See: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152838495
We really need a flow chart of where these cases go from here - win goes here, then Appeal goes here, etc. Seems there are so many options. I thought if we won in Sweeney's the next and last step was SCOTUS. Apparently not. This whole court system is a mess(in my mind as I don't know the roadmap).
See: https://wlwatch.westlaw.com/aca/west/uscourt.htm
1. Select a case.
2. Identify which court it is in
3. Follow the arrows.
You are welcome bcde.
So Sweeny is in that special court but the appeal for her bench decisions will be in the "regular Title 3 or whatever courts" ?
Yes. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is an Article III specialized court. See: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/the-court/court-jurisdiction
You are welcome action8101.
Do under interlocutory appeal, proceedings continue or stop.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(3), continuation of proceedings or a stay of proceeding during an interlocutory appeal depends on judicial discretion. A judge can decide to continue or stay proceedings.
28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(3)
Neither the application for nor the granting of an appeal under this subsection shall stay proceedings in the Court of International Trade or in the Court of Federal Claims, as the case may be, unless a stay is ordered by a judge of the Court of International Trade or of the Court of Federal Claims or by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or a judge of that court. See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1292
Is there a deadline for parties to file an appeal on the motion to dismiss ruling in the CFC?
Yes.
If so, what is the deadline?
Since a final decision at trial has not been entered, any appeal made by the parties now would be an interlocutory appeal that must be first certified by Chief Judge Sweeney under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(2). See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1292
After the US Court of Federal Claims provides a certification order for a potential appellant, the appealing party has ten days after the certification order to petition the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
If a final judgment has been entered in the US Court of Federal Claims, the deadline to petition the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is 60 days. See: CAFC Rules - http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/rules-of-practice/FederalCircuitRulesofPractice-December2019.pdf
or the US Court of Federal Claims Rule:
Rule 32. Notice of Appeal
To appeal a decision of the Court of Federal Claims, a party must file a petition pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(f) with the clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit within 60 days after the date of the entry of judgment. See: https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CFC%20Rules%2007.10.2019_1.pdf
You are welcome HighlandGambler.
OK, so Judge Sweeney's ruling for the Fairholme case means it can go to trial. Bench trial or jury trial...anyone know?
Bench Trial. See: 28 U.S. Code § 174 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/174
The case I refer to is Sisti case out of Road Island. Court ruled that Congress when drafting HERA waived sovereign immunity for FHFA and since GSE charters also have sue or be sued language, the succession clause of HERA maintains the waiver. Therefore they are still gov actors even if they step into the shoes of GSE as noted by Perry ruling. However, the court ruled the FHFA acting as conservator does not step into the shoes of the companies and as a result FHFA, FNMA and FMCC are government actors for matters of constitutional claims of due process.
Sisti v. Federal Housing Finance Agency
https://bit.ly/33Wl3IQ
This decision has set precedent nationwide for foreclosures by GSEs.
Non-judicial foreclosures.
Is this case fully adjudicated? Or has the Defendant's motion to dismiss on the pleading been denied and the case continues towards review and judgment on the merits?
Notice Gov never appealed.
They tried and failed to obtain an interlocutory appeal.
The Court DENIES Defendants' Motion to Certify the August 2, 2018 Order for Interlgfcutory Appellate Review under 28 U.S.C. § 2992(b). ECF No. 41. See: https://bit.ly/34YWk81
Wouldn’t want to bring attention to this inconvenient fact. Hopefully the CFC was aware of this ruling to foreclose the defense arguments in the still under-seal opinion.
When the redacted opinion is published, the reasoned opinion of Judge Sweeney will be revealed and it will be seen if Sisti was cited and used in arguments.
You are welcome bcde.
obiter, which is why the shareholder legal strategy has been to portion their complaints across appropriate venues. With the 5th circuit’s opinion and Sweeney allowing derivative claims to proceed to trial/summary judgement, I’m expecting more venues to continue to open the door to plaintiffs’ assertions.
Who is leading the shareholder legal strategy? Is there coordination among the Plaintiffs?
Besides the US Supreme Court, The Appellate Courts, District Courts and the US Court of Federal Claims what other venues are there for hearing the Plaintiffs assertions?
It is also important to add that all legal proceedings are not being conducted in vacuums. Legal interpretation of events can affect other venues regardless of remedy scope. Monetary, Legality, Civil, Criminal, each can influence the other. Keeping the big legal picture in view is important - forest amongst the trees - and I think the dominoes are beginning to fall - time will tell.
Time will tell.
You are welcome Potty.
I would think that a takings case would determine only one thing. Either it (takings) occurred or it didnt. There is no such thing as a constitutional right that is derivative or direct. If yours or my ability to seek redress at CFC for compensation of a violation of our fifth amendment rights is pre-empted by HERA statute (succession clause etc), then HERA is most likely unconstitutional. However, CFC would not address that issue as they only award damages.
Yes.
The CFC will determine only if a takings has occurred and the nature of the damage to the company and how to address with award of compensation. If a claim is barred by HERA then that is grounds for additional litigation in a federal circuit court.
Yes.
I believe this has already happened under another case where someones constitutional right of due process has been denied by FHFA with regard to a foreclosure based on the same HERA nonsense that no court can question the conservator. The plaintiffs won. It is all related. But since it wasnt about the GSEs and hundreds of billions of dollars you probably haven’t heard about it. I wish I could remember the case. HERA is a poorly written law and should be ruled unconstitutional. In my unlearned simple citizens opinion. Go FNMA!
Perhaps the case will be remembered later.
But there are some new facts that came out of the 11000 documents which plaintiffs didn't know before.
What are the new facts?
Maybe there would be another lawsuit necessary to reverse the whole conservatorship.
What kind of lawsuit would be filed?
Suppose if CFC determines that conservatorship and NWS are unauthorized acts, then can CFC invalidate these acts?
Determining that the conservatorships and NWS are unauthorized acts are claims sounding in tort and allegations of tortious misconduct and interference by the US government. Most of the Plaintiffs' narrative arguments are based on recounting US government tortious misconduct and interference regarding the NWS in 2012. The Washington Federal complaint most fully narrates such misconduct beginning with the imposition of the conservatorships in 2008.
However, these narratives sounding in tort, these tortious allegations are not the goal of the Plaintiffs' complaints before Judge Sweeney in the CFC. These narratives tell the story of how takings without compensation and illegal exaction occurred. The goals are to have a judgment on takings and illegal exaction and to receive monetary and other compensation, and not to have rulings on the legality or illegality of the conservatorships and NWS.
Why?
The US Court of Federal Claims has no jurisdiction over tort claims (See: Tucker Act - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tucker_act and 28 U.S. Code §?1491 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1491).
So, if such claims were central to the Plaintiffs arguments, the Plaintiffs would not have standing in the CFC. The US government in fact claims that the Plaintiffs have no standing because of the tortious allegations that surround the Plaintiffs' arguments for taking without compensation and illegal exaction.
Thanks for the response.
You are welcome.
I just wondered:
If the article 1 Court of Federal Claims; in allowing the derivative suit to proceed can disregard the succession clause because the defendant is the government,
Has HERA's succession clause been disregarded by Judge Sweeney? (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/disregard)
The issue concerning the succession clause is whether or not FHFA when stepping into the shoes of the GSEs as mandated by 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(A)(i) is or is not the United States for purposes of the Tucker Act. The succession clause cannot be disregarded. HERA's succession clause as presented in the Plaintiffs' and Defendant's arguments must be carefully considered by Judge Sweeney and a reasoned argument presented that details how FHFA is not the US for purposes of the Tucker Act. We do not yet know how or what Judge Sweeney's reasoned or opined on this matter. When Judge Sweeney's redacted opinion is published, this information will be available.
and if the CFC would have any meaningful difference from article 3 courts as it relates to the defendant being UST.
The US Court of Federal Claims is the only court with national jurisdiction allowed to handle monetary claims against the US government (i.e. takings) that are "founded upon the Constitution, federal statutes, executive regulations, or contracts, express or implied in fact."
Is it likely that defendant treasury would eventually appeal the derivative claim based upon the fact that FHFA did not bring the suit.
Not sure what is meant that "FHFA did not bring the suit." Please elaborate or use other words.
Does the succession provision not matter in the CFC court?
Do you mean does the succession provision not matter to Judge Sweeney?
Previously many cases had been dismissed based on the plain text of 4167(b).
Is this an existing statutory provision found in HERA 2008?
Do you mean 4617(b)? If so, which of the 19 provisions and subparagraphs are being referred to? See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/4617
Obit: can't/couldn't Justice Sweeney file
an injunction against the Treasury to suspend the NWS?
Judge Sweeney could so when that is requested in a Plaintiff's Prayer for Relief.
If not, in what part of the process or at what, if any, level of jurisdiction could that occur?
N/A
Regarding treasury appealing Sweeney and who would they appeal to the supreme Court?. Appeals options are getting thin tic toc no where to run and hide anymore.
After a US Court of Federal Claims decision is made, that decision can be appealed in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
need Obi to dig in more. LOL
Not much to dig into...
See: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152671851
What does this mean for us shareholders, Obit can you chim in please
1. A substantial answer or informed opinion cannot be made from a court docket blurb - https://investorshub.advfn.com/uimage/uploads/2019/12/6/kslseSweeney_docket_447.JPG.
Judge Sweeney's order is insufficient for that. Judge Sweeney's reasoned opinion also needs to be clearly known and understood.
2. Before Judge Sweeney in the US Court of Federal Claims there are 12 cases with similar and dissimilar direct and derivative claims from both common and/or preferred shareholders as named plaintiffs and putative, uncertified class plaintiffs. Without knowing Judge Sweeney's opinion, which reveals why and how the order was made to dismiss direct claims and to allow some or all of the derivative claims made by both common and/or preferred shareholders, it is not possible to accurately ascertain what this order means for "us Shareholders."
3. And who are "us shareholders"? Named plaintiffs? Putative class plaintiffs? Shareholders who are neither named plaintiffs nor possible class plaintiffs? One of these, two of these, all three?
4. In general, dismissal of direct claims means any damages that may have been awarded at the conclusion of a bench trial or those made in a possible pre-emptive settlement will not be directly awarded to any shareholder.
5. In general, allowing the derivative claims to continue means that damages may be awarded to the GSEs if at the conclusion of a bench trial Judge Sweeney decides, in part or whole, that the Plaintiffs win against the Defendants arguments or vice versa. If there is a pre-emptive settlement, what can one imagine will be the result? If damages are awarded to the GSEs in what amounts and/or in what manner will damages (or no damages) be addressed by the Court and Parties for the GSEs and how would this benefit or hurt shareholders? This information is currently unknown and so what can be said with certainty? Nothing certain can be stated, and so instead, there will be speculation.
6. Considering the above, the docket blurb means direct claims and direct payments to shareholders are no longer to be considered in the US Court of Federal Claims. The order allowing derivative claims means substantially little in particular for shareholders, whatever type they may be, at this moment in time. First of all, Judge Sweeney's currently sealed opinion needs to be known and understood.
Judged Sweeney's reasoned opinion, which will be revealed in part sometime after the Parties redactions are submitted on 12/16/2019, will provide an inkling of what the outcome of a bench trial or potential settlement will look like for shareholders. The redacted opinion will then be the material for those doing the usual armchair speculations until Judge Sweeney's final order and opinion are submitted for the record.
Thank you
You are welcome.
It is Fariholme I believe where Sweeny went off on the GOV.
So I want to be part of that
The DOJ (Dintzer, Hosford, Laufgraben) especially Mr. Dintzer, addresses the "Plaintiffs" (Plaintiffs plus Class Plaintiffs) arguments. There are times when Mr. Dintzer responds to Mr. Thompson and Patterson (Fairholme) and other times to other case attorneys (Hume, Green, Rosenberg, Zuckerman, Vallely, Bennett, Joseph, etc.). Judge Sweeney's comments are general in character. Judge Sweeney makes certain broad brush strokes about the DOJ's and Plaintiffs' narrative that enlivens the speculative imagination of some about future decisions favoring the Plaintiffs. Other brush strokes are ignored.
And I now know it is not done as a class
Fairholme, Yes.
Although I worry that if the judge says Fairholmes arguments are only good for those pre X date --- then I assume it morphs into a class action with some deeds by various
?
You are welcome bcde.
"Anyways I did wonder why is the Wash Fed brief under seal?"
Is it the Washington Federal brief or are there certain restricted documents uncovered in discovery that cannot be publicly exposed and discussed?
So - here - in the Sweeny court - have they filed to be certified as a class action ?
Which Plaintiffs? Fairholme? No.
Would seem to me that the number involved etc. makes it "doable" but the question is - have they requested certification as a class ?
Fairholme? No.
There are a number of cases before Judge Sweeney and they are not the same in claims, arguments, relief, attorneys, etc. It is useful in discussion to distinguish the cases and to discuss each separately. See: http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/13-465-0433.pdf
For example, the case of JOSEPH CACCIAPALLE et al., On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:13-cv-466-MMS was filed as a class action litigation wherein certification is requested by the class action plaintiffs in their prayer of relief.
obi, Thanks for the response.
You are welcome
In FnF case, it is more about standing rather than whether taking has occurred and also whether rights transfer when shares change hands.
Please understand the meaning of standing https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing.
If a taking without just compensation by Treasury did not occur, there is no standing to make a claim.
To have standing, the Plaintiffs must undergo an actual, substantial injury or harm that was done (a taking without compensation) by the Defendants (directly via the NWS) that can be remedied by the court (relief).
A taking and standing cannot in any way be legally separated. They are strictly interdependent, with standing depending on and determined by the actual, concrete occurrence of a taking. If a taking did not occur, the plaintiffs have no standing. If a taking did occur, the plaintiffs have standing.
Whether or not rights transfer when shares change hands are part of the arguments made for and against the claim of a taking.
Is the case in front of Sweeney filed as a class action?
The Fairholme Fund case before Judge Sweeney is not a putative or certified class action.
??
do you have to be a named plaintiff ?
if the suit was not brought as a class action but the judge puts a date certain on the "issue" - IMO the judge then creates a class (whose participants are TBD via questions via brokerage and public announcement etc.)
See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 23 = https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_23
See Post: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152555990
thank you
You are welcome.
I forgot we were still at the stage where the judge is deciding on the Governments motion to dismiss - WOW how time flies
Yes.
Re stock
I understand - in one way - the argument for a pre date purchase
However - this is stock that is traded
In all (99%) cases - the assumption of a buyer at any point in time is that they buy all rights and contingencies etc. that are part of the stock etc. so a date certain for stock is not what I see here
(again - if one fully accepts the argument I note (stock trades with its history there would never be class actions with date specific time frames and there are --- so I imagine there are arguments)
What will be interesting is if say I owned 15,000 shares common on a kosher date and then since the have bought and sold 100,000 shares - am I part of the class if date certain ? I assume so as I would so argue
One is a member of a class if one fits the established and certified class elgibility criteria. Class eligibility criteria are set in actuality and are not hypothetical. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 23 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_23
What are the accepted legal principles about "Taking" when it comes to company shares (contract agreements) and date of ownership.
When shares are transferred all the rights get transferred. There are no laws that punish investors for speculative investments.
If "Taking" were to happen when some one owned the shares and when these shares are transferred to others, then shares are transferred along with baggage of this "Taking". Besides "Taking" continued to happen even after transfer.
How does taking vanish when shares (contracts) are transferred?
Judges and attorneys can add lot of mischievous twists to the interpretations. Since this question does not seem to be a novice question presented to judiciary, why the answers remain still ambiguous.
Please review Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001) on the timing of regulatory takings - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/606/#tab-opinion-1960973
Obi: just a quick question - when this is all over can F&F go back and refile claims against the TBTF banks etc that caused all the losses that the government settled for pennies on the dollar and get more of their money back??????
What claims against which TBTF banks are being referred to?
No. I am little investor and i didn't know what i needed to do. Is it still possible?
If one of the lawsuits filed as a putative class action litigation is eventually certified as a class-action lawsuit, and you fit within that class, and the lawsuit is decided or settled in favor of the class plaintiffs, then there may be some compensation for your loss. All that would be required is to Submit Proof of Claim as directed by the attorneys.
A relevant class action case is found in Judge Lamberth DC Circuit Court: In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations, No. 13-1288 See page 2, No. 5 on class action certification: - https://gselinks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/13-mc-01288-0108.pdf
Since class action certification and class membership eligibility criteria are unknown, nothing more can be stated.
For an example of class membership eligibility criteria see: https://www.labaton.com/cases/in-re-fannie-mae-2008-securities-litigation
Obi. I have a question to you. I was heavy invested in time of event of 2012. I lost something like 150 k on this night on twins. I sold all my shares on the mornings and now i brought again. In your vision how in this case my shares will be handled in vision on case?( I am bright after event and will not see recoup?)
Are you a named plaintiff or is a company through which you invested in GSE stock a named plaintiff in one of the consolidated cases currently before the US Court of Federal Claims?