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.
Well I did the math took the market cap dividend by the number of shares and pretty much came out at what the PPS closed at. Coinincidince I guess
What is the market cap dividend?
Do you mean the market cap?
If that is what is meant then:
Today's market cap that is found on closing stock quote info sites (e.g. Yahoo, Google, etc.) is automatically calculated by multiplying today's ending share price $3.505 by the number of outstanding shares (1,158,087,567).
Formula
Current Standard Market Cap = current market price per share x number of outstanding common shares
Market Cap PPS Outstanding Shares
$4,059,096,922.34 = $3.505 per share x 1,158,087,567 outstanding shares
I have a question on share price. Is the PPS in basic principles the market price devided by the number of shares??? If so, what happens to the PPS when on the next 10q when the money is added that wasn't taken last quarter and the next quarter earnings. Shouldn't the PPS go up .....
Price per share (PPS) of stock is the dollar amount that a trader or investor is willing to pay for one share of a stock.
So the PPS of FNMA today, 10/16/2019 is $3.505. The PPS tomorrow will vary during the day and end at a final PPS for the day. The variation in price is determined by the dollar amount that a trader or investor is willing to pay for one share of a stock.
So, now they are the single biggest holders of both commons. For example as of 9/30/2019: Shares Value
And for what it is worth, Capital Group's Growth Fund of America (mutual fund) own a significant number of preferred shares.
Fannie Mae, Series S, 8.25% noncumulative | 37,880,764 | 505,708,199
Fannie Mae, Series T, 8.25% noncumulative | 16,806,326 | 218,146,000
Fannie Mae, Series O, 7.00% noncumulative | 6,592,272 | 160,522,000
Fannie Mae, Series R, 7.625% noncumulative | 3,695,715 | 47,010,000
Fannie Mae, Series P, 4.50% noncumulative | 755,000 | 9,105,000
Freddie Mac,Series Z, 8.375% noncumulative | 45,457,676 | 595,040,979
Freddie Mac,Series V, 5.57% | 2,031,012 | 24,575,000
Freddie Mac,Series X, 6.02% noncumulative | 239,000 | 3,012,000
NOTE:
Fannie Mae Series S (FNMAS) increased from 34,964,607 shares to 37,880,764 shares
Freddie Mac Series Z (FMCKJ) increased from 41,926,123 shares to 45,457,676 shares
Sources:
The Growth Fund of America - Investment portfolio - May 31, 2019
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/44201/000119312519205091/d779686dnportex.htm
The Growth Fund of America - 9/30/2019
https://www.capitalgroup.com/individual/investments/quarterlyholdings/agthx
No. Treasury/Mnuchin still contend the GSE"s have not paid back the amount of draws they had received. They still contend that the GSE's are a systemic risk to taxpayers. They still believe they can write the rules as they go. Sadly, it seems they can.
What was more sad was that no one corrected these statements nor did anyone ask for verification of them, so the Judges will take them at face value.
Oral arguments give judges the opportunity to personally question attorneys, to gain additional insight about their written arguments from answers given, to determine, in part, what arguments are important to the attorneys and to discern the attorneys understanding or lack of understanding of the case, case law, and judicial precedents.
Oral arguments are not the final say. Along with oral arguments, there are the parties' briefs that include the same arguments in written form and without the personal expression and advocacy, citations, and the relevant numerical, dative, and empirical facts and events marshaled for their cases.
And there you have it. More slop for the piggies. Same ole guys-n-gals who got us here. Skimming more profits to unwind their snarls. Taking monies which harms taxpayers. Not to mention long-suffering common shareholders.
Whether the contract cost a penny or $30 million, the FHFA will pay for the cost from the combined monies FHFA receives semi-annually (October 1 and April 1) from the GSEs and Federal Home Loan Banks as authorized by HERA and 2% of that total from other sources. The FHFA does not receive any appropriated public money from Congress and Congress does not provide any public monies to FHFA (See 12 U.S.C. § 4516 for FHFA funding)
The fact FHFA can effectively siphon and "give-away" these monies without ANY oversight should chill every single taxpayer. And there is NO ONE to stop them. The 8th circuit seems to indicate the courts are not needed to stop unconstitutional agencies. So I reckon Calabria can give away whatever monies he deems to whomever he wishes. Except to shareholders. A pox on all their houses.
"Oversight and accountability" is performed by the 1) FHFA OIG making reports and testifying, 2) the Federal Housing Finance Oversight Board that offers non-compelling advice to the Director, and 3) via the HERA mandated requirement that FHFA Director testify and submit reports annually to Congress (Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate). However, besides talking, listening, testifying and reporting there is no compelling or enforceable oversight given to the FHFA by any branch of the federal government.
In fact, the FHFA is currently insulated by federal statutory law (HERA 2008) from direct interference from legislative, executive and judicial branches of government (See: 12 U.S.C. §§ 4511(a), 4512(b)(2), 4516, 4617(a)(7), and 4617(f)).
The constitutionality of the FHFA as an independent, federal, regulatory agency as a whole and the constitutionality of the single-director structure making FHFA independent of the President and insulated from the three branches of the federal government remain unresolved. The single-director structure of the FHFA has been declared unconstitutional with prospective relief by the Fifth Circuit en banc panel and only in the jurisdiction under the Fifth Circuit. The en banc D.C. Circuit and a panel of the Ninth Circuit held that single-director structure does not violate the Constitution. And so, there is a circuit conflict and no nation-wide judicial precedent. Only SCOTUS can resolve this circuit conflict and these matters are now found in petitions to SCOTUS for writs of certiorari. The 8th Circuit US Court of Appeals has yet to decide Bhatti v. FHFA.
David Thompson was magnificent during 8th circuit oral arguments.
An extremely talented and competent attorney, which was amply demonstrated in front of a persistently inquiring and entrapping panel judge.
I pray SCOTUS demands to see 11,000+ documents. And grind them very fine.
Filings and orders over time will tell.
Sources:
12 U.S.C. - CHAPTER 46—GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/chapter-46
HERA 2008
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-122/pdf/STATUTE-122-Pg2654.pdf#page=8
Collins - PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-422/116983/20190925131502103_Collins%20Petition--PDFA.pdf
Bhatti v. FHFA 8th Circuit US Court of Appeals Oral Arguments
http://media-oa.ca8.uscourts.gov/OAaudio/2019/10/182506.MP3
FHFA GSE Advisory Contract Valued at $20 Million, At Least
pmuolo@imfpubs.com
Not only is the Federal Housing Finance Agency seeking to hire an advisor to assist in the recapitalization and release of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but the mortgage giants themselves are likely seeking help.
At least that’s the general consensus of several GSE watchers interviewed by Inside MBS & ABS over the past few weeks. Fannie, however, declined to comment on the matter entirely. Freddie didn’t respond at all.
The FHFA isn’t talking to the press about its advisory contract but already speculation is mounting on how much it might be worth to the fortunate investment banking firm (or firms) that win the bid.
One analyst who has written extensively on the recap-and-release topic estimates it could be worth $20 million to $30 million. “The ongoing monitoring of plan implementation may be $5 million to $10 million per year, but that seems a bit high,” he said.
Ted Tozer, a former Ginnie Mae president during the Obama administration, said, “$20 million is not unrealistic. There is a lot of work in the contract.” For more details, see Inside MBS & ABS, now available online.
You are welcome action8101.
You are welcome, ano.
Do we even have a BOD,,, not like you ever hear anything from anyone at FNMA... I’m assuming it’s run well as we make tons of money.... This whole situation is right out of a Hollywood script
See: https://www.fanniemae.com/portal/about-fm/governance/board-directors.html
Under the leadership of a board of directors, Fannie Mae strives daily to fulfill its public mission of providing mortgages to low-, moderate-, and middle-income Americans.
On September 6, 2008, the Director of FHFA appointed FHFA as our conservator in accordance with the Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008. As conservator, FHFA succeeded to all rights, titles, powers and privileges of Fannie Mae, and of any shareholder, officer or director of Fannie Mae with respect to Fannie Mae and its assets. As a result, our Board of Directors no longer had the power or duty to manage, direct or oversee our business and affairs.
As conservator, FHFA reconstituted our Board of Directors and delegated specified authorities to it. Our directors serve on behalf of the conservator and exercise their authority as directed by and with the approval, where required, of the conservator.
By charter, our board is made up of 13 members or such other number that the Director of FHFA determines appropriate. FHFA has directed that our board will have a minimum of nine and not more than 13 directors.
I was hoping for a decision on the lead plaintiff choice between All-American, Seila Law and Collins matters, as we were discussing the other day.
As you may know already, Seila Law will be discussed in conference on a new date, Friday, October 18, 2019. A decision may come next week. Collins and All American are waiting for responses due on October 30, 2019, and November 1, 2019, respectively.
As always, you are extremely generous with your highly detailed reply. Very much appreciated. THANK YOU.
You are always welcome.
On the SCOTUS front, could we possibly get a "miscellaneous" ruling from the court before next week's omnibus ruling on Monday? I take it as a potentially positive sign that we were not just summarily dismissed, as so many other writs were denied.
Please specify what rulings, cases, writs are being referred to.
1) More competitors, imo a taking if not compensated
Not a taking
2) reducing footprint, imo a taking if not compensated
Not a taking
3) getting paid for implicit guarantee, imo not possible, you cannot pay for implicit, as it would become explicit, (the SPSPa in 6.6* already claims it is not explicit)
The SPSPAs with 3 amendments were drawn for Treasury to provide $200 billion to each GSE and by agreement, Treasury was compensated for this with Senior Preferred Stock and Warrants for GSE common stock. 6.6 refers to no guarantee of the payment or performance of any debt security or any other obligation, indebtedness or liability of Seller of any kind or character whatsoever. This means Treasury, per agreement, is not providing a guarantee for payment or performance of mortgage-backed securities held by MBS holders and other debt-obligations and liabilities of the GSEs. Those MBS and debt obligations are the responsibility of the GSEs who have at their disposal $400 billion to cover their operations if they fail.
4) leave the “temporary” SPSPa contract in place while congress did not vote on the content
According to HERA, the Congress has no jurisdiction or input over the content of the SPSPAs.
5) amendments to the PSPA, not possible as 6.3* says both parties need to agree and a for profit company would not agree to any amendment if it constrains their revenue
Yes. However, in conservatorship the FHFA has regulatory and conservatorship control over the GSEs. So to amend the agreement, there must be mutual consent between Treasury and FHFA who represents the GSEs in this matter.
6) how is it possible that FHFA sued 17 banks while they are the conservator of FnF, so they sue on behalf of FnF and get to keep the result?
HERA statutory provisions allows HERA to sue on behalf of the GSEs.
The FHFA did not keep the settlement amounts. The settlement amounts were added into Fees and Other income accounting category of the GSEs. This income was added to all other types of income. Then the comprehensive net income, that included Fees and Other income was swept into the Treasury.
See this message for a more detailed description:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/replies.aspx?msg=97723266
*6.6. Disclaimer of Guarantee. This Agreement and the Commitment are not intended to and shall not be deemed to constitute a guarantee by Purchaser or any other agency or instrumentality of the United States of the payment or performance of any debt security or any other obligation, indebtedness or liability of Seller of any kind or character whatsoever.
*6.3. Amendments; Waivers. This Agreement may be waived or amended solely by a writing executed by both of the parties hereto……….
Obiterdictum - Just to make clear - I stated that this MAY have been in response to a question. All my notes say is that Calabria said "consent decree". So he may have brought it up on his own, but I do believe it was brought up in the context of a question - I just keep wishing that we had a video of this.
Noted and understood
Again - thanks for all your efforts on this!
Nats
You are welcome.
(I have a SRO ticket for game 5 tomorrow - so have mixed emotions about whether they win tonight - plus, its supposed to rain tomorrow - so we will see. Hopefully, after 85 years they can Baby Shark their was to the WS).
As Yogi Berra said: It ain't over till it's over. And, if the Nats wil tonight and it rains tomorrow, there will be a seat. So an SRO ticket may have no drawback.
Obit
You are welcome Mr Michael.
Thanks for thre additional content, obi.
You are welcome YanksGhost.
You add some valuable, historical context to the discussion on consent decrees. I believe there was significant additional Calabria narrative in the ACG Analytics video presentation done by Gabrielle Heffese.
Did not find a consent decree narrative in ACG Analytics video presentation done by Gabrielle Heffese. There are mentions of settlement (e.g. see 8:04 and forward) but this is not equivalent to a consent decree.
Here are the mentions of settlement beginning at 8:04:
But the "consent decree" narrative is troubling to me.
What is the consent decree narrative?
Who created a consent decree narrative (i.e. source?)
What is troubling about the consent decree narrative?
#570127 message number from Patswil, earlier today, was my reference point. I would be very interested in your reaction to this.
Same message as posted with the exception that unrelated info was excluded. Otherwise no significant difference.
Muolo was suddenly, seemingly, delay focused after previous, largely agnostic interpretations (?).
Muolo reported in the same fashion as usual in snippets of info what the Cowen Washington Research Group analyst Jaret Seiberg stated: 1) about Calabria being on the speaking circuit of late in an attempt to “dampen expectations for immediate action” regarding a recap-and-release of the two mortgage giants, 2) about the prior plans of Republicans and Democrats and 3) that:
"We see no path from what Calabria is setting up to get to either of those outcomes. Instead, we are headed squarely to the re-capitalization of two corporations that shareholders will own…”
Muolo had no comment about what Jaret Seiberg is reported to have stated besides, perhaps, putting into quotes “dampen expectations for immediate action.”
I was somewhat unsettled by this latest "spin".
What spin? (https://bit.ly/2q6JpBh)
“dampen expectations for immediate action?”
Prior plans of Republicans and Democrats for "Fannie and Freddie either becoming cooperatives owned by the mortgage originating banks or government corporations owned by the taxpayers?"
Or "We see no path from what Calabria is setting up to get to either of those outcomes. Instead, we are headed squarely to the re-capitalization of two corporations that shareholders will own…”
As you would know better than almost anyone, there is no way to handicap outcomes in what has yet to be revealed. I am expressing just one interpretation of what the "consent decree" narrative means, and where it might lead us.
I would point out that much of my interpretation was guided by the Bradford Seeking Alpha article that emerged a few days ago.
The intertwining of ACA Analytics and the pre-and-post "consent decree" Calabria published comments seem both aligned and mutually supportive of one outcome. Again, my opinion only.
The IMF/Muolo piece, today, was somewhat compelling. Did you read it?
Yes. See: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151694235
Hi YanksGhost,
A few comments and questions:
The party spinning the "consent decree" is ACG Analytics.
What spin did ACG Analytics put on "consent decree."
I believe its Genesis may be found at George Mason University in the Antonin Scalia School of Law.
The origin is Mark Calabria's answer given to a questioner at the Meet the Policymakers Forum held at George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School on October 10, 2019. ACG Analytics selected and tweeted on October 10, 2019:
Calabria’s Message?
Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Mark Calabria spoke at George Mason University last week at an event that was not open to the media. According to Cowen Washington Research Group analyst Jaret Seiberg, Calabria has been on the speaking circuit of late in an attempt to “dampen expectations for immediate action” regarding a recap-and-release of the two mortgage giants. “To us, another takeaway is that Calabria is leaving no question that Fannie and Freddie will return as privately run companies. Prior plans by Democrats and Republicans have envisioned Fannie and Freddie either becoming cooperatives owned by the mortgage originating banks or government corporations owned by the taxpayers. We see no path from what Calabria is setting up to get to either of those outcomes. Instead, we are headed squarely to the re-capitalization of two corporations that shareholders will own…”
One of our sources who attended the event said he spotted in the George Mason audience Bob Davis of the American Bankers Association and financial services consultant Bert Ely, among others…
https://www.insidemortgagefinance.com/articles/216082-short-takes-approaching-21-trillion-in-guarantees-more-secure-than-the-other-calabrias-message-bob-and-bert-were-there-citis-30m-oreo-problem?v=preview
Obiterdictum - thanks for the reply
You are welcome.
Market closed on Columbus Day
OTC - Open - https://www.otcmarkets.com/market-hours
NYSE - Open - https://www.nyse.com/markets/hours-calendars
NASDAQ - Open - https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/2019-stock-market-holidays-and-bond-market-holidays-2018-12-31
U.S. Bond Market - Closed - https://www.marketbeat.com/bond-market-holidays/
Obiterdictum -
Quote Source
obiterdictum - sorry it took so long to respond but had to wait until the game ended (3-1 Nats victory)
Hi nats1, no worries. Scherzer and Eaton capped the game.
I attended the conference at George Mason featuring Calabria yesterday and wanted to clarify some of the information that is being reported from the meeting. In terms of a capital raise he did say it could be as early as 2020 (he said he thought in 2020 or 2021). Again, during the conference he stated that there were no strict time lines for anything as he has been saying all along.
Also, one of the questions from the audience noted that the current ROE for the companies may be too low to attract sufficient capital and were they doing anything to raise it. Calabria said yes but that he would not go into specifics.
Hi nats1,
ACG Analytics tweeted:
Consent Decree
ACG Analytics tweets (
) an unelaborated statement:In discussion at @MasonLEC, @FHFA Director @MarkCalabria publicly indicated #GSEs could leave conservatorship before hitting top capital threshold and operate under consent decree. pic.twitter.com/N5a4IvYdLs
— ACG Analytics (@ACGAnalytics) October 10, 2019
Thanks Obit.
You are welcome.
The Home Depot ruling bars third parties from removing a case to federal court.
What type of third party?
The FHFA was a third party to the Edwards case and had them removed to federal court where one of them was dismissed. That shouldn’t have been allowed according to the Home Depot ruling. Shouldn’t the dismissed Edward case be resurrected back in Florida Courts where it began? Seems the removal and subsequent “adjudication” (dismissal) doesn’t comport to this ruling. Just trying to understand.
It seems there is familiarity with Home Depot and the Edwards cases originally filed in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County (state) and then removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (federal), so, it can be asked:
What party removed the cases to federal court?
Did the Defendants Deloitte and PriceWaterhouseCooper (PWC) remove the cases to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida?
Did the FHFA remove the cases to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida?
The answer to these questions can make clear how Home Depot applies to Edwards.
Thanks for the information. Much clearer to me. So given the circuit conflicts, its just a matter of time for SCOTUS to settle the matter.
Yes.
As such not much point in the gov entering settlement discussions until matter is resolved.
Perhaps.
One other question. I seem to recall a recent Supreme court decision that in affect says that it is not necessary to have state cases automatically removed to the federal Courts, or something to that matter.
What decision is being referred to? Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson?
How does that decision effect the state cases which may have been improperly moved out of state jurisdiction. Im talking about the Florida cases involving accounting fraud. There were two I believe, one of which was settled. Dont know what happened to the other. Of course also the Delaware corporate law case.
There is no effect. Those cases have been adjudicated.
Edwards et al v. Deloitte & Touche LLP - Dismissed
Edwards et al v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP - Settled
Jacobs et al v. Federal Housing Finance Agency - Dismissed
Why arent these cases being re filed back in the states based on the Supreme Court ruling? Or even could they?
What Supreme Court ruling is being considered? Please provide the Supreme Court case.
Question for the board experts. If USSC determines that FHFA is an unconstitutional creation, how can FHFA have any say in settlement discussions? For that matter, wouldn’t any regulatory action taken (including setting capital standards, and any other regulatory changes) be fair game for someone to challenge as moot? How does all this work?
At the moment there is no direct legal challenge to the constitutionality of the FHFA as an independent, federal, regulatory agency as a whole nation-wide. So far, the single-director structure of the FHFA has been declared unconstitutional with prospective relief by the Fifth Circuit en banc panel and only in the jurisdiction under the Fifth Circuit. The DC Circuit ruled in the opposite manner. So there is a circuit conflict. Only SCOTUS can resolve this conflict.
So, until SCOTUS grants one or more of the petitions for writs of certiorari and hears and decides the cases on the constitutionality of the single-director structure of the FHFA and grants retrospective relief of some kind, the FHFA is free to act as it always has acted. If SCOTUS decides that the FHFA as a federal regulatory agency continues after declaring the offending statutory provisions unconstitutional, the FHFA will be able to engage in settlement talks. In the unlikely event that SCOTUS decides that the FHFA as a federal agency is unconstitutional, then the FHFA is gone.
The current challenges are found in petitions for writs of certiorari, which have not yet been granted. There are arguments made for and requests made to SCOTUS to declare the single-director structure of the FHFA unconstitutional because it is in violation of the separations of powers.
The single-director structure making FHFA independent of the President and insulated from the three branches of the federal government is determined by several statutory provisions (12 U.S.C. §§ 4511(a), 4512(b)(2), 4617(a)(7), and 4617(f)).
§ 4511(a)
(a)Establishment
There is established the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which shall be an independent agency of the Federal Government.
§ 4512(b)(2)
(2)Term
The Director shall be appointed for a term of 5 years, unless removed before the end of such term for cause by the President.
§ 4617(a)(7)
(7)Agency not subject to any other Federal agency
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.
§ 4617(f)
(f)Limitation on court action
Except as provided in this section or at the request of the Director, no court may take any action to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the Agency as a conservator or a receiver.
See: 12 U.S. Code CHAPTER 46—GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/chapter-46
If SCOTUS declares these provisions unconstitutional, especially 4512 (b)(2), this will end the single-director structure of the FHFA and will remove the statutory insulation that protects the FHFA from any interference from the legislative, judicial and executive branches of the federal government, making the provisions, null, void, unenforceable.
HERA does not have a severability clause in it?
HERA does not have a severability clause.
Wouldnt Congress have to amend HERA to fix the single director offense?
If SCOTUS declares 12 USC § 4512(b)(2) unconstitutional, then that provision is null, void, unenforceable nation-wide. The Judiciary and/or Congress can write an annotation about the provision being null, void, unenforceable without amending the wording. Congress also can amend the provision's wording to reflect the SCOTUS decision.
Or can the judiciary write our laws for we the people?
The judiciary interprets laws and does not write them. However, by judicial review, courts may declare a state or federal statute and/or its provisions unconstitutional.
Does the constitution allow the judiciary to amend statutes?
Article III and Article VI of the Constitution of the United States gives an implied authority and power to conduct judicial review.
Seems ironic that Congress can insert provisions in a law saying the judiciary cant review actions of conservator, and yet with a simple order the judiciary can amend the freaking statute. Something doesn’t add up to me. Please help me to understand?
Laws can be destructive, oppressive, insulative, predatory, etc. and can be insulated from accountability, justice, and the US Constitution. How will such laws be dealt with? Checks and Balances. So, when the state and federal legislatures make laws that offend and abuse one's legal rights under the US Constitution, the judiciary is there to rectify those laws through judicial review so that they are in sync with the US Constitution. This is the ideal.
See: Judicial Review - https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about
Seila Law, Collins et al. and All American et al. are competing to be the vehicle by which SCOTUS can fruitfully decide on the constitutionality of a single-director structure of an independent federal agency and that the type of remedy that should apply if the single-director structure of an independent federal agency is declared unconstitutional.
In Seila Law's recent motion she argues against SCOTUS using All American or Collins as a vehicle for a ruling on constitutional and remedy questions. Collins argues it is the best vehicle since it offers both the constitutional and remedy questions, that Seila Law does not and Seila Law case "is an exceedingly poor vehicle for this Court’s review." All American argues it the one to go with for the same reasons as Collins and is willing to be a companion case with Seila Law.
Lotto65, you are welcome.