see post 710365...
navycmdr
Friday, February 04, 2022 3:51:55 PM
Re: Stern is Bald post# 710364
PlusOneCoin Icon
0
Post# of 715068 Go
Did The Government Lie To Lamberth In 2013 ?
It was in Lamberth's court room that Ugoletti signed an affidavit under the penalty of perjury on behalf of the government. He swore on December 17, 2013 that the "Conservator and the Enterprises had not yet begun to discuss whether or when the Enterprises would be able to recognize any value to their deferred tax assets."
He effectively recanted this statement when in May 15, 2015 he said:
I, I don't know who else in FHFA or what they knew about the potential for that, but, as we've gone through here, there were -- our accountants were monitoring this situation, they were monitoring how they were doing about doing their potential, whether to revalue, they had to do it all the time, revalue or not revalue, and I do not recall knowing about that this was going to be an issue until really '13 when it became imminent that, oh, this has to happen now, and I don't know what anybody else thought about it.
What is even more interesting is 2 months after Ugoletti was deposed, the CFO of Fannie Mae at the time was also deposed and Susan McFarland said she had conversations with Mario Ugoletti about the deferred tax assets:
So, you have Ugoletti on his own backtracking from no conversation happening at all between FHFA and the enterprises to him claiming that he didn't know what was going on,
and then you have the CFO of one of the companies, Fannie Mae, saying she had conversations with Ugoletti about the deferred tax assets,
directly contradicting his own first hand account.
Further undermining Ugoletti's affidavit, there was more than one meeting between FHFA and Fannie Mae to talk about the deferred tax assets before the net worth sweep:
FHFA and Fannie Mae's deferred tax asset meetings revealed an incoming reversal of around $50B that would result in massive profits at Fannie Mae that the government knew was coming and wanted to prevent shareholders from participating in:
So, taking a look at this, will plaintiffs argue that the Ugoletti affidavit was presented to Judge Lamberth in 2013 in order to deceive the court as to the government's motivations concerning the net worth sweep?
After all, this would only serve to benefit their implied covenant claims that are based on good faith and fair dealing.
The good news is that based on prior rulings, the Judge on this case, Judge Lamberth, is now correctly interpreting these claims,
and so the possibility of the government getting caught lying in an attempt to cover up purposeful mistreatment of shareholders can only
help the shareholder lawsuits.
If Susan McFarland's deposition is true, and I believe it is, then Ugoletti either lied or fell asleep at the meetings where deferred tax assets were discussed.
As such, not only because by definition alone, but also because of the sloppy approach of the government's defense leaving behind a trail of evidence of trying to possibly cheat the court, I think plaintiffs are well positioned in the DC District court under Judge Lamberth.
At this point, the Judge ruled against shareholders in 2014, but now most recently ruled in shareholder's favor on remand. Investors seem to have forgotten that we are winning here in this court room, bigly.
AI
