The usual reason for "confidential" treatment in regulatory proceedings that I have been involved in is that the information is "competitively sensitive." In the public utility industries, which were traditionally comprehensively regulated but where competition has now been introduced in some segments of the industry that were previously been regulated, disputes about competitively-sensitive information have become common.
In telecom, Verizon dropped its request to install fixed wireless on Fire Island instead of rebuilding it's fixed wireline system once the ALJ ruled that they had to provide information on the cost of building out fixed wireless or fixed wireline on Fire Island. In other words, faced with an order to submit this info to the NY PSC, they dropped their request to build fixed wireless instead of fixed wireline.
This case is different of course. What Tsy knew about the value of the warrants and so on (and yet pursued the 3rd Amendment instead) raises a different set of issues.
I don't quite get it. The gov't seems fixated on the FHFA as private vs public actor issue which goes to the question of whether the court of claims is the proper venue.
I still think that Judge Sweeney may need to rule definitively on the FHFA as a public vs. private actor and settle that issue (subject to appeal by the appellate court I guess) to force the gov't to move on. My understanding is that she has ruled--in essence--that hers is the proper jurisdiction for this case but the gov't seemingly hasn't accepted that yet.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
