Replies to post #239534 on Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[955]

Excellent summary of current event status in Fairholme lawsuit. The screws are being tightened!

? Plaintiff counsel asserted that despite the court order, the government is taking the position that it has no obligation to respond to over half of current document requests. Defendants did not invoke executive privilege under these requests and no motion
to compel has been filed yet with the court describing plaintiff’s litigating position.

? Plaintiff counsel noted that the following two document requests are examples of failure to respond under the discovery order and counsel stressed that these requests get to the heart of the issue at hand yet the government has taken the position to not respond to these requests thus far:

o Document Request 13: Any and all documents relating to FHFA’s determination that it is obligated to maximize Treasury’s return on its investment in the Companies or otherwise prioritize the interests of taxpayers.

o Document Request 17: Any and all documents reflecting communications relating to the Net Worth Sweep between FHFA and/or Treasury, and:

(a) Fannie and Freddie Boards of Directors and Executives,
(b) The Companies’ lawyers;
(c) The Companies’ auditors;
(d) Rating agencies or other market analysts.

? Defendant counsel responded by noting that many of these document requests do not fall under the February 26, 2014 court order in terms of subject matter permitted as part of discovery.

Following defendant counsel’s response, plaintiff counsel pointed out that the government did not specifically mention that they intend to respond to these outstanding document requests and further noted that that there are eight additional requests that have yet to be fulfilled as well by the government.

Potential conflict here? Judge knows Gov is guilty of conspiring with FHFA to enact Third Amendment Sweep and is assisting Fairholme Attorney's in gathering necessary evidence to prosecute!

Judge Sweeney emphasized that the whole purpose of this exercise is to allow plaintiffs to have their day in court and to have the opportunity to explore whether or not the U.S. government (i.e. Treasury, Congress or even the Executive Branch) directed FHFA to take certain actions regarding the Third Amendment. Judge Sweeney stressed to defendant counsel that if FHFA took orders from the U.S. government, regardless of the branch, then “that information has to be brought forward” even if it is subject to the protective order and not publically available.

? Termination of conservatorship requires Treasury’s consent pursuant to the Purchase Agreement

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=105443731