Any significance of the treasury and FHFA being unopposed to the most recent motion?
The most recent motion is to unseal Fairholme's third motion. That motion to unseal the third motion is unopposed by the Defendants. The motion to unseal the third motion is not yet granted or denied. Whether, the unsealing is granted or denied, the case goes forward. What is more relevant is whether or not the Third Motion itself will be granted or denied.
Here is what happened recently:
1. On 2/08/17, the Defendants, Treasury and FHFA filed an opposition to Fairholme’s sealed third motion for judicial notice and supplementation of the record and ask the Court to deny the third motion. The third motion was sealed.
2. On 2/14/17, the Plaintiffs submitted an unopposed motion to unseal Fairholme’s sealed third motion for judicial notice and supplementation of the record and requested that this motion to unseal should be granted. This motion is for unsealing the third motion. Since it is an unopposed motion, it most likely that unsealing will be granted.
3. Given the CADC and CFC Writ of Mandamus rulings and orders, Treasury and FHFA are not opposed to the unsealing of the third motion.
4. Even so, Treasury and FHFA remain opposed to the third motion for judicial notice and supplementation of the record (whether it is sealed or unsealed).
5. That being so, on 2/14/17, the Plaintiffs argue against the Defendants' opposition filing to the third motion (2/08/17) and in their reply, Plaintiffs direct the Court to take judicial notice and to supplement the record with the documents attached to Fairholme’s motion.
We await Court's decisions to grant or deny both motions. One to unseal the third motion, and the other, the third motion itself.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
