Replies to post #14718 on Fannie Mae Preferred S (FNMAS)

[Donotunderstand]

re

this part of the prior

""... she said, in essence, that whether or not FHFA as a conservator was in some sense acting as a private actor (a conservator of an investor-owned company), she was satisfied that FHFA was broadly acting as the "gov't."

I might suggest the judge did not go that far. As I read it the Judge ruled that plaintiff (Fairholme) can have full but defined discovery to prove its point that the FHFA acted as an arm of TREASURY and as such there was no private and public party action but all public action. Thus - if Fairholme via discovery shows that FHFA acted more like GOV - then the GOV motion to dismiss is killed - as a necessary first step to hear argumnets

Many posters on FNMA believe the Judge's ruling is less important as a step to trial as a dagger to push the GOV to do something since the GOV seriously does not want to be "discovered"

[rosen62]

I think Mr. Olson frames his argument in a way that he can take all the way to SCOTUS, if necessary. Pretty brilliant really.

The more I think about it the more I reach that same conclusion. It seems Ted Olson anticipated the entire chess game prior to making his first move. Berkowitz requires the cooperation of the government, which he will not get. The government will make sure the next 60 to 90 days are hell for his lawyers regardless of the extent of the discovery. This is why he is requesting monthly or even bi-monthly meetings with the judge to see that the process is running smooth.

Ted Olson, instead, escaped all that. Nothing he did requires the government to be cooperative. It's like he is flying at 30,000 feet shooting laser-guided missiles at each and every government's arguments. Nothing but high caliber.