valuecfa Posted September 6, 2012 Author Share Posted September 6, 2012 For MBIA, i see one catalyst ie) Settlement with BAC. Separation being upheld by the courts is the other major catalyst. If you think either one of these things will happen, then this stock is a 'no brainer". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valuecfa Posted September 14, 2012 Author Share Posted September 14, 2012 In case anyone is still following the company. National Public Finance Guarantee September Presentation: http://www.nationalpfg.com/pdf/9-4-12-National-Investor-Presentation-Version.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiltacular Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prunes Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 New filing http://www.mbia.com/investor/publications/complaint-9-17-12.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valuecfa Posted September 18, 2012 Author Share Posted September 18, 2012 New filing http://www.mbia.com/investor/publications/complaint-9-17-12.pdf JP Morgan too: http://www.mbia.com/investor/publications/MorganSecuritiesComplaint.pdf Don't know how i missed these two new filings. First I'm reading of them today...Thank you for the heads up. Got some reading to do tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prunes Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Would love to get your thoughts when you're done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRH Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 New filing http://www.mbia.com/investor/publications/complaint-9-17-12.pdf JP Morgan too: http://www.mbia.com/investor/publications/MorganSecuritiesComplaint.pdf Don't know how i missed these two new filings. First I'm reading of them today...Thank you for the heads up. Got some reading to do tonight. They claim losses "in excess of $2 billion" (Ally) and $168 million (JP Morgan). In total, that's about equal to MBIA's market capitalization. The difference between win and loss is definitely material! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A_Hamilton Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 New filing http://www.mbia.com/investor/publications/complaint-9-17-12.pdf JP Morgan too: http://www.mbia.com/investor/publications/MorganSecuritiesComplaint.pdf Don't know how i missed these two new filings. First I'm reading of them today...Thank you for the heads up. Got some reading to do tonight. They claim losses "in excess of $2 billion" (Ally) and $168 million (JP Morgan). In total, that's about equal to MBIA's market capitalization. The difference between win and loss is definitely material! The claim against Ally looks like a hail mary. They are stating every claim possible to try to tie the parent Ally to the bankrupt ResCap subsidiary with whom their contracts were made. Good luck piercing the corporate veil! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiltacular Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 I check in on mpauls twitter feed to follow updates on MBIA -- nice job. I'm wondering if I somehow missed when / whether / by what date...Bransten is going to rule on the split of MBI and Nat'l Public? Any updates would be appreciated. TIA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valuecfa Posted September 26, 2012 Author Share Posted September 26, 2012 I check in on mpauls twitter feed to follow updates on MBIA -- nice job. I'm wondering if I somehow missed when / whether / by what date...Bransten is going to rule on the split of MBI and Nat'l Public? Any updates would be appreciated. TIA Justice Kapnick is going to rule on the split. Bransten is the case where MBIA is plaintiff. There aren't any significant updates for the split yet (just Hague Convention filings). Still waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiltacular Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 valuecfa, Kapnick -- right...thanks for the reminder. I read a bunch of the trascripts at the time that this was happening. I thought I got the feeling that she would have made a ruling by now (which we know will be appealed). Do others feel that it has taken longer than expected or is it completely unknowable? I haven't dealt with a lot of these types of situations -- where there are multiple cases going on with multiple judges in multiple jurisdictions. Isn't there some date before which she must rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valuecfa Posted September 26, 2012 Author Share Posted September 26, 2012 valuecfa, Kapnick -- right...thanks for the reminder. I read a bunch of the trascripts at the time that this was happening. I thought I got the feeling that she would have made a ruling by now (which we know will be appealed). Do others feel that it has taken longer than expected or is it completely unknowable? I haven't dealt with a lot of these types of situations -- where there are multiple cases going on with multiple judges in multiple jurisdictions. Isn't there some date before which she must rule? Yes. It's taking longer than I expected. I used to check on a daily basis for updates. It's frustrating to say the least. Now, after showing her where and how to search, i have a co-worker look for me :-[ Lazy i know. I'm fully vested in the name anyway, and i don't anticipate "beating the news" when it gets released. I don't believe there is a deadline for her decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiltacular Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Yes. It's taking longer than I expected. I used to check on a daily basis for updates. It's frustrating to say the least. Now, after showing her where and how to search, i have a co-worker look for me Lazy i know. I'm fully vested in the name anyway, and i don't anticipate "beating the news" when it gets released. I don't believe there is a deadline for her decision. I understand your frustration. I wouldn't say I was to the point of frustration yet but I am firmly in the "trying to figure out the game" camp. What possible reason is there for her to take so long to rule on this? For some period of time I was assuming it was to give the parties time to settle this and get the challenge withdrawn. It doesn't sound like you or others feel that way but instead that she is just taking a long time for no good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraven Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Yes. It's taking longer than I expected. I used to check on a daily basis for updates. It's frustrating to say the least. Now, after showing her where and how to search, i have a co-worker look for me Lazy i know. I'm fully vested in the name anyway, and i don't anticipate "beating the news" when it gets released. I don't believe there is a deadline for her decision. I understand your frustration. I wouldn't say I was to the point of frustration yet but I am firmly in the "trying to figure out the game" camp. What possible reason is there for her to take so long to rule on this? For some period of time I was assuming it was to give the parties time to settle this and get the challenge withdrawn. It doesn't sound like you or others feel that way but instead that she is just taking a long time for no good reason. There is no deadline in which the decision needs to be rendered. There almost never is. Welcome to the US judicial system. She can rule whenever she wants to. There is no point in trying to figure out why there is a delay. It will never be clear. Could be workload, wanting the parties to settle or who knows what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiltacular Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 There is no deadline in which the decision needs to be rendered. There almost never is. Welcome to the US judicial system. She can rule whenever she wants to. There is no point in trying to figure out why there is a delay. It will never be clear. Could be workload, wanting the parties to settle or who knows what. Kraven, I appreciate your comments. So, now I'm clear -- unless someone disagrees -- that there is no deadline. It does seem strange -- if not unconstitutional -- that there is literally no deadline by which a judge must rule on a case. In theory, then, this could just become a cold case. A decision is imminent but never arrives. Given this notion, I didn't think my questions were pointless. I was simply asking for others' opinions -- not holding anyone (including the judge) "responsible". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraven Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 There is no deadline in which the decision needs to be rendered. There almost never is. Welcome to the US judicial system. She can rule whenever she wants to. There is no point in trying to figure out why there is a delay. It will never be clear. Could be workload, wanting the parties to settle or who knows what. Kraven, I appreciate your comments. So, now I'm clear -- unless someone disagrees -- that there is no deadline. It does seem strange -- if not unconstitutional -- that there is literally no deadline by which a judge must rule on a case. In theory, then, this could just become a cold case. A decision is imminent but never arrives. Given this notion, I didn't think my questions were pointless. I was simply asking for others' opinions -- not holding anyone (including the judge) "responsible". No worries. Your questions weren't unreasonable at all. I am sure many share your frustration. No, no deadline. It's not unconstitutional. This is a civil matter - no one's life or liberty is being litigated. No one will lose their freedom or suffer what the court would consider to be a consequence from which there can be no solution. But don't extrapolate to assume that there will never be a decision. "Cold case" is a term used to describe a criminal investigation where leads have been exhausted and the investigation "grows cold". This is completely different. She will render a decision at some point. It could be that the parties have alerted her they are discussing a settlement. It could be it's a very tough decision to make and she is having tons of research done by clerks. Or it could be something completely different. This is one reason why parties never like to litigate. The judicial system makes a glacier's movements seem speedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlanMaestro Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 From Twitter Why judge has not ruled. Mark Palmer - BTIG Seventy-three days have passed since July 19, the day that investors had focused on since New York State Supreme Court Justice Barbara Kapnick six weeks earlier had indicated it would take her about six weeks to produce a ruling in the Article 78 proceeding in which Bank of America (BAC) and Societe Generale are challenging the New York Insurance Department’s Feb-09 decision to allow buy-rated MBIA to transform itself. At this point, many investors are asking the question: why hasn’t Justice Kapnick issued a ruling on the case yet? While it would be easy to dismiss the delay with an observation about how “the wheels of justice turn slowly,” or to attribute it to the fact that Kapnick is an exceedingly busy judge with an overstuffed docket – she is, with 371 active cases assigned to her – we think it is worth considering whether there is something else at play in this case. To be clear, we think it is highly unlikely that the drawn-out wait for a ruling in any way bodes ill for MBIA. We believe it was apparent from statements Kapnick made during the course of the proceeding, the fact that she did not see the need to call any witnesses, and even her body language that she intended to confine her focus to the question of whether the NYID acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in allowing MBIA’s split. If this was an accurate read of the situation, Kapnick was not influenced by the efforts of the plaintiffs’ attorneys to broaden the focus of the case to questions of whether the bond insurer had committed a fraudulent conveyance when it transferred $5bn from MBIA Insurance to its newly formed municipal bond subsidiary. And as such, we believe it is very likely that the judge will rule in favor of the NYID and MBIA. So then why the delay? We believe Kapnick would strongly prefer not to have to rule on the case, and that she would be happy to see BAC and SocGen settle with MBIA. Not only would a ruling almost inevitably be appealed – many observers of the Article 78 hearing got the strong sense that BAC’s attorneys were conducting themselves as if they were playing for the appeal rather than the win – but it also could be politicized. Recall that in the midst of the hearing in May two New York state senators announced that “in light of recent news accounts of the ongoing litigation” they were contemplating “conducting an inquiry and holding hearings” about MBIA’s transformation if BAC lost the case. Additionally, Kapnick in May-13 will preside over the Article 77 case in which AIG, the attorneys general of New York and Delaware, and others are objecting to Bank of New York Mellon’s decision as trustee to 530 mortgage trusts to enter into an $8.5bn settlement with BAC – a case in which the standard of review was also whether the a decision was “arbitrary and capricious.” While Kapnick’s rulings are rarely overturned on appeal, the Article 78 ruling would be subjected to an unusually high amount of scrutiny. Moreover, we believe Kapnick is fully cognizant of the role that timing plays in the legal battles between BAC and MBIA. The Article 78 case is a precursor to a plenary action – a more straightforward fraudulent conveyance case – over which Kapnick also would preside at some point in 2013. That trial’s theoretical start date continues to be pushed back as long as the judge withholds her ruling. At the same time, MBIA v. Countrywide, the case in which the bond insurer is suing BAC over the losses it incurred as a result of insuring mortgage-backed securities in which Countrywide allegedly breached the representations and warranties on the underlying mortgages, continues to move forward in New York State Supreme Court Justice Eileen Bransten’s courtroom. Bransten has repeatedly blasted BAC’s attorneys for employing delay tactics during the discovery phase of the case, even threatening sanctions if such tactics continued. Why would BAC be so interested in slowing down MBIA v. Countrywide? It would greatly benefit the bank if the plenary action that Kapnick would preside over went to trial before the mortgage putback case did. If BAC were to win the plenary action and force MBIA to reverse its split before MBIA v. Countrywide went to trial, then MBIA’s leverage in negotiations with the bank would be greatly diminished. However, we believe Kapnick is cognizant that by delaying her ruling on Article 78 she is helping to remove any realistic possibility of that scenario playing out and, in our view, enhancing the possibility of a settlement. We are fast approaching a potential inflection point in MBIA v. Countrywide, as oral argument on summary judgment motions on the issue of primary liability (Countrywide) will be heard by Bransten on Nov. 14 and 15, with motions on successor liability (BAC) to be heard on Dec. 5 and 6. As we have previously noted, successor liability is one of the two main defenses that BAC had hoped to use in its defense against the torrent of putback suits it faces beyond MBIA’s case. Unfortunately for the bank, its ability to use the other main defense – loss causation – was dealt another blow last week by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff’s ruling on the issue in Assured Guaranty v. Flagstar Bank, a ruling that was extremely favorable to the bond insurers. Consequently, the successor liability defense has become even more important to BAC’s putback defense strategy. Will BAC roll the dice and hope that Bransten – who has ruled in MBIA’s favor on most of the case’s major pre-trial issues thus far – will see things its way on successor liability? It would be rational and prudent for the bank to settle with MBIA rather than face the possibility of an adverse ruling that would be applicable to all of the other putback plaintiffs’ cases while perhaps causing it to significantly increase its reserve for mortgage putbacks. Recall that BAC’s own attorneys have suggested that in light of recent court rulings, including U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty’s ruling on loss causation in Syncora v. EMC Mortgage, those banks facing putback litigation should “re-evaluate their exposure.” “Bank of America … is entering into this settlement to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of further protracted litigation,” said BAC CEO Brian Moynihan. “Resolving this litigation removes uncertainty and risk and is in the best interests of our shareholders.” Moynihan’s comments referred to BAC’s $2.43bn settlement in the Merrill Lynch acquisition-related class action litigation announced last week. However, we believe they could just as easily apply to the bank’s litigation with MBIA. http://finance.yahoo.com/mbview/threadview/;_ylt=AreUYGxQXXdXtOvJXTeHv9LeAohG;_ylu=X3oDMTFpdDhhbXByBG1pdANNZXNzYWdlIEJvYXJkcyB3aWRnZXQEcG9zAzgEc2VjA01lZGlhTXNnQm9hcmRz;_ylg=X3oDMTFlamZvM2ZlBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAMEcHQDc2VjdGlvbnM-;_ylv=3?&bn=c291b015-17f3-3679-bc77-4c306591cc32&tid=1349124459040-5d623579-8ab7-403b-ac01-29b937905083&tls=la%2Cd%2C1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenville Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Thanks Plan for the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiltacular Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Yes, PlanMaestro, thanks for this. This reasoning makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muscleman Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 This is a thread that almost entirely focuses on MBI. How come there is no comparable discussion for AGO? I think AGO is also interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunrider Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Erm - I suppose that is because it's a thread about MBIA? If you want to start a discussion about AGO go start a new thread - perhaps scroll back to the beginning of this one as an example - it's common practice here to present a mini case for why you think it's a good investment, what the thesis is, what the risks are, etc. ... I'm sure there would then be others who have an interest and participate ... Cheers - C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShahKhezri Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 A New York state judge said Wednesday that up to hundreds of confidential documents in litigation over a Bank of America Corp. subsidiary's mortgage-backed securities that were insured by MBIA Inc. will have to be released to the public in coming weeks. Judge Eileen Bransten said during a hearing in her downtown Manhattan courtroom that summary judgment motions that have so far been filed confidentially with the court under the terms of a confidentiality agreement governing discovery in the case will have to be made largely... http://www.law360.com/insurance/articles/384098/docs-in-bofa-insurer-s-mbs-suit-must-go-public-judge-says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valuecfa Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 Funny how they mention Fairfax in the latest court docs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valuecfa Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 Just filed: (Redacted) Memorandum of Law in Support of Countrywide's Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law In Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment - Redacted - I can't link to them, but you can find them on the database. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QLEAP Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Just filed: (Redacted) Memorandum of Law in Support of Countrywide's Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law In Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment - Redacted - I can't link to them, but you can find them on the database. thanks. Found them on mbia website http://mbia.com/investor/publications/Plaintiffs_Memorandum_of_Law_%20Summary_Judgment%20_redacted.pdf http://mbia.com/investor/publications/Countrywides_Memorandum_of_Law_%20Summary_Judgment_redacted.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now