FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

[Guest cherzeca]

this is something of an oversimplification, but taking the class plaintiffs and fairholme briefs together, i would see at risk in perry only the class P's claim for damages against treasury for breach of fiduciary duty. this claim might have to be brought in appeals court eyes only in court of claims, where of course fairholme is suing for damages under a takings theory.

 

all claims by fairholme and class Ps for equitable relief against fhfa and ust should be good.  of course, we have yet to hear from govt on the court's questions.

 

in my view, equitable relief, such as voiding the NWS, is the best relief available, but to be able to pursue that the perry court has to disagree with lamberth and hold that the anti-injunction provision of HERA is not a bar to a claim for equitable relief for action outside fhfa's authority (conservator duty) or ust's powers (nws a purchase after 2009 sunset date).

[merkhet]

this is something of an oversimplification, but taking the class plaintiffs and fairholme briefs together, i would see at risk in perry only the class P's claim for damages against treasury for breach of fiduciary duty. this claim might have to be brought in appeals court eyes only in court of claims, where of course fairholme is suing for damages under a takings theory.

 

all claims by fairholme and class Ps for equitable relief against fhfa and ust should be good.  of course, we have yet to hear from govt on the court's questions.

 

in my view, equitable relief, such as voiding the NWS, is the best relief available, but to be able to pursue that the perry court has to disagree with lamberth and hold that the anti-injunction provision of HERA is not a bar to a claim for equitable relief for action outside fhfa's authority (conservator duty) or ust's powers (nws a purchase after 2009 sunset date).

 

Are you starting to think that the breach (K, fiduciary duty, etc.) claims are more likely to be decided favorably than the other claims?

[Guest cherzeca]

this is something of an oversimplification, but taking the class plaintiffs and fairholme briefs together, i would see at risk in perry only the class P's claim for damages against treasury for breach of fiduciary duty. this claim might have to be brought in appeals court eyes only in court of claims, where of course fairholme is suing for damages under a takings theory.

 

all claims by fairholme and class Ps for equitable relief against fhfa and ust should be good.  of course, we have yet to hear from govt on the court's questions.

 

in my view, equitable relief, such as voiding the NWS, is the best relief available, but to be able to pursue that the perry court has to disagree with lamberth and hold that the anti-injunction provision of HERA is not a bar to a claim for equitable relief for action outside fhfa's authority (conservator duty) or ust's powers (nws a purchase after 2009 sunset date).

 

Are you starting to think that the breach (K, fiduciary duty, etc.) claims are more likely to be decided favorably than the other claims?

 

i really dont.  i think the crux of the appeal is whether lamberth's interpretation of the anti-injunction provision was correct.  i heard no judicial engagement by perry app ct on this, they went straight to whether and on what basis NWS might be within fhfa's authority as conservator, but not on whether it was irrelevant to even inquire as to conservator authority. 

 

i was simply making clear to any reader that there is a hurdle to be surmounted for injunctive relief, not that i dont think Ps will get (at least) remand on this claim.

 

do you?

[merkhet]

Yes, I think that the breach claims are easier to decide than the other claims. I think those other claims are fine, but there are more hurdles to clear than for the breach claims, IMO.

[Guest cherzeca]

Yes, I think that the breach claims are easier to decide than the other claims. I think those other claims are fine, but there are more hurdles to clear than for the breach claims, IMO.

 

i think there are hurdles for both Ps and Ds on the injunction claims. why i think remand is most likely, which then will turn on what kind of legal standard appeals court provides for claims remanded for further fact finding.

 

do you think the hindes/jacobs claim based on dgcl 151 is easier to make than the perry safe and sound/conserve and preserve claim?

[merkhet]

The Jacobs claim is the easiest of all three, but the timeline is still up in the air.

[Guest cherzeca]

The Jacobs claim is the easiest of all three, but the timeline is still up in the air.

 

the perry breach and jacobs claims share a common question of law, whether HERA preempts state law claims. now i dont think that defense flies, but i am guessing that you share my view on it

[merkhet]

The Jacobs claim is the easiest of all three, but the timeline is still up in the air.

 

the perry breach and jacobs claims share a common question of law, whether HERA preempts state law claims. now i dont think that defense flies, but i am guessing that you share my view on it

 

Sure, but after that, the claims in Jacobs are easier to resolve than the claims in Perry, IMO.

[merkhet]

Is something afoot?

 

http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-list?ID=B4B184A8-E2EC-459B-BD0A-A16337272736

 

U.S. Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, released the following statement today after authoring a bipartisan letter to the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). The letter encouraged Director Mel Watt to avoid taking steps that may facilitate the release of government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac out of conservatorship without comprehensive reform. Senators Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), and Mark Warner (D-Va.) coauthored the letter.

[doughishere]

Hahahhaha!!

 

From chapman

 

There are two developments in Robinson v. FHFA today:

 

    (A) Judge Thapur's discovered that he owns 16 shares of Fannie Mae stock.  As a result, he wants to convene a telephonic conference with the parties tomorrow afternoon.  A copy of Judge Thapur's Order scheduling that conference call to talk about how to navigate any potential conflict of interest is attached to this e-mail message. 

 

    © FHFA filed its Reply to Ms. Robinson's Response to FHFA's Supplemental Brief in further support of its Motion to Dismiss.  FHFA likes its newly discovered capital classification argument and presses forward with it with Judge Thapur.

[TonyG]

Can't he just sell his shares. It's like $32. Is there any way defendants can try to stall and get a new judge?

[Guest cherzeca]

he should sell his shares and contribute proceeds to charity.  the order called for a court reporter on the telephone call so we may eventually see who said what.

[Guest cherzeca]

Can't he just sell his shares. It's like $32. Is there any way defendants can try to stall and get a new judge?

 

stall? yes. Ds could ask judge to get his situation reviewed by a some federal judiciary panel.  removed? hard to see.  we'll see if Ds adopt a stall tactic.

 

anyone want to join call? 

 

from order: 

 

The parties must DIAL IN to this conference call five

minutes before the scheduled time by following these steps:

(A) Call AT&T Teleconferencing at 1-877-873-8017;

(B) Enter access code 8284218 (followed by “#”); and

© When requested, enter the security code, 1234 (followed by “#”).

 

[you know i am kidding, right?]

[Luke 532]

Is something afoot?

 

http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-list?ID=B4B184A8-E2EC-459B-BD0A-A16337272736

 

U.S. Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, released the following statement today after authoring a bipartisan letter to the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). The letter encouraged Director Mel Watt to avoid taking steps that may facilitate the release of government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac out of conservatorship without comprehensive reform. Senators Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), and Mark Warner (D-Va.) coauthored the letter.

 

Sounds like Corker is nervous that Watt might release the GSE's.  Things have been pretty quiet out there... wonder what, if any, material events might be taking place behind the scenes.

[merkhet]

IIRC, this is the second time that Corker has sounded a warning on this in the last two months or so.

[Eye4Valu]

Haven't a lot of people pointed out that Watt has the power to release them from "conservatorship," and called on him to do it? I suspect that Watt is beholden to the O. Administration and/or Treasury, who do not want that to happen, so I guess he wouldn't take that step. But theoretically speaking, isn't Corker powerless to prevent Watt from doing so. I know that Congress can always change their sponsorship going forward, but it seems to me that Watt is the captain of the ship, and can feel free to disregard Corker. Obviously that scares Corker and his bipartisan sidekicks. If Watt went behind everyone's back and released them, he would have 80 pound balls!

[Mephistopheles]

Hahahhaha!!

 

From chapman

 

 

 

    (A) Judge Thapur's discovered that he owns 16 shares of Fannie Mae stock.  As a result, he wants to convene a telephonic conference with the parties tomorrow afternoon.  A copy of Judge Thapur's Order scheduling that conference call to talk about how to navigate any potential conflict of interest is attached to this e-mail message. 

 

 

 

Silly Judge. The preferreds are obviously the better bet!

[doughishere]

Hahahhaha!!

 

From chapman

 

 

 

    (A) Judge Thapur's discovered that he owns 16 shares of Fannie Mae stock.  As a result, he wants to convene a telephonic conference with the parties tomorrow afternoon.  A copy of Judge Thapur's Order scheduling that conference call to talk about how to navigate any potential conflict of interest is attached to this e-mail message. 

 

 

 

Silly Judge. The preferreds are obviously the better bet!

 

 

Ms. Robinson delivered papers to Judge Thapar today urging him to sell his 16 shares in Fannie Mae for about $32 to cure any potential conflict of interest and move this case forward expeditiously and without interruption. 

15-00109-0057.pdf

[Guest cherzeca]

Hahahhaha!!

 

From chapman

 

 

 

    (A) Judge Thapur's discovered that he owns 16 shares of Fannie Mae stock.  As a result, he wants to convene a telephonic conference with the parties tomorrow afternoon.  A copy of Judge Thapur's Order scheduling that conference call to talk about how to navigate any potential conflict of interest is attached to this e-mail message. 

 

 

 

Silly Judge. The preferreds are obviously the better bet!

 

 

Ms. Robinson delivered papers to Judge Thapar today urging him to sell his 16 shares in Fannie Mae for about $32 to cure any potential conflict of interest and move this case forward expeditiously and without interruption.

 

i love these lawyers from the taft firm. i guess associates do all-nighters in kentucky too

[Guest cherzeca]

looks like govt argued for recusal. judge tharpur to decide whether must recuse by monday, and if doesnt gives govt opportunity to brief why he should next weeks oral argument is cancelled

 

this is ludicrous

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ezkdkiewcqkf1e1/robinson%20recusal.pdf?dl=0

[Sunrider]

It is but as a lawyer, wouldn't you say that you'd do the exact same thing as it is in your client's interest to stall it?

 

Let's just hope Thapur handles this well so that even if gov then tries to force him off the case it only leads to delays, not another judge.

 

If he doesn't recuse, what's the next step for government? Do they file a motion with another court to force removal of judge? Does the trial proceed and they simply try to appeal any judgement on the grounds of this later on?

 

Thanks

C

 

[Guest cherzeca]

"wouldn't you say that you'd do the exact same thing as it is in your client's interest to stall it?"

 

2 views: you argue that judge should recuse, and you achieve some delay (seems what govt did); dont argue for recusal, cause judge will think you are a hump and you lose goodwill.

 

busting balls of your adversary is almost always called for.  maybe not so when the balls are the judges

[Guest cherzeca]

"If he doesn't recuse, what's the next step for government? Do they file a motion with another court to force removal of judge?"

 

don't think failure to recuse decision is appealable except as part of an appeal of a decision on merits

[Sunrider]

"If he doesn't recuse, what's the next step for government? Do they file a motion with another court to force removal of judge?"

 

don't think failure to recuse decision is appealable except as part of an appeal of a decision on merits

 

Thanks Chris - as always very useful insight (also into what (not) to do with judges). So if I understand you correctly, the decision in Thapur's and there is only a small risk that this may create problems for plaintiffs later on if he rules in their favor?

 

C.

[Mephistopheles]

Wouldn't the whole thing be resolved if he simply sold his shares? I don't understand why this has to be such a process.