investorG Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 Yes - but also ‘defendants do not believe ADR would be productive’ .... so I’m not sure what you make of this? Thanks! From the attached document... "Plaintiffs’ Position: Given that they believe there is a reasonable probability for settlement, Plaintiffs believe the case could benefit from ADR procedures such as mediation. Plaintiffs’ counsel have discussed ADR and their response to this provision with their clients. While Plaintiffs believe that ADR procedures could be useful, they do not believe that proceedings in the case should be delayed during the pendency of any such procedures. Defendants’ Position: Defendants do not believe ADR would be productive." the document says it clearly -- the gov't wont settle (at least under the Sessions regime) and the timeline for this case is 2+ years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocSnowball Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 Novice question to legal eagles on this forum: if the case goes further, is this a situation for preferred holders like us who are individuals to join the case via class action? What is the deterrent to greenmail here? Govt not wanting to settle could mean the entire range of possibilities from re-IPO to getting this to zero to hard negotiation, who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allnatural Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 If you're the government/admin- until you are ready to embark on a re-privatization/recap+release, why would you be willing to entertain settlement discussions? There is no reason for the admin to show their hand now until they are ready to execute. As of now we are still in preliminary reform discussions. Hopefully once the path becomes clear, there is higher probability government is willing to entertain settlement as part of a larger reform agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 Novice question to legal eagles on this forum: if the case goes further, is this a situation for preferred holders like us who are individuals to join the case via class action? What is the deterrent to greenmail here? Govt not wanting to settle could mean the entire range of possibilities from re-IPO to getting this to zero to hard negotiation, who knows. case is seeking class action certification Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allnatural Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 @Cherzca Can you explain how in the Lamberth timetable, there is a trial scheduled AFTER summary judgment? Am I missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocSnowball Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 Novice question to legal eagles on this forum: if the case goes further, is this a situation for preferred holders like us who are individuals to join the case via class action? What is the deterrent to greenmail here? Govt not wanting to settle could mean the entire range of possibilities from re-IPO to getting this to zero to hard negotiation, who knows. case is seeking class action certification @ cherzeca Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maybe4less Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 @Cherzca Can you explain how in the Lamberth timetable, there is a trial scheduled AFTER summary judgment? Am I missing something. I'm not Cherzca, but summary judgement always comes before a trial. If the motion for summary judgement is accepted, the judge can make a ruling, avoiding a trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allnatural Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 Thank you! So just to clarify... It plaintiffs win on summary judgement, there is NO trial and that's that. But if the judge cant agree on summary judgement, we go to trial shortly after? @Cherzca Can you explain how in the Lamberth timetable, there is a trial scheduled AFTER summary judgment? Am I missing something. I'm not Cherzca, but summary judgement always comes before a trial. If the motion for summary judgement is accepted, the judge can make a ruling, avoiding a trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maybe4less Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 Thank you! So just to clarify... It plaintiffs win on summary judgement, there is NO trial and that's that. But if the judge cant agree on summary judgement, we go to trial shortly after? In a summary judgement hearing, the judge considers only facts that are undisputed by both sides. If, given those facts, the judge accepts the arguments of the party making the motion, then that side "wins" and there is no trial. If the judge rejects the motion for summary judgement, then you probably go on to trial. In other words, if the defendant makes a motion for summary judgement that is denied, we still go to trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 Thank you! So just to clarify... It plaintiffs win on summary judgement, there is NO trial and that's that. But if the judge cant agree on summary judgement, we go to trial shortly after? In a summary judgement hearing, the judge considers only facts that are undisputed by both sides. If, given those facts, the judge accepts the arguments of the party making the motion, then that side "wins" and there is no trial. If the judge rejects the motion for summary judgement, then you probably go on to trial. In other words, if the defendant makes a motion for summary judgement that is denied, we still go to trial. Can the judge still deny it if asked by both parties like in this filing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maybe4less Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 Thank you! So just to clarify... It plaintiffs win on summary judgement, there is NO trial and that's that. But if the judge cant agree on summary judgement, we go to trial shortly after? In a summary judgement hearing, the judge considers only facts that are undisputed by both sides. If, given those facts, the judge accepts the arguments of the party making the motion, then that side "wins" and there is no trial. If the judge rejects the motion for summary judgement, then you probably go on to trial. In other words, if the defendant makes a motion for summary judgement that is denied, we still go to trial. Can the judge still deny it if asked by both parties like in this filing? I think in this case, each party is filing their own, separate motions for summary judgement (MSJs). The judge couldn't practically accept both, but both could be denied, and then we'd go to trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 @Cherzca Can you explain how in the Lamberth timetable, there is a trial scheduled AFTER summary judgment? Am I missing something. if summary judgment is denied, as it will likely be since the legal claim unfair dealing is so fact dependent, and a jury decides questions of fact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midas79 Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 FNMAT up 0.34 (5.57%) on 9x average volume. FMCKJ hits a milestone: it now trades at 5x FMCC ($6.55 vs $1.31). Was there something in Fannie's release that got people buying prefs again? Price movement is strong, volume is middle of the road overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 FNMAT up 0.34 (5.57%) on 9x average volume. FMCKJ hits a milestone: it now trades at 5x FMCC ($6.55 vs $1.31). Was there something in Fannie's release that got people buying prefs again? Price movement is strong, volume is middle of the road overall. Speculation on election outcome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 FNMAT up 0.34 (5.57%) on 9x average volume. FMCKJ hits a milestone: it now trades at 5x FMCC ($6.55 vs $1.31). Was there something in Fannie's release that got people buying prefs again? Price movement is strong, volume is middle of the road overall. Speculation on election outcome? maybe Nate Silver is going long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Looks like Tim Pagliara's Marsha Blackburn will replace Corker. Night and day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Looks like Tim Pagliara's Marsha Blackburn will replace Corker. Night and day. Sherrod Brown, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Looks like Tim Pagliara's Marsha Blackburn will replace Corker. Night and day. Sherrod Brown, too. maxine with the gavel at house financial services will look a whole lot different than hensarling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midas79 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 It's going to be high theater watching Trump try to deal with a Democrat-controlled House. High comedy too. Evidently, Maxine Waters proposed a bill in 2014 to wind down FnF. Mnuchin has shown no desire to do that, so does that (and the fact that the Dems have the House) shut the door on legislative reform? I'm trying to think of what common ground there could be between Trump and the House, and I'm just not seeing enough of it to make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 It's going to be high theater watching Trump try to deal with a Democrat-controlled House. High comedy too. Evidently, Maxine Waters proposed a bill in 2014 to wind down FnF. Mnuchin has shown no desire to do that, so does that (and the fact that the Dems have the House) shut the door on legislative reform? I'm trying to think of what common ground there could be between Trump and the House, and I'm just not seeing enough of it to make a difference. Mnuchin has said he prefers a legislative option and that it will need to be bipartisan. multiple times. imo nothing from yesterday changes that. I watched an interview from 2 days ago where Max said a top priority is housing reform if she's in charge. She likely wants explicit affordable housing mandates. Mnuchin wants some things, like a federal gtee and more competition, and they will likely negotiative legislatively in 2019 along with Pat Toomey. Then, if that fails, then maybe we'll see administrative reform. In the mean time, please stop the sweep! it is a fair policy choice, can spark action, and rules out nothing legislatively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 It's going to be high theater watching Trump try to deal with a Democrat-controlled House. High comedy too. Evidently, Maxine Waters proposed a bill in 2014 to wind down FnF. Mnuchin has shown no desire to do that, so does that (and the fact that the Dems have the House) shut the door on legislative reform? I'm trying to think of what common ground there could be between Trump and the House, and I'm just not seeing enough of it to make a difference. Let's see what Watt does on November 16th or soon after that. Any action he takes, or none, may reveal what Democrats really want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 It's going to be high theater watching Trump try to deal with a Democrat-controlled House. High comedy too. Evidently, Maxine Waters proposed a bill in 2014 to wind down FnF. Mnuchin has shown no desire to do that, so does that (and the fact that the Dems have the House) shut the door on legislative reform? I'm trying to think of what common ground there could be between Trump and the House, and I'm just not seeing enough of it to make a difference. Let's see what Watt does on November 16th or soon after that. Any action he takes, or none, may reveal what Democrats really want. what's 11/16? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 It's going to be high theater watching Trump try to deal with a Democrat-controlled House. High comedy too. Evidently, Maxine Waters proposed a bill in 2014 to wind down FnF. Mnuchin has shown no desire to do that, so does that (and the fact that the Dems have the House) shut the door on legislative reform? I'm trying to think of what common ground there could be between Trump and the House, and I'm just not seeing enough of it to make a difference. Let's see what Watt does on November 16th or soon after that. Any action he takes, or none, may reveal what Democrats really want. what's 11/16? The last day for public comments on the proposed rule on Enterprise Capital requirements. Deadline was moved out 60 days. https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/FHFA-Issues-Proposed-Rule-on-Enterprise-Capital.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 It's going to be high theater watching Trump try to deal with a Democrat-controlled House. High comedy too. Evidently, Maxine Waters proposed a bill in 2014 to wind down FnF. Mnuchin has shown no desire to do that, so does that (and the fact that the Dems have the House) shut the door on legislative reform? I'm trying to think of what common ground there could be between Trump and the House, and I'm just not seeing enough of it to make a difference. Mnuchin has said he prefers a legislative option and that it will need to be bipartisan. multiple times. imo nothing from yesterday changes that. I watched an interview from 2 days ago where Max said a top priority is housing reform if she's in charge. She likely wants explicit affordable housing mandates. Mnuchin wants some things, like a federal gtee and more competition, and they will likely negotiative legislatively in 2019 along with Pat Toomey. Then, if that fails, then maybe we'll see administrative reform. In the mean time, please stop the sweep! it is a fair policy choice, can spark action, and rules out nothing legislatively. I really cannot see Toomey, Blackburn, Sherrod Brown or even Maxine Waters being against stopping the sweep. Her 2014 proposed bill, let's not forget, happened in the midst of Obama policies. Commenting on her own bill when proposed back in March 2014: ... I believe that we have an opportunity to address some of the fundamental flaws of the current system, by ending the perverse incentives created by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's ownership structure and providing an explicit government guarantee that is paid for by industry...(The draft bill furthers a conversation started by legislation released by Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Mark Warner (D-VA) and, more recently, Senators Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Mike Crapo (R-ID).) 1. She likes the explicit gov guarantee and may go w/ Mnuchin security-level narrower one. 2. The perverse incentives talk was Obama's script. We will have to wait for her 2019 updated version on that. Specially, with Corker/Hernsanling out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 It's going to be high theater watching Trump try to deal with a Democrat-controlled House. High comedy too. Evidently, Maxine Waters proposed a bill in 2014 to wind down FnF. Mnuchin has shown no desire to do that, so does that (and the fact that the Dems have the House) shut the door on legislative reform? I'm trying to think of what common ground there could be between Trump and the House, and I'm just not seeing enough of it to make a difference. I do not remember maxine wanting to liquidate FnF. that certainly was hensarling 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