Guest cherzeca Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 David Thompson and Cooper & Kirk have done such a fantastic job on briefing and in oral argument. we should have much gratitude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 David Thompson and Cooper & Kirk have done such a fantastic job on briefing and in oral argument. we should have much gratitude Agree. Extending gratitude to Bruce Berkowitz and all the other hedge funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onyx1 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 David Thompson and Cooper & Kirk have done such a fantastic job on briefing and in oral argument. we should have much gratitude Agree. Extending gratitude to Bruce Berkowitz and all the other hedge funds. For seven years, we've enjoyed world class legal representation at no cost. I'm very grateful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undervalued Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 David Thompson and Cooper & Kirk have done such a fantastic job on briefing and in oral argument. we should have much gratitude Agree. Extending gratitude to Bruce Berkowitz and all the other hedge funds. For seven years, we've enjoyed world class legal representation at no cost. I'm very grateful. Ditto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardincap Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 wow 13/16 enbanc hearings in 5th circuit resulted in reversed decisions, according to thompson on the call Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allnatural Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 Can't wait to be #4 of 17 wow 13/16 enbanc hearings in 5th circuit resulted in reversed decisions, according to thompson on the call Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRValue Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 Does anyone know if there will be a webcast replay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allnatural Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 Tim P. said within 48H Does anyone know if there will be a webcast replay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRValue Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 Tim P. said within 48H Does anyone know if there will be a webcast replay? Thanks bud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 Can't wait to be #4 of 17 wow 13/16 enbanc hearings in 5th circuit resulted in reversed decisions, according to thompson on the call you mean 14/17, right? it takes at least 9/16 to agree to rehear en banc, so this is not surprising. only 20% upon actual rehearing proved to be an unnecessary rehearing from a result point of view. couple this stat with what one heard on the oral argument and one may be inclined to draw an inference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allnatural Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 If i may play devil's advocate- is it possible the primary reason this case was picked up en banc was related to the constitutional claim (which the defense later withdrew), and not constitutional remedy or APA, which may have been secondary to the en banc judges? I guess if that were the case you would have to believe that majority of the judges don't agree that FHFA is unconst. structured (which would be a leap of faith given the majority conservative panel). Just thinking out loud but I think i answered my own question. Can't wait to be #4 of 17 wow 13/16 enbanc hearings in 5th circuit resulted in reversed decisions, according to thompson on the call you mean 14/17, right? it takes at least 9/16 to agree to rehear en banc, so this is not surprising. only 20% upon actual rehearing proved to be an unnecessary rehearing from a result point of view. couple this stat with what one heard on the oral argument and one may be inclined to draw an inference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 If i may play devil's advocate- is it possible the primary reason this case was picked up en banc was related to the constitutional claim (which the defense later withdrew), and not constitutional remedy or APA, which may have been secondary to the en banc judges? I guess if that were the case you would have to believe that majority of the judges don't agree that FHFA is unconst. structured (which would be a leap of faith given the majority conservative panel). Just thinking out loud but I think i answered my own question. Can't wait to be #4 of 17 wow 13/16 enbanc hearings in 5th circuit resulted in reversed decisions, according to thompson on the call you mean 14/17, right? it takes at least 9/16 to agree to rehear en banc, so this is not surprising. only 20% upon actual rehearing proved to be an unnecessary rehearing from a result point of view. couple this stat with what one heard on the oral argument and one may be inclined to draw an inference yes, your devil's advocacy would mean that the only issue the circuit disagreed with from the merits panel opinion was unconstitutionality of for cause removal...which neither of the defendants argued en banc. the devil has set a beggars banquet. jut based upon the oral argument, it would appear that there was some substantial interest in the APA claim ("good" for Ps), and also some interest in constitutional standing (redressability raised by female judge, I'm thinking judge Haynes ("not good" for Ps)) and constitutional remedy (question raised by judge Willett as to scotus precedent for backward relief, to which Thompson replied the bowsher case ("good" for Ps). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midas79 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 Did Thompson say that all 13 of those cases were actually reversed, or does that number include remands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allnatural Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 To be more specific, there were 16 en banc cases in total in this circuits history, 13 were reversed (see below): Tim Pagliara @timpagliara "EnBanc hearings in 5th Circuit 13/16 cases reversed decisions- 2/15 same ruling for different legal reasons. 1/15 confirmed lower court ruling. This points to the significance of the 5th Circuit hearing - David Thompson- Investors Unite call 1/31/19" I'm assuming any reversal on remand would fall into the 13 bucket. Did Thompson say that all 13 of those cases were actually reversed, or does that number include remands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 Did Thompson say that all 13 of those cases were actually reversed, or does that number include remands? you can have reversal and remand. could happen with collins APA claim; reverse the granting of motion to dismiss and either order motion to dismiss is denied or order P summary judgment, and remand to district court to either hold trial (former) or to implement the remedy (latter) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midas79 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 Did Thompson say that all 13 of those cases were actually reversed, or does that number include remands? you can have reversal and remand. could happen with collins APA claim; reverse the granting of motion to dismiss and either order motion to dismiss is denied or order P summary judgment, and remand to district court to either hold trial (former) or to implement the remedy (latter) I see. Is there any reason to believe that the former or latter is more likely based on the previous en banc decisions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 Did Thompson say that all 13 of those cases were actually reversed, or does that number include remands? you can have reversal and remand. could happen with collins APA claim; reverse the granting of motion to dismiss and either order motion to dismiss is denied or order P summary judgment, and remand to district court to either hold trial (former) or to implement the remedy (latter) I see. Is there any reason to believe that the former or latter is more likely based on the previous en banc decisions? Thompson didn't get that granular, but it would all be rather idiosyncratic. I think the headline fact, an 80% reversal rate, reversal understood broadly, is the relevant datapoint and it is rather interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggins Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 Totally agree with thanks to the Fairholme legal work. Thompson also made a point that this would be a good time for the Government to negotiate with Ps; would be easier than after a court win. They may not need to negotiate if plan is to stop NWS. That would be a clean solution. I thought this was interesting: a former Trump campaign official appointed as chief of staff of FHFA. This is a Trump insider (obviously) from way back that would know other campaign officials/donors, etc. https://themreport.com/daily-dose/01-31-2019/joseph-otting-appoints-new-chief-of-staff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 Totally agree with thanks to the Fairholme legal work. Thompson also made a point that this would be a good time for the Government to negotiate with Ps; would be easier than after a court win. They may not need to negotiate if plan is to stop NWS. That would be a clean solution. I thought this was interesting: a former Trump campaign official appointed as chief of staff of FHFA. This is a Trump insider (obviously) from way back that would know other campaign officials/donors, etc. https://themreport.com/daily-dose/01-31-2019/joseph-otting-appoints-new-chief-of-staff Looks like Roscoe signed off on the plan too :) Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 Totally agree with thanks to the Fairholme legal work. Thompson also made a point that this would be a good time for the Government to negotiate with Ps; would be easier than after a court win. They may not need to negotiate if plan is to stop NWS. That would be a clean solution. I thought this was interesting: a former Trump campaign official appointed as chief of staff of FHFA. This is a Trump insider (obviously) from way back that would know other campaign officials/donors, etc. https://themreport.com/daily-dose/01-31-2019/joseph-otting-appoints-new-chief-of-staff Maybe just another in the Trump, Paulson, Mnuchin, Otting coincidence. :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 Andrea Riquier Anyone else hearing that Senator Crapo is going to release a #GSE plan this morning? It would be funny if he introduced a bill that was essentially the Moelis plan. I doubt he would, but if he did then he gets credit for it, Admin gets what it wants, everybody wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 Can treasury recoup Senior Prefereds by issuing common shares but cancel warrants? Warrants were optional anyways. As per Moelis, commons shares are valued at $17.75, why do we think they not have value? Would you give up 80% of a payday? You yourself want 17.75 for your common so I can tell you the answer is no. The warrants have never been in question. You can try to go back and parse out accounting fraud was the bailout needed etc. but that is impossible to do and the climate at the time totally necessitated some form of take over or backstop of FnF. You can place blame where you want regarding banks etc but in that climate there was no other option. Dow would swing 5-10% a day. There were bankruptcies all over the place, countrywide, GE, GM, not to mention all of the bank bailouts. What the government did, did necessitate compensation. It an be argued if the treatment of FnF was to extreme but every single other bailed out entity had steep terms or massive dilution. AIG was diluted 92%! C, BAC, etc all diluted. Buffet got great terms with GS etc. Warrants are not going anywhere and IMO they shouldnt. Its easy 10 years later to say oh thats not fair yada yada. Put yourself in that time and place and the climate. The NWS is a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 Andrea Riquier Anyone else hearing that Senator Crapo is going to release a #GSE plan this morning? It would be funny if he introduced a bill that was essentially the Moelis plan. I doubt he would, but if he did then he gets credit for it, Admin gets what it wants, everybody wins. Zachary Warmbrodt Senate Banking Chairman @MikeCrapo is releasing a housing finance reform plan today that would make Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac private companies, overhaul FHFA and establish a new “Market Access Fund” to address affordable housing. More details @POLITICOPro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 Andrea Riquier Anyone else hearing that Senator Crapo is going to release a #GSE plan this morning? It would be funny if he introduced a bill that was essentially the Moelis plan. I doubt he would, but if he did then he gets credit for it, Admin gets what it wants, everybody wins. Zachary Warmbrodt Senate Banking Chairman @MikeCrapo is releasing a housing finance reform plan today that would make Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac private companies, overhaul FHFA and establish a new “Market Access Fund” to address affordable housing. More details @POLITICOPro Wow that was quick. Funny what happens when your feet are held to the fire. Is this a beginning to a race to finish line in regards to who can get it done first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 Crapo's outline: https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Housing%20Reform%20Outline.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