orthopa Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 What was that summons for? From Fairholme? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 cv-00109 is Robinson v. FHFA,et al. This is a relatively new case, 10/23. Claims FHFA’s conduct exceeded its statutory authority as conservator. Treasury’s conduct exceeded its statutory authority. Treasury’s conduct was arbitrary and capricious. Blah blah blah..... Just do a search for 00109. This seems to get updated fairly regularly and is a pretty good resource to keep track(because you know...there are so many lawsuits out there that it needs to be tracked). /http://bankrupt.com/gselitigationsummary201510.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Govt files it's opening brief in the Deleware case by the 13th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Recent filing in Perry case: http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Perry/14-5243-1581672.pdf Christian Herzeca's take on it: the order states: "The parties may refer to the lodged supplement to the appellate record in their remaining briefs, but they must identify it as such." so really, in all practical effect, the court granted the motion for judicial notice of the supplement to the record (the fairholme discovery material) insofar as the appeals court will be looking at this material in addition to the district court record. usually on appeal, parties are constricted solely to the record, which in the case with lamberth, plaintiffs are alleging is materially misleading and in certain respects false. so the plaintiffs can make their arguments based upon the fairholme discovery materials as well, and the appeals court can either find it persuasive or not, just like anything else that is submitted.....but getting it submitted for review is what plaintiffs were looking for and it is what they got Also interesting is the WSJ article about Corker's potentially shady trades: http://www.wsj.com/articles/sen-bob-corker-profits-on-quick-stock-trades-1446596135?alg=y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Recent filing in Perry case: http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Perry/14-5243-1581672.pdf Christian Herzeca's take on it: the order states: "The parties may refer to the lodged supplement to the appellate record in their remaining briefs, but they must identify it as such." so really, in all practical effect, the court granted the motion for judicial notice of the supplement to the record (the fairholme discovery material) insofar as the appeals court will be looking at this material in addition to the district court record. usually on appeal, parties are constricted solely to the record, which in the case with lamberth, plaintiffs are alleging is materially misleading and in certain respects false. so the plaintiffs can make their arguments based upon the fairholme discovery materials as well, and the appeals court can either find it persuasive or not, just like anything else that is submitted.....but getting it submitted for review is what plaintiffs were looking for and it is what they got Also interesting is the WSJ article about Corker's potentially shady trades: http://www.wsj.com/articles/sen-bob-corker-profits-on-quick-stock-trades-1446596135?alg=y The Perry filing is a pretty big win for shareholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Which lodged supplement are they referring to? Corker bought or sold 45 times. I'm actually a little surprised he did so well according to that chart in the WSJ. He "watched the trading range on his hometown stock" and "found that especially during times of market volatility it trades within ranges." "I've bought it heavily when it is at the low end of that range and then i hold it unitl there is upwad movement, when I sell." ...wow...just wow. How does he have time to govern? Hah.. U.S. Senator, or Day Trader? http://investorsunite.org/u-s-senator-or-day-trader/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brker_guy Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Not sure if you guys saw this today: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-05/hedge-funds-get-boost-on-mulvaney-bill-to-free-fannie-freddie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Which lodged supplement are they referring to? It's the supplemental information that Fairholme lodged with the appeals court in the Perry case. Basically all those depositions showing that the trial court was possibly misled by the partial record provided by the government. Not sure if you guys saw this today: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-05/hedge-funds-get-boost-on-mulvaney-bill-to-free-fannie-freddie That's a nice amount of progress. I doubt the bill survives, but we'll see if this kicks anything up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Perry briefing schedule: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Perry briefing schedule: That's around the same time as the Delaware case. Will be an interesting next few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 That's around the same time as the Delaware case. Will be an interesting next few months. I was thinking the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Picasso Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Anyone worried about potential liquidations from Pershing Square hitting the price of FNMA/FMCC? Seems like a real "risk" given what's happening with Valeant lately and having Pershing as your largest holder (outside of the government). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoCitiesCapital Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Anyone worried about potential liquidations from Pershing Square hitting the price of FNMA/FMCC? Seems like a real "risk" given what's happening with Valeant lately and having Pershing as your largest holder (outside of the government). Seems to me like that's a potential opportunity and not a real risk, am i right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Picasso Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Yeah which is why I have it in quotations. It doesn't affect the value of the business but this isn't the most liquid stock if he's forced to cut it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Anyone worried about potential liquidations from Pershing Square hitting the price of FNMA/FMCC? Seems like a real "risk" given what's happening with Valeant lately and having Pershing as your largest holder (outside of the government). Seth Klarman has a discussion about this and I agree with him. In other words, no I am not worried even if Ackman does have to sell his stake and the share price plummets. 9:08-10:48 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0kXOy8LFU8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Anyone worried about potential liquidations from Pershing Square hitting the price of FNMA/FMCC? Seems like a real "risk" given what's happening with Valeant lately and having Pershing as your largest holder (outside of the government). Not really. Too bad they don't own any preferred (AFAIK). Would be nice to pick up some more on the cheap. The risk to the common is massive dilution, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Potentially interesting tweet from Jon Prior today (attached)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Hot off the press from Jon. http://twitdoc.com/view.asp?id=232311&sid=4Z93&ext=PDF&lcl=Study-of-the-Recapitalization-of-Fannie-Mae-and-Freddie-Mac-R-Shapiro-E-Kamarck-3-.pdf&usr=JonAPrior&doc=288807631&key=key-68ZDj6LZvx33YJdIa6Jp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 5. Perry Capital’s request is now timely, as the Court of Appeals has permitted the merits briefing in that Court to include discussion of Protected Information. The parties may now refer to Protected Information in the merits briefing—which is proceeding promptly—even though the merits panel will make the ultimate determination on whether to take judicial notice of the materials. It is therefore necessary that Perry Capital’s counsel—Applicants here—have access to the Protected Information. Without access to the Protected Information, Perry Capital is significantly prejudiced in the prosecution of its appeal. As it stands, Perry Capital is in the untenable position of litigating in the D.C. Circuit without actually being able to see portions of the briefs that will be filed. Without access to the Protected Information, it will be unworkable for the appeal to move forward as a single, consolidated appeal with Perry Capital participating fully. This is good... Among other obstacles, if the government makes reference to any Protected Information in its brief, Perry Capital will simply be unable to respond. Further, Perry Capital and Fairholme will be unable to file a joint reply brief, because Fairholme will refer to Protected Information in its reply, but Perry Capital cannot view that same information. The current arrangement will also make oral argument unadministrable. If the Court of Appeals or the parties wish to address Protected Information during oral argument, the Court of Appeals would ostensibly have to close the courtroom to Perry Capital while that discussion occurs. http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0254.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 FWIW from the recapitalization pdf page 7... "To test this recapitalization proposal, we conducted a standard valuation analysis. It showed that Fannie and Freddie should have Tier 1 capital of at least $180 billion by 2020, equal to 4.0% of their projected assets in that year: In addition to the $100 billion the enterprises would raise through new stock offerings, they could retain $80 billion from their earnings in 2016 to 2020. The analysis also estimated that the price of Fannie and Freddie stock would rise from about $2.20 per share today, a level badly depressed by the Treasury’s sweep of their annual profits, to $10.34 per share in 2016, $12.51 per share in 2018 and $15.14 per share in 2020. This strategy, therefore, can reestablish Fannie and Freddie as independent enterprises actively and profitably promoting broad homeownership. Variations of the approach should produce similar results, so long as they retain the basic elements described above." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 From page 29 FWIW Those estimates also rest on projections of the value of Fannie and Freddie common stock, once the Treasury stops sweeping or claiming all of their profits. Under current conditions with that profit sweep, the 20.1 % of their stock held by private investors is valued at about $2.20 per share. Once Fannie and Freddie can retain their profits and return to normal operations, the value per share is projected to rise to $10.34 (2016), $11.38 (2017), $12.51 (2018), $13.76 (2019) and $15.14 (2020). The new stock offerings also will reduce the ownership stake of those current investors, from their 20% stake today to 16% in 2017), 13% in 2018, 12% in 2019, and 10% in 2020.125 Finally, private investors who held preferred shares before the conservatorship, now designated as junior preferred stock, would retain those shares; and their dividends would resume when the recapitalization is complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 NCRC white paper posted in a tweet by Joe Light of WSJ: http://www.ncrc.org/images/protecting_duties_to_serve_web.pdf Edit: I should mention that Joe Light has nothing to do with this white paper... I simply found him tweeting about it rather interesting given WSJ's stance on all-things-GSE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 The co author of this paper was an adviser for both Clinton and Obama. Not sure how much influence he still has but I wonder if this was what political alpha was referring to a couple of weeks ago as opinion maybe changing within the white house. Chances of a release sooner then later seem higher then ever. 2 years ago no one wanted to see FnF released. Now a former adviser to the current administration is releasing papers on a release. The pressure continues to build... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Perry granted access to Fairholme discovery materials... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Perry granted access to Fairholme discovery materials... Excellent. It never made much sense to exclude Perry anyway. 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