TonyG Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 doughishere, http://www.insidemortgagefinance.com/issues/imfpubs_igse/16_3/news/-1000035432-1.html Posted on gselinks on friday but says you need a registration.If you click the link it gives a little blurb by Charles Cooper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Probably nothing of value in there. "Indeed, newly discovered evidence – which shows the government’s defense to be outright false – was subsequently presented..." http://www.fairholmefundsinc.com/Reports/FAIRX2015Annual.pdf From Bruce. I don't know why we keep beating the Lamberth decision when he makes statements like this...which are from the discovery of you read between the black lines. I don't know. No one talks about this but hey...maybe it's not news worthy or is it painfully obvious that everyone just pays lip service to it. Honestly Bbs or chapmans comments aren't anything new. But with the mounting evidence(in this case b/c it's under seal the references to the evidence of misrepresentation) would think that comments like this would garner more speculation...and reporting...as to what's being said. You would expect there would be more focus on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 But with the mounting evidence(in this case b/c it's under seal the references to the evidence of misrepresentation) would think that comments like this would garner more speculation...and reporting...as to what's being said. You would expect there would be more focus on this? The market is asleep when it comes to the GSE's, which is fine by me. It will wake up in a panic (in a good way for shareholders) when the seemingly inevitable comes to pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Who cares about the markets they are always asleep. When you have them by the balls squeeze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Posted with permission from: Peter A. Chapman / peter@bankrupt.com / (215) 945-7000 Judge Sweeney released a copy of her sealed Order (Doc. 287) dated Jan. 26, 2016, this afternoon, and a copy is attached to this e-mail message. So now we know that: -- Doc. 285 was a the Government's Notice of Apparent Violation of the Protective Order; -- Doc. 286 was Fairholme's Response to that filing; -- Doc. 291 was the Government's Reply that Response; -- Mr. Parrott was deposed on Jan. 20, 2016, and his lawyer instructed him not to answer multiple questions; -- Judge Sweeney okayed Mr. Parrott correcting the record that he did not invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege; and -- Judge Sweeney will be issuing an order in the future determining whether the Protective Order was violated.13-465-0292.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 That explains why the Tim Howard site has gone dark since the end of January... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 That explains why the Tim Howard site has gone dark since the end of January... Merkhet Any consequence to this other then Parrot coming out to get to say he didnt invoke the 5th? Why has the Tim Howard site gone dark? Govt intervention or someother? Will anyone seek to find out who leaked the info? Does it even matter to the case or Judge Sweeny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 TH717 has gone dark because it's a bad idea to violate Protective Orders. I'm not sure what the consequence here will be -- but judges generally are not happy when their orders aren't followed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 At the risk of sounding too "emotional." The fact that this came out only makes me ask more questions. Was there a breach? Who was it? What makes this deposition so important? Why? What were the questions? Is this just a side show(it is now thats for sure). Was there even a breach? Maybe someone just saw that Parrot was to testify today and made something up? It just breeds more distrust. The courts freely admit it "has insufficient information at this time to determine whether information regarding the deposition was actually leaked and the second amended protective order was violated." It also admits to "an abundance of caution" probably rite fully so. This is starting to turn into a movie that has run past 2.5 hours. If this was any other turn around shareholders would demand a game plan. You cant help but distrust the secrecy. The public wants information and(I don't agree with ruing a mans reputation) is willing to lie or at bare minimum misrepresent what happens. I actually can see how Mr. Parrot wants his reputation restored. But I have to wonder what if anything has set this off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Dear Shareholder, Bruce Berkowitz, Fairholme Capital Management's Founder and Chief Investment Officer, will host a one-hour conference call on February 23, 2016, at 11:00 AM EST. Please click here to view the full press release. The format of this call will mirror that of last year’s: Mr. Berkowitz will provide commentary on investments while responding to comments and questions submitted in advance by the public. Fairholme will accept questions and/or comments until Friday, February 19 at 5:00 PM EST. All topics for discussion may be submitted electronically to Ask@fairholme.net. Please note that submissions will remain anonymous. Participants are encouraged to access and review recent commentary and topical postings, as well as the live stream details, by visiting www.FairholmeFunds.com. U.S. and Canada Toll-Free Dial-In: (877) 519-3624 UK Toll Free Dial-In: 0800 169 8546 UK Local Toll Dial-In: 0203 107 0279 International Toll Dial-In: +1 (614) 452-4313 Conference ID: 8183975436 The conference line will open 10 minutes prior to start time. A transcript of the call will be edited for clarity and made available after the call. Kind regards, Investor Relations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Posted with permission from: Peter A. Chapman / peter@bankrupt.com / (215) 945-7000 Public versions of the Government's Notice of Apparent Violation, Fairholme's Response, and the Government's Reply (Docs. 285, 286 and 290) are attached to this e-mail message. Luke 5:32's comment and inclusion of the excerpt below... From the gov't basically saying "we've got nothing but we're fishing for reasons to delay/dismiss": The government’s information about this incident is only that the website erroneously reported that Mr. Parrott invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. As contemplated by paragraph 16 of the Court’s protective order, we promptly reported the available facts to the Court. Although we acknowledge the Court’s statement that the information we provided in the Notice is insufficient for the Court to determine that a violation occurred, at this time we have no further details to report. Should further details become available, we will promptly notify the Court. 13-465-0295.pdf13-465-0296.pdf13-465-0294.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 "From the gov't basically saying "we've got nothing but we're fishing for reasons to delay/dismiss"" if this is the case, it may or may not be, I don't know how you guys don't get fired up about that. There should be rules against lawyers wasting people's time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 "From the gov't basically saying "we've got nothing but we're fishing for reasons to delay/dismiss"" if this is the case, it may or may not be, I don't know how you guys don't get fired up about that. There should be rules against lawyers wasting people's time. There's no logical reason to waste energy via emotions on what should or should not be. I have my large position and will wait for the results, all the while sparing myself (as best as I can) from the emotional torture that most investors/traders willingly subject themselves to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoCitiesCapital Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 "From the gov't basically saying "we've got nothing but we're fishing for reasons to delay/dismiss"" if this is the case, it may or may not be, I don't know how you guys don't get fired up about that. There should be rules against lawyers wasting people's time. There's no logical reason to waste energy via emotions on what should or should not be. I have my large position and will wait for the results, all the while sparing myself (as best as I can) from the emotional torture that most investors/traders willingly subject themselves to. I'm trying to be stoic as well. It's been hard not to increase my position with the new flow of information and the massive drop in price, but I was probably already over-allocated given the risk and will still make out handsomely if we're right so I just sit and wait.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardincap Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 The next month will be interesting. Fairholme conf call end of the month, and Ackman interviewing Berkowitz at an investment conference Mar. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 I just think there could be some better transparency in all this. Wouldn't have had to go through this whole side show. I'd save a lot of embarrassment. The truth is the best antiseptic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Lawsuit filed in Illinois (attached) challenging the NWS.16-02107-0001.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Posted with permission from: Peter A. Chapman / peter@bankrupt.com / (215) 945-7000 Under seal, the Saxton Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint in the Northern District of Iowa yesterday. Shortly thereafter, Chief Judge Reade denied FHFA and Treasury's Motions to Dismiss the original complaint as moot. Magistrate Scoles entered an order today directing Treasury and FHFA to file an Administrative Record by Mar. 10, 2016. A copy of Magistrate Scoles' order is attached.15-00047-0062.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmp8822 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 "From the gov't basically saying "we've got nothing but we're fishing for reasons to delay/dismiss"" if this is the case, it may or may not be, I don't know how you guys don't get fired up about that. There should be rules against lawyers wasting people's time. There's no logical reason to waste energy via emotions on what should or should not be. I have my large position and will wait for the results, all the while sparing myself (as best as I can) from the emotional torture that most investors/traders willingly subject themselves to. I'm trying to be stoic as well. It's been hard not to increase my position with the new flow of information and the massive drop in price, but I was probably already over-allocated given the risk and will still make out handsomely if we're right so I just sit and wait.... Could someone give me a one paragraph explanation of what is going on with the lawsuit? I haven't been following at all and was hoping to get a short summary of the investment opportunity vs. risks. I.e. the court will decide if the preferred will be made whole or not in the next few months/years? For example, what Berkowitz owns might be worth $25+ soon instead of $3, or likely $0 if the court decides against ? Thanks for being patient with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Posted with permission from: Peter A. Chapman / peter@bankrupt.com / (215) 945-7000 Under seal, the Saxton Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint in the Northern District of Iowa yesterday. Shortly thereafter, Chief Judge Reade denied FHFA and Treasury's Motions to Dismiss the original complaint as moot. Magistrate Scoles entered an order today directing Treasury and FHFA to file an Administrative Record by Mar. 10, 2016. A copy of Magistrate Scoles' order is attached. WHOA NELLIE> judge reade just denied fhfa's motion to dismiss as moot, after apparently accepting saxton's amended complaint that added fairholme discovery results. while i don't understand why the fhfa motion to dismiss should be moot, denying the motion to dismiss and ordering fhfa to produce an administrative record seems to be a very big deal. merhket, do you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Posted with permission from: Peter A. Chapman / peter@bankrupt.com / (215) 945-7000 Under seal, the Saxton Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint in the Northern District of Iowa yesterday. Shortly thereafter, Chief Judge Reade denied FHFA and Treasury's Motions to Dismiss the original complaint as moot. Magistrate Scoles entered an order today directing Treasury and FHFA to file an Administrative Record by Mar. 10, 2016. A copy of Magistrate Scoles' order is attached. WHOA NELLIE> judge reade just denied fhfa's motion to dismiss as moot, after apparently accepting saxton's amended complaint that added fairholme discovery results. while i don't understand why the fhfa motion to dismiss should be moot, denying the motion to dismiss and ordering fhfa to produce an administrative record seems to be a very big deal. merhket, do you agree? now, if judege reade permits fhfa to file an amended motion to dismiss relating to the amended complaint, then there is no substantive effect to the order denying the motion, but to go on and order fhfa to produce an administrative record seems to me like she doesn't want fhfa to respond with an amended motion to dismiss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Posted with permission from: Peter A. Chapman / peter@bankrupt.com / (215) 945-7000 Under seal, the Saxton Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint in the Northern District of Iowa yesterday. Shortly thereafter, Chief Judge Reade denied FHFA and Treasury's Motions to Dismiss the original complaint as moot. Magistrate Scoles entered an order today directing Treasury and FHFA to file an Administrative Record by Mar. 10, 2016. A copy of Magistrate Scoles' order is attached. WHOA NELLIE> judge reade just denied fhfa's motion to dismiss as moot, after apparently accepting saxton's amended complaint that added fairholme discovery results. while i don't understand why the fhfa motion to dismiss should be moot, denying the motion to dismiss and ordering fhfa to produce an administrative record seems to be a very big deal. merhket, do you agree? attached original order by judge reade made clear she was not going to order fhfa to produce an administrative record unless she dismissed fhfa's motion to dismiss. so while i don't understand in what sense the fhfa motion to dismiss has been rendered "moot", i think it is significant that the magistrate went ahead and ordered fhfa to produce the administrative record now, if judege reade permits fhfa to file an amended motion to dismiss relating to the amended complaint, then there is no substantive effect to the order denying the motion, but to go on and order fhfa to produce an administrative record seems to me like she doesn't want fhfa to respond with an amended motion to dismiss. saxton_orig_order_re_staying_admin_record.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 I guess a positive to another lawsuit is another crack at a favorable verdict no? +1 to complaining about the drawn out judicial process. I guess this protects the innocent from a wrongful verdict but this process seems very tedious for no good reason. Now I know why you guess charge by the minute. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 remember, saxton just filed its amended complaint under seal with all of the nasty fariholme discovery. now fhfa is ordered to produce an administrative record, which it wont do. saying it doesnt have to. so the facts as pled by saxton will be unrebutted by fhfa, setting the stage for a saxton summary judgment motion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 How does the Govt get around not obeying a judges order? 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