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

[Guest cherzeca]

first, i expect fhfa to move to amend motion to dismiss. not sure they know why original motion was moot. will press judge on that.

 

second, following judge lamberth's opinion, they will argue that an administrative order is "irrelevant"

[merkhet]

first, i expect fhfa to move to amend motion to dismiss. not sure they know why original motion was moot. will press judge on that.

 

second, following judge lamberth's opinion, they will argue that an administrative order is "irrelevant"

 

I've been running around Los Angeles all day, so I just now was able to respond. Yes, the fact that the Iowa judge is now asking for an administrative record post-amendment w/ the Fairholme discovery items is a big deal -- I would wait to see FHFA's next move before getting too excited, but it will be interesting to see how they respond, because, as stated before, their position in DC was they didn't need to file an administrative record before the courts.

[merkhet]

I've gone through a few of the prior filings in Saxton, and it looks like the plaintiffs were originally planning to cross-file for a motion for summary judgment in response to the motion to dismiss. This could get interesting fast once FHFA has responded by March 10th.

[hardincap]

Few thoughts: 1) it seems reasonable to assume the discovery provided evidence that convinced judge reade that the government's argument is disputable. so now the burden is on the government to overcome these issues through the administrative record doc. 2) 30 days seems really short. Should we assume there will be a delay?

[merkhet]

[edited for more clarity post-coffee]

 

I would expect the government to try and seek an extension. Except, if I remember correctly, the defendants indicated in the DC litigation that they didn't have an administrative record. (Pretty jet lagged, so I might be misremembering.)

 

In any case, if I'm remembering correctly, that puts them in a pickle.

 

If they file for an extension, then they'd better be putting something together that was more than what they filed in the DC case. (If they just file the same stuff, judge is going to wonder why the hell they needed an extension.) However, if they file something different than the DC case, that is probably bad for them since the DC case in on appeal, and one of the contentions is that they were "bad actors" in terms of not presenting a full record.

 

However, if they only file the exact same declarations here (maybe minus the stuff where there's evidence that they were misleading/lying), then the Saxton platiniffs file for summary judgement because, presumably, the briefs showed "Fairholme evidence" that was bad enough to "moot" the motion to dismiss and probably bad enough to favor odds of a successful summary judgment motion.

[doughishere]

I would expect the government to try and seek an extension. Except, if I remember correctly, the defendants indicated in the DC litigation that they didn't have an administrative record. (Pretty jet lagged, so I might be misremembering.)

 

In any case, if I'm remembering correctly, that puts them in a pickle. They can't file something different in this case because... well, that would show they weren't forthcoming in the DC case. (Bad for appeal.) However, if they only file the exact same declarations here, then the Saxton platiniffs file for summary judgement because, presumably, the briefs showed "Fairholme evidence" that was bad enough to "moot" the motion to dismiss.

 

I wake up this morning...check my email..low and behold.Color me surprised....merkhet is bullish dare i say? Who are you and what did you do with the original merkhet?

[hardincap]

Yes, fhfa stated they didnt have an administrative record

 

Are they allowed to produce one posthoc? Common sense says no, but I'm not a lawyer.

[merkhet]

I wake up this morning...check my email..low and behold.Color me surprised....merkhet is bullish dare i say? Who are you and what did you do with the original merkhet?

 

Ha! I'm not sure anyone would have ever called me not bullish on Fannie. :)

[Luke 532]

I wake up this morning...check my email..low and behold.Color me surprised....merkhet is bullish dare i say? Who are you and what did you do with the original merkhet?

 

Ha! I'm not sure anyone would have ever called me not bullish on Fannie. :)

 

merkhet has always been bullish.  I think you have him confused with somebody else.  Being cautious, as we all should be, does not mean one is neutral or bearish... it simply means one is wise.

[merkhet]

I wake up this morning...check my email..low and behold.Color me surprised....merkhet is bullish dare i say? Who are you and what did you do with the original merkhet?

 

Ha! I'm not sure anyone would have ever called me not bullish on Fannie. :)

 

merkhet has always been bullish.  I think you have him confused with somebody else.  Being cautious, as we all should be, does not mean one is neutral or bearish... it simply means one is wise.

 

Whoa now... let's not get ahead of ourselves! I'll take the cautious label, though.

[Luke 532]

I wake up this morning...check my email..low and behold.Color me surprised....merkhet is bullish dare i say? Who are you and what did you do with the original merkhet?

 

Ha! I'm not sure anyone would have ever called me not bullish on Fannie. :)

 

merkhet has always been bullish.  I think you have him confused with somebody else.  Being cautious, as we all should be, does not mean one is neutral or bearish... it simply means one is wise.

 

Whoa now... let's not get ahead of ourselves! I'll take the cautious label, though.

 

Haha! You deserve both titles, my friend.

[doughishere]

Just a joke.......Merk brings the caution, I bring the humor and emotional charge and overt optimism.

 

Either way. I live in Chicago. Is there something I can do now that there is a case in Chi?

 

Why bring a new case in a new court seems a little redundant at this point.

[merkhet]

So, from my caffeine-fueled review of the Saxton case, these are the things that I found particularly interesting...

 

From the order staying the need for an administrative record:

http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Saxton/15-00047-0023.pdf

 

The parties disagree, however, on the manner in which the case should proceed. In their motion for stay, Defendants ask the Court to "defer consideration of whether and when an administrative record should be filed" until after it has ruled on the motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs intend to seek summary judgment, and argue they "should be permitted to respond to the motions to dismiss by cross-moving for summary judgment." Plaintiffs claim the administrative record "would support the factual predicate for Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion."

 

...Plaintiffs pledge in their resistance that they "will raise any concerns they have about the completeness of the records concurrently with their motion for summary judgment, and in no event will Plaintiffs seek discovery into the adequacy of the record for the resolution of the motions to dismiss."

 

This is likely because Saxton figured either Defendants would provide an entire administrative record, which would support their case, or they would file a record inadequate to defend against a motion for summary judgment -- despite what happened in the Lamberth court.

 

Accordingly, I find the requirement for filing an administrative record may be stayed pending the Court's resolution of the motions to dismiss. If the motions to dismiss are denied, then the Court will set a deadline for filing the administrative record and, presumably, the parties will file motions for summary judgment.

 

From the motion to dismiss:

http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Saxton/15-00047-0019.pdf

 

The Defendants basically asserted two things: (1) HERA precludes the Court from having jurisdiction, and (2) the Perry court has already decided these issues.

 

So when I read that the most recent order denied the pending motions to dismiss as moot, that reads to me like the Court has decided that HERA does not preclude the Court from having jurisdiction AND that they have decided (for whatever reason) that the Perry court erred in its decision. (Possibly because the record was incomplete based on misleading facts and/or lying.)

 

That's big. It now sets up another run at the merits of the case through a summary judgment motion rather than having to fight all this procedural crap.

[Guest cherzeca]

So, from my caffeine-fueled review of the Saxton case, these are the things that I found particularly interesting...

 

From the order staying the need for an administrative record:

http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Saxton/15-00047-0023.pdf

 

The parties disagree, however, on the manner in which the case should proceed. In their motion for stay, Defendants ask the Court to "defer consideration of whether and when an administrative record should be filed" until after it has ruled on the motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs intend to seek summary judgment, and argue they "should be permitted to respond to the motions to dismiss by cross-moving for summary judgment." Plaintiffs claim the administrative record "would support the factual predicate for Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion."

 

...Plaintiffs pledge in their resistance that they "will raise any concerns they have about the completeness of the records concurrently with their motion for summary judgment, and in no event will Plaintiffs seek discovery into the adequacy of the record for the resolution of the motions to dismiss."

 

This is likely because Saxton figured either Defendants would provide an entire administrative record, which would support their case, or they would file a record inadequate to defend against a motion for summary judgment -- despite what happened in the Lamberth court.

 

Accordingly, I find the requirement for filing an administrative record may be stayed pending the Court's resolution of the motions to dismiss. If the motions to dismiss are denied, then the Court will set a deadline for filing the administrative record and, presumably, the parties will file motions for summary judgment.

 

From the motion to dismiss:

http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Saxton/15-00047-0019.pdf

 

The Defendants basically asserted two things: (1) HERA precludes the Court from having jurisdiction, and (2) the Perry court has already decided these issues.

 

So when I read that the most recent order denied the pending motions to dismiss as moot, that reads to me like the Court has decided that HERA does not preclude the Court from having jurisdiction AND that they have decided (for whatever reason) that the Perry court erred in its decision. (Possibly because the record was incomplete based on misleading facts and/or lying.)

 

That's big. It now sets up another run at the merits of the case through a summary judgment motion rather than having to fight all this procedural crap.

 

thanks for your thoughts merkhet (which means what btw?), you are thinking along my way of thinking.  but 2 things:

 

1. why moot? moot for nonlawyers means that some element of the motion to dismiss no longer exists or applies, so the motion to dismiss is no longer appropriate for judicial consideration.  this is different from just rejecting the motion to dismiss on the merits.  so what happened? what is judge reade thinking? fhfa must be going apeshit now. without an opinion, it is impossible to understand this turn of events.

 

2. Judge reade has the reputation for being a hardass, fair, smart but tough on the parties and their lawyers.  good luck to fhfa if it wants extension to file admin record.  recall that judge reade rejected plaintiffs attempts to file amicus briefs before plaintiffs rushed in with their amended complaint.

[doughishere]

You guys realize you sound incredibly bullish right now? I offer my services to talk you guys down a bit.

[merkhet]

So, from my caffeine-fueled review of the Saxton case, these are the things that I found particularly interesting...

 

From the order staying the need for an administrative record:

http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Saxton/15-00047-0023.pdf

 

The parties disagree, however, on the manner in which the case should proceed. In their motion for stay, Defendants ask the Court to "defer consideration of whether and when an administrative record should be filed" until after it has ruled on the motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs intend to seek summary judgment, and argue they "should be permitted to respond to the motions to dismiss by cross-moving for summary judgment." Plaintiffs claim the administrative record "would support the factual predicate for Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion."

 

...Plaintiffs pledge in their resistance that they "will raise any concerns they have about the completeness of the records concurrently with their motion for summary judgment, and in no event will Plaintiffs seek discovery into the adequacy of the record for the resolution of the motions to dismiss."

 

This is likely because Saxton figured either Defendants would provide an entire administrative record, which would support their case, or they would file a record inadequate to defend against a motion for summary judgment -- despite what happened in the Lamberth court.

 

Accordingly, I find the requirement for filing an administrative record may be stayed pending the Court's resolution of the motions to dismiss. If the motions to dismiss are denied, then the Court will set a deadline for filing the administrative record and, presumably, the parties will file motions for summary judgment.

 

From the motion to dismiss:

http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Saxton/15-00047-0019.pdf

 

The Defendants basically asserted two things: (1) HERA precludes the Court from having jurisdiction, and (2) the Perry court has already decided these issues.

 

So when I read that the most recent order denied the pending motions to dismiss as moot, that reads to me like the Court has decided that HERA does not preclude the Court from having jurisdiction AND that they have decided (for whatever reason) that the Perry court erred in its decision. (Possibly because the record was incomplete based on misleading facts and/or lying.)

 

That's big. It now sets up another run at the merits of the case through a summary judgment motion rather than having to fight all this procedural crap.

 

thanks for your thoughts merkhet (which means what btw?), you are thinking along my way of thinking.  but 2 things:

 

1. why moot? moot for nonlawyers means that some element of the motion to dismiss no longer exists or applies, so the motion to dismiss is no longer appropriate for judicial consideration.  this is different from just rejecting the motion to dismiss on the merits.  so what happened? what is judge reade thinking? fhfa must be going apeshit now. without an opinion, it is impossible to understand this turn of events.

 

2. Judge reade has the reputation for being a hardass, fair, smart but tough on the parties and their lawyers.  good luck to fhfa if it wants extension to file admin record.  recall that judge reade rejected plaintiffs attempts to file amicus briefs before plaintiffs rushed in with their amended complaint.

 

Yea, the moot thing is a bit of a curve ball. That's why I think it's so interesting. My guess is that it primarily relates to thinking that "even if there would have been issue preclusion, it's moot because Lamberth didn't have all the evidence" -- though the way that she did it may also indicate that she has rejected the idea that HERA precludes the Court from having jurisdiction. Because otherwise, she could have still decided to grant the motion on the HERA basis?

 

I think this is the first motion to dismiss that hasn't gone their way since the Lamberth opinion, no?

 

You guys realize you sound incredibly bullish right now? I offer my services to talk you guys down a bit.

 

I've been getting more bullish ever since the Delaware filing. :)

[orthopa]

And for us non lawyers what is a summary judgement motion? It determines whether or not a case should be tried with judge or jury?

 

Thanks

[merkhet]

And for us non lawyers what is a summary judgement motion? It determines whether or not a case should be tried with judge or jury?

 

Thanks

 

It's a motion asking the court to decide the case without a full trial.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

And for us non lawyers what is a summary judgement motion? It determines whether or not a case should be tried with judge or jury?

 

Thanks

 

It's a motion asking the court to decide the case without a full trial.

 

What would be the timeline for such a decision? Can we expect a possible near term pop before the inevitable appeal/retracement.

[merkhet]

No idea on the timeline. In 1.5 years, I have been 100% wrong on the timeline for this thing to play out. So, you know -- I'm going to accept the feedback that I have zero timeline forecasting ability.

 

Also no idea about near term pops. Neither positive news nor negative news seems to have much effect on other securities prices in this environment, so I haven't the faintest clue on near term pops.

[doughishere]

No idea on the timeline. In 1.5 years, I have been 100% wrong on the timeline for this thing to play out. So, you know -- I'm going to accept the feedback that I have zero timeline forecasting ability.

 

Also no idea about near term pops. Neither positive news nor negative news seems to have much effect on other securities prices in this environment, so I haven't the faintest clue on near term pops.

 

I'm a founding member of that club.

 

Comments from Peter Chapman. You'll probably see these on GSELinks.com later tonight.

 

 

Roberts v. FHFA(Chicago) has been assigned to the Honorable Edmond E. Chang and Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez.  Judge Chang is 45, and served as an Assistant U.S. attorney for the decade prior to being appointed to the bench by President Obama in 2010.

 

Copies of Docs. 2 and 3 filed in the case are attached to this e-mail message.  The only thing of interest I see is that Mr. Ambler won't serve as the plaintiffs' trial attorney if their case gets that far.

 

The docket sheet indicates that summonses to FHFA and Treasury were issued today.

 

 

Also,

 

Fiarholme filed a redacted version of its Reply in support of its Motion to Compel this morning, and a copy is attached to this e-mail message.

 

Although the Government's Response (Doc. 284) is still under seal, Fairholme's Redacted Reply gives us some glimpses of the Government's arguments in support of withholding the 11,000 documents it doesn't want Fairholme to have.  Fairholme tells us, for example, in the first sentence of its Redacted Reply that the Government characterizes the Motion to Compel, challenging the Government's privilege assertions, as "'picking the lint' off the Government's massive document production in this case."

 

 

 

[Guest cherzeca]

judge reade's order denying fhfa motion to dismiss as moot is #60 in the docket.  when you look at docket on PACER, #60 does not appear (#59 followed by #61).  did she think her order needed to be sealed?

[doughishere]

Hot off the press:

 

Dear Investor,

 

We are pleased to share the following documents, which have been posted to our website:

 

- GSE Reform Presentation prepared by Graham Fisher & Co.

   

- Plaintiff's reply in support of their motion to compel production of certain documents withheld for privilege by Defendant in Plaintiff's Court of Federal Claims case

 

- Plaintiff's application to Delaware District Court for certification to both the Delaware and Virginia Supreme Courts of novel and undecided issues of state law

 

To view these documents, visit: www.fairholmefunds.com/top-news

 

Kind regards,

 

Investor Relations

 

 

Fairholme Funds, Inc.

4400 Biscayne Blvd.

9th Floor

Miami, FL 33137

 

[doughishere]

GSE Reform: Something Old, Something New, And Something Borrowed - Graham Fisher

GSEReform20160211.pdf

[Luke 532]

Great article...

FNMA/FMCC Plaintiffs Defeat FHFA Motion To Dismiss For Reasons Not Immediately Apparent

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3891416-freddie-fannie-plantiffs-score-judicial-coup?app=1&auth_param=c78o:1bbrk64:a7a6e30dbbe7113d460b4070f425c8b1&uprof=44#alt2