hardincap Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 So they said they didn't maintain an administrative record but are now required to produce one. Can they produce one post hoc? (they already have the discovery materials) or are they forced to tell the judge they don't have one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Do I understand this correctly? Please correct me if I'm wrong. (1) If the government does produce an administrative record they contradict what they said in Perry/Lamberth. In that case they claimed that they did not compile an administrative record in regards to the Net Worth Sweep. (2) If the government does not produce an administrative record they open themselves up to a possible (probable?) summary judgement by Reade. Do I have it right? Are both of these statements true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 So they said they didn't maintain an administrative record but are now required to produce one. Can they produce one post hoc? (they already have the discovery materials) or are they forced to tell the judge they don't have one? That's the quandary. They're supposed to have one a priori. They can't just make one up now. Do I understand this correctly? Please correct me if I'm wrong. (1) If the government does produce an administrative record they contradict what they said in Perry/Lamberth. In that case they claimed that they did not compile an administrative record in regards to the Net Worth Sweep. (2) If the government does not produce an administrative record they open themselves up to a possible (probable?) summary judgement by Reade. Do I have it right? Are both of these statements true? Yes and yes. Although, I would temper our enthusiasm because it's still possible for us to lose the summary judgment on the merits... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardincap Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 If they fail to produce an admin record, that puts them in violation of the APA. Is that not sufficient for reade to invalidate the nws? how do you lose a summary judgment if they fail to produce an admin record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Do I understand this correctly? Please correct me if I'm wrong. (1) If the government does produce an administrative record they contradict what they said in Perry/Lamberth. In that case they claimed that they did not compile an administrative record in regards to the Net Worth Sweep. (2) If the government does not produce an administrative record they open themselves up to a possible (probable?) summary judgement by Reade. Do I have it right? Are both of these statements true? Yes and yes. Although, I would temper our enthusiasm because it's still possible for us to lose the summary judgment on the merits... Understood. Thanks for the response, merkhet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 If they fail to produce an admin record, that puts them in violation of the APA. Is that not sufficient for reade to invalidate the nws? how do you lose a summary judgment if they fail to produce an admin record? I guess she can go the Lamberth route and rule that the Court doesn't have jurisdiction, which is what the Govt will argue. But then, I would think that she wouldn't have ruled the motion to dismiss as "moot"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 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 I was just wondering when we would see another ROLG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 If they fail to produce an admin record, that puts them in violation of the APA. Is that not sufficient for reade to invalidate the nws? how do you lose a summary judgment if they fail to produce an admin record? @hardincap APA requires agency to compile an admin record and produce it if their action is challenged in court, for precisely the reason you saw in perry...so agency doesn't make stuff up on fly. now lamberth said no problem since i can see from pleadings that i dont have jurisdiction to hear case. it appears that reade in saxton disagrees with this jurisdictional bar, since she denied the motion to dismiss based upon lack of jurisdiction. however, court still hasnt posted her order on docket and we dont know if she wrote a reasoned opinion making that clear. if court does have jurisdiction and FHFA does have to go to the merits, FHFA "should" have to do so on the basis of the admin record...though judges can decide what to do in their own court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 If they fail to produce an admin record, that puts them in violation of the APA. Is that not sufficient for reade to invalidate the nws? how do you lose a summary judgment if they fail to produce an admin record? I guess she can go the Lamberth route and rule that the Court doesn't have jurisdiction, which is what the Govt will argue. But then, I would think that she wouldn't have ruled the motion to dismiss as "moot"... right. and to merkhet's point about not getting too bullish, she may still rule against plaintiffs on summary judgment for reasons that will look a lot like judge lamberth...and the reason the motion is "moot" can be just some stupid technicality that no one can know because she hasnt produced an opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardincap Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 @cherzeca, you already made this point but I think it bears repeating I understand reade's rejecting the motion to dismiss as "moot" doesnt necessarily mean she's rejecting the motion on the merits.. but the fact that she's asking for an administrative record instead of giving the FHFA a chance to "un-moot" the dismissal via an amended motion to dismiss seems to imply that the cause for dismissal via mootness is more substantial than some technicality edit: I hope i/we are not stretching here to satisfy our long bias Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Why would you do a decision like this and not ma @cherzeca, you already made this point but I think it bears repeating I understand reade's rejecting the motion to dismiss as "moot" doesnt necessarily mean she's rejecting the motion on the merits.. but the fact that she's asking for an administrative record instead of giving the FHFA a chance to "un-moot" the dismissal via an amended motion to dismiss seems to imply that the cause for dismissal via mootness is more substantial than some technicality edit: I hope i/we are not stretching here to satisfy our long bias So, I decided to look up the word "moot"....I dont think Judges are careless with the words they use....i also think judges tend to know the gravity of their position and are aware of the stakes the parties have moot mo͞ot adjective 1. subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision. "whether the temperature rise was mainly due to the greenhouse effect was a moot point" And as such. I think she just wants more information... and has yet to make a final decision. So there is no need for an opinion yet. At least she recognizes that there is more information out there and wants to view the administrative record as part of decision making process..... I dont know this is my "explain it like i'm 5" conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Why would you do a decision like this and not ma @cherzeca, you already made this point but I think it bears repeating I understand reade's rejecting the motion to dismiss as "moot" doesnt necessarily mean she's rejecting the motion on the merits.. but the fact that she's asking for an administrative record instead of giving the FHFA a chance to "un-moot" the dismissal via an amended motion to dismiss seems to imply that the cause for dismissal via mootness is more substantial than some technicality edit: I hope i/we are not stretching here to satisfy our long bias So, I decided to look up the word "moot"....I dont think Judges are careless with the words they use....i also think judges tend to know the gravity of their position and are aware of the stakes the parties have moot mo͞ot adjective 1. subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision. "whether the temperature rise was mainly due to the greenhouse effect was a moot point" And as such. I think she just wants more information... and has yet to make a final decision. So there is no need for an opinion yet. At least she recognizes that there is more information out there and wants to view the administrative record as part of decision making process..... I dont know this is my "explain it like i'm 5" conclusion. And if FHFA cant produce a record then that opens a can of worms for them. If they do it may contain info that invalidates what the gov did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 @orthopa Yeah, so what do you say to the judge..."well we uhh ummmm...we were supposed to keep records and we uhh we didnt." Remember: A large part of the governments argument, to me centers around the "Were the US Government we can do whatever we want to do." Suck it. If the government commits a crime is it really a crime? If the government doesn't do what its supposed to do is it really in violation of anything? Little political here, and maybe a degree to far: But if a Cop shoots a citizen in the back, while running away, who poses no immediate danger to that cop and is not armed. Is it really murder because hes an employee of the government in service of the government? Most people who arnt in the trade would argue that "the government can do whatever it wants to do" and stay away from buying shares. That the cops can get away free because (in the words of tupac) "thats just the the way it is." Lot of Cops have gotten "off" this way and on the other side you have a lot of upset communities. But thats always been know. To me....Lamberth seems to say well who cares, next case. While Reade,now, seems to say "id like to see how the FHFA came to the conclusion of enacting the NWS as a necessary thing to do." So pretty much all Reade has said is that she disagrees with Judge Lamberths Perry ruling that the administrative record was "irrelevant" that FHFA did not produce an administrative record. Judge Reade seems to have come 180 degs and wants to know how did the cop come to the conclusion to use deadly force? I dont know....maybe its too simple what I said but thats what it seems to me. maybe im just loonie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 @cherzeca, you already made this point but I think it bears repeating I understand reade's rejecting the motion to dismiss as "moot" doesnt necessarily mean she's rejecting the motion on the merits.. but the fact that she's asking for an administrative record instead of giving the FHFA a chance to "un-moot" the dismissal via an amended motion to dismiss seems to imply that the cause for dismissal via mootness is more substantial than some technicality edit: I hope i/we are not stretching here to satisfy our long bias good point. but i am just taking judge reade at face value. denying as moot with leave to refile motion to respond to amended complaint would have been the way to go if she hadnt considered merits. denying as moot and ordering an admin record to be produced is a horse of a different color. now i suppose the magistrate could have screwed up when he ordered fhfa to produce admin record in a month; maybe judge reade is telling him right now, no, change that order and enter an order allowing fhfa to amend motion to dismiss. but as i said, i am just calling it as i see it....at least until judge reade changes it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blainehodder Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 I've been following this for yrs now and I just today bought a large position today at 1.33 in the common. I can't for the life of me figure out why this isn't going up given recent and coming events. Good luck all! This seems to be coming to a conclusion in the next yr or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 I've been following this for yrs now and I just today bought a large position today at 1.33 in the common. I can't for the life of me figure out why this isn't going up given recent and coming events. Good luck all! This seems to be coming to a conclusion in the next yr or so. Any reason for the common vs the preferred? Just wondering your thoughts. I hold both as hedge vs each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blainehodder Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 I see greater upside in the common and don't see the scenario of common being wiped out and the preferreds paying off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Some Bits from ROLG, Comment section SeekingAlpha: Q: I the gov't now files an amended motion to dismiss on the new complaint filed under seal, couldn't the court's previous order to postpone the creation of the administrative record be restored? ROLG: good question. but if that was the court's reasoning, then the court would have granted leave to fhfa to amend motion to dismiss and not put fhfa on the clock to produce an administrative record. i wouldnt be surprised if fhfa is scrambling to get an amended motion to dismiss into judge reade's court, and if she accepts it, then never mind. but that would be a strange way to run a courtroom. another speculation: the order to deny motion to dismiss #60 on the saxton court docket has not been filed yet. now, judge reade may be in the process of writing her opinion now, having already decided to deny motion. judge reade has a reputation for running a tight ship, and she likely wants to move schedule along. so we may not know the answers to your questions until we read that opinion. but i thought it was appropriate to take the court docs that we have access to at face value, at least for the time being Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 From the Google boards 10.1 The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently rejected the very argument that FHFA advances here, correctly observing that “[n]o federal court has read the statute that way.” Levin v. Miller, 763 F.3d 667, 672 (7th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added)." I found this in the Boeis reply brief. http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Perry/14-5243-1596847.pdf It might be a reason why they decided to pursue a case in IL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 From the Google boards 10.1 The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently rejected the very argument that FHFA advances here, correctly observing that “[n]o federal court has read the statute that way.” Levin v. Miller, 763 F.3d 667, 672 (7th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added)." I found this in the Boeis reply brief. http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Perry/14-5243-1596847.pdf It might be a reason why they decided to pursue a case in IL. this relates to whether shareholders of a firm under conservatorship can bring direct claims. this is a big argument made by fhfa, but the HERA anti-injunction argument that there is no jurisdiction to invalidate NWS is an even bigger argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Is this for real? http://howardonmortgagefinance.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Wonder if there was any GSE talk. http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 turns out, judge reade's denial was NOT on merits. update at http://seekingalpha.com/article/3891416-freddie-fannie-plantiffs-score-judicial-coup filing today sets forth revised briefing schedule: Defendants’ motions to dismiss shall be filed on or before March 18, 2016. b) The motion to dismiss of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and Melvin L. Watt (together, the “FHFA Defendants”) shall not exceed 45 pages. c) The Department of the Treasury’s (“Treasury’s”) motion to dismiss shall not exceed 35 pages. d) Plaintiffs’ resistance to Defendants’ motions to dismiss shall be filed on or before April 18, 2016. e) Plaintiffs’ resistance to Defendants’ motions to dismiss shall not exceed 80 pages. f) Defendants’ replies in support of their motions to dismiss shall be filed on or before May 18, 2016. g) Defendants’ replies in support of their motions to dismiss shall not exceed 25 pages each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blainehodder Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 turns out, judge reade's denial was NOT on merits. update at http://seekingalpha.com/article/3891416-freddie-fannie-plantiffs-score-judicial-coup filing today sets forth revised briefing schedule: Defendants’ motions to dismiss shall be filed on or before March 18, 2016. b) The motion to dismiss of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and Melvin L. Watt (together, the “FHFA Defendants”) shall not exceed 45 pages. c) The Department of the Treasury’s (“Treasury’s”) motion to dismiss shall not exceed 35 pages. d) Plaintiffs’ resistance to Defendants’ motions to dismiss shall be filed on or before April 18, 2016. e) Plaintiffs’ resistance to Defendants’ motions to dismiss shall not exceed 80 pages. f) Defendants’ replies in support of their motions to dismiss shall be filed on or before May 18, 2016. g) Defendants’ replies in support of their motions to dismiss shall not exceed 25 pages each. However it appears they must still produce the admin record correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 @blaine no, that is required only if/when court denies motion to dismiss (for real) 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