Author Topic: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.  (Read 2481448 times)

orthopa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 516
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #2300 on: January 28, 2016, 06:55:47 AM »
Reminder: Joint Status Report in Sweeney's courtroom due this Friday (29th).

I thought merkhet posted it was pushed to the 28th today?

It was previously today and got pushed to tomorrow.  This was during the filings earlier this week when the gov't filed a motion, Plaintiffs responded within 90 minutes, and Sweeney granted the order the next day.  All under seal, of course.

Shoot, ok thanks.


doughishere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1275
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #2301 on: January 28, 2016, 11:15:11 AM »
Reminder: Joint Status Report in Sweeney's courtroom due this Friday (29th).

Earnings in the next month or so should be coming down the line

Luke 5:32

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2199
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #2302 on: January 29, 2016, 08:01:27 AM »
Reminder: Joint Status Report in Sweeney's courtroom due this Friday (29th).

Source: Peter A. Chapman / peter@bankrupt.com / (215) 945-7000
(contents and contact info shared with Mr. Chapman's permission)

Fairholme and the Government delivered their Joint Status Report to Judge Sweeney late last night, and a copy of that filing is attached to this e-mail message.

The proposed schedule starts with resolution of Fairholme's Motion to Compel (Doc. 270 filed Nov. 23, 2015).  The Government filed its Response (Doc. 284) to the Motion to Compel under seal on Jan. 21, 2016.  Absent a request for more time, Fairholme's Reply is due by Feb. 1, 2016, and is likely to be filed under seal.  Judge Sweeney will convene a hearing, likely closed to the public, if she thinks that will be helpful, and she'll issue her decision on the appropriateness of the Government's assertion of the deliberative process privilege, bank examination privilege, and presidential communication privilege.  In response to Judge Sweeney's ruling on the Motion to Compel, Fairholme will receive whatever her order says the Government should turn over.

When discovery is wrapped up, Fairholme and the other shareholder-plaintiffs intend to amend their complaints within 45 days.  The Government then intends to file an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss the all of the cases before Judge Sweeney 120 days after the amended complaints are filed.  Within the 90 days following the filing of the Omnibus Motion to Dismiss, the plaintiff-shareholders will file their responses and objections to the Omnibus Motion to Dismiss.  The Government will file its reply in support of its Omnibus Motion to Dismiss within the 90 days thereafter.  Then Judge Sweeney will hold a hearing if she wishes and rule on the Government's Omnibus Motion to Dismiss.

Assuming discovery draws to a close on Mar. 31, 2016, the timetable would be:

   -- Amended Complaints filed May 15, 2016;
   -- Omnibus Motion to Dismiss filed Sept. 12, 2015;
   -- Responses to the Omnibus Motion to Dismiss filed Dec. 11, 2016;
   -- Reply in support of Omnibus Motion to Dismiss filed Mar. 11, 2017; and
   -- Judge Sweeney's decision on Omnibus Motion to Dismiss some time thereafter. 
Doesn't beat around the bush, gets right down to the business of Christ laying down His life and conquering death for you, me, and everybody else that accepts Him. "Oh death, where is your sting? Oh Hell, where is your victory?" Listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bJzhkWVANc

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1322
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #2303 on: January 29, 2016, 08:44:06 AM »
very slow going, especially if sweeney decides she needs to review any of the claimed privilege documents in camera.  as the pats coach would say, it's on to perry and hindes/jacobs
« Last Edit: January 29, 2016, 08:46:27 AM by cherzeca »

orthopa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 516
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #2304 on: January 29, 2016, 10:22:14 AM »
From an outsider(american citizen)  to the lawyers in this thread...what the hell takes so long? Is it the volume of information/documents that necessitates almost year for this process to occur?

Luke 5:32

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2199
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #2305 on: January 29, 2016, 10:32:42 AM »
I wonder why Fairholme agreed to this lengthy timeline.  Anybody have thoughts on that?  March 2017 if everything goes as planned (and it rarely does) seems a bit extreme to establish jurisdiction.
Doesn't beat around the bush, gets right down to the business of Christ laying down His life and conquering death for you, me, and everybody else that accepts Him. "Oh death, where is your sting? Oh Hell, where is your victory?" Listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bJzhkWVANc

orthopa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 516
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #2306 on: January 29, 2016, 10:52:13 AM »
I wonder why Fairholme agreed to this lengthy timeline.  Anybody have thoughts on that?  March 2017 if everything goes as planned (and it rarely does) seems a bit extreme to establish jurisdiction.

Rarely does it right. We could be looking at this taking 18 months to occur.

merkhet

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2949
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #2307 on: January 29, 2016, 12:53:00 PM »
Could be any number of things. I've been wondering the same on my end. Doesn't have to drag as long as it has so far -- so there's a question re why Berkowitz would agree to such a long time period.

merkhet

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2949
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #2308 on: January 29, 2016, 01:35:26 PM »
One thought could be that they, like Abrams, think that this requires a new administration that isn't bound by commitment bias. Another thought could be, as others have pointed out, that people were really just using Fairholme's Court of Federal Claims discovery process to get evidence for other cases.

It's unclear. Hope Berkowitz gives a little more color in his shareholder letter. In any case, the longer this drags out, the worse it is for the IRR. Hopefully, the Jacobs case goes faster.

Sunrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 502
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #2309 on: January 31, 2016, 01:47:39 AM »
Apologies if this has been answered - when should we expect to get something in the other cases? It seems very odd to me that the Fairholme one should drag on that long (semi-voluntarily from what I gather here) ... Berkowitz has been in this longer than I have and every additional year reduces the CAGR. How much discretion did they have with this schedule?
Thank you - S.