Author Topic: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.  (Read 3081859 times)

allnatural

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10790 on: November 13, 2018, 07:31:17 AM »
I tried to find it back in this thread but it has become so long. Where do we stand now in Sweeney's court? Haven't heard much out of that court in a while.

Briefing will be completed in January I believe. Assuming there is oral arguments, Sweeney should decide by summer 2019.


allnatural

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10791 on: November 13, 2018, 07:53:28 AM »
Did you miss when the same judge who originally ruled against shareholders reversed his ruling and ruled in favor of shareholders by throwing out the governments motion to dismiss? This was the same claim that was REMANDED back to the lower court in the same Feb 2017 ruling you reference.


I tried to find it back in this thread but it has become so long. Where do we stand now in Sweeney's court? Haven't heard much out of that court in a while.

Honest question - after the ruling from Feb 2017 - do we really expect the courts to do the right thing in this case ever? I've personally lost a lot of faith that there is a path to justice in the justice system.

rros

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 936
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10792 on: November 13, 2018, 11:26:07 AM »
C'mn people... my 11 year-old boy will inherit this claim and will continue to try to make as miserable as possible anyone who sits at the FHFA and Treasury. And he could do it for many more decades without me. Don't let them off the hook!

Midas79

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 433
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10793 on: November 13, 2018, 12:53:14 PM »
Any thoughts on the Fifth Circuit having granted an en banc hearing in the Collins case?

http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/17-20364-00514719656.pdf

I wonder how much of the oral argument will focus on plaintiffs arguing that the NWS should be overturned versus defendants arguing that the FHFA is constitutionally structured. At least the plaintiffs get another chance to pound on the points made in Willett's dissent.

The constitutionality part seems mostly moot to us shareholders because Trump will have appointed a new FHFA director by the time the oral arguments even happen.

investorG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 617
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10794 on: November 13, 2018, 02:16:31 PM »
Any thoughts on the Fifth Circuit having granted an en banc hearing in the Collins case?

http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/17-20364-00514719656.pdf

I wonder how much of the oral argument will focus on plaintiffs arguing that the NWS should be overturned versus defendants arguing that the FHFA is constitutionally structured. At least the plaintiffs get another chance to pound on the points made in Willett's dissent.

The constitutionality part seems mostly moot to us shareholders because Trump will have appointed a new FHFA director by the time the oral arguments even happen.

low odds but worth a try.

attention lawyers:  please dumb it down for the judges and explain if they side with the plaintiffs (the little guys), the US govt / taxpayer still receives all their investment back, plus roughly $100bn of interest profits and potentially another $100bn of warrant value.

Luke 5:32

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10795 on: November 13, 2018, 06:50:43 PM »
Moelis plan backed by Blackstone/Schwarzman...
https://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/articles/paulson-blackstone-said-to-back-plan-for-freeing-fannie-freddie
Paulson & Co. and Blackstone Group are among investors backing a proposal...
...was developed by investment bank Moelis & Co...
...Both John Paulson and Blackstone Chief Executive Officer Stephen Schwarzman have acted as economic advisers to President Donald Trump.


Schwarzman hanging out with Trump on the eve of the mid-term election last week...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-07/-good-night-for-trump-despite-house-losses-sanders-says
President Donald Trump watched election returns Tuesday with dozens of friends in the palatial East Room of the White House, including Republican megadonors Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, and Blackstone Group chief executive Steve Schwarzman.
Invest for retirement?  Sure.  But investing in eternity is infinitely more important.  Don't get it twisted.  "...but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal."  Matthew 6:20

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1875
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10796 on: November 13, 2018, 06:57:57 PM »

re collins rehearing:  WHOA!

One of the truisms of judicial review is that judges donít take a case unless they have to.

This applies even more so with respect to rehearings en banc. A merits panel has already heard this case and issued its opinions, 2-1 against Ps with a stinging dissent by Judge Willets. A majority of the 5th circuit judges have decided that the case needs to be reheard. You simply are not going to get that a conclusion that the case needs to be reargued and re-decided unless a majority of judges have a serious belief that the dissent may be right. Ask a judge if he is overworked (and underpaid) and you will get unanimous agreement. Judges donít grant rehearings without significant reason.

P briefs are due 12/12, and govt briefs due 1/11/19. oral argument to be heard two weeks thereafter.

the rehearing order doesnít specify, but Ps asked for rehearing on both the APA claim (that NWS not within conservatorís authority to conserve and preserve assets) and denial of relief on finding that FHFA is unconstitutionally structured. It seems both claims are up for re-argument and rehearing.

also the rehearing order doesnít state that this case is being consolidated with the All-American separation of powers case. I take that as a plus since that would only tend to complicate things for the hearing en banc.

rros

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 936
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10797 on: November 14, 2018, 03:50:14 AM »

re collins rehearing:  WHOA!

One of the truisms of judicial review is that judges donít take a case unless they have to.

This applies even more so with respect to rehearings en banc. A merits panel has already heard this case and issued its opinions, 2-1 against Ps with a stinging dissent by Judge Willets. A majority of the 5th circuit judges have decided that the case needs to be reheard. You simply are not going to get that a conclusion that the case needs to be reargued and re-decided unless a majority of judges have a serious belief that the dissent may be right. Ask a judge if he is overworked (and underpaid) and you will get unanimous agreement. Judges donít grant rehearings without significant reason.

P briefs are due 12/12, and govt briefs due 1/11/19. oral argument to be heard two weeks thereafter.

the rehearing order doesnít specify, but Ps asked for rehearing on both the APA claim (that NWS not within conservatorís authority to conserve and preserve assets) and denial of relief on finding that FHFA is unconstitutionally structured. It seems both claims are up for re-argument and rehearing.

also the rehearing order doesnít state that this case is being consolidated with the All-American separation of powers case. I take that as a plus since that would only tend to complicate things for the hearing en banc.
Thank you, Chris. Nothing like the legal inside view.

Luke 5:32

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10798 on: November 14, 2018, 06:26:54 AM »

re collins rehearing:  WHOA!

One of the truisms of judicial review is that judges donít take a case unless they have to.

This applies even more so with respect to rehearings en banc. A merits panel has already heard this case and issued its opinions, 2-1 against Ps with a stinging dissent by Judge Willets. A majority of the 5th circuit judges have decided that the case needs to be reheard. You simply are not going to get that a conclusion that the case needs to be reargued and re-decided unless a majority of judges have a serious belief that the dissent may be right. Ask a judge if he is overworked (and underpaid) and you will get unanimous agreement. Judges donít grant rehearings without significant reason.

P briefs are due 12/12, and govt briefs due 1/11/19. oral argument to be heard two weeks thereafter.

the rehearing order doesnít specify, but Ps asked for rehearing on both the APA claim (that NWS not within conservatorís authority to conserve and preserve assets) and denial of relief on finding that FHFA is unconstitutionally structured. It seems both claims are up for re-argument and rehearing.

also the rehearing order doesnít state that this case is being consolidated with the All-American separation of powers case. I take that as a plus since that would only tend to complicate things for the hearing en banc.

Tim Howard's response to cherzeca's comments above...
Thank you. Thatís very good information and analysis. And i agree with you that the en banc rehearing is excellent news for the plaintiffs.

Weíve now seen two reversals of judicial viewpoint on net worth sweep-related opinions in the last month and a half: Judge Lamberthís ruling on September 28 that claims related to the breach of implied covenant in Perry Capital should be allowed to proceed, and now the 5th Circuitís decision to rehear the appeal of the Collins case. In both instances, I suspect whatís happened is that as judges have had time to focus more closely on the fact patterns in these cases, the argument that the net worth sweep was a matter of judgment permissible under HERAĖas opposed to a pre-meditated seizing of two companiesí assets, covered up by a now-revealed sequence of false statements by TreasuryĖ becomes less credible or sustainable, and is now cracking. If so, we may indeed finally have reached a turning point in this saga.
Invest for retirement?  Sure.  But investing in eternity is infinitely more important.  Don't get it twisted.  "...but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal."  Matthew 6:20

rros

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 936
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #10799 on: November 14, 2018, 07:34:25 AM »

re collins rehearing:  WHOA!

One of the truisms of judicial review is that judges donít take a case unless they have to.

This applies even more so with respect to rehearings en banc. A merits panel has already heard this case and issued its opinions, 2-1 against Ps with a stinging dissent by Judge Willets. A majority of the 5th circuit judges have decided that the case needs to be reheard. You simply are not going to get that a conclusion that the case needs to be reargued and re-decided unless a majority of judges have a serious belief that the dissent may be right. Ask a judge if he is overworked (and underpaid) and you will get unanimous agreement. Judges donít grant rehearings without significant reason.

P briefs are due 12/12, and govt briefs due 1/11/19. oral argument to be heard two weeks thereafter.

the rehearing order doesnít specify, but Ps asked for rehearing on both the APA claim (that NWS not within conservatorís authority to conserve and preserve assets) and denial of relief on finding that FHFA is unconstitutionally structured. It seems both claims are up for re-argument and rehearing.

also the rehearing order doesnít state that this case is being consolidated with the All-American separation of powers case. I take that as a plus since that would only tend to complicate things for the hearing en banc.
So this... "and a majority of the circuit judges". Does this refer to the 3 judges? Then, this is why you believe 2 out of 3 (Willet and someone else) want a second look at the issue?