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

[Luke 5:32]

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.

[cherzeca]

re collins rehearing:  WHOA!

One of the truisms of judicial review is that judges don’t 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 don’t 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 doesn’t specify, but Ps asked for rehearing on both the APA claim (that NWS not within conservator’s 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 doesn’t 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]

re collins rehearing:  WHOA!

One of the truisms of judicial review is that judges don’t 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 don’t 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 doesn’t specify, but Ps asked for rehearing on both the APA claim (that NWS not within conservator’s 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 doesn’t 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]

re collins rehearing:  WHOA!

One of the truisms of judicial review is that judges don’t 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 don’t 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 doesn’t specify, but Ps asked for rehearing on both the APA claim (that NWS not within conservator’s 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 doesn’t 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. That’s very good information and analysis. And i agree with you that the en banc rehearing is excellent news for the plaintiffs.

We’ve now seen two reversals of judicial viewpoint on net worth sweep-related opinions in the last month and a half: Judge Lamberth’s 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 Circuit’s decision to rehear the appeal of the Collins case. In both instances, I suspect what’s 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 HERA–as opposed to a pre-meditated seizing of two companies’ assets, covered up by a now-revealed sequence of false statements by Treasury– becomes less credible or sustainable, and is now cracking. If so, we may indeed finally have reached a turning point in this saga.

[rros]

re collins rehearing:  WHOA!

One of the truisms of judicial review is that judges don’t 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 don’t 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 doesn’t specify, but Ps asked for rehearing on both the APA claim (that NWS not within conservator’s 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 doesn’t 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?

[cherzeca]

re collins rehearing:  WHOA!

One of the truisms of judicial review is that judges don’t 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 don’t 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 doesn’t specify, but Ps asked for rehearing on both the APA claim (that NWS not within conservator’s 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 doesn’t 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?

no all active 5th circuit judges

[rros]

re collins rehearing:  WHOA!

One of the truisms of judicial review is that judges don’t 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 don’t 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 doesn’t specify, but Ps asked for rehearing on both the APA claim (that NWS not within conservator’s 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 doesn’t 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?

no all active 5th circuit judges

Oh.. must be the 26 listed here?
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/about-the-court/fifth-circuit-judges

[cherzeca]

re collins rehearing:  WHOA!

One of the truisms of judicial review is that judges don’t 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 don’t 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 doesn’t specify, but Ps asked for rehearing on both the APA claim (that NWS not within conservator’s 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 doesn’t 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?

no all active 5th circuit judges

Oh.. must be the 26 listed here?
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/about-the-court/fifth-circuit-judges

yes but not the senior judges listed there.  see this:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fifth_Circuit

[rros]

Thank you, Chris. If senior judges do not count that will be a lot less.

Patrick McHenry just mentioned GSE's reform on Bloomberg. Said something *must* be done now. When pressed by reporter he said Waters' proposal will not gather enough votes neither anything from the Senate. So his idea is to start afresh. He said he is not dogmatic on any solution but one that can move forward because housing has unmet pressing needs now. Start afresh? We are always on the "start" stage lol.

[DRValue]

Constitution trumped in the third circuit. Ridiculous.