Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Independence Day is near but the Really Big Firework could happen in August or September.  If Judge Sweeney “GRANTS” all of the Motions to Remove the Protected Information Designation, I hope we see a full Media Blitz from all angles!

Fannie, Freddie CEOs to Get $3.4 Million Raises

Firms’ regulator approves increase over objection of White House and some lawmakers

In a statement, Mr. Watt said that the new pay packages are “consistent with FHFA’s statutory responsibilities to ensure safety and soundness and a liquid national housing finance market.” He added that the structure of the identical pay packages, which include deferred salary of $3.25 million, would “promote CEO retention, allow reliable succession planning and ensure the continuity, efficiency and stability of Enterprise operations.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fannie-freddie-ceos-to-get-big-pay-raises-1435760279

Mr. Watt seems to be acting out of character when he approved raises for the GSEs’ CEOs .

Is it possible he’s trying to show the courts that he is acting independently from Treasury and White House?  (yes)

Is it possible he’s is preparing to set the stage for a resolution with Treasury in case of a court order or settlement? (not likely but possible)

Why would Mr. Watt take such action now?  (Timing is everything.  With Discovery moving forward in favor of Plaintiffs coupled with very telling deposition and potential unsealing protected information, it might be time to set the stage to do the right thing to save face and legacy before it hit the fan.)

New York Times is dead serious about investigating the story behind the Government takeover of the GSEs. They filed a Motion to Intervene in the Fairholme vs USA Federal Claims Court case to gather the truth. This filing is huge since it is coming from a non-plaintiff and widely known news agency. If the deposition is as telling as speculated, it going to be burn baby burn!

http://investorsunite.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NYT-Motion-to-Intervene.pdf

More Motions to remove the “Protected Information” filed. Response due dates were extended to July 13, 2015.  Is it possible that defendants are running out of arguments or excuses and citations? (It is possible but we shall know more after defendants file responses and Judge Sweeney rules.)  This is going to be another huge order especially for unsealing Deloitte and PWC documents.

Date Filed # Docket Text
06/26/2015 169 **SEALED** MOTION to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by Deloitte , filed by All Plaintiffs.Response due by 7/13/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Cooper, Charles) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
06/26/2015 170 **SEALED** MOTION to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by Fannie Mae , filed by All Plaintiffs.Response due by 7/13/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Cooper, Charles) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
06/26/2015 171 **SEALED** MOTION to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by Freddie Mac , filed by All Plaintiffs.Response due by 7/13/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Cooper, Charles) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
06/26/2015 172 **SEALED** MOTION to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers , filed by All Plaintiffs.Response due by 7/13/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Cooper, Charles) (Entered: 06/26/2015)

Logan Beirne is a Lecturer in Law and Fellow, Information Society Project, at Yale Law School. He is also the chief executive officer of Matterhorn Transactions, Inc.  He wrote this article in The National Law Review:

Saxton v. FHFA – Have FHFA and the Treasury Exceeded Their Limited Authority under HERA? posted on: Friday, June 26, 2015

This is how the Government manipulated the accounting numbers to justify placing GSEs under Conservatorship and borrowing from Treasury using the Three-card Monte accounting trick.  Note: Documents produced by Deloitte and PWC if unsealed could support Adam Spittler’s allegations of the three-card Monte accounting Fannie and Freddie.

The three-card Monte accounting of Fannie, Freddie conservatorship Admittedly partisan study raises troubling questions

The full 27-page report, which can be read here, is from two activist investors involved in the FannieGate controversy with extensive legal and business backgrounds, Adam Spittler CPA, MS and Mike Ciklin JD, MBA, MRE.  See Link Below

http://www.housingwire.com/ext/resources/images/A-Forensic-Look-at-the-Fannie-Mae-Bailout-Parts-I-II-III-FINAL-20150616.pdf

Perry Capital’s Appeals Court Brief Filing:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/perryappealbrief0629.pdf

Food for Thought from a section of HERA

4617 (b)(15) Fraudulent transfers

(A) In general

The Agency, as conservator or receiver, may avoid a transfer of any interest of an entity-affiliated party, or any person determined by the conservator or receiver to be a debtor of the regulated entity, in property, or any obligation incurred by such party or person, that was made within 5 years of the date on which the Agency was appointed conservator or receiver, if such party or person voluntarily or involuntarily made such transfer or incurred such liability with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the regulated entity, the Agency, the conservator, or receiver.

(B) Right of recovery

To the extent a transfer is avoided under subparagraph (A), the conservator or receiver may recover, for the benefit of the regulated entity, the property transferred, or, if a court so orders, the value of such property (at the time of such transfer) from—

(i) the initial transferee of such transfer or the entity-affiliated party or person for whose benefit such transfer was made; or

(ii) any immediate or mediate transferee of any such initial transferee.

(C) Rights of transferee or obligee

The conservator or receiver may not recover under subparagraph (B) from

(i) any transferee that takes for value, including satisfaction or securing of a present or antecedent debt, in good faith; or

(ii) any immediate or mediate good faith transferee of such transferee.

(D) Rights under this paragraph

The rights under this paragraph of the conservator or receiver described under subparagraph (A) shall be superior to any rights of a trustee or any other party (other than any party which is a Federal agency) under title 11.

Reference these past posts.  Link below

https://th717.wordpress.com/page/2/

Advertisements