Our Day In Court : Calendar

No docket proceedings yet.

See below for updates as of April, 7 2014

Discovery shall commence on Monday, April 7, 2014, and shall be completed by Thursday, July 31, 2014.

During the discovery period, the court will conduct a telephonic status conference every two weeks, unless both parties concur and inform the court that a status conference is not necessary. Additionally, the court will make itself available if a dispute requiring its immediate attention arises at any other time during the discovery period. Status conferences shall take place on:

o    Wednesday, April 23, 2014, at 1:00 p.m.

o    Wednesday, May 7, 2014, at 11:00 a.m.

o    Wednesday, May 21, 2014, at 11:00 a.m.

o    Wednesday, June 4, 2014, at 11:00 a.m.

o    Wednesday, June 18, 2014, at 11:00 a.m.

o    Wednesday, July 2, 2014, at 11:00 a.m.

o    Wednesday, July 16, 2014, at 11:00 a.m.

o    Wednesday, July 30, 2014, at 11:00 a.m.

•       Defendant shall serve on plaintiffs its RCFC 26(a)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) initial disclosures no later than Monday, April 7, 2014.

•       Plaintiffs shall serve on the government their initial round of document requests, if any, no later than Monday, April 7, 2014.

•       The parties shall serve interrogatories, if any, no later than Monday, April 7, 2014.

•       The responding party shall serve any objections to interrogatories within 14 calendar daysof receiving such interrogatories.

•       With respect to all discovery requests, the responding party shall serve responses within 30 calendar days of receiving such requests.

•       The parties shall attempt to resolve objections, and discuss any issues regarding the format for production of responsive materials, over the 7-day period following the service of objections. If objections are not resolved by the end of that period, the objecting party shall bear the burden of moving for a protective order no later than 7 days after the close of that period.

•       Depositions shall be completed no later than Thursday, July 31, 2014.

•       Nothing in this order prevents the parties from entering into a claw-back agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5) and Federal Rule of Evidence 502.

•       In addition, by no later than Thursday, August 14, 2014, the parties shall file a joint status report (“JSR”) suggesting future proceedings in this case. If the parties cannot agree on a specific course of action, they must set forth their respective positions in the JSR, and not in separate status reports. Separate status reports shall be stricken from the docket.

 

See below for updates as of March, 24 2014

  • Court of Federal Claims:  In the Court of Federal Claims, given the parties could not reach an agreement on a joint discovery schedule proposal, each party filed their own proposed discovery schedule with the court.  Fairholme’s proposed schedule contemplates discovery to commence on or before April 7, 2014 and to be completed by July 31, 2014.  Defendants; however, argue that plaintiff’s request is unreasonable and that they would need at least 12 months to produce documents and prepare privilege logs and produce responsive documents. 
  • District Court:  In the District Court, we saw two documents filed with the docket, including a supplemental memorandum of law of plantiffs and plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment.  See attached for the pdfs for both.  The PDF describing cross-motion for summary judgment is recommended for those who are looking to better understand the District Court case proceedings. 
  • PLS Settlement:  On Friday, FMCC filed an 8-K with the SEC, noting that FHFA announced that it has reached a settlement with Credit Suisse, related companies and specifically named individuals to settle litigation previously initiated by FHFA related to PLS purchased by FNMA and FMCC.  Per the 8-K, CS will pay FMCC roughly $651 million (roughly 75% of total settlement proceeds benefits FMCC which is in line with the split in total claimed principal amount between FNMA and FMCC as part of this litigation). 

 

U.S. Court of Federal Claims

United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13-cv-00465-MMS

FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC. et al v. USA

36

Mar. 21, 2014

35

JOINT STATUS REPORT , filed by USA. (Schwind, Gregg) (Entered: 03/21/2014)

37

Mar. 21, 2014

36

STATUS REPORT Proposing Discovery Schedule, filed by FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC., THE FAIRHOLME FUND. (Cooper, Charles) (Entered: 03/21/2014)

38

Mar. 21, 2014

37

STATUS REPORT Proposed Discovery Plan, filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 and 2)(Schwind, Gregg) (Entered: 03/21/2014)

 

U.S. District Court

District of Columbia (Washington, DC)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13-mc-01288-RCL

IN RE: FANNIE MAE/FREDDIE MAC SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT CLASS ACTION LITIGATIONS

37

Mar. 21, 2014

33

Memorandum in opposition to re 20 MOTION to Dismiss All Claims and, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs Arbitrary and Capricious Claims and Memorandum in Support MOTION for Summary Judgment, 19 MOTION to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment MOTION for Summary Judgment Consolidated Class Action and Derivative Plaintiffs' Omnibus Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment filed by JOSEPH CACCIAPELLE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration)(Zagar, Eric) (Entered: 03/21/2014)

38

Mar. 21, 2014

34

Memorandum in opposition to re 21 MOTION to Take Judicial Notice Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Partial Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Take Judicial Notice filed by JOSEPH CACCIAPELLE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Zagar, Eric) (Entered: 03/21/2014)

 

See below for updates as of February, 27 2014

On Wednesday, Judge Margaret M. Sweeney of the United States Court of Federal Claims, issued an order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for discovery, which includes “discovery in order to meet their burden of presenting the proof necessary to establish this court’s jurisdiction” and “to respond to defendant’s motion to dismiss with regard to defendant’s argument that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for a regulatory taking.” 

As summarized in the court order, plaintiffs presented the following three reasons arguing for the motion for discovery: 

First, plaintiffs allege that discovery is needed to refute defendant’s argument that plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe.

Second, plaintiffs allege that discovery is needed to develop facts to refute defendant’s argument that this court lacks jurisdiction over the complaint.

Third, plaintiffs allege that discovery is needed to respond to defendant’s factual assertions relevant to defendant’s argument that plaintiffs failed to state a claim for a regulatory taking.

Summary of Judge Sweeney’s Response

Discovery to Aid in Establishing Jurisdiction

Judge Sweeney notes that while the court “usually assumes all factual allegations in the complaint are true and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor,” “the court may examine relevant evidence in order to decide any factual disputes when ruling upon a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” 

The defendants had argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were not subject to review because future probability is unknown and both FNMA and FMCC are still in conservatorship.  That being said, the court agreed with plaintiffs’ contention that “discovery would reveal information relevant to resolving the factual dispute between plaintiffs and defendant regarding each party’s assessment of future profitability” and “to confirm that such evidence exists with regard to profitability and additionally answer the question as to when, and how, the conservatorship will end.” 

In response to the defendant’s claim that the FHFA is not the “United States” for the purposes of the Tucker Act, Judge Sweeney noted that answering this question would require a “fact-intense inquiry that will include consideration of whether the FHFA acted at the direct behest of the Treasury.”  Judge Sweeney further notes that if FHFA was an agent and arm of the Treasury, then the U.S. Court of Federal Claims would possess jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ complaint. 

Discovery to Aid in Defense of Defendant’s RCFC 12(b)(6) Motion

Judge Sweeney highlighted that the plaintiffs had “specified the discovery it seeks, explained how the results of the discovery are reasonably expected to demonstrate the proof necessary to establish this court’s jurisdiction and the viability of their claims.” 

The court order also seemed to suggest that not only document discovery would be permitted but also deposition discovery would disclose evidence relevant to the “disputed factual issues about Fannie and Freddie’s solvency and the reasonableness of expectations about their future profitability, as well as provide answers related to why the government allowed the preexisting capital structure and stockholders to remain in place, and whether this decision was based on the partial expectation that Fannie and Freddie would be profitable again in the future.” 

Timing / Schedule 

Briefing on defendant’s dispositive motion is stayed pending the conclusion of fact discovery

The parties shall file, by no later than Friday, March 20, 2014, a joint status report proposing a discovery schedule

See below for updates as of February, 18 2014

Upcoming Calendar of Events: 

  • February 24, 2014: 
    • Fairholme Funds, Inc. et al v. USA
      • Deadline for USA to respond to response to Motion for Discovery and Continuance to Permit Discovery
    • Reception to celebrate the publication of Professor Richard Epstein’s The Classical Liberal Constitution
      • Location:  Faculty Library, Vanderbilt Hall, Third Floor, 40 Washington Square South (between MacDougal and Sullivan Streets)
  • February 28, 2014:  Estimated Earnings Release Date
    • FMCC 4Q13 earnings release (estimated by Bloomberg) – we suspect FNMA to report around the same time as well

Litigation Update:  

  • United States District Court for the District of Columbia: 
    • Plaintiff Request for a Revised Briefing Schedule: 
      • March 21, 2014:  Plaintiffs file oppositions to defendants’ motions and cross-motions and motion for judicial notice
      • May 2, 2014:  Defendants file replies in support of their motions and oppositions to plaintiffs’ crossmotions and reply in support of their motion for judicial notice
      • June 2, 2014:  Plaintiffs file replies in support of their crossmotions
      • June 23, 2014:  At 9:30 a.m. a hearing on defendants’ dispositive motions and plaintiffs’ cross-motions
    • Fairholme Funds, Inc. et al. v. FHFA. et al
      • MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS, FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY, FOR SUSPENSION OF BRIEFING ON DEFENDANTS’ DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS, AND FOR A STATUS CONFERENCE – filed February 12, 2014
      • Plaintiffs submitted a memorandum of points and authorities in support of their motion seeking the following: 

1)     supplementation of the administrative record submissions produced by both sets of Defendants;

2)     limited discovery into the completeness of the administrative records produced by Defendants;

3)     discovery, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), necessary to allow Plaintiffs to present facts essential to their opposition to the FHFA Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty; and

4)     suspension of briefing on Defendants’ dispositive motions until such supplementation of the records and limited discovery is completed.

  • The request for limited discovery into the completeness of the administrative records produced by the defendants seems to be appropriate in our view – something we pointed out in our December 19, 2013 report, noting that FHFA’s declaration filed as part of the administrative record relied more on the recollection of the facts leading up to the Third Amendment (FHFA did not provide any internal communications from 2012 that explain the basis for the Third Amendment).  We also point out that the motion also seeks any projections for FMCC (we also noted this in our report that the last set of projections before the Third Amendment was effective did not include FMCC forecasts). 

  

Recent News / Articles of Interest: 

  • New York Times (02/15/14):  Fair Game: The Untouchable Profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by Gretchen Morgenson
    • “I have been critical of these companies, but this change in the bailout terms seems punitive, especially when considering how other bailout recipients were treated. And it has led to lawsuits against the government from Fannie and Freddie shareholders, including insurance companies, a mutual fund and a hedge fund.”
  • New York Times (02/15/14):  Addendum to Fair Game: The Untouchable Profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by Gretchen Morgenson
    • After the deadline for publication passed on Friday, a second spokesman for the Treasury Department, Anthony Coley, released the following statement: “The relevant language in the memo was about the importance of repaying taxpayers for the enormous investment that they made in the G.S.E.’s if the G.S.E.’s ever generated positive returns, which, at the time, was uncertain to ever occur.”
    • On Saturday, after the column was posted online, Jenni LeCompte, Mr. Geithner’s spokeswoman, offered this comment: “A spokeswoman for Geithner referred comment to Treasury.”
  • WSJ (02/13/14):  Lehman Deal With Freddie Frees Up Cash for Creditors
    • Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. has reached a $767 million settlement with Freddie Mac, which will result in Lehman Brothers releasing hundreds of millions of dollars more to customers.
    • The deal settles a $1.2 billion claim that stems from two loans the giant mortgage company made to Lehman Brothers before its 2008 collapse.
    • Both loans were due on Sept. 15, 2008, the day Lehman filed for bankruptcy, and were the last in a series that Freddie Mac extended to the investment bank during 2008.
    • The one-time cash payment settlement with Freddie Mac resolves one of the largest still-pending claims in the Lehman Brothers Chapter 11 case.
    • As a result, the estate can release the more than $1.2 billion reserve it was holding until the dispute with Freddie Mac was resolved. This release will add hundreds of millions of dollars to Lehman Brothers' next distribution to customers.
  • WSJ (02/12/14):  Fannie’s Fate Rests in Courts (CRT quoted in this article)

See below for updates as of January, 14 2014

 

GSEs:  Quick Recap of Recent Events and Upcoming Calendar 

§  Summary of Recent News and Events: 

o    FHFA Update 

§  Since Mel Watt was sworn in as FHFA Director, we have seen a couple of announcements that may signal a shift in policy from his predecessor Ed DeMarco, which has raised more questions than answers for FHFA’s future direction. 

§  In what appears to be Mel Watt’s first policy decision as FHFA Director, FHFA announced that it has directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to delay implementation of various pricing changes slated for March and April this year.  FHFA Director Mel Watt noted that he would like to “fully understand these implications before deciding whether to move forward with any adjustments to g-fee pricing.”  Separately, FHFA Director Watt announced last week the appointment of four special advisors to “provide counsel on policy and strategic decisions at the FHFA.” 

§  Until we see more from FHFA, we anticipate a keen focus on the availability of mortgage credit to be one of Watt’s top priorities as FHFA Director and that drastic changes may not occur over the near-term. 

o    Ralph Nader Letter to Director Watt

§  The day after Mel Watt was sworn in Ralph Nader sent a letter to Director Watt seeking answers to questions regarding the rights of common shareholders and the Third Amendment to the PSPA.  This letter is similar in nature to a letter sent to Jacob Lew during May 2013 arguing that “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac common stockholders should be allowed to participate in the recovery of the value of their stock just as was the case with AIG and Citigroup investors.”

§  We wonder if Ralph Nader will become more active on behalf of common shareholders and/or if other shareholders will become more vocal as well (away from active legal cases). 

o    Financial Services Roundtable – Senator Corker’s Comments

§  Last week, the Financial Services Roundtable hosted “The Policy and Politics of GSE Reform,” a panel discussion moderated by CEO Tim Pawlenty, on January 8, 2014 and panelists included Senators Corker and Warner.  

§  In response to a question on litigation put forward by select preferred and common stockholders, Senator Corker’s response suggesting “an appropriate settlement here” could be feasible caused the junior preferreds to rally roughly 10% intraday.  While some may find this to be an overreaction to the use of the word “settlement” (i.e. perhaps intended to describe a settlement to the issue rather than a court settlement with monetary award), we also note that Senator Corker found Fairholme’s proposal to be “interesting” as it suggests there is private capital appetite for a future bond guarantor business.  At a minimum, these comments support our thought that the legal and legislative pathways are not mutually exclusive, as we anticipate more discussion of the rule of law.  We were also surprised by the lack of broader media coverage of Senator Corker’s comments and resulting positive reaction in junior preferred trading levels. 

o    The Mortgage Wars by Timothy Howard (former Fannie Mae CFO) 

§  Over the holiday break, we had a chance to read “The Mortgage Wars” by Tim Howard, Fannie Mae’s former CFO.  We found this book to be a fantastic read, as it includes a behind-the-scenes recap of FNMA’s history leading up to the crisis, all from an insider’s perspective.  We encourage both prospective and current investors to pick up a copy.   

§  Observations and Capital Structure Thoughts

o    We continue to see more momentum shifting in favor of plaintiffs at present (more so in the APA cases) and would not be surprised to see the on-the-run GSEs preferreds remain in the 40% to 45% of par range over the near-term (especially if legislation incorporates a rule of law discussion).  On a relative value basis, we find the off-the-run preferreds to be more attractive as a percent of par (differential has widened to new highs over the past month).  As highlighted in our last report, Treasury’s financial projections for FMCC calls into question whether or not FMCC should have been subject to the Third Amendment and as such, we believe it is appropriate for FMCC junior preferreds to trade at a premium to FNMA. 

o    A better understanding of the underlying assumptions relied upon for the Third Amendment raises more questions as to whether or not FHFA and Treasury engaged in a “reasoned decisionmaking” process and we believe discovery is required to address these issues and could be the next major catalyst for the capital structure (away from legislation). 

 

See below for docket updates as of December 19, 2013


Please note that FHFA and Treasury filed a number of documents with the District Court, for the all related cases. 

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD by DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, JACOB J. LEW.
# 1 Exhibit Administrative Record part 1, # 2 Exhibit Administrative Record part 2, # 3 Exhibit Administrative Record part 3, # 4 Exhibit Administrative Record part 4, # 5 Exhibit Administrative Record part 5, # 6 Exhibit Administrative Record part 6, # 7 Exhibit Administrative Record part 7, # 8 Exhibit Administrative Record part 8, # 9 Exhibit Administrative Record part 9, # 10 Exhibit Administrative Record part 10, # 11 Exhibit Administrative Record part 11, # 12 Exhibit Administrative Record part 12, # 13 Exhibit Administrative Record part 13, # 14 Exhibit Administrative Record part 14)(McElvain, Joel) (Entered: 12/17/2013)

NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENT COMPILATION REGARDING THIRD AMENDMENT TO SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENTS by EDWARD DEMARCO, FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Index, # 2 Exhibit Part 1, # 3 Exhibit Part 2, # 4 Exhibit Part 3, # 5 Exhibit Part 4, # 6 Exhibit Part 5, # 7 Exhibit Part 6, # 8 Exhibit Part 7, # 9 Exhibit Part 8, # 10 Exhibit Part 9, # 11 Exhibit Part 10, # 12 Exhibit Part 11, # 13 Exhibit Part 12, # 14 Exhibit Part 13, # 15 Exhibit Part 14, # 16 Exhibit Part 15, # 17 Exhibit Part 16, # 18 Exhibit Part 17)(Varma, Asim) (Entered: 12/17/2013)

Key Documents:  

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD by DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, JACOB J. LEW

  • Exhibit 10 (page 9)
    • Title:  Information Memorandum - GSE Budgeting and Cost Estimates
    • Date:  April 13, 2012
  • Exhibit 11 (page 9)
    • Title:  GSE Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements Summary Review and Key Considerations, Presentation to the Office of Management and Budget
    • Date:  May 23, 2012
  • Exhibit 12 (page 17) and Exhibit 13 (page 1)
    • Title:  GSE Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (PSPA) Overview and Key Considerations,
    • Date:  June 13, 2012
  • Exhibit 14 (page 1)
    • Title:  Email dated July 6, 2012 attaching Illustrative Financial Forecasts – Fannie Mae Base Case & Stress Scenarios,
    • Date:  July 2012
  • Exhibit 14 (page 12)
    • Title:  Email dated August 7, 2012 attaching Treasury’s Capital Support for The GSEs, Summary Review and Key Consideration
    • Date:  August 8, 2012

NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENT COMPILATION REGARDING THIRD AMENDMENT TO SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENTS

by EDWARD DEMARCO, FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY

  • Exhibit 14 (page 215)
    • Title:  GSE Retained Portfolio, 2013-2016 Forecast
    • Date:  June 1, 2012
  • Exhibit 14 (page 217)
    • Title:  GSE Retained Portfolio, 2013-2016 Forecast
    • Date:  June 8, 2012
  • See Treasury
    • Title:  United States Treasury Presentation to the Securities and Exchange Commission “GSE Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (PSPA) Overview and Key Considerations”
    • Date:  June 13, 2012
  • Exhibit 17 (page 27)
    • Title:  Non-Core Asset Forecast 
    • Date:  N/A
  • Exhibit 17 (page 29) 
    • Title:  Retained Portfolio PSPA Compliance Forecast 
    • Date:  N/A

See below for docket updates as of December 10, 2013

  • Four new testimonies for today’s Senate Banking Committee hearing
  • Government’s motion to dismiss under Fairholme Funds, Inc. et al, v. The United States (filed last night)
  • Yesterday’s notice from FHFA, announcing a 10 bps g-fee increase (effective next year) – effective March 1st for cash deals and April 1st for MBS
  • FHFA’s Fifth Annual Report on single-family guarantee fees (published last night)

Calendar of Upcoming Events: 

  • December 10th:   
    • According to various news outlets, a Senate vote on Mel Watt’s nomination to head FHFA could come as early as today
  • December 10th:  Senate Banking Committee Hearing entitled “FUNDAMENTALS OF TRANSFERRING CREDIT RISK IN A FUTURE HOUSING FINANCE SYSTEM”
    • Details: 
      • Time:  1:30 PM ET to 3:30 PM ET (**Please note change in time**)
      • Location:  538 Dirksen Senate Office Building
      • Witnesses:  (**see attached for each testimony**)
        • Ms. Wanda DeLeo
          • Deputy Director for Office of Strategic Initiatives
          • Federal Housing Finance Agency
          • Mr. Kevin Palmer
            • Vice President
            • Freddie Mac
          • Ms. Laurel Davis
            • Vice President
            • Fannie Mae
          • Mr. Ted Durant
            • Vice President of Analytic Services
            • Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation
  • December 11th:  BPC to host a “Forum on the Role of Private Capital in a Reformed Housing Finance System” in Washington D.C.
    • Guest Speakers: 
      • Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) - Chairman, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
      • Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) - Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
      • Details: 
        • Time:  8:30 AM ET to 11:00 AM ET
        • Location:  Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room SD-G50
        • Two Panel Discussions:  (**New Information**)
          • Who, how, when? Who provides private capital, how is it provided, and when does it attach?
          • Rates and monitoring: Assessing the impact of private capital
      • Registration Link:  http://bipartisanpolicy.org/events/2013/12/forum-role-private-capital-reformed-housing-finance-system
  • December 19th:  Answer due under Fisher, Reid, Shipmon v. United States of America

See below for docket updates as of December 4, 2013:

  • December 6th:  Non-consolidated actions in the District Court
    • Non-consolidated actions shall submit a joint status report by no later than December 6, 2013
  • December 9th:  Deadline for government to respond to Fairholme’s original complaint
  • December 10th:  Senate Banking Committee Hearing entitled “FUNDAMENTALS OF TRANSFERRING CREDIT RISK IN A FUTURE HOUSING FINANCE SYSTEM”
    • Details: 
      • Time:  10:00 AM ET to 12:00 PM ET
      • Location:  538 Dirksen Senate Office Building
    • Witnesses: 
      • Ms. Wanda DeLeo
        • Deputy Director for Office of Strategic Initiatives
        • Federal Housing Finance Agency
        • Mr. Kevin Palmer
          • Vice President
          • Freddie Mac
        • Ms. Laurel Davis
          • Vice President
          • Fannie Mae
        • Mr. Ted Durant
          • Vice President of Analytic Services
          • Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation
  • December 11th:  BPC to host a “Forum on the Role of Private Capital in a Reformed Housing Finance System” in Washington D.C.
  • December 19th:  Answer due under Fisher, Reid, Shipmon v. United States of America

  

Litigation Update: 

  • U.S. District Court  (Source: Court docket)
    • See attached for the amended complaint   
    • Nature of the Action: 
      • This is a class action brought by Plaintiffs for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, in connection with the Third Amendment to Amended and Restated Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, dated August 17, 2012  
      • This is also a class action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a subclass, seeking just compensation for the taking of private property in violation of the Takings Clause and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.
      • This is also a derivative action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of Fannie Mae, seeking damages and equitable relief, including rescission, for breach of fiduciary duty.   
    • Some Initial Observations: 
      • Substance generally consistent with original complaints filed by various parties
      • Interesting that the complaint notes “current projections for the Companies’ continued profitability show that by the first quarter of 2014, they will be able not only to repay all of the money the Companies drew down from Treasury, but also to pay the requisite 10% annual dividend” 
      • Interesting that the amended complaint makes mention of recoveries on legal claims and breaches of representations and warranties on loans purchased preceding the conservatorship (please let me know if this was mentioned in prior complaints but given recent activity in PLS and other settlements appears to be new at first glance). 
      • Also something we have mentioned in the past, FNMA and FMCC did not have enough cash on hand to satisfy the required dividend payments subsequent to DTA reversals and as such, sold non-liquid assets and/or issued debt to fund the dividend payment – interesting to see that the amended complaint highlights that “borrowing money to pay a dividend on a paper profit is directly contrary to operating the Companies in a safe and sound manner and restoring them to financial health, as FHFA is statutorily required to do when it is acting as a conservator” 
      • New incremental information includes summary of plaintiff holdings (away from what was already disclosed in complaints in the Court of Federal Claims) – we observe that a handful of plaintiffs purchased junior preferreds subsequent to the Third Amendment. 
      • Summary of Plaintiff Holdings: (Source: Court docket)
        • Melvin Bareiss
          • Fannie Mae 8.25% Series T Preferred Stock
          • Joseph Cacciapalle
            • Fannie Mae 8.25% Series S Preferred Stock
            • Fannie Mae 8.25% Series T Preferred Stock
            • Freddie Mac 8.375% Series Z Preferred Stock
            • John Cane
              • Fannie Mae Preferred 8.25% Series T Preferred Stock
            • Francis J. Dennis
              • Fannie Mae 8.25% Series S Preferred Stock
              • Fannie Mae 8.25% Series T Preferred Stock
            • Michelle M. Miller
              • Fannie Mae common stock
              • Freddie Mac common stock
            • Marneu Holdings, Co.
              • Fannie Mae 5.375% Series I Preferred Stock
              • Fannie Mae Variable Rate Series P Preferred Stock
              • Fannie Mae 4.75% Series M Preferred Stock
              • Fannie Mae 8.25% Series S Preferred Stock
              • Fannie Mae 5.375% Convertible Series 2004-1 Preferred Stock
              • Freddie Mac Fixed-to-Floating Rate Series Z Preferred Stock
              • Freddie Mac 6.02% Series X Preferred Stock
            • 111 John Realty Corp.
              • Fannie Mae 8.25% Series S Preferred Stock
            • United Equities Commodities, Co.
              • Fannie Mae 8.25% Series T Preferred Stock
              • Freddie Mac Variable Rate Series M Preferred Stock
        • Summary of Additional Parties: (Source: Court docket)
          • American European Insurance Company
            • Fannie Mae 8.25% Series T Preferred Stock
            • Freddie Mac Variable Rate Series M Preferred Stock
            • Barry P. Borodkin
              • Fannie Mae Variable Rate Series F Preferred Stock
              • Fannie Mae Variable Rate Series G Preferred Stock
              • Fannie Mae 5.81% Series H Preferred Stock
              • Fannie Mae 5.125% Series L Preferred Stock
              • Fannie Mae 4.75% Series M Preferred Stock
              • Fannie Mae 5.50% Series N Preferred Stock
              • Fannie Mae Variable Rate Series P Preferred Stock
              • Fannie Mae 6.75% Series Q Preferred Stock
              • Fannie Mae 7.625% Series R Preferred Stock
              • Fannie Mae 8.25% Series S Preferred Stock
              • Fannie Mae 8.25% Series T Preferred Stock
            • Mary Meiya Liao
              • Fannie Mae 8.25% Series T. Preferred Stock

 

 

 

U.S. District Court

District of Columbia (Washington, DC)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13-mc-01288-RLW

IN RE: FANNIE MAE/FREDDIE MAC SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT CLASS ACTION LITIGATIONS

 

Docket Proceedings

Reverse Proceedings

 

Req #

Filed

#

Docket Text

5

Dec. 03, 2013

4

AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants with Jury Demand filed by JOSEPH CACCIAPELLE.(Zagar, Eric) (Entered: 12/03/2013)

 

 

See below for docket updates as of December 2, 2013:

 

  • December 3rd:  re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations
    • Deadline for interim co-lead class counsel to file a consolidated class action complaint
  • December 6th:  Non-consolidated actions in the District Court
    • Non-consolidated actions shall submit a joint status report by no later than December 6, 2013
  • December 9th:  Deadline for government to respond to Fairholme’s original complaint
  • December 11th:  BPC to host a “Forum on the Role of Private Capital in a Reformed Housing Finance System” in Washington D.C.
  • December 19th:  Answer due under Fisher, Reid, Shipmon v. United States of America

Attachments: 

  • Moody’s
    • “Cost of Housing Finance Reform” by Dr. Mark Zandi
    • G-fee model in excel 
  • Professor Epstein
    • Final version of paper entitled “The Government Takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: How Upending Capital Markets with Lax Business and Constitutional Standards” 
  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims
    • Fisher, Reid, Shipmon v. United States of America:  First Amended Consolidated Derivative Complaint
  • Barron’s
    • Article entitled “A Brazen Bid for Fannie, Freddie”
  • WSJ
    • Article from last week describing ResCap’s settlement with FHFA  

Litigation Update: 

  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims
    • Fisher, Reid and Shipmon, derivatively on behalf of FNMA, filed the first amended consolidated derivative complaint
    • At first glance, this seems to be very similar to their respective original complaints (filed under Fisher v. United States and Shipmon v. United States) – we do not see any new material information from the first amended complaint
    • We note that both parties are represented by Schubert, Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP
    • One item to highlight, the docket does note that an answer is due by December 19, 2013 (as a reminder, government’s response to Fairholme’s original complaint is due by December 9, 2013)

US Court of Federal Claims

United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13-cv-00608-MMS

 Bryndon Fisher, Bruce Reid, and Erick Shipmon, derivatively on behalf of Federal National Mortgage Association (Plaintiffs)

v.

The United States of America (Defendant), and Federal National Mortgage Association (Nominal Defendant)

 

18

Dec. 02, 2013

17

AMENDED COMPLAINT against USA, filed by BRYNDON FISHER, BRUCE REID, ERICK SHIPMON. First Amended Consolidated Derivative Complaint.Answer due by 12/19/2013. (Schubert, Robert) (Entered: 12/02/2013)

 

Recent News/Articles: 

  • Bank of America Announces Agreement with Freddie Mac on Mortgage Repurchase Claims:  Agreement calls for $404 million (less credits of $13 million), we note this does not address PLS
    • Link:  http://investor.bankofamerica.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=71595&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1880926&highlight=#fbid=6LNlHu21vkS
    • Resolves “all remaining representations and warranties claims for residential mortgage loans sold to Freddie Mac through the end of 2009” but does not cover PLS
    • “Under terms of the agreement, Bank of America will pay Freddie Mac a total of $404 million (less credits of $13 million) to resolve all outstanding and potential mortgage repurchase and make-whole claims related to loans sold to Freddie Mac from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2009, and to compensate Freddie Mac for certain past losses and potential future losses relating to denials, rescissions and cancellations of mortgage insurance. The payments are fully covered by existing reserves as of September 30, 2013.”
    • “Today’s agreement does not cover loan servicing obligations, loans contained in private label securitizations or securities and disclosure claims.”
  • ResCap Settlement with FHFA (Implications for FMCC) – Confirmation is currently underway
    • See attached for last week’s WSJ article summarizing ResCap’s settlement with FHFA (Ally Financial did announce on October 29, 2013 that it reached settlements but did not disclose details)  
    • “Under the deal, FHFA will receive a $1.2 billion claim against ResCap's bankruptcy estate and will retain some of its mortgage-related claims against Ally.”
    • “Under ResCap's restructuring plan, most unsecured creditors would receive around 35 cents on the dollar, though specific recoveries depend upon whether ResCap or one of its affiliates actually owes the money. FHFA will also receive $24 million in cash when the subprime mortgage lender exits bankruptcy.”
    • From the Rescap  bankruptcy docket (dated November 18, 2013): 
      • FHFA  Settlement. The  FHFA  assigned  to  Ally  any  and  all  distributions  due  to  the  FHFA  and/or  Freddie  Mac  under  the  Plan  effective  as  of  the  Effective  Date  on account of the proofs of claim filed by the FHFA in the Chapter 11 Cases [Claim Nos. 6296, 6297, 6298, 6299, 6300, and 6301] (the “FHFA Claim Proceeds”). 5  The FHFA has in writing directed the Debtors and the Liquidating Trustee to pay to Ally on the Effective Date the FHFA Claims Proceeds. The Debtors and the Liquidating Trust shall pay to Ally on the Effective Date the FHFA Claim Proceeds.
      • Strictly for purposes of voting on the Plan and distributions thereunder, (i) the FHFA Claims against RFC shall be allowed in the amount of $1.2 billion in full and final satisfaction of the FHFA Claims; (ii) such allowed claim shall be an “Allowed FHFA Claim” in class RS-11 as provided in Art. III.D.3(k) of the Plan; (iii) the Allowed FHFA Claim shall not be subject to subordination and shall receive a cash distribution of $24 million on the Effective Date (equal to 2% of the Allowed amount of the FHFA Claim), as provided in Art. III.D.3(k) of the  Plan;  and  (iv)  the  FHFA  Claims  against  any  Debtors  other  than  RFC  shall  be  deemed satisfied in full, without any further order or action.
  • Barron’s:   A Brazen Bid For Fannie, Freddie
    • See attached an article published over the weekend, negative tone to the article and author dismisses the relevance of the legal arguments being pursued
    • Author attributes the recent common stock and junior preferred rally to three items:  (1) “overall stock-market rally”, (2) return to profitability, (3) claims by various holders that “they are entitled to be made whole for the old preferred shares, which they bought on the cheap”
    • The author believes shareholders have “no just claim to anything” and that “their positions were effectively wiped out when the companies were seized.”

Litigation Update: 

  • District Court
    • Consolidation Order: filed November 18, 2013 (see attached)
      • The Clerk of the Court shall maintain a Master Docket and electronic case file under the caption “In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations” and under the case number 1:13-mc-1288 (RLW). This includes the following cases: 
        • Liao v. Lew et al
        • Cacciapalle et al v. Federal National Mortgage Association et al
        • American European Ins. Co. v. United States
        • Cane v. Federal Housing Finance Agency et al
        • Dennis v. Federal Housing Finance Agency et al
        • Marneu Holdings, Co. et al v. Federal Housing Finance Agency et al
        • Borodkin et al v. Federal National Mortgage Association et al
        • All pleadings, motions or other papers relating to these actions shall be filed in the Master Docket only, unless otherwise directed by the Court.
        • Each new case filed asserting claims in the same subject matter as the Consolidated Class Action shall be consolidated into the Class Action
        • The defendants will be required to answer, move or otherwise respond to the consolidated complaint only. If a plaintiff in any such case is permitted to use a separate complaint, each defendant shall have thirty (30) days from the date the Court grants such permission within which to answer, plead or otherwise move with respect to such complaint.
        • Having reviewed the parties’ Joint Status Report and all pending motions and accompanying memoranda of law, the Court hereby appoints Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (“Bernstein Litowitz”), Grant & Eisenhofer (“Grant & Eisenhofer”), Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (“Boies”), and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (“Kessler”) as interim co-lead class counsel for the Consolidated Class Action (“Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel”).  
        • Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel shall coordinate with counsel in Perry Capital LLC v. Lew, et al., No. 13-cv-01025-RLW, Fairholme Funds, Inc., et al. v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al., No. 13-cv-01053-RLW, and Arrowood, et al. v. Federal National Mortgage Association, et al., No. 13-cv-01439-RLW for discovery, motion practice, case management and scheduling, and other pretrial proceedings, as appropriate.
        • Plaintiffs in the above-captioned actions shall file a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on or before December 3, 2013, which shall serve as the operative complaint in the Consolidated Class Action unless later amended or superseded.
    • Hearing Schedule: filed November 18, 2013 (see attached)
      • Detailed scheduled 
        • December 3, 2013 - Interim co-lead class counsel file a consolidated class action complaint.
        • December 17, 2013 - Defendants file the administrative record
        • January 17, 2014 - Defendants file dispositive motions
        • February 19, 2014 - Plaintiffs file oppositions to defendants’ motions and cross-motions
        • April 2, 2014 - Defendants file replies in support of their motions and oppositions to plaintiffs’ cross-motions
        • May 2, 2014 - Plaintiffs file replies in support of their cross-motions
        • June 23, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. - Hearing on defendants’ dispositive motions -and plaintiffs’ cross-motions
        • The parties in the three non-consolidated actions (Perry Capital LLC v. Lew, et al., No. 13-cv-1025 (RLW), Fairholme Funds, Inc., et al. v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al., No. 13-cv-1053 (RLW), and Arrowood Indemnity Co., et al. v. Federal National Mortgage Association, et al., No. 13-cv-1439 (RLW)) shall meet and confer amongst each other and with defendants in an attempt to establish a protocol for submitting a joint brief pursuant to the above schedule.
          • The purpose of the meet and confer is to allow the Court to receive one set of papers pertaining to the non-consolidated actions, if at all possible.
          • The parties in the non-consolidated actions shall submit a joint status report by no later than December 6, 2013, setting forth the agreed upon protocol (including proposed page limits).
          • To the extent that the parties fail to reach an agreement on some or all of the pertinent issues, the joint status report shall include competing proposals by the parties.

See below for docket updates as of October 28, 2013. 

  • Tuesday, October 29th
    • 10:00 AM ET: 
      • U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
        • Housing Finance Reform:  Essentials of a Functioning Housing Finance System for Consumers
        • Witnesses: 
          • Mr. Eric Stein
            • Senior Vice President
            • Center for Responsible Lending
          • Mr. Rohit Gupta
            • President
            • Genworth Financial, Incorporated
          • Mr. Gary Thomas
            • President
            • National Association of Realtors
          • Mr. Laurence E. Platt
            • Partner
            • K & L Gates LLP
          • Ms. Alys Cohen
            • Staff Attorney
            • National Consumer Law Center
          • Mr. Lautaro Diaz
            • Vice President
            • Housing and Community Development, National Council of La Raza
    • 10:00 AM ET: 
      • House Committee on Financial Services
        • Hearing entitled “Federal Housing Administration: Implications of a $1.7 billion Taxpayer Bailout”
        • Full Committee Hearing
        • The hearing will explore the health of the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMIF) and the implications of the FHA’s September 27, 2013, announcement that it would require $1.7 billion in mandatory appropriation from the U.S. Treasury effective September 30, 2013.
        • This will be a one-panel hearing with FHA Commissioner Carol Galante as the sole witness.
  • Thursday, October 31st
    • 10:00 AM ET: 
      • U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
        • Housing Finance Reform:  Essential Elements of a Government Guarantee for Mortgage-Backed Securities
        • Witnesses: 
          • Mr. Joseph Tracy
            • Executive Vice President and Senior Advisor to the President
            • Federal Reserve Bank of New York
          • The Honorable Phillip L. Swagel
            • Professor of International Economic Policy
            • University of Maryland School of Public Policy
          • Honorable David H. Stevens
            • President and CEO
            • Mortgage Bankers Association
  • Wednesday, November 6th
    • No Time Specified:  FNMA earnings release (estimated date according to Bloomberg)
    • No Time Specified:  U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia 
      • Deadline to file a Joint Status Report no later than November 6, 2013
  • Thursday, November 7th
    • No Time Specified:  FMCC earnings release (estimated date according to Bloomberg)
  • Tuesday, November 12th
    • 2:00 PM ET:  U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia 
      • All parties are to appear for a status report on November 12, 2013 at 2:00 PM to discuss the issues specified in the order.   
  • Monday, December 9th
    • NTS:  U.S. Court of Federal Claims  
      • Deadline for USA to respond to the original complaint

 

http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Home

 

HOUSING FINANCE REFORM: ESSENTIALS OF A FUNCTIONING HOUSING FINANCE SYSTEM FOR CONSUMERS

Tuesday, October 29, 2013 
10:00 AM - 12:00 PM
 
538 Dirksen Senate Office Building

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS

will meet in OPEN SESSION to conduct a hearing on “Housing Finance Reform: Essentials of a Functioning Housing Finance System for Consumers.” The witnesses will be: Mr. Eric Stein, Senior Vice President, Center for Responsible Lending; Mr. Rohit Gupta, President, Genworth Financial, USMI; Mr. Gary Thomas, President, National Association of Realtors; Mr. Laurence E. Platt, Partner, K & L Gates LLP; and Ms. Alys Cohen, Staff Attorney, National Consumer Law Center; and Mr. Lautaro Diaz, Vice President, Housing and Community Development, National Council of La Raza.

Add To My Calendar (vCal)

Witnesses

Panel 1

  • Mr. Eric Stein 
    Senior Vice President 
    Center for Responsible Lending
  • Mr. Rohit Gupta 
    President 
    Genworth Financial, Incorporated
  • Mr. Gary Thomas 
    President 
    National Association of Realtors
  • Mr. Laurence E. Platt 
    Partner 
    K & L Gates LLP
  • Ms. Alys Cohen 
    Staff Attorney 
    National Consumer Law Center
  • Mr. Lautaro Diaz 
    Vice President 
    Housing and Community Development, National Council of La Raza

 

HOUSING FINANCE REFORM: ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE FOR MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES

Thursday, October 31, 2013 
10:00 AM - 12:00 PM
 
538 Dirksen Senate Office Building

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS

will meet in OPEN SESSION to conduct a hearing on “Housing Finance Reform: Essential Elements of a Government Guarantee for Mortgage-Backed Securities.” The witnesses will be: Mr. Joseph Tracy, Executive Vice President and Senior Advisor to the President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York; The Honorable Phillip L. Swagel, Professor of International Economic Policy, University of Maryland School of Public Policy; and The Honorable David H. Stevens, President and CEO, Mortgage Bankers Association. Additional witnesses may be announced at a later date.

Add To My Calendar (vCal)

Witnesses

Panel 1

  • Mr. Joseph Tracy 
    Executive Vice President and Senior Advisor to the President 
    Federal Reserve Bank of New York
  • The Honorable Phillip L. Swagel 
    Professor of International Economic Policy 
    University of Maryland School of Public Policy
  • Honorable David H. Stevens 
    President and CEO 
    Mortgage Bankers Association

 

http://financialservices.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=356096

  

Hearing entitled “Federal Housing Administration: Implications of a $1.7 billion Taxpayer Bailout” 
Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:00 AM in 2128 Rayburn HOB 
Full Committee
 

Click here for the Committee Memorandum.

Witness List

  • The Honorable Carol J. Galante, Federal Housing Administration Commissioner and Assistant Secretary for Housing, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development


See below for docket updates as of October 10, 2013. 

View the Original Document >>

PRELIMINARY CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER No. 1 IN THE FANNIE MAE/FREDDIE MAC SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT LITIGATIONS
 
Signed by Judge Wilkins
  
The order states “A fundamental duty of this Court is “to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination” of these lawsuits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Where matters pending before the Court “involve common question[s] of law or fact”, the Court may “join for hearing or trial” those common questions, formally “consolidate” the lawsuits, or “issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Because of the overlap of issues, common facts, and complexity of these ten cases, the Court stayed all proceedings in them while it seeks to determine whether, and if so, to what extent, consolidation, coordination or any other “special procedures,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(L), should be employed to manage these cases efficiently and fairly going forward.”
 
1. Perry Capital LLC v. Lew, 13-cv-1025
2. Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. FHFA, 13-cv-1053
3. Liao v. Lew, 13-cv-1094
4. Cacciapelle v. FNMA, 13-cv-1149
5. Am. European Ins. Co. v. FNMA, 13-cv-1169
6. Cane v. FHFA, 13-cv-1184
7. Dennis v. FHFA, 13-cv-1208
8. Marneu Holdings Co. v. FHFA, 13-cv-1421
9. Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. FNMA, 13-cv-1439
10. Borodkin v. FNMA, 13-cv-1443
 
Judge Wilkins ordered for all the parties mentioned above meet and confer on the following issues:
 
a. What common issues of fact exist between all of the cases, or subsets of the cases.
b. What common issues of law exist between all of the cases, or subsets of the cases.
c. Whether the proposed case management and briefing schedule developed by the parties for the APA claims in Perry Capital LLC v. Lew, 13-cv-1025 (see Dkt. No. 20) can and should be adopted (as is or as modified) for any or all of the other cases raising APA claims.
d. Whether consolidation of any or all of the cases, the filing of a consolidated multi-plaintiff complaint, and/or the filing of a consolidated class action complaint is necessary or beneficial at this juncture or, alternatively, whether the briefing, argument and decision of any common legal questions that will be raised in anticipated motions to dismiss and/or for summary judgment could occur efficiently (and jointly, where possible) through some form of coordination short of formal consolidation of any or all of the cases.
e. Whether it is necessary or beneficial to appoint interim lead or liaison plaintiffs’ counsel in the putative class action cases at this time.
f. Whether the Court should defer consideration of any takings claims pending action by the Court of Federal Claims, and if not, how those claims and the cases raising them should be handled.
g. Whether there are any issues, in addition to those listed above, that the Court should examine or decide at this juncture.
 
 
Perry Capital’s counsel to take on the lead role in organizing the meeting and conferring among the plaintiffs’ counsel in these ten cases, and that process should commence immediately. 
 
The Court also ordered the following:
· Counsel for plaintiffs and defendants to convene at least one joint meeting in person no later than October 30, 2013 to discuss the order
· Joint Status report due no later than November 6, 2013, outlining in detail, with explanation where necessary, the positions of all of the parties on the issues specified above.
· Status Hearing to be scheduled for November 12, 2013



See below for docket updates as of September 18, 2013. 

Judge Margaret Sweeney issued an order to deny the government’s motion for stay pending the resolution of related actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (re: APA actions). 
 
There was no mention of defendants request for a 91-day enlargement of time to December 9, 2013 to respond to the complaint.  As a reminder, Fairholme has requested that the government be required to respond to the complaint by no later than November 7th 
 
Also see below for another shareholder derivative lawsuit filed on September 12, 2013 by an individual, derivatively on behalf of Fannie Mae vs. the United States of America and Fannie Mae (as nominal defendant) in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  See attached for the complaint. 
 
 
 Washington Federal et al. vs. USA (Shareholders suing Government for Fannie and Freddie
 Case Number: 1:13-cv-00385
Jurisdiction: US Court of Federal Claims
 
09/18/2013
22 
ORDER denying 12 defedant's Motion to Stay after full briefing and careful consideration, for the reasons set forth in plaintiffs' response in opposition. Signed by Judge Margaret M. Sweeney. (lp1) Copy to parties. (Entered: 09/18/2013)
 
 
Fairholme Funds vs. USA
Case Number: 1:13-cv-00465
US Court of Federal Claims
 
09/18/2013
12 
ORDER denying 7 defendant's Motion to Stay after full briefing and careful consideration, and for the reasons set forth in plaintiffs' response in opposition. Signed by Judge Margaret M. Sweeney. (lp1) Copy to parties. (Entered: 09/18/2013)
 

SHIPMON v. USA

Plaintiff:
ERICK SHIPMON 
Defendant:
USA
 
Case Number:
1:2013cv00672
Filed:
September 12, 2013
 
Court:
US Court of Federal Claims
County:
None
Presiding Judge:
Margaret M. Sweeney
 
Nature of Suit:
Other - Taking - Other
Jurisdiction:
U.S. Government Defendant

 

See below for docket updates as of August 26, 2013. 

 
FISHER et al v. USA  
  • New shareholder derivative complaint filed with the United States Court of Federal Claims yesterday – stating “unlawful taking without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment to U.S. Constitution” – see attached for the complaint
  • The derivative action seeks just compensation for the taking of the private property of Fannie Mae for public use by the United States, including the Department of the Treasury ("Treasury"), the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA"), and their respective agents.
  • Plaintiffs: 
    • Bryndon Fisher ("Fisher") is a citizen of California. Fisher currently owns and, at all relevant times, has owned 3,250 shares of nominal defendant Fannie Mae's common stock. Fisher has owned Fannie Mae common stock prior to, at the time of, and continuously since the Treasury Department's Net Worth Sweep announcement on August 17, 2012.
    • Bruce Reid ("Reid") is a citizen of California. Reid currently owns and, at all relevant times, has owned 29,000 shares of nominal defendant Fannie Mae's common stock. Reid has owned Fannie Mae common stock prior to, at the time of, and continuously since the Treasury Department's Net Worth Sweep announcement on August 17, 2012.
    • Council:  SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
  •  Defendant:
    • The United States of America
    • Federal National Mortgage Association – Nominal Defendant 
PERRY CAPITAL LLC v. LEW et al
  • It appears that Arnold & Porter LLP will represent Edward Demarco and FHFA in this case and FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC. et al v. FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, et al
  • Website:  http://www.arnoldporter.com/home.cfm
  • Arnold & Porter LLP is more well known for antitrust work and its litigation groups – recognized for regulatory and government relations work
  • See below for the profiles of all three partners listed
WASHINGTON FEDERAL et al v. USA
  • Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time until 08/30/2013 to File Response as to 12 MOTION to Stay All Proceedings , filed by MICHAEL MCCREDY BAKER, CITY OF AUSTIN POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, WASHINGTON FEDERAL.Response due by 9/12/2013.(Berman, Steve) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
  • ORDER granting 14 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 12 Motion to Stay All Proceedings Response due by 8/30/13. Signed by Judge Margaret M. Sweeney. (ps2) Copy to parties. (Entered: 08/26/2013)
FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC. et al v. USA - 1:13-cv-00465
  • Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time until 8/30/2013 to Respond to Government's Stay Motion , filed by All Plaintiffs.Response due by 9/12/2013.(Cooper, Charles) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC. et al v. FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, et al - 1:13-cv-01053-RLW
  • NOTICE of Appearance by Asim Varma on behalf of EDWARD DEMARCO, FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY (Varma, Asim) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
  • NOTICE of Appearance by Howard Neil Cayne on behalf of EDWARD DEMARCO, FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY (Cayne, Howard) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
  • NOTICE of Appearance by David Block Bergman on behalf of EDWARD DEMARCO, FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY (Bergman, David) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
DENNIS v. FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY et al
  • U.S. Department of Justice
      • NOTICE of Appearance by Joel L. McElvain on behalf of UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (McElvain, Joel) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
      • NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas David Zimpleman on behalf of UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (Zimpleman, Thomas) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
    • RESPONSE re 5 MOTION to Consolidate Cases MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. (Zimpleman, Thomas) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
    • RESPONSE re 5 MOTION to Consolidate Cases MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION. (Varma, Asim) (Entered: 08/26/2013)