Response for MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Government's Stay Motion of All Proceedings

There has been a request by the government to STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS (suspend) in order to place Perry Capital's lawsuit into a priority queue, which the government claims will resolve all other cases.

UPDATE (9/13/13):
Please find the following court response here.

September 12, 2013 at 12pm - September 13, 2013
US Court of Federal Claims

Showing 14 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2013-09-13 10:46:10 -0700
    A few questions:

    Is the schedule above subject to possibly more motions for extensions from the government? Per the text of the Fairholme response, the government requested and obtained an extension to Nov. 7 to respond to the Washington Federal et al lawsuit, but then wanted to extend that to an unlimited amount of time.

    Where does the so called fast tracking of the Perry Capital lawsuit fit in to this schedule if at all, or is that idea dead, now? From the language of the Fairholme response, it appears that the government wants the privilege of being able to deal with just the Washington Federal et al lawsuit, first (with no mention of the Perry Capital lawsuit), and with the others after that.
  • commented 2013-09-13 09:32:35 -0700
    Thank you for the response and a thank you to the member that posted the Fairholme response.
  • @RestoreFannie tweeted this page. 2013-09-13 07:57:00 -0700
    Fairholme Asks Court to Deny Government Request for Motion for Extension of Time #FannieMae #FreddieMac #GSEReform
  • Restore Fannie Mae posted about Response for MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Government's Stay Motion of All Proceedings : Update on Restore Fannie Mae's Facebook page 2013-09-13 07:57:00 -0700
    Fairholme Asks Court to Deny Government Request for Motion for Extension of Time #FannieMae #FreddieMac #GSEReform
  • commented 2013-09-13 07:07:52 -0700
    Thank you to one of our great community members for pointing out the response, which can be found here:
  • commented 2013-09-12 23:07:04 -0700
    John Murray, by bogus, we assume you mean incorrect. To answer your question, no the information was sourced from, and you can visit the site to pull docket information directly. We are working to make future updates available on this site, but we can’t promise that they will be posted as quickly as pacer. We are always looking for volunteers as well as feedback and information about the cases, so if you or someone you know has access to pacer and would be willing to post updates on the site, please see the volunteers or contact button at the top of the site.

    Here is the site:
  • commented 2013-09-12 22:54:14 -0700
    Was this bogus?
  • commented 2013-09-12 11:22:41 -0700
    We common holders also need legal representations…..We need to file a lawsuit against them..
  • commented 2013-09-11 13:44:30 -0700
    I’m just trying to make some monies in the stock market. Disregard my lunatic ramblings.
  • commented 2013-09-11 11:48:10 -0700
    You tell the lawyers to tell the government that if they don’t settle the lawsuits within the next 30 business days that there will be no settlement. Let’s make it all or nothing. If we want to win big we have to roll the dice.
  • commented 2013-09-10 15:21:31 -0700
    It’s simply paper shuffling at this point — all standard procedure and posturing — nothing in the form of hearings yet; although, if we find out anything about hearings or any further details, it will be posted on the calendar and you will receive an email if you signed up to receive updates. Pacer should have this same information available. Sorry that there is nothing else to report at this point. Keep checking back!
  • commented 2013-09-09 15:03:34 -0700
    So in this hearing on September 12-13 what exactly is the meeting about? Does your source think they will start settlement talks on Thursday?
  • commented 2013-09-08 21:22:33 -0700
    Here is more information from a source that is familiar with the matter. Please note: the date is confirmed, but the reply to the questions below are only the opinions of our source:

    Q: What does this mean?

    A: “It appears that the government has filed a motion to stay several pending cases in order for the Perry Capital case to be resolved. [After reading] the responses to this motion from the various plaintiffs, [it does not look like] the government can delay them.”

    Q: What is the government’s reason for filing the motion to stay?

    A: “The government feels that the outcome from the Perry case will determine the course of the other cases.”

    Q: Interesting… so they want the Perry case to proceed without hearing any of the details about the other cases?

    A: “They are just trying a strategic approach, having nothing to do with the facts in these cases.”

    Q: It seems like the cheapest and most pragmatic solution is to just settle the Perry Cap lawsuit by releasing the GSEs from conservatorship, eliminating the third amendment to the PSPA.

    A: “Absolutely. And, even out of conservatorship, the government can still reform the enterprises by simply removing their GSE status.”
  • commented 2013-09-08 11:34:31 -0700
    Can you provide more information about what this means? Is this standard stuff or important?