Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Litigations Detailed by Todd Sullivan, ValuePlays
The following, courtesy of Peter Chapman outline all the major litigation regarding Fannie Mae / Federal National Mortgage Assctn Fnni Me (OTCBB:FNMA) and Freddie Mac / Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (OTCBB:FMCC)’s and the conservatorship.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Litigation Summary
A decade ago, no one talked about tail risk hedge funds, which were a minuscule niche of the market. However, today many large investors, including pension funds and other institutions, have mandates that require the inclusion of tail risk protection. In a recent interview with ValueWalk, Kris Sidial of tail risk fund Ambrus Group, a Read More
Continental Western says it’s not forum shopping and reminds the Court in Iowa that it is not bound by Judge Lamberth’s decision. Continental Western tries to differentiate it’s complaint from the complaints filed by Fairholme in the U.S. District Court for District of Columbia.
Further, Judge Pratt has scheduled a hearing on the Government’s Motion to Dismiss Continental Western’s Complaint for 10:00 a.m. on Tues., Dec. 16, 2014, in Courtroom 265 of the U.S. Courthouse in Des Moines, Iowa.
This is good news as it least means, unlike Lambreth, Pratt is going to actually hear arguments (do his job) before rendering any type of decision.
Now, in order Pratt grant the government’s motion to dismiss on its grounds (Lamberth’s ruling), 5 factors must be met:
(1) the party sought to be precluded in the second suit must have been a party, or in privity with a party, to the original lawsuit; (2) the issue sought to be precluded must be the same as the issue involved in the prior action; (3) the issue sought to be precluded must have been actually litigated in the prior action; (4) the issue sought to be precluded must have been determined by a valid and final judgment; and (5) the determination in the prior action must have been essential to the prior judgment.
One can argue (4) and (5) either way but Continental was not a party to the Perry action before Lamberth, the actions, while similar, are not “the same” and in no way can anyone claim the issue “had been actually litigated”, Lamberth never even bother to hold a hearing on the issue.
Now, this is the courts so anything can happen but it unlikely Pratt dismisses based on Lamberth. Now, he may dismiss for alternative reasons (or he may not), but basing his action on Lamberth’s I’m skeptical of.