Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac: Here is Pershings response to the government’s motions referenced in this post
I see no chance the government prevails….as I said before, it was a hail mary from their own 40 and 99 out of 100 times they do not work……this will be one of those times
Electron Capital returned 3.1% for October, bringing its year-to-date return to 8.3%. The MSCI ACWI gained 6% for October, raising its year-to-date return to -22.3%, while the S&P 500 returned 8% in October for a year-to-date loss of 18.8%. The MSCI World Utilities Index was up 2.7% for October but remains down 13.5% year to Read More
Defendants ask this Court to rule retroactively that Plaintiffs were drafted into a set of different cases several months ago without anyone—the parties or the Court—realizing it, and then to hold, again retroactively, that Plaintiffs are bound by the Court’s dismissal of those other cases. Defendants seek such a result notwithstanding that Plaintiffs never received notice of or an opportunity even to contest this secret consolidation, let alone to file a merits brief in any of the various cases. The basis for this argument is a Consolidation Order that, by its own terms, could not have been applied to Plaintiffs’ case without following a set of specific procedures and providing Plaintiffs an opportunity to respond, none of which occurred here. Defendants thus attempt to revive Plaintiffs’ case—which Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed more than a month ago—so that it can be reinterred on Defendants’ preferred terms. Moreover, as Defendants imply (Mot. to Strike at 2–3), they seek this relief solely so that they can try to use the resulting order to their advantage in proceedings before other courts.
ere, the plaintiffs in the other Net Worth Sweep cases have all filed notices of appeal.See, e.g., Notice of Appeal, In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, No. 13-1288 (D.D.C. Oct. 15, 2014) (ECF No. 49). “The filing of a notice of appeal … ‘confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.’”
United States v. DeFries, 129 F.3d 1293, 1302 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (citation omitted). Thus, even if the Court accepted Defendants’ argument, there is simply nothing to consolidate Plaintiffs’ case into, since the Court no longer has jurisdiction over the consolidated cases. Exhuming Plaintiffs’ suit would be entirely pointless, and could not possibly accomplish Defendants’ desired result.
[pdfjs-viewer url=https://www.valuewalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Pershing-Response.pdf viewer_width=700px viewer_height=800px fullscreen=true print=true download=true openfile=false]