Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac: Pershing Response Filed

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac: Pershing Response Filed
By User:AgnosticPreachersKid (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac: Here is Pershings response to the government’s motions referenced in this post

Pershing Response

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


This Clean Energy Hedge Fund Has Solid Returns In 2022 And Uses Amazon As A Precedent

global investment 1666792701Electron 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= viewer_width=700px viewer_height=800px fullscreen=true print=true download=true openfile=false]

Todd Sullivan is a Massachusetts-based value investor and a General Partner in Rand Strategic Partners. He looks for investments he believes are selling for a discount to their intrinsic value given their current situation and future prospects. He holds them until that value is realized or the fundamentals change in a way that no longer support his thesis. His blog features his various ideas and commentary and he updates readers on their progress in a timely fashion. His commentary has been seen in the online versions of the Wall St. Journal, New York Times, CNN Money, Business Week, Crain’s NY, Kiplingers and other publications. He has also appeared on Fox Business News & Fox News and is a contributor. His commentary on Starbucks during 2008 was recently quoted by its Founder Howard Schultz in his recent book “Onward”. In 2011 he was asked to present an investment idea at Bill Ackman’s “Harbor Investment Conference”.
Previous article Safal Niveshak Interview with Basant Maheshwari [Part 3]
Next article Apple Inc. Chief Cook Honored As CEO of the Year By CNN

No posts to display