i’m still reading through these, but basically the idea seems to be a squeeze play of sorts, to see if the government can force fairholme to say that there was a takings in 2012 and that they weren’t part of it (because apparently according to the government they didn’t own shares at the time and i guess according to them you need to own something in order to have a takings claim) or to say there wasn’t a takings and i guess then who knows what that means.
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/E24B8CB7C50C05D985257B280053C7CB/$file/11-5317-1424099.pdf
https://t.co/4wD9erArlN
http://t.co/0U73Agb8L4