Anyone who has followed the MBIA vs Bank of America saga knows that the only reason why there has been no settlement so far is due to BAC's relentless stonewalling tactics that seek merely to delay the production of discovery which based on preliminary indications is sufficiently damning to let MBIA prevail in the case, and with that to force settlement that based on our and others' former evaluations, could lead to a doubling in the stock (ignoring the massive short-covering squeeze it would immediately create courtesy of the 15.5% Short Interest of the total float, sending the stock even higher than where fundamentals say it should go). Well, based on a just released transcript of Judge Eileen Bransten motion to compel discovery, the end may be in sight, and may come as soon as July 13, or tomorrow. And what is more important, her displeasure with BofA's relentless stonewalling has come to an end. Will Bank of America have no choice but to settle in the very immediate future? Stay tuned to find out.
Key transcript selections:
THE COURT: I am going to get this case to trial if that’s the last thing I do in my tenure, which, you know, one day will end, and I want to it end before – I want MBIA to be basically done before my tenure ends, and that means we have to get going on it...it’s beginning to be push time.
I am getting a little annoyed at the constant delay in this case.
And the Court is going to say this about it: Came very close to sanctions. You practically reached the precipice over which you take one more step and sanctions is going to be happening.
I don’t think Bank of America ran new search terms out of the goodness of their heart. I think that really what happened was that they knew that discovery was not complete. They also know that the Court is getting very thin-edged about it not being complete
don’t care how many documents have been produced. It appears to me that there are documents that Countrywide has decided in its own inimicable way not to produce: Oh, that meeting had to do with something else. The issues is not that. The order that I gave before, and the order that I’m repeating now, is that everything, everything concerning these meetings is to be produced. It is not up to Countrywide to make that decision.
THE COURT: But my problem, Ms. Concannon, remains the same. It should not have been a production last night. It should not be last night. It should have been two or three or four months ago. And it bothers me that, indeed production was made last night. It is to me a deliberate path of – it really is – in my book it’s beginning to be a deliberate path of stonewalling until the very last minute, and then we’ll produce everything the night before, so we can say to the Court oh okay we produced. Not good enough. I’m making the date of July 13 the date, all right, for everything. I don’t care if there’s something left over and it should have been produced, and it was not produced. When I come back on July 23, I’m going to be ready-ready, and I’m going to be very well rested, and I’m going to very, very annoyed and angry that anybody stonewalled until the last minute. I want it produced tomorrow, so that it can be reviewed before July 13 so that, indeed, discovery is done. This is it, folks. The court is returning and becoming rather ticked. Excuse me. That’s not a nice word. Rather annoyed.
THE COURT: No, no, no, no, no, no. Too late. Too late. Look, the reason why its’ too late is that this is not like it’s first come to light: Gee, we need a privilege log. No, sir, no. No, it’s been too long. Not by the middle of the month. In the first place, whatever you have as of today, turn it over. Whatever you need to supplement, supplement it by next week. But that’s it. Turn over your privilege log today.
THE COURT: Okay, look. Deadlines: The final production for the privilege log will be July 13 of this year
THE COURT: Well, I think it’s a valid request, and I think in order for you to respond to it, you have to choose one of two things: Search more, find out if there are any such documents, and then turn them over, or do a Jackson affidavit stating you’ve conducted a thorough search, you’ve looked under your grandmother’s couch, you’ve done everything that you could possibly do in order to get the information requested. That’s a Jackson affidavit. Why is a Jackson affidavit important? Because later on, miraculously, when finally one day this gets to trial and a solvency document arrives either for the jury or the judge to consider, then MBIA will jump and say, oh, we had a Jackson affidavit. We did this question. We asked for the information, and we were told it didn’t exist.
It’s not like I’m asking you to commit hara-kiri. I’m just asking you for a Jackson affidavit.
* * *
Source: transcript of Judge Bransten Motion to Compel below:
h/t Manal Mehta