In the past I’ve stated publicly that there is a corporate stance at the WSJ regarding the GSE litigation (anti-shareholder). I’ve been assured more than once from folks at the Journal my opinion is in fact incorrect and that there is no “corporate stance†infecting coverage both in the news and the opinion pages.
Given them the benefit of a doubt this was in fact true ( I continue to maintain it it is not),  I have been breathlessly awaiting the WSJ’s coverage of Pershing’s recent victory v Treasury/FHFA before Judge Lamberth. I mean, they have covered every one of his earlier decisions in these cases and since plaintiffs won, at least now they’d have to at least acknowledge it…….right? More on this later….
If you are only a casual follower of this litigation, you’d probably only think that Judge Lamberth is the only presiding judge in the GSE cases given the exhaustive coverage he has been given by the WSJ up until now. Did you know that before Judge Sweeney they are nearly through with discovery? A discovery process that has lead the plaintiffs filing redacted briefs due to the highly sensitive nature of what has been uncovered? Here is the Fairholme redacted brief. You wouldn’t if the WSJ was your only source of information of this.
Last Halloween I wrote regarding their coverage of proceeding before Judge Sweeney in the DC Court of Claims:
Now, I can guarantee you this, when plaintiffs answer this government filing with one of their own and make a very strong case as to why Sweeney should ignore defendants brief, the WSJ will give it lip service at best, assuming they cover it at all. How do I know this? When plaintiffs won discovery in Feb. 2014 before Sweeney, do you know how many articles the WSJ ran on it? One. Just one……….
In front of Judge Sweeney plaintiffs have won a string of rulings, are knee deep in a discovery process that is far broader both in terms of time periods and the scope of what will be discoverable than what the government wanted. What discovery they were granted (link) does is it allows plaintiff lawyers to “discover†evidence that would undermine government claims in their motion to dismiss. It really is a big deal. This got one article…..
Do you know how many posts they have run about Lamberth’s recent decision? I get 16 here and probably missed a few. So, its more than a little clear the Journal has morphed from “reporting†to “advocating†in these cases.
