Yes if they go that route, the government would have already collected ~$300b in dividends to date, + another ~$200b in snr pfd balance, + another $50-$100b in warrant value. Not a bad deal.

I'm just saying what the CBO analysis shows, which is what the Calhoun plan is basing its math off of. Whether its right or not... The Supreme Court already said its ok by saying the NWS is legal.

This is not true, as I posted earlier:

If you look closely, the Calhoun plan just used the CBO analysis to derive $50-$100b of warrant value. Which if you look at the CBO model in detail it clearly assumes full value (no writedown) for the snr pfds with residual / additional left over value of $50b-$100b. No snr pfd write down.

Calhoun plan just used the CBO analysis to derive $50-$100b of warrant value. Which if you look at the CBO model closely assumes full value (no writedown) for the snr pfds

In the comments Freddie Mac asked for a 6 month extension, so worst case should be wrapped up by November. Just in time for post midterms admin action.

FMCKJ volume today 857,000
FMCC volume today 473,000

As you said, "volume says all"

That's too short of a time frame! Since March 1st FNMAT is up 26% (same with other jr pfds) and FNMA is down 5%.

Yes no one said our court system is "simple" to understand, but let's not make up fantasies about how it works. Judge Sweeney has been ordered by the appellate court to reverse her ruling and dismiss our takings claims, period.

May 20 is the deadline

https://twitter.com/familymang1/status/1497239306364231681?s=20&t=CKI9Yt4frNcacOh-PGG5Ig

The main claims the court of federal claims has jurisdiciation over is takings, which were all dismissed, so no i dont believe theres any “new” claims they can bring forward in this court.

I think that will be my last post on the "Sweeney" development, as many users here choose to ignore reality and make up some strange fantasy that doesn't exist.

What I said has nothing to do with the SCOTUS ruling. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit simply ruled that shareholders don't have a direct or derivative TAKINGS claim (which SCOTUS did not rule on, SCOTUS ruled on APA claim [denied this claim] and separation of powers constitutional claim [granted this claim, but remanded for potential remedy]).



That's exactly what they do... When an appellate court reverses a decision from a lower court (like the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit did in this case to the Court of Federal Claims), it gets sent back so the lower court (Court of Federal Claims here) can enter into the correct judgement to match the appellate court ruling. This is law 101. Good job not understanding this simple fact.



Whether you choose to ignore reality or not and live in lala land is up to you. But this is pretty textbook stuff to anyone who knows how our court systems work.

The "United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit" that just ruled on the takings case IS the appellate court for the "Court of Federal Claims" where Sweeney is a judge.

1) Sweeney originally ruled A) shareholders have derivative claims in the Court of Federal Claims, B) shareholders don't have direct claims.

2) The government appealed the derivative claims ruling to United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit while the shareholders appealed the direct claims, the government prevailed and the 3 judge appeals court panel dismissed ALL direct + derivative claims (including takings) against the government

3) The ruling is now sent back from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to the Court of Federal Claims so Sweeney can correct her wrong ruling and apply the new ruling which dismissed all shareholder claims, derivative and direct (she is bound by the appeals court to do this, she has no wiggle room or say in the matter, this is simply a bookkeeping/procedural task).

Did I dumb it down enough for you to understand?

Edit: Just to clarify, the only hope left for the takings case is if shareholders appeal the appeals court ruling to SCOTUS, the deadline for that is May 23rd, and even if they appeal there is <5% odds SCOTUS agrees to hear the case.

Wrong again, the derivative takings claim was dismissed in the appellate court ruling because of the power to exclude reasoning. The illegal exaction claim was separately dismissed because SCOTUS ruled the NWS was within HERAs power as a conservator so it wasnt an illegal exaction. All derivative claims were dismissed in the recent ruling. All thats left for Sweeney to do is bookkeeping to apply the appellate court ruling to her original ruling (overturns her ruling).

Serious question, do you ever actually read any or these rulings for yourself? It might help you.

This is exactly whats going to happen, Sweeney has no say in the matter. Her task is to simply rubberstamp the appellate court ruling (which overturned her ruling). People here are delusional and dont know how the court system works (when appellate court rules, the ruling is always sent back to the original district court judge (Sweeney in this instance), to rubber stamp that ruling onto her original ruling).

If anyone is keeping track, since the beginning of march Jr Pfds FNMAS/FMCKJ are +25%, meanwhile common FNMA/FMCC are -7%. Pretty big difference. Smart money moving in?

Wrong. Sweeneys job is simply procedural/bookkeeping at this stage, as a district judge she has to rubber stamp and reverse her original ruling to match the court of appeals ruling which dismissed the takings claim. There is nothing else to read into here. Only chance the takings case has is if it gets appealed to SCOTUS and they agree to pick it up, thats it. The appeals court has ruled and Sweeney is now bound to apply that ruling at the district court level no wiggle room.

If you look at the original prayer for reliefs for this case (there are multiple), the only relevant one / claim that survived motion to dismiss and heading to trial is the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing". In the prayer for relief, plaintiffs requests the judge rule that the GSEs breached our contracts, so they would be liable for any damages (direct claim), unlike the other prayer for reliefs where the benefit would flow to the GSEs from the UST (derivative claim).

"Declaring that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, acting through FHFA, breached the terms of the certificates of designation and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing;"

I also spoke with the shareholder legal team and they made it pretty clear that the GSEs themselves would be liable for this specific case/claim and this remedy would not entitle anyone to unwind the NWS or get rid of the senior pfds.

That's nice, but this is still a direct claim against the GSEs themselves. The GSEs will be liable for any damages awarded to shareholders, luckily they have ~$75b of capital on the balance sheets today.

I'm not sure what common shareholders would receive in this case if shareholders win.. TBD

That is incorrect. If shareholders win the implied covenant case nothing touches the senior pfds or spspa. GSEs themselves would just owe damages to jr pfds (par + penalty interest) and possibly common shareholders for breach of contract. Senior pfds and spspa would survive

It's 90 days, direct from SCOTUS:

"You must file your petition for a writ of certiorari within 90 days from the date of the entry of the final judgment in the United States court of appeals or highest state appellate court or 90 days from the denial of a timely filed petition for rehearing."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/casehand/guideforIFPcases2019.pdf

It's irrelevant like I said. If she didn't "procrastinate" as you claim, she would have ruled in our favor a few years ago and we would have gotten dismissed a few years ago by the appellate court like we did last month putting us in same place as we are now regardless.

Why does it really matter? Sweeney at the end of the day ruled in favor of us and that ruling ended up getting overturned. Whether that happened this year or 5 years ago its still the same end result nothing else she could have done.

Correct I do not believe the recent takings ruling changed the precedent set by Lamberth. As Lamberth explained himself in his opinion, the takings ruling is vs a different set of expectations against the government itself, while the IMPLIED COVENANT claim (differentiated from other contract claims that were dismissed already) is a different set of expectations against the GSEs themselves.

Again this is a bold statement to make and it isn't true, in reality it was an off-hand comment made by 1 judge (Judge Breyer) during oral arguments. Like I said before if SCOTUS really feels this was a takings they should take the takings case up assuming it gets appealed to them (and I hope they do).

I agree with you that the takings claims ruling is a travesty of a ruling and allows the government to confiscate/nationalize the assets of any entity under "conservatorship" in the future for 0 compensation.

Wrong.

SCOTUS ruled that NWS was a completely legal action under the powers of HERA period, not open to interpretation anymore (they also ruled that FHFA is unconstitional and we may be entitled to some retrospective remedy which is now pending in the lower circuits i.e. the Collins, Bhatti, and ROP cases).

The federal court of appeals ruled that the NWS wasn't a takings (could still be appealed to SCOTUS).

The contract case before Lamberth is even if the NWS is legal (like SCOTUS ruled), and the this wasnt a takings (like the federal court of appeals ruled), the GSEs themselves still breached shareholders contracts by agreeing to the NWS, and the GSEs themselves are liable, not the government.

SCOTUS didnt ask why this wasn't a takings case, show me where in writing this is in the opinion. In reality it was an off-hand comment made by 1 judge (Judge Breyer) during oral arguments. If SCOTUS really feels this was a takings they should take the takings case up assuming it gets appealed to them (and I hope they do).

Too bad the NWS is legal according to SCOTUS, so this is irrelevant today.

To avoid any confusion, here are the sections of the Lamberth ruling that are relevant to the takings case dismissal:

I didn't say that? But the Lamberth claim is that JPS liq. and div. preferences were vanquished after the NWS (not during conservatorship), since the NWS made it so the treasury received the net worth of the assets of the entities, leaving 0 possibly of liquidation or dividend value left for JPS holders.



In a receivership correct, but due the ballooned balanced of the snr pfds there would not be much value left over if any today for shareholders.



We could have potentially started to received dividends at some point in the last 10 years as the GSEs dividends well exceeded the original 10% dividend commitment, but the NWS closed off any potential of that occurring regardless.



Luckily for us we don't have to wait long to find out the answer to this question as it is right around the corner.

For jr pfds it would be to make our contracts whole again i.e. restore our liquidation and dividend preferences which is $25/shr (+ possibly penalty interest for every year since NWS). I have no idea what it means for common shareholders.

You should read the Lamberth ruling more closely. He already addressed our concracts claim in context of takings vs contracts and why there are different expectations for both scenarios. He already assumed we lost the takings claim in his ruling. His key point is takings is vs the government and contracts claims is vs the GSEs themselves (GSEs would owe us damages if we win Lamberth), and while one could have expected the government to take everything, no one could have expected the GSEs to agree to such terms in exchange for “nothing”, which is why the GSEs themselves breached our contracts.

You haven't seen it mentioned anywhere because it was never briefed anywhere, not even by the government themselves. So plaintiffs managed to survive all the governments arguments only for these judges to come up with a novel power to exclude defense out of left field.

I agree with your interpretation that the ruling now creates a world where the government can take 100% of the value of an entity that's in "conservatorship" in exchange for no compensation, which I don't believe is correct. I hope SCOTUS takes the case, but I wont hold my breath.

I hope if and when the plaintiffs appeal to SCOTUS, they will keep it simple and only focus on the powers to exclude / derivative takings claim.

1) Her original ruling was that FHFA is constitutionally structured so no remedy is required.
2) The 5th circuit on appeal later overruled her and said FHFA is unconstitutionally structured but shareholders are still not entitled to any remedy.
3) SCOTUS then overruled the 5th circuit of appeals and said FHFA is unconstitutionally structured but shareholders might be entitled to retrospective relief.

It's now her job to determine what, if any retrospective relief shareholders are entitled to. Regardless of what she rules it will get quickly appealed to the 5th circuit of appeals to have final say over.

Great questions, but unless SCOTUS decides to take the case to answer these questions its irrelevant.

Senior judges are "semi-retired". She still has responsibility over her current cases but doesn't get assigned new cases. Since this was originally her case she would be in charge of it again here.

Judge Atlas isnt part of the 5th circuit of appeals, she is a district judge (where the case is being remanded to).

Judge Atlas.

If you read the ROP case briefings (which is an identical case to Collins), Plaintiffs don't even want discovery, they claim they have all the evidence they need to motion for summary judgement. They only want to have 1 expert witness testify and that's it.

The 5 en banc dissenters essentially "dissented" from the SCOTUS opinion which ruled that its possible we are entitled to retrospective relief via the counter-factual world. The 12 majority judges clearly didn't agree they should dissent from the SCOTUS ruling and gave it the green light to proceed further in the district court as SCOTUS ruled was required. This may result in a trial on the facts to setup what the counter-factual world would have looked like if Trump could have fired Watt 2 years ahead of schedule.