Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
This is what the 5th circuit en banc said about this "advisory board" the first time around:
The current damage models is $1.6b + interest, it measures the share price decline from day before NWS to day after NWS. The damages models that was denied but shareholders will try to get back for the re-trial is $2.9b + interest, it measures the share price decline the day before NWS to ZERO. In that scenario FMCC would get ~50c.
Lamberth denied the $2.9b model originally because we didnt bring it up in time, not because he disagreed with the methodology, now that there is a re-trial there is more time to potentially include it.
None, that argument already lost in court
You don't have an issue with me, you have an issue with how the law is being interpreted. So far its been finalized that the NWS is legal (Epstein is wrong) and that the LP cant be paid down (Epstein is wrong again). The judges have spoken, if you have an issue, take it up with them. But yelling they are wrong over and over on this msg board won't change those facts.
Epstein was wrong, as Judge Lamberth explained in his ruling. He was also wrong that the NWS was illegal. What else is he wrong about?
There is a mechanism in place and they are on path to emerge from conservatorship today, it will just take ~18 years as Tim Howard just explained it in his post. And by then the LP will be so large that the government will have claim to 99.99% of the enterprise value. Cheers
PAGE 5 - "The parties do not dispute that because of that provision, the GSEs were contractually prohibited from paying down the Liquidation Preference ..."
PAGE 16 - "First, before the Third Amendment, the PSPAs and Treasury Stock Certificates prohibited the GSEs from paying down Treasury’s Liquidation Preference absent certain conditions that have never in fact occurred, and the Third Amendment did not change that"
You're welcome
It's horrible news for both common and JPS and the reason why our damages were limited to a measly $1.6b.
I'm not going to do all the work for you, just look up Judge Lamberths unsealed motion for summary judgement ruled in the fall of 2022. You can ctrl+f the exact language I copied from the ruling and posted here. You actually think I changed the words he used? Silly accusation.
I posted it yesterday. Judge Lamberth directly stated your interpretation is INCORRECT.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171012585
Government would be wise to convert the snr pfds to common to own 99.9% of the new equity and monetize over ~$200b+ of value, not wise to leave $50b+ on the table so old legacy common shareholders can make money. Use some common sense.
Arguing the LP could have been paid down is the same as arguing the NWS is illegal. The judges and courts have already ruled that paying down LP is not allowed (just like the courts have ruled the NWS is legal). The courts have ruled, Epstein is wrong, move on. You can yell into the sky all you want that LP could be paid down it wont change the fact that courts have ruled otherwise.
We are all eating ramen for dinner.
Based off SCOTUS denial of takings petition, all but 1 claim in 1 COFC case is still alive. The Kelly case has a JPS direct contract claim that wasnt addressed yet (they claim there is an implied contract between the JPS shareholders and the government that was breached). I believe the argument is extremely weak. The other 2 claims in the Kelly case (and every other COFC case) will shortly be dismissed inline with the SCOTUS denial of petition which affirmed the federal appellate courts ruling that there was no takings in 2008 or 2012.
Low odds my friend
Shareholders were challenging the original conservatorship in 2008 (not the NWS) and were dismissed.
That material is incorrect/ taken out of context.
Direct from Judge Lamberths ruling:
1) "The parties do not dispute that because of that provision, the GSEs were contractually prohibited from paying down the Liquidation Preference ..."
and
2) " First, before the Third Amendment, the PSPAs and Treasury Stock Certificates prohibited the GSEs from paying down Treasury’s Liquidation Preference absent certain conditions that have never in fact occurred, and the Third Amendment did not change that"
Lamberths justification if i recall correctly was because the terms of the PSPA does not allow paydown of the LP.
It was presented and Judge Lamberth didnt allow it, because he literally said that the senior pfd balance cant be paid off with dividend payments. So the whole NWS>10% idea was both presented as damages and dismissed.
Rodney you are incorrect. The SCOTUS cases and the Lamberth trial cases have absolutely nothing to do with eachother.
1) SCOTUS remanded to see if we can prove that because Trump couldnt fire Watt his first 2 years we may be entitled to some remedy, so far 2 courts has said NO we arent (pending appeals now).
2) Not related to #1, SCOTUS also just declined to accept our petition to reverse the takings ruling (so the takings case is officially dead for good).
3) The Lamberth trial is over a potential breach of shareholder contract and Lamberth limited the liability to 1.6b + interest ($2-3/shr for JPS and 30c/shr for common). Retrial at some point this year.
Again Lamberth and SCOTUS have nothing to do with eachother.
Probably by the end of this i will
“That said, if words have meaning, i think we are days away …”
What words are you specifically referring to?
No seriously
Whats happening end of month
How could the market determined EV ever put JPS (or common) ITM with the snr pfd LP increasing every Q? GSEs are worth at max $300b? Whats left for anyone but the LP as is. Can you imagine a scenario where this isnt the case?
Rumor is if you yell IDIOTS loud enough maybe FHFA/UST will find the errors in their ways and unwind NWS and refund the overpayments, as well as forfeit their warrants, so common shares can go straight to $100+/shr.
So Tim Howard and Bill Ackman are IDIOTS according to you as both own common (and JPS) and both advocate for warrant exercise.
Secret plan is so secret not even the people who came up with it know of its existence
All that matters is the effective ownership date of, not how long this has taken. Government can exercise a conversion from snr pfds to common above 80% while simultaneously selling that excess stake above whatever your imaginary threshold amount is to immediately take it below that level in one fell swoop. So its as if it never crossed the threshold in the first place. Who will force the UST to consolidate anything in that scenario?
>90% ownership would also be temporary if they immediately offer those snr pfd conversion common shares in a secondary offerings to get below any consolidation threshold.
I'm not disregarding anything, this is what the plaintiffs representing us in the remaining cases are asking for. If you have an issue with it take it up with them. But they are offering full conversion (accounting for the full $290b current LP, not a discounted amount) for snr pfds to common as an option for remedy.
From Collins/Bhatti/Rop prayer for relief:
"PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE
...
2.Entering an injunction that restores Plaintiffs to the position they would have been in were it not for the unconstitutional removal restriction. At a minimum, such an injunction should: (a) direct Defendants to eliminate the liquidation preference on Treasury’s senior preferred stock (either by writing down the liquidation preference on Treasury’s senior preferred stock to zero or by converting Treasury’s senior preferred stock to common stock);"
BTW i like the 5th circuit CFPB appropriations ruling for us as well (as it stands). Lets see whats left of it once SCOTUS is done with it this term.
Whether Collins plaintiffs own common or JPS or both, they are offering snr pfd conversion as a remedy.
Yes thats for the appropriations claim thats overlapping with CFPB. But my point is plaintiffs in the Collins case (and Bhatti and Rop) are content w/ a remedy that involves snr pfd conversion to common since they are offering it in all 3 cases.
1) Write down snr pfd LP in full or 2) convert snr pfd to common shares. They offer these 2 options because both of these options were presented in Mnuchins GSE treasury reform plan.
See my response in the other post. I see now why you are so confused. Hope that clears it up for you.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170932649
Ok I see were you are tripping yourself up, if you are still relying on PRE Collins scotus ruling briefings and arguments to see what plaintiffs are asking for you are WAY behind the ball.
The Collins case before SCOTUS is not the Collins case that remained alive POST SCOTUS. That is where you are confused. The original Collins separation of powers case tried to vacate the NWS in totality. SCOTUS rejected that remedy request and the plaintiffs can no longer go after the NWS to vacate it. So plaintiffs new creative backup remedy request is to go after the snr pfds instead of the NWS. And 1 of the 2 ways to address the SNR pfds they suggest is to convert the snr pfds to common. And so while you are correct before SCOTUS ruled on the Collins case the Plaintiffs asked for NWS to be vacated, POST SCOTUS ruling the plaintiffs amended their remedy request to address snr pfds by converting them to common. That is the world we live in today.
Subscribe to Ad free and enjoy an ad-free experience
Try Now
Keep the Ads