Saturday, June 13, 2015 12:40:17 PM
The Starr (AIG) case is challenging on two separate grounds.
1. illegal exaction (unlike FNMA), which is based on a law/practice that states the Gov't had no authority to own AIG stock at any point and...
2. a takings (like FNMA).
Based on the court filings it appears Starr likes it's chances better for a win due to an illegal exaction and if so, this would have no legal effect on the FNMA cases. If Starr wins based the taking claim (or both and even if the judge awards zero/small damages) then it helps us tremendously imo. It helps set precedent for a takings....not to mention what you state, the Third Amendment is way more egregious than what the Gov't did to AIG.
VAYK Confirms Insider Buying at Open Market • VAYK • Nov 5, 2024 10:40 AM
Rainmaker Worldwide Inc. Announces Strategic Partnership Between Miranda Water Technologies and Fleming College • RAKR • Nov 4, 2024 12:03 PM
North Bay Resources Announces Assays up to 9.5% Copper at Murex Copper Project, British Columbia • NBRI • Nov 4, 2024 9:00 AM
Rainmaker Worldwide Inc. to Assume Direct, Non-Dealer Sales of Miranda Water Technologies in U.S. and Mexico in First Quarter of 2025 • RAKR • Nov 4, 2024 8:31 AM
CBD Life Sciences Inc. (CBDL) Launches High-Demand Mushroom Gummy Line for Targeted Wellness Needs, Tapping into a Booming $20 Billion Market • CBDL • Oct 31, 2024 8:00 AM
Nerds On Site Announces Q1 Growth and New Initiatives for the Remainder of 2024 • NOSUF • Oct 31, 2024 7:01 AM