News Focus
News Focus
Followers 57
Posts 8395
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 10/15/2009

Re: Lionscantwinagame post# 377783

Thursday, 01/12/2017 8:03:09 PM

Thursday, January 12, 2017 8:03:09 PM

Post# of 869597
"My point was that the court will take into account the decades long legal precedent established under FDIC conservatorships pertaining to return on investment in determining damages should a taking without just compensation occur, and I believe the second the warrants are exercised, that argument will be ripe."

I see this true as a derivative lawsuit, but not as a personal lawsuit. The warrants may represent a taking of the shares of the business, but to an individual owner, nothing was taken. The issuing of the shares themselves are not outside of the normal course of business. Therefore a private suit would likely fail for lack of standing. But thru a derivative lawsuit, I can support what you are saying. Of course, for a derivative lawsuit to proceed, we would have to first fight HERA's prevention of such lawsuits.

"It’s completely unprecedented, and it seems like you deflect away from acknowledging this simple concept and revert back to some lopsided agreement made between two government agencies."

I have commented several times already that this is unprecedented territory. I find it odd that you claim it is unprecedented in the same post that you claim that the court will rely on decades of precedent however. haha. Without precedent, the court must rely on the law or create their own precedent for future cases. If they rely on the law, then I don't see a personal taking. If they want to create precedent, then that is a completely un-debatable topic.

"The conservatorship started with a contract that was signed under duress followed by years of outright negligence in their fiduciary duty from the conservator coupled with accounting fraud that led to the 187 billion in debt owed, and then an outright theft in 2012 which resulted in Treasury reaping a windfall of profits."

Please refer me to any evidence of Duress. Duress is actual or threatened violence or imprisonment. Economic Duress (in case that's what you meant) requires an unlawful coercion by threatening financial injury at a time when one cannot exercise free will. I seriously doubt you have any access to evidence that shows this, as none currently exists.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent FNMA News