Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[contrarian bull]

I don't think Treasury must settle suits to move forward.

If the action by Treasury helps shareholders they might just give up on the suits. Or if they continue, the courts might say that the damage or wrong alleged in the suit no longer exists. Or they continue and maybe Treasury owes or pays something - that would have happened anyway. I don't think a reasonably fair solution will hurt Treasury's standing with the courts.

However a bad solution that makes shareholders unhappy would not only continue the current suits - but start a new round of them.

Getting all the suits settled at once is like herding cats. However action by Treasury that makes shareholders happy would be like offering a big bowl of milk to all of those cats. They would all end up in the same place.

Earliest we hear whether SCOTUS takes the case looks like March 3rd. THAT would really change the calculus...

But, assuming an administrative route, how can Treasury secretary deal with suits?

Can the Treasury secretary move forward WITHOUT a settlement with the shareholders? That settlement will take some time and, without a BK court or congress, could not be imposed -- except perhaps under HERA by FHFA. But then we go back to whether that is constitutional or legal...

Would Treasury secretary have move forward without ALL shareholders dropping suits? How could Secretary get all shareholders to drop suits? (Even if you say you only participate in new situation if you drop suits, that still allows a hedge fund to soldier on with suits in hope of exponential payout..)

Curious to hear what people think... I should say I think we get Treasury secretary/FHFA going a Moelis-like route BTW some time this year - maybe second half