Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

that is why sometimes they remand it back to the lower court saying you did not proper do your work, take a look again and make a 180% turn or your ruling please

I agree here. This is why I question some people's insistence that the Fifth Circuit ruling will be a slam dunk win for the plaintiffs. They could easily just remand the case back down to the district court, and at that point a settlement is almost mandatory because the administration doesn't have enough time for that case (or any other) to go all the way to completion before their timeline is up at the end of 2020.

a NON-Cumulative preferred stock is not a Convertible preferred stock, with the suggestion they do can covert, it will be a again a breach of contract

First, you are misusing the definition of non-convertible. Non-convertible means that neither party can unilaterally convert the shares.

Second, a conversion would only be a breach of contract if 2/3 of the holders did not approve. The conversion that Moelis envisions, or any other conversion that could actually happen, involves 2/3 of the holders and FHFA agreeing to amend the contracts (to do a conversion at a set ratio on a set date), which is perfectly legal under section 7(c) of the document you linked to.

if FnF do not face liquidation the commons are more wise as the upside is higher (prefs max is par, common has no cap)

The junior prefs hold nearly all the cards when it comes to the lawsuits, so if they insist on a conversion as part of a blanket settlement, they will capture the upside of the commons if there is any to be had. That makes the upside of the juniors and the commons similar, while the commons clearly have more downside (the juniors can reject any conversion offer if it looks like the commons will be heavily diluted).

1)the catch 22, loan money, but you can never repay
2) being under capitalized due to conservatorship
4) 10.000 documents should be disclosed for public interest what happened
5) Draining a company to fund the government
6) in conservatorship yet acting in governments favor
7) 3th amendment put tax payer at risk in perpetuity
10)pay damages as FNF now can never return to normal for profit companies
13)Acting director puts FnF in conservatorship (only if they claim something on otting)

Each of these is already being contested in at least one of the court cases, so any lawsuits including those would not be new. They would be lumped in with the others (mostly in Sweeney's court), or dismissed as moot if they occur after a settlement.

3) 79.9% ownership with never leaving, the government should put the 5T on their balance

First, Treasury currently has a 0% stake; the warrants haven't been exercised yet. Second, even if they did, the 79.9% number was carefully chosen to avoid that debt consolidation. It wouldn't happen at all.

8) If the pref are converted to common they admit they have done something wrong

This makes no sense whatsoever. What have the pref holders done wrong here?

9) EPS are not honestly disclosed (cooking the books)
11)Stock manipulation
12)Government officials claiming on national tv to short a stock

All of these fall under the category of "if they haven't been sued over this yet, they never will.

And you have failed to state what law is actually broken by any of these. At least the ones not in that first group; those are covered by the various lawsuits.

if guilty they should pay prefs missed payments and relist the common

Relisting the commons can't happen until after the companies are released (NYSE and NASDAQ corporate governance requirements), and the companies cannot be released until they are fully capitalized (by Calabria's words). I don't see how relisting the commons counts as damages anyway; it doesn't involve any money changing hands directly.

But I will ask again, as I did in my last post, in regards to damages:

Pay whom, and how much?

Please be specific.