The 5th circuit Remanded back to the lower court, by saying they did not properly do their work, and need to figure out a remedy in favor of plaintiffs, now considering we trade at $3-4 dollar and the remedy is granting relief to shareholders and FnF, and MC saying possibility to trade again in Q4 2020, we need to go from $3-4 now to $20-80 (or whatever amount by that means) in about 12 months, and since the market is always 6 months ahead, you can figure it is trading at pennies on the dollar
This is false. The NWS has not been ruled unconstitutional, or even illegal! The Fifth Circuit did not reverse the district court's decision to dismiss the case, they remanded it back down saying that the plaintiffs do after all have a plausible claim that the NWS violates FHFA's powers as conservator granted by HERA.
Yes the NWS is ruled unconstitutional, in slang illegal, but it is also a plausible claim, but not only plausible, it is unconstitutional. below are some of the fraises the 5th circuit used to point out to the lower court, they misinterpreted the law and that justice needs to be served, and the only way is to look at it as being unconstitutional, and by that cornered the lower court to interpreted it frivolously , but since this case is intertwined with more cases and already closed cases, the complexity is huge, as all the previously dismissed cases now have standing again, and their case was initial dismissed for the now declared unlawful reasons
Count I
In Count I, they allege the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C), (D), affords relief because FHFA exceeded its statutory conservator authority under 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(D).
“FIRREA precedent confirms that this exceeds statutory conservator powers.”
the net worth sweep continues transferring the GSEs’ net worth indefinitely, well after Treasury has been repaid and the GSEs returned to sound condition. That kind of liquidation goes beyond the conservator’s powers.””
“We ground this holding in statutory interpretation, not business judgment.”
“To “wind down” the GSEs’ affairs here, FHFA needed to follow HERA’s carefully crafted receivership procedures. But FHFA was never appointed receiver, so it lacked authority to bleed the GSEs’ profits in perpetuity.”
“based on the Shareholders’ allegations, the net worth sweep is inconsistent with conservatorship’s common-law meaning”
“But in more relevant areas HERA provided no “contrary direction” against the common-law meaning”
“Under traditional principles of insolvency, investors and the market reasonably expect a conservator to “operate, rehabilitate, reorganize, and restore the health of the troubled institution,” not summarily take its property.”
“The Third Amendment inverts traditional conservatorship.”
“The complaint alleges facts showing ultra vires action that were not present in some other cases”
“So traditional principles of insolvency and FIRREA decisions remain relevant. And they counsel against a near-limitless view of FHFA’s conservator powers.”
“When we reverse the grant of a motion to dismiss,”
“The proper remedy is to reverse the motion-to-dismiss denial and remand Count I for further proceedings”
Count IV
“Count IV, the Shareholders’ constitutional claim. Although the Shareholders could theoretically obtain full relief under Count I alone”
““The Shareholders observe that FHFA’s status as an “independent” counterparty could actually have boosted the Third Amendment’s political salability.”
“the en banc court holds that the Director’s “for cause” removal protection is unconstitutional.”
“REMANDS that claim for entry of judgment that the “for cause” removal limitation in 12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2) is unconstitutional.”
Only if they file a lawsuit.
The remedy the court will give, will be sufficient to shareholders, all funds needs to be returned in order to pay off the liquidation preference, then the conservatorship itself must be uphold and proven to be legitimate or they settle the case(s) by giving FnF a substantial amount of money so they are instantly recapitalized, or we wait for the supreme court and get an even higher amount as the 5th circuit already hinted the government will not win a supreme court actions either, what they did was plain and simple illegal
Again, what you claim has been "proven" actually has not been. That means your conclusion does not logically follow.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
