The 5th circuit Remanded back to the lower court, by saying they did not properly do their work
Right.
and need to figure out a remedy in favor of plaintiffs
Only if Judge Atlas actually finds in favor of the plaintiffs. Sure, this seems like a slam dunk, but wasn't the Perry appeal considered to also be a slam dunk?
now considering we trade at $3-4 dollar and the remedy is granting relief to shareholders and FnF
No. Relief would come in the form of cancelling the seniors, unwinding the NWS, etc. No money would be paid to even the plaintiffs, let alone all shareholders.
we need to go from $3-4 now to $20-80 (or whatever amount by that means) in about 12 months
You are throwing numbers out without any form of support for them.
Yes the NWS is ruled unconstitutional, in slang illegal, but it is also a plausible claim, but not only plausible, it is unconstitutional.
You are using the term "unconstitutional" incorrectly. The en banc panel majority judged that the NWS exceeded FHFA's authority under HERA. That had nothing at all to do with the Constitution.
What they deemed unconstitutional was the for-cause removal protection that the FHFA director enjoys. Not the entire agency or any of its past decisions, by the way. A majority of the judges chose to fix this by changing "for cause" to "at-will" while leaving the rest of HERA intact.
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
Once again absolutely false. All dismissed cases remain dismissed. If the Collins case gets appealed to SCOTUS and cert is granted, maybe we could see a whole legal mess happen. This can, and in my opinion will be, avoided by just settling the Collins case, along with all the others. I believe that all the plaintiffs in previously-dismissed cases, though, will be left out in the cold in terms of settlement awards.
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
Which court, and which case? And which shares' liquidation preference are you referring to?
then the conservatorship itself must be uphold and proven to be legitimate
This only needs to be done if someone actually challenges the conservatorship itself in a way to have it overturned. This has not happened, so if you want a court to do this you will have to file your own lawsuit to that effect.
To have standing, though, you would have to have owned shares on the date of conservatorship. So if you did, go file that lawsuit. If you didn't, you really need to stop talking about challenging the conservatorship because nothing you say will help.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
