Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

But the problem is the original deal was not Fair or needed, nor is the 10% original deal fair or market conform, the problem we have on hand right now, is they have to prove all further proceedings, so if we go back to the original deal “they” have to prove the conservatorship is legitimate, if they get to keep the 10% they must prove it is a fair market conform price, if they want to keep the SPSPA they must prove both, there is just no easy out for the government

This line of reasoning is false. The government only has to prove the legitimacy of the conservatorship and 10% dividend if a plaintiff challenges it in such a way to have them overturned.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but no plaintiff has done this. The only plaintiff that challenges anything before the NWS is Washington Federal, and the only thing they want is money damages for pre-conservatorship shareholders.

In addition, Judge Sweeney does not have the legal authority to change any part of the SPSPAs, not even the NWS! Anyone who wants to challenge those things in a way to get them changed would have to file a lawsuit in a different court. The USCFC is not the right venue for seeking such injunctive relief.

You also have the burden of proof backwards: it is up to a putative plaintiff to prove that there was illegal activity in 2008 for which the proper remedy is to change some part of the SPSPAs, like the warrants or 10% dividend rate. Once again, nobody has yet done this.

As things are right now, the original deal is going to stand. If anyone out there thinks it should be retroactively changed, they will have to file a new lawsuit. What's stopping you from doing so?