<<When lawless conservatorship end(s), all stakeholders win.>>
Maybe. But maybe, also, NO stakeholder gets what they wanted and maybe gets nothing at all.
>>JPS holders never bought JPS with hope of conversion.>>
Yes, I agree fully.
<<JPS holders started becoming greedy when they realized the extent of corruption and the extent of lawlessness at unaccountable FHFA during Ob administration.>>
For all pre-C-ship JPS holders (Washington Federal, Austin Police, many banks/S&L's) totally untrue. These holders simply and truly got screwed. There was no greed factor, whatsoever.
For the JPS holders that bought oppportunitically after shares cratered but signs of economic recovery were emerging, There was no more greed inherent in their purchases than with any stock purchased by any investor seeking positive returns. There's nothing untoward in such action.
My sense is that the corruption really started after the first Perry ruling and the slow slog began in the courts following the Third Amendment and new litigation started. What followed was an avalanche of suits filed for direct claims by every swinging dick with JPS shares, almost NONE of which were class actions benefitting all shareholders, JUST the filing litigants. That is where the honest litigants and the grabbaggers diverged and most all honor in the legal system became buried in the obfuscation of linked discovery and so many cases pending that consolidation became necessary... something that only RARELY is applied in Federal Court for damage suits. This is usually only used in matters concerning mass civil complaints such as school system, religious issues, labor or ciivil rights issues. Of all these actions, IMO, the the myriad of Jones, Day suits was the most obvious attempt to "play" the system for fast money. The Moelis 1.0 in itiative fronted by Blackstone and Paulson is when the greed-driven era accelerated in overdrive... each man for himself tactics; screw your neighbor. That, too, is when message boards turned hostile between share classes as former allies against FHFA/UST turned on each other as competitors for "who gets the bigger piece of pie."
This, to me, explains Judge Sweeney's strong push back on direct claims, more of which I expect shortly. Deritive claims level the playing field between competing classes of shareholders and is the court's way of neutralizing the competing claims of JPS vs. the world.
All IMO. And please spare me the Obama blame game. He is no more at fault than Bush or Trump other than the Amendment 3/Geithner debacle.
