SCOOP.#FANNIEGATE ABOUT TO EXPERIENCE AN UNEXPECTED TURNAROUND.
The WSJ Op-Ed by the S.E.C. Chairman, Clayton, published 9 days ago, could be a sign that he is about to make an stellar appearance to claim that the Fiduciary Duty of the managers is a theme that falls squarely within the S.E.C. in its role of rulemaking and enforcement of the financial markets.
In the Op-Ed, he calls for establishing rules to align the interest of the shareholders with the obligations of the managers, like the fiduciary duty of casting a proxy vote in the case of fund managers, with respect to decisions in the best interests of the fund.
Also, it's important the S.E.C. regulation with respect to the Warrant, as it determines in the rule 13d-3(d)(1)(i) that a warrant is considered Beneficial Ownership regardless of having been exercised. A Govt having a Beneficial Ownership of 79.9% of a company, at an exercise price of $0.00001ps, is called Takings claim.
Judge Sweeney ignores the Financial Markets. She claimed that, because the law says "act in the best interests of FnF", the lawsuits are a derivative claim and the shareholders don't have standing, when that phrase is the Duty of Loyalty "no self-dealing" owed to the shareholders (Direct claim)
With respect to the Warrant, the judge asserted that it's an overpayment of FnF and thus, FnF are the ones that suffered the injury. Then, here also the shareholders don't have standing for Derivative claim. The truth is that a warrant is a takings case and the damage is suffered by the shareholders.
More detail on #Fanniegate.
