Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[GAK-]

Louie, I know the court has said that the liquidation preference claim will be ripe only if there is a liquidation, but do you have a link to the Sweeney judgment that says that the takings claims will be ripe if the warrants are exercised. The logic that the court used in Perry to say that the liquidation preference is not ripe would certainly seem to apply to the warrants as well. I just couldn't find the link to the specific document where Sweeney says that.

Thanks.



https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2013cv1025-51#page=52


1. The Plaintiffs’ Liquidation Preference Claims Are Not Ripe

“A claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon ‘contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.’” Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998) (quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Products Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580-81). An analysis of the plaintiffs’ contentions regarding the liquidation preference written into their preferred stock certificates is uncomplicated. The certificates grant the plaintiffs “a priority right to receive distributions from the Companies’ assets in the event they are dissolved.” Individual Pls.’s Opp’n at 5.37 Therefore, by definition, the GSEs owe a liquidation preference payment to a preferred shareholder only during liquidation. It follows that there can be no loss of a liquidation preference prior to the time that such a preference can, contractually, be paid. Here, the GSEs remain in conservatorship, not receivership, and there is no evidence of de facto liquidation."