yes That is correct Donotunderstand, see also post 585965, the Collins plaintiff holds The 3th amendment is an injury to them, and that it needs to be set aside, the “Hotel California” problem.
they want:
“Enjoining Treasury and its officers, employees, and agents to return to Fannie and Freddie all dividend payments made pursuant to the Net Worth Sweep or, alternatively, recharacterizing such payments as a pay down of the liquidation preference”
The line of questioning in Collins is new, they attached the “for cause” to the “3th”, the government gave no pay down option, as its intention was to wind down their affairs, so the liquidation end date will not happen, however subject to earlier termination is when a court of substance thinks something in the contract is illegal and then the contract will end in the past when the liquidation pref is paid back
So we have 5 options:
1) 3th voided, overcharge is, Fannie $48,7B, Freddie $33,6B (2012-2019)
2) 3th voided, overcharge is, Fannie $68,5B, Freddie $50,2B (2008-2019)
3) 3th voided, payment=paydown Fannie $24,3B, Freddie $29,7B (2012-2019) with interest
4) 3th voided, payment=paydown Fannie $45,9B, Freddie $31,8B (2012-2019) no interest
5) 3th voided, payment=paydown Fannie $160,3B, Freddie $103,2B (2008-2019) with interest
SCOTUS: “we don't do harmless error in --in structural constitutional cases”
A problem for the government will be if it charges interest (the 10% annual 2012-2019 collins (3)) they will also have to pay the 10% on all payments after 2012 to Fannie and Freddie, politically this will not be an easy one
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
