Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[FFFacts]

Ok answer these questions:

1. Was this a regulatory takings? If so, what this a total taking claim or a partial taking?


1A. If this was a total taking claim is it not considered to be a nationalization? Lets rule out this being an eminent domain case because compensation was not paid.

1B. If this was a partial regulatory taking, how does that square with what you said that there was and is no economic value.

The existing commons and juniors technically have no economic value right now because FnF's book equity is less than the liquidation preference of the seniors, and the seniors' dividends, by the time they turn back on, will likely eat up all of FnF's income, leaving none available to pay dividends to the existing shares.

Even if the terms of the agreement get amended at a later time there is no guarantee, but if it does get amended so that there is some value in the future what is the monetary remedy from the time there was no economic value at all for the private shareholders?

2. How can there be double jeopardy on two related civil issues in 2 different courts?

Two different claims, two different courts. They could both win, both lose, or one of each.

2A. Why does a constitutional violation not have precedence over a lower breach of contract violation?

2B. Since the federal court can hear cases against the government for claims under 10k are you saying Lamberths court will not provide monetary relief but only injunctive and declaratory relief?

2C. Are you saying the federal appeals court is powerless to extinguish shareholders claim to the shares and to only provide monetary relief? What court then has the right to extinguish a property owners claim if not the Court of federal claims or the appeals court?