Freddie Mac-No Politics (FMCC)

[FFFacts]

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=165870871

Regulatory? Sure, why not. I don't quite see why that part matters.

There are different classes or takings and different remedies.

As for total versus partial, I definitely say partial because the share price didn't go all the way to zero (the drop in share price is the only way to quantify direct damages to shareholders) and the shares still trade.

Share price doesn't need to go to zero for there to be a total takings. But even if the share price went to 0 or lets say .001 as I think a stock can't technically be 0, why does any of that matter if common and jps are economically worthless?

Right, I'm ruling out 1A. As for 1B, the zero economic value is only a current state, not a permanent state. It would take a confluence of several events to get the economic value above zero, but it is possible.

Plaintiffs have routinely said shares are economically worthless and the nws was in perpetuity.

From all the sources I can find, a takings award is based only on what the property owner lost (what the government later gains is irrelevant), and when those shares were publicly traded in open markets as FnF shares have been, the quantifiable loss by the property owner is just the drop in share price.

Is that also the case in exaction cases? Is that also the case in fraud?

Defendants can be held liable for the drop in share price in the USCFC cases and damages based on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the DC (Lamberth). I don't see how that's double jeopardy. Maybe the courts would have to coordinate, but I don't see that as preventing both lawsuits from continuing.

I don't believe courts can coordinate in that manner. The parties are the ones that provide motions. Courts can sua sponte submit a question to another court but I don't believe they can coordinate.

No, because the plaintiffs in Lamberth's court are asking for money (among other things). I defer to their expertise here in that I don't think they would ask for this if they didn't think Lamberth's court had the power to grant it.

I suppose we will have to wait for a ruling if at all.

Second question: none, when it comes to any of the existing cases. For a court to actually extinguish the shares, a plaintiff (which I guess would be the government) would have to file a case seeking that as relief. I don't see why they would do that.

I don't get it if the appeals court rules on a full blown nationalization it doesn't make sense that they can't then extinguish the shares. What happens when there is a takings of real property. Does the title get transferred or extinguished or does it just stand with the owner?