InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 52
Posts 6693
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 11/18/2016

Re: Rodney5 post# 737347

Tuesday, 10/25/2022 2:37:49 PM

Tuesday, October 25, 2022 2:37:49 PM

Post# of 793511

The money kept by the Treasury if it was applied to principle and 10% interest



That is exactly why Epstein and Hume are wrong: the contract did not allow this to happen while the funding commitment is in place.

You also keep using the words "principle" (by which you probably mean "principal") and "interest". Stop. Those words apply to loans, but the seniors are not and never have been a loan. They are equity.

Words mean things. If you actually want to be correct, instead of "principal" use "liquidation preference" and instead of "interest" use "dividend".

the LP would be paid in full and the SPS could be redeemed and at that point in time the companies could turn to the Market with a secondary IPO replacing the commitment. It's that simple



That is only one thing that could happen. Judge Lamberth dismissed the expectancy damage model, which was the source of the $16.92 per share for FMCC holders I kept seeing bandied about, specifically because it was too speculative; it made far too many assumptions beyond merely the NWS never having been implemented.

Lamberth said "any significant paydown would only be possible through a further amendment to the PSPAs". That means the assumptions of Epstein and Hume include a further SPSPA amendment at a minimum.

Another quote from Lamberth, this time on page 19 of his summary judgment opinion, puts this to bed:

That Treasury and FHFA would have amended the PSPAs to allow a
paydown rather than responding to their incentives in some other manner would be, “at best, an educated guess” that assumes the occurrence of contingencies for which there is no specific support in the record.



On one side are Epstein and Hume. On the other are Lamberth and the actual language of the contracts. No amount of repeating the arguments of the former will make them prevail over the latter.

You are wrong,



All I am doing is quoting the contracts and Lamberth. When you say that I am wrong, you are actually saying that the contracts and Lamberth are wrong. That is a ridiculous and untenable position to take.

Got legal theories no plaintiff has tried? File your own lawsuit or shut up.

Posting about other posters is the last refuge of the incompetent.