Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[Robert from yahoo bd]

Well, if by 'disputes' you meant to say 'damages' it could be a problem psychology asking ANY trier of fact to rule in favor of one party over the other to the tune of a BILLION DOLLARS PLUS.

It would be interesting to ask the 4 Jurors deciding for P if they thought the $1.6B was enough, too little, or too much. Also it would be nice to ask the other 3 Jurors deciding for D if the $1.6B ask was an impediment to ruling for P in anyway and/or what they thought about whether or not P was asking for too much or too little.

But I read a ROLG comment over at TH's blog and he seemed to suggest that Lamberth isn't going to go back and do a redo of all the pretrial motions.

A win by P's in Lamberth's next trial, regardless of amount, would send a clear message to the decision makers at FHFA and likely UST that what they did on August 17, 2012 was wrong, that the Plaintiff Shareholders can win more than a Phyric Victory and that maybe it's time to seriously consider ending the CONservatorships sooner rather than later via a seriously viable plan that doesn't steamroll over the existing shareholders.