Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

Here, perhaps Berkeley Insurance (and/or BB) was the lead Plaintiff and the reason they said to exclude Fannie was because they only hold mostly Freddie Mac JPS and/or common and Fannie Mae JPS.

It wouldn't have been very hard to find a FNMA holder willing to be a nominal plaintiff.

The "contract" was the retainer agreement between the lead Plaintiff and the law firm and that contract excluded the law firm from including Fannie Mae Common.

The way I heard it put (remember, this is now third hand information), there is something in Fannie Mae's charter, different from Freddie Mac's charter, that prevented FNMA holders from being in the lawsuit.

Any exclusionary contract language that kept FNMA out couldn't have been in the retainer agreement because that's circular logic. There's a reason FNMA holders were never included in the first place.

Since they were "bankrolling" the initial Litigation prior to Class Certification then that could explain why the Fannie Mae Common was excluded.

I doubt it, given how easy finding a nominal FNMA holder plaintiff would have been.

Pure speculation on my part.

Same here.

I'm basically trying to warn FNMA holders that they might not necessarily be able to bring their own implied covenant suit, and even then their damages would be similar (well, a bit less) than FMCC's. That's why I think there's no reason to hold FNMA instead of FMCC at this point, unless swapping over would cause tax issues.