Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Wise Man]

BOOM. The plain language controls. Therefore, quit peddling fictitious claims about an "implied contract", that the attorneys send you by email.
Their take isn't a peripheral consideration but an outright fiction.

Any dividend, today's gifted SPS and the very payment of Securities Litigation judgment in question, are a breach of the statutory provision Restriction on Capital Distributions and, in the 2021 Capital Rule, a breach of the Table 8: Payout ratio.

A dividend payment is also a breach of financial concepts, as the Retained Earnings account where the dividend is distributed out, turned negative fast (Accumulated Deficit).
A breach of the conservator's Rehab power as well.
It's not what "may" in the conservator's Power and its Incidental Power: "best interests of the Agency", are about.
You are annoyed because the dividend on your JPSs is kept by the enterprises and it's all that matters for the stock valuation of this fixed-income security.
Sorry, but this is what your security recorded in Core Capital is for: Recapitalization.
A dividend suspension is authorized in the contract.

Recorded in Core Capital (loss-absorbing capacity) and Equity, for Capital adequacy matters, as stated in the contract as well. Otherwise it would have been recorded in Debt along with similar obligations issued by FnF. But in that case, don't expect to get the current high "coupon" in interest payments, as it was meant to offset the risk of dividend suspension when it's Equity.

You talk about

shareholders' objectively reasonable expectations

Evidence that you don't understand the specifications of the security that you purchased. But no worries, the FHFA reminded us when the Equity holders may expect the resumption of dividend payments, in the preface of the July 20, 2011, Final Rule "for the transparency of the Conservatorship", that is a must read.

So, alway related to capital adequacy matters, like occurs in any other Preferred Stock in the world. A made-up hybrid financial instrument.
Have a look to the prospectus of the 5.5% noncumulative dividend Preferred Stock issued by Goldman Sachs: Dividend suspended for its recapitalization.

The attorneys seek back dividends and judge Lamberth is a tool to that end, as he stated in this court order:

No genuine dispute remains on the fact of harm on the theory of plaintiffs were denied dividends that they otherwise were reasonably certain to receive.

With an adjusted $-194 billion Core Capital combined? Does he know what Core Capital means?