"The verdict did NOT say that anything at all was illegal or unenforceable."
This is simply not true. I think you are overly focused on the Compensatory damages that are being awarded as the end result. But in order for those damages to exist, there MUST have been illegal action by the defendant (FHFA), in violating a clause in a contract. That clause is the "Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing" that is part of the Uniform Commercial code and exists in all contracts. It is there because the parties cannot possibly put into writing every possible scenario or action that the other party may take. It is therefore assumed that neither party will conduct itself in a manner that denies the other party the benefits of their side of the contract. It is illegal to violate this code. Full stop.
Now, you are correct in that Treasury was not a defendant. But that does not mean that FHFA can continue to behave in ways that are now deemed illegal between the FHFA and the shareholders. The remedy for implied covenant breach is typically a contract remedy and not always monetary damages. But in this case, there was compensatory damages because the plaintiffs showed that there was economic loss as a result of the breach. The loss should have been larger, and/or there could have been punitive damages as well, but I'll take the win for what it is. It is confirmation of ILLEGAL ACTIVITY on the part of FHFA. Again, full stop.
If you think the FHFA can continue using the same practices that have been deemed illegal, you are mistaken.
You are right, this isn't very hard.
