Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[Wise Man]

It's you who defends the SPS LP increased for free along with the rest of plaintiffs and other plotters (Ackman, Berkowitz, etc.), because you haven't brought it up to court in your lawsuit.
Only the attorney Hamish Hume just a few months ago in the Wazee case and with a 3rd amended complaint. But he is covering it up in the Lamberth court where he is a party too, because it would blast his case and the claim of damages of one-day share price drop on the 3rd amendment-day, as it is the same Common Equity Sweep as before with the NWS dividend, and also, it blasts the Class Action altogether, as it wouldn't put an end to the controversy as a prerequisite to authorize Class Actions.

We even have the case of the attorney for Berkowitz, the almighty and omnipresent David Thompson, who even claims in court in the Rop case that with the SPS LP increased for free, it has achieved a Wonderland scenario based on the Financial Statement fraud in FnF (these gifted SPS LP and its offset, reduction of Retained Earnings account, are absent from the Balance Sheets), where the UST gets rich with gifted SPS and, at the same time, FnF are recapitalized, and thus, he requested constitutional damages, arguing that the "for cause" removal restriction prevented this scenario from happening sooner, sacking Mel Watt before.

On the other hand, the Separate Account plan, that states that the SPS LP increased for free as compensation to the UST in the absence of dividend payments, is a capital distribution (Definition number 1: 12 U.S.Code §4502(5)(A)) restricted (U.S.Code §4614(e)), and therefore, it's applied towards the exception to the restriction in order to legalize it.
In this case, the exception added to the one the statute posted before, enacted in a July 20, 2011 Final Rule "for the transparency of the conservatorships", and also with the objective to uphold the FHFA-C's "PUT FnF IN A SOUND CONDITION" power: recapitalization in a separate account (12 CFR 1237.12, in either of the 4 exceptions, because it supplements and shall not replace or affect the restriction by statute posted before, that also means recapitalization at the same time the SPS LP is reduced, with assessments sent to UST under the guise of dividend payments, as they are restricted too -Number 1 in the definition of capital distribution-, besides unavailable Earnings for distribution as dividend, out of an Accumulated Deficit Retained Earnings accounts.)
Therefore, the way to comply with the law is simply: the Common Equity is held in escrow, pending unwinding the operations. Other theme is that it's unnecessary to do it in the Balance Sheet if the operations haven't been recorded in the first place.
We can see how it's held in escrow in this image:


Actions have consequences and now, no one can pretend that it didn't happen: It needs a settlement of this Securities Law violation (7 in total during conservatorship: SPS LP increased instead of issued, to skip the December 2009 deadline on purchases by UST of high yield SPS, etc.), that the S.E.C. is aware of:
S.E.C. complaint 15976-876-848 submitted on August 2020.
Important clarification: the charge on the Income Statement that makes FnF post $0 EPS every quarter, is correct.


Finally, it gets better. The Lamberth rebate is another capital distribution and thus, restricted, included in the definition of capital distribution in an amendment inserted by the FHFA Final Rule of July 20, 2011, thanks to an express grant of authority to do it in the FHEFSSA posted above (Definition number 3: CFR 1229.13)

The Liquidation Preference continues to increase. And this is okay?

This isn't solved asking for debt forgiveness, Argentina/IMF-style or a swap SPS to commons, so that the JPS mimic this swap too.
That's the Hedge Funds/Private Equity firms trade (John Paulson and Blackrock lying in wait).
It's solved applying the law and rules in force and basic finance: the Separate Account plan.