InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 53
Posts 6752
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 11/18/2016

Re: Barron4664 post# 792273

Wednesday, 05/01/2024 3:15:05 PM

Wednesday, May 01, 2024 3:15:05 PM

Post# of 797761

When I say void, I am referring to my prior reasoning in multiple posts.



Then he is still right because your reasoning in prior posts is flawed.

The current arrangement of LP on the Seniors that increases dollar for dollar of net-worth is just a NWS part 2.



Wrong. The original NWS prevented FnF from building capital. The new agreements with the LP ratchet allow them to build capital. There is an enormous difference between the two regimes, which is why the Supreme Court denied prospective relief in the Collins case.

The SPSPA has been found by the DC courts to violate common contract law.



Wrong. The jury found that the Third Amendment to the SPSPAs violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Not the entire SPSPAs.

I believe that should the verdict stand, there is now the ability for injuntive relief based on the terms of the SPSPA itself. I don’t think the agreement will withstand any attempt to collect on the LP or warrants should there be a new lawsuit from any shareholder in any district court just by filing a little tucker act claim for illegal exaction



That makes no sense. All injunctive relief cases have failed and no new ones have been filed. The implied covenant case sought no injunctive relief, so why would it read through to any future case that does? Injunctive relief is a very different ask than monetary relief, and injunctive relief would apply to Treasury who has successfully gotten every case against it dismissed so far.

The only way to make sure one a new case gets brought is to file it yourself. When are you going to do so? Bueller?

Got legal theories no plaintiff has tried? File your own lawsuit or shut up.

Posting about other posters is the last refuge of the incompetent.