The lawsuits are dissimilar. Take a look at the prayers of relief for all of them.
1. Some mean nothing for current common shareholders and a settlement would not serve current holders who will get nothing on that account. Those lawsuits pertain and apply to past circumstances and not present ones.
2. A settlement in the takings clause based lawsuits will pay off specific large and small preferred holders to go away. The large holders will bank and the small will get pocket change. A settlement for just compensation, whatever amounts that would be, does not correct or admit to violation of any law. All that would occur is a wrist slap and some loose change given in some amount, pennies on the dollar.
A settlement in these cases sets a poor precedent that allows a case by case approach in future suits but does not prevent continued or future takings. If one does not qualify as participant in these suits and wants to be compensated for lost income than one will have to sue to get it like the others. Can't sue? No money to pay lawyers? No lawyers willing to engage in a class action suit on behalf of the current common shareholders not compensated? Tough noogies. Cases won in court, not settlements, are the most beneficial outcomes and in one sense the only desirable ones.
3. A settlement in the Perry Capital lawsuit is inconceivable since it is an injunctive lawsuit seeking to vacate the third amendment which is the very basis of the takings actions done by the US Treasury and the FHFA. In this lawsuit, damages or just compensation are not sought beyond payment for costs related to bringing the suit to court. This suit takes the right approach since it seeks to have the rule of law enforced. A win benefits and protects all shareholders from illegal takings now and in the future. A strong legal precedent would be set in the case of a win.
A settlement is not useful in the latter two types of cases that concern the present and current preferred and common shareholders.
These cases need to be won to set a legal precedent against 1) the arbitrary and capricious adoption and execution of the third amendment to the PSPAs that is not in accordance with HERA as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C) and 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and 2) against the violation of the takings clause of the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution that followed from the arbitrary and capricious adoption and execution of the third amendment.
A settlement outcome amounts to the US Government co-opting the shareholders.
This is similar to the banks neutralizing the US Government cases against them by offering and paying settlement money to the GSEs and US Government, a few pennies on the dollar for losses incurred by their actions and without admission of criminal action or guilt or enforcement of criminal violations of the law. The banks paid their way out of being prosecuted for criminal actions and allowed those personally responsible for the disastrous lending policies and actions to escape imprisonment.
Shall the US Treasury and FHFA do the same to GSE shareholders? Will the shareholders suing accept such? Shall the US Treasury, FHFA and Administration escape the consequences of actions taken in violation of the law?
Are these the the sort of outcomes sought and hoped for by common shareholders?
