Replies to post #319043 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[TII]

The BIG fact that big-yank failed to conveniently mention is that the only way both boards would agree to being taken over by the FHFA was when they were offered and forced to accept immunity of any type of future lawsuits.

If the Gov't was offering a necessary and fair deal to the boards (and thus the shareholders) why on earth would they need legal immunity? Yeah, that happens everyday!?!?

hmmmm....

[Gmonkeylover]

No contract is valid under duress. Extreme coercion and threats were employed to hard press the BODs into accepting the mandate. Then they were forced to sign non disclosures to prevent them from revealing the heavy handed nature of the "negotiations". This should be another lawsuit

[big-yank]

If the conservatorship was approved by FNMA's board, as you just confirmed, most of the litigation gets thrown out as BS.

FHFA's mandate as dictated by Congressional action has no laws of conservatorship to abide by when it comes to fiduciary responsibility. None are prescribed by HERA. FHFA was only bound to "conserve and preserve" the government sponsored enterprises, which they clearly performed in a responsible manner.

Fiduciary responsibility to shareholders was vacated by FNMA's board when they consented to being taken over. Nobody filed a suit against FNMA or its board. Too bad for them.

Next time around, I suggest you recommend that FNMA shareholders at least SUE the right entity to legally aggrieve their complaints.

LOL.