Replies to post #415335 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[contrarian bull]

Another very interesting new lawsuit filed:
MICHAEL ROP, STEWART KNOEPP, and ALVIN WILSON, Plaintiffs,

This is looking very interesting! I've only read the first 20 pages so far, but I like where this suit is going. It's not challenging the actions under HERA, but is challenging the constitutionality of HERA in the first place. Which is basically what prior judges said shareholders needed to do.

And the plaintiff is the named plaintiffs, but it also says
"This policy has inflicted severe economic harm on Plaintiffs and the Companies’ other private shareholders".

It's nice to see "other shareholders" mentioned.


And I like the mention of "the offer you can't refuse":

Given that the Companies were not in financial distress and were in no danger of defaulting on their debts, the Companies’ directors were confronted with a Hobson’s choice"

Of course it'll take another 10 years to go through the courts - and while common shareholders are mentioned - this is not a class action suit and I don't believe other shareholders have the right to join it... but still - I like the direction it's going.

[contrarian bull]

Another very interesting new lawsuit filed

I finally got a chance to read the whole thing. Anyone who has an interest in f&f should take the time to read the whole thing. It's like a history lesson on these stocks. And gives background to most all of the arguments you see on this board.

gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Rop/17-cv-00497-0001.pdf

About half way through it I wondered whether or not a judge would take the time to read it all... I can only hope they will.

Most all of the arguments seem pretty basic. As a non-lawyer it seems to make the case very well. A little bit of politics thrown in, but that is just to form an understanding on why various decisions were made and how the books were cooked to get the outcome we have now. It gave me a much better understanding as to why the money from Treasury was never needed, and why their "profits" were so huge a few years ago. It's clear this suit uses a lot of the recently released documents for background.

Bottom line is the case would call for reverting back to the 10% dividend - and based on their request for credit towards principal for excess dividends paid - would result in not only an end to the NWS, but credit for having paid off of all but a few billion of the "loan" from the feds. Another option is to keep the debt in place and use the excess funds to recap f&f. Both have similar results.

They do seem to accept letting the warrants to stay in place, but still not a bad outcome.