Replies to post #457390 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

But lack of standing will end it pretty quick.

These plaintiffs are ones that have standing. I can only guess as to why they claimed that each NWS payment causes new damages, maybe to stop defendants from trying to run out the clock on a statute of limitations?

No, even if this were true, post-NWS owners wouldn’t have standing because the injury has to be quantitative and specific. For example...if I bought shares at 20 dollars and then the NWS dropped the PPS to 1 dollar, I have quantitative and specific damages of 19 dollars per share.

The purchase price is pretty well set in stone ($20 in your example), but who decides on the $1 number? Can it only be the price on the day after the NWS? Or do you get to pick the lowest point in a reasonable time frame after? Or something else?

If someone else bought the shares at 1 dollar, and then the PPS went back up to 2 dollars, the post-NWS owner does not have quantitative or specific damages.

Naturally. How can one claim damages when they made money?

I haven't seen any pattern of the stock price decreasing at the end of every quarter when the NWS payments have been made so I agree that quantifiable damages aren't available for each NWS payment.

The damages are speculative (if the harm weren’t continuing, the PPS would go up...to what value, who knows). Standing can never be established on speculative damages.

Can't you say the same about pre-NWS shareholders? The presumption is that the shares would be worth what they paid for them if the NWS had never happened, but why is that assumption allowed and not one made by a post-NWS holder?