Yeah, sure. All you have to do is reread Lockhart's announcement regarding the conservatorship to know that. I agree with you 100%. But why did almost everyone wait until 2012 or 2013 to file suit and try and effect a claim? You don't need any documents gleaned in discovery to say that FHFA did NOT do what it said were its intentions and did not preserve the assets of the enterprises to effectuate a rehabilitation. They drained the capital and weakened the enterprises after proclaiming that part of the rationale for the takedown was their being undercapitalized. What more did they need?
The simple truth is that all the obfuscation over the eligibility for claims based on when the plaintiff's shares were purchased arises, circumstantially, because most litigating plaintiffs waited until after the NWS was implemented to even file a claim with the court. To suddenly step forward with claims that the conservatorship was imposed illegally but suits only filed 4 to 5 years later is not a confidence builder for a trial judge seeking a fair verdict. The motive for filing is just as relevent in trial law as is the motive a defendant had for bad behavior and is a frequent obstacle to decisions. We just got a glimpse of this dilemmma with the Cosby case where the court carefully considered the claim that plaintiffs filed suit seeking money from a wealthy entity and not because a crime had taken place; the legal question that slogged through the appeals process was: "Why did you wait so long before taking legal action." I am NOT saying that reaction was proper in that or any other case; I am just observing that waiting years and years before crying "foul" runs afoul (pun intended) of how judges view the legitimacy of plaintiff's motives for bringing suit in the first place. It looks very suspicious that most all legal actions were only filed when the GSEs had returned to profitability and THEN filed.
Just my opinion.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
