InvestorsHub Logo

Latergater

06/01/19 9:47 PM

#531033 RE: obiterdictum #531012

This should be stickied.

YanksGhost

06/02/19 7:12 AM

#531054 RE: obiterdictum #531012

Thanks very much for your reply. There have never been any easy solutions to resolve much of anything since 2008!

One additional request, if you would be so kind. The SPSP Agreement most all of us have seen is the version signed by Treasury and FHFA. So far rulings have been that under HERA that "contract" is not "self-dealt" and thus illegal. I think most all of us understand that position, whether we agree with it or not remaining a separate issue.

My question is in your earlier work are you aware of any predecessor agreement that may have been signed by the Boards of Directors prior to their being discharged and replaced? My reason for asking is that so much information was revealed during the Sweeney Court's lengthy slog through discovery that offers potentially damaging refutation to the "normal" context of the terms in the Agreement that a possible conspiracy case might be brought, say under RICO provisions, alleging a criminal conspiracy that radically affected investor's in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I'm not asking you tp detail the merits or mechanics of such a filing (which I know would be difficult and possibly impossible), just the possibility that the boards may have signed the SPSPA in some fashion, even as a deal sheet as took place in AIG/Starr, which would render any such further action moot. If no Board executed affirmation of the Agreement was executed. at least the possibility of a new action seems viable.

Thanks, again, for your contribution to all of us here.

Embers

06/02/19 9:31 AM

#531061 RE: obiterdictum #531012

Mutually signed- old boys club

Just because there was an agreement this agreement did damage the shareholder by impacting the price of the stock they owned.

Sadly, it seems like there is precedence for this type of robbery. However, if it was proven that the agreement was not made in good faith based on lies and deception after being forced into a situation where loans were deemed necessary, then I believe there is cause to throw out both the warrants and the SPS.

The government actions were like the mafia forcing a company to make bad deals with their friends (for political reasons in this case) and then coming back and telling them they were in bad shape and needed a special loan and the mafia was going to become a 79.99% "owner" of their company.

A big load of crap. If we are still in the good old boys and mafia era with business, then shame on our country, politicians, and judges!

Pecker9Wood

06/02/19 11:25 AM

#531073 RE: obiterdictum #531012

Maybe what the court should have said is some fruit don't ripen after picked and just rot.

Pecker9Wood

06/02/19 11:30 AM

#531075 RE: obiterdictum #531012

US saving bonds mature faster then this.

kthomp19

06/03/19 12:36 AM

#531146 RE: obiterdictum #531012

In a civil claim pursuing such damages, harm must be demonstrably actual. Hypothetical, possible or impending harm does not count.



I would appreciate your thoughts on a theory that I have heard, and repeated, regarding hypotheticals and the warrants.

There are three scenarios in play here:

1) FnF stay in conservatorship as they are now
2) Treasury exercises the warrants and allows FnF to be released
3) Treasury cancels the warrants and allows FnF to be released

Treasury has veto power over any release from conservatorship by section 5.3 of the original SPSPAs. Therefore, if they insist that exercising the warrants is one of their conditions of granting release, scenario #3 above cannot happen.

However if scenario #2 happens, a common shareholder's claim of harm would be based on the idea that they lost money in scenario #2 as compared to scenario #3 and therefore Treasury is liable. Due to the previous paragraph, I don't think this argument would work because scenario #3 is impossible (a counterfactual). Instead it must be scenario #1 compared to scenario #3 to calculate harm, and if no loss of share value occurs then there is no harm and thus no taking.

Can plaintiffs really compare to a counterfactual (scenario #3) like this?

whipstick

06/03/19 9:31 AM

#531195 RE: obiterdictum #531012

since there are mutually signed agreements



If an agreement is mutually signed but one party is under duress is the agreement enforceable?