Replies to post #535655 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[car123]

All the SPO/IPO are agreed by broad of directors which representing the interest of shareholders. But as your post indicates UST and FHFA are not responsible to the shareholders but the taxpayers so the SPO is for public use and it takes some some degree of ownership of the FnF from my one share and according to 5th amendment the gov need to compensate.


Very difficult to do SPO if the SPO has lawsuits on it.

[YanksGhost]

<< regarding public use and compensation >>

I agree that the capital buffer is probably a bridge too far to qualify under a %th Amendment issue. However...

The issue of the warrants may be a different matter. If they are cancelled or rescinded: no problem. If they are exercised and sold before any SPO: probably no problem. But...

If the warrants are held for conversion until after the SPO... I'm not so sure that reasoning holds up as well. In such case it appears that the SPO would be used to enhance public use wkithout compensation. That, to me,could easily support the claim if a taking under Constitutional grounds.

Just one more reason to hate the warrants.

JMO.

[bcde]

This is just a bridge too far. The Fifth Amendment says that property taken for public use involves compensation. Saying that a capital buffer to protect taxpayers is a public use is a huge stretch. The proportional ownership of the company itself (which is what you claim will be taken) won't be for public use at all.

How do you know?

Are you a lawyer or legal expert? NO