Replies to post #543473 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[mike_usa]

Enbanc
185 days (Including today) Or 6 months 4 days

[YanksGhost]

This message leaves me totally confused.

1. There is no pending suit from "Washington Mutual."

2. There is a suit pending from "Washington Federal" which is a class action for shareholders pre-conservatorship in 2008.

3. The Washington Federal suit seeks approximately $41 B for affected class shareholders and seeks no remedy concerning warrants.

Any judgement in this litigation would appear to have no impact on currently traded shares of either common or JPS shares.

Why do you state: "The common shares will open sharply higher today"?

And why do you state: "The warrant will NEVER be exercised" when this litigation has absolutely nothing to do with warrants that remain valid under the SPSPA until 2028; please note that this suit does not seek recission or modification of the SPSPA.

[trunkmonk]

Ok I will let it slide, and I won’t even say anything when shares close today after going nowhere.

[Donotunderstand]

?
what case

what court

citation please

no one has reported any case involving the day one seizure

thank you

[Fully Diluted]

Thanks, Carlos. Good find:

The redacted version of a Washington Mutual's 8-month-old brief was filed yesterday highlighting that the Board of Directors of Freddie Mac was coerced into accepting the Conservatorship one day before the start.
It coincides with the day the BOD approved a section in the bylaws opting out of an anti-takeover measure than would have banned the Warrant, without two-thirds shareholders' consent.

Here's the amendment:
"Section 11.6 — Control Share Acquisitions. A new Bylaw opting out of the Control Share Acquisitions statute under the VSCA. The Control Share Acquisitions statute is triggered by the acquisition of shares having 20% of more of the voting power of the Company by a person or a group acting in concert with that person. The statute, if triggered, provides that the acquiring person or entity will not be permitted to vote unless approval is obtained from the remaining shareholders."

The whole takeover stinks to hell. That would be a case for Pulitzer Prize winner Gretchen Morgenson. Because that's what you need brains for.

HERA's succession clause or the Control Share Acquisitions statute under the VSCA? Law versus law? So they just canceled the latter...

GLTY :-D

[10bambam]

Does the more info link work for anybody?
Seems like a Monday morning joke. So vague.
Go FnF!

[YanksGhost]

<< regarding FMCC's Board action on anti-takeover by-laws >>

IMO, any public financial service's firm at risk during the 2008 Financial Crisis whose Board of Directors was not considering identical action would be derelict in fulfilling fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. The demise of Bear, Stearns and destruction of shareholder's equity in that takeover was virtually a complete wipe out... and a shot across the bow to all other similar firms that preserving options beyond a GOV bailout were CRUCIAL.

There was private money on the sidelines likely to offer either of the GSEs a FAR better deal than conservatorship delivered. I doubt that anyone would argue that point. It has been extensively reported on, including some outstanding work by Andrew Ross Sorkin.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/business/24deal-web.html

I find it grossly unfair to ascribe such actions by FMCC and their Board members as somehow being complicit in some scheme to facilitate conservatorship. Plus, again, I must remind anyone considering the event that the Board must adopt a recommendation before any matter can be submitted to shareholders for a proxy vote. That being factually stated, I see no grounds for going down the rabbit hole by accusing the Board of wrongdoing or rescinding their actions which seem to be fully proper and, maybe, even admirable dedication to their shareholders.