Replies to post #577071 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

the 10% divi and warrants are, effectively, in play, as they will form the basis for calculating the taking

I agree with this. I took "in play" to mean that Sweeney could retroactively overturn them, which she can't.

and correct, the class has not been certified yet, which is why I said "potential to be a class action"

I see. It's moot to anyone who bought after 2008 anyway, because the class is only pre-conservatorship shareholders (both common and pref). Certification can only matter to pre-conservatorship shareholders who are not named plaintiffs.

good intel on WF attorney's working on contingency; is there a link that might provide more detail? tia

Tim Howard mentioned it three years ago:

The “takeover and the terms” of the 2008 conservatorship WERE challenged in the Washington Federal lawsuit, but as I first learned from the Rule of Law Guy and have subsequently confirmed elsewhere, the lead counsel in that suit took it on contingency with a view to settling, and are highly unlikely to want to invest the significant amount of time and money required to carve themselves out of a settlement and pursue years worth of litigation on their own.

Tim Howard also made a comment about it today:

One reason is that the only suit challenging the warrants is Washington Federal, and the firm that brought that suit does not have the financial resources to carry it through a possible trial stage, which reduces the leverage for including warrant cancellation in the settlement.