Replies to post #585549 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[trunkmonk]

I think people are starting to get. Dr evil at the Prof slippery man think they can just create capitol anyway they want, we know they can’t sell SPS, even though I think they were ignorant as all Ps are about what will Happen. Thanks for making it plain for them. I wouldn’t.

[FOFreddie]

Thank You Very Much Ano for the Thoughtful Reply!!

The analysis you have so well reasoned seems to go to the heart what what shareholders should expect from publicly listed entities. If the courts do not uphold investor rights in the case of the GSEs where the taxpayer has been more than fully repaid and where the US govt used the entities to pursue politically motivated policy interests ( making sure the GSEs never return private ownership) why should future investors invest in public private partnerships?

There has been much speculation about a humungeous infrastructure bill that will heavily rely on future public/private partnerships - should investors worry about a back door nationalization or state takeover of these entities in the next crisis?

[kthomp19]

That is why fairholme now in their amended complaint is talking about a implied-in-fact contract, fairholme after discovery concluded there is no consent or transcript of the minute meetings, so what was the ground of entering in FnF, and that is why they amended their complaint with count XI and XII, and since the BOD cannot enter into an implied-in-fact contract the conservatorship illegal, so count XI and XII rank higher as to all other claims, ones count XI and XII are proven to be incorrect and there is a transcript the other counts will come into play

This is utterly false. If one were to actually go read Counts XI and XII of Fairholme's amended complaint, one would find that those Counts only challenge the NWS. They do not challenge any events from 2008.

COUNT XI Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract Between the United States and the Companies (Derivative Claim on Behalf of Fannie Mae by Plaintiff Barrett)
275.The imposition of the Net Worth Sweep breached the contract by rendering it impossible for Fannie to build and retain the capital necessary to exit conservatorship and return to normal business operations.
276.The Net Worth Sweep, thus, directly harmed Fannie by preventing the termination of the conservatorship; stripping Fannie of its ability to generate and retain capital. Fannie is accordingly entitled to damages.
277.FHFA has a manifest conflict of interest with respect to the Net Worth Sweep. FHFA was a signatory to the Net Worth Sweep, it benefits from it as an agency of the Government, and it has steadfastly defended it in court.

The Fairholme plaintiffs allege that FnF's boards of directors' consent to conservatorship is what created the implied-in-fact contract, and the NWS breached it. Read the entirety of Count XI and this is clear. Count XII is identical except for being about Freddie instead of Fannie.

In addition, nobody can "enter into an implied-in-fact contract" as you claimed the boards of directors did.

What you said in your quote above is a 100% lie, whether you believe it to be true or not. The very court documents you reference prove it.

In other words if treasury exercises the warrant the Direct claims can be brought again

We have been over this before. Treasury has the right to assign some or all of its warrant shares to any third party. In that case, Treasury would never become a controlling shareholder and thus your claim would be false.