Replies to post #682564 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Lite]

How long have Shareholders been damaged?

What exactly did the 5th rule and what actions did their ruling bring to bring about a fair and equitable end to c-ship for Shareholders?

Can SCOTUS step this up? Does Govt get more wiggle room to delay moving forward on a fair and equitable ending.

[chessmaster315]

As I mentioned in the past, the warrants are a taking.

1. Shareholders did not consent to "give" the UST 80 percent of our company. It was a unilateral contract against our will.

2. "Taking" private property for public use without just compensation is prohibited in the Constitution (5th Amendment).

3. Scotus is "under oath" to protect the Constitution.

4. The "few pennies" for the warrants (80 percent of our company) is not JUST compensation. Its a ruse to "look like" just compensation. Its like a car dealer "selling me a new car" for $1.00 to prevent sales tax. It does not fly, and this attempt to circumvent the rules is way too obvious to Scotus.

5. As pointed out, the UST can not buy equities (stocks) without congressional approval.

[kthomp19]

The argument you're responding to is made in bad faith, though. It is pure cherry-picking.

Here is what the Collins plaintiffs have to say in their Supplemental Brief to the Fifth Circuit en banc panel (page 29):

Plaintiffs’ proposed remedy would only require accounting entries on the books of Treasury and the Companies; it could be accomplished without any money changing hands. Furthermore, even after this remedy, Treasury would still hold warrants to purchase 79.9% of the Companies’ common stock at a nominal price—warrants that Treasury acquired as part of the original PSPAs.

And on page 28 of the Collins plaintiffs' Supreme Court brief:

with the lion’s share going to Treasury had it exercised its common stock warrants. But Treasury was
not content with 80% of Fannie’s and Freddie’s common equity, it wanted it all.

There is even another tweet by the same plaintiff answering why they didn't go after anything other than the NWS:

Look at how often everyone lost before this suit.
It is different for a reason, unfortunately. We even lost 100% in our first court appearance.

This was the most likely to be won.

When a plaintiff makes one statement on Twitter and a contradictory one in multiple court briefs, guess which ones matter.

Anti-warrant sentiment is great for bringing out the cheerleaders but useless in practical terms.