Replies to post #693323 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

I say again what makes you think any of that matters if after the court rules on a full b;lpwn takings/nationalization that the shares wouldn't get extinguished and compensation is due only to those that held shares on the date of nationalization?

You had asked this before, and I started to write a response but I will just do so here.

How exactly does a court rule that a nationalization has taken place? Which case(s) are you referring to when you say that?

My impression is that courts only rule on the claims brought before them. Plaintiffs have said that the NWS was de facto nationalization but not actual nationalization, but that was just a vehicle to make their claims more persuasive.

Actual nationalization has not happened. The shares still trade among private investors in a public market. I don't believe extinguishing the shares is of any benefit to the government; why would they bother with that? FnF's charters (see Section 303 on page 11) also mandate that they are shareholder-owned companies, so actual nationalization would require a change to the charter, which in turn would require action by Congress.

[Donotunderstand]

my sense of how SHARES work is

those shares --- would be the recipients of the money

but it would come to who or whom ever held those shares when the cash is distributed as shares trading forward carry history (real or not - in law or theory - the current PPS of common is some sense of money in the future from freedom and earnings and participation in some past settlements)

we had one judge argue the other way

but the above is - best I know - the law of the jungle