Replies to post #704264 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[clarencebeaks21]

Quote: “It would be very easy for a USCFC judge to say the same thing about the warrants, that the claim accrued when the original SPSPAs were signed. If that happens then the six-year statute of limitations in the USCFC expired long ago.”

Agree 100%. This has been my thought too. The idea that the norm is a right to wage a late-dated, cherry-picking war — one condition at a time without need of worry of a SOL, just strikes me as wholly inconsistent with the most basic of contract law underpinnings.

[nats1]

Washington Federal has included the warrants in its complaint and wants their existence used to help calculate damages.

That's helpful that they are asking for it - but I doubt if the judge will go for it since there are no damages - yet.

I wouldn't be so sure about the statute of limitations not tolling yet, though. Judge Sweeney shot down the argument that each NWS payment represented its own takings, instead saying that all takings claims over the NWS accrued on the day it was signed (in August 2012) even though no payments had been made at that point.

It would be very easy for a USCFC judge to say the same thing about the warrants, that the claim accrued when the original SPSPAs were signed. If that happens then the six-year statute of limitations in the USCFC expired long ago.

I don't think a judge would make the leap as exercise of the warrants and the corresponding damages would be entirely speculative. The NWS on the other hand actually occured and is a sum certain.

Its a little early to get excited about the warrants, and no cause to worry about the statute of limitation being a future bar for litigation.
Not saying Ps would win, just saying, at the point of exercise (or perhaps announce there firm intent to do so), they would have another dog in the fight.

Think about it, can someone who bought common shares after the conservatorships started really say "yeah, we know Treasury had the warrants but we didn't expect Treasury to exercise them!" with a straight face?! Whoever can is a stone-faced liar.

What about the folks who bought before then?

As to ANO - I follow and value his insights - but I think the issue of when litigation comes into play for the warrants is pretty clear. I still welcome his input. But we are all entitled to our opinion and that is what the Board is for.

Nats