A few things here. First, I had to look up the rescission thing in Document 148.
Evidently JPS were seeking alternate remedy in the form of returning their shares for par and terminating the contract. FHFA argues that's a distribution of capital barred under HERA. Motion granted in favor of FHFA.
FHFA also argues that shareholders can't prove any harm was done to by the NWS. Reasons are because A) GSE's could never pay down liquidation preference, B) plaintiffs estimate value of future dividends based on but-for world, (i.e. - impossible to quantify), and C) the harm is not necessarily traceable to 3rd amendment (could be attributable to the provision barring repayment instead). Also other hot garbage. Motion denied in favor of shareholders. Will go to trial to determine harm.
One thing I'm a little fuzzy on is the part about "GRANTED insofar as no genuine dispute remains on the fact of harm on the theory that plaintiffs were denied dividends that they otherwise were reasonably certain to receive"
Are they saying that--similar to #1--capital distribution rule barred dividends as well? Or is something else happening here.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
