Replies to post #733997 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

The post you replied to had nothing to do with Pagman.
In a different post Pagman was mentioned, where aside from my own thoughts on warrants, it seemed similar to my thought. Which was: without NWS, Sp would be officially paid back and excess toward recap.

The two posts were substantially the same.

Unfortunately, Lamberth ruled that FnF didn't have the option to pay down the seniors, so any but-for world based on assuming that they did is invalid. That's on pages 16 and 17 of his summary judgment ruling that was released today:

First, before the Third Amendment, the PSPAs and Treasury Stock Certificates prohibited the GSEs from paying down Treasury’s Liquidation Preference absent certain conditions that have never in fact occurred, and the Third Amendment did not change that. See PRDSUMF ¶ 8.4 Second, and as a result, any significant paydown would only be possible through a further amendment to the PSPAs.

That means, at least in terms of Lamberth's case, any damage award the plaintiffs ask for cannot make the assumption that the seniors would have been paid down. Thus the things in your post, again as it relates to Lamberth's case, are entirely irrelevant.