Replies to post #43950 on Freddie Mac-No Politics (FMCC)

[Ace Trader]

It’s in the court docs filed by plaintiffs for damages.
Familymang explained it here ! On in pacer and see the filing read it or navy posted it last week

Damage context:

$1.6b is NOT all we ever asked for (btw the real number is $2.6b when accounting for prejudgement interest), they originally asked for MUCH more. We asked for 4 unique damage models in total, 2 were dismissed by Lamberth in the motion for SJ (expectancy + restitution), and 2 were dismissed after SJ ($2.9b loss share value + reliance).

1. Expectancy ($15b+ in damages): Requested this from day one. A DCF of the dividends shareholders should have received. This was dismissed by Lamberth in motion for SJ because it contained too many assumptions that weren't reasonably certain to occur (such as Treasury paying down snr pfds and/or approving divs to shareholders).

2. Restitution ($27b+ in damages): Requested this from day one. Refunding the jr preferred share cost at issuance ($33b), minus the divs they received ($5b). This was dismissed by Lamberth in motion for SJ because he ruled that HERA bars this kind of relief (retiring/refunding shares).

3. Loss share value model ($1.6b vs $2.9b in damages): Defendants expert calculated the $1.6b originally during motion for SJ. Plaintiffs only requested the $2.9b AFTER the motion for SJ ruling was issued. $2.9b represents the total market cap value the day prior to NWS, not just the market cap decline which is what $1.6b is, as plaintiffs claimed the NWS zeroed out the economic value of their shares forever. The issue with this one is that Plaintiffs should have requested this immediately in response to the defendants expert $1.6b calculation during the motion for SJ briefings and not AFTER the ruling was issued, but they didn't, so plaintiffs are stuck with the $1.6b number. If Plaintiffs expert immediately calculated it during SJ briefings we would be fighting for $2.9b+interest = $4.6b today.

4. Reliance ($27b+ in damages): Considered a backup to the expectancy model as it shifts the burden of proof to the defendants as to how much value the shares would have lost regardless of the NWS. Again the issue here is the shareholder lawyers only requested this AFTER the motion for SJ ruling came out, and not up front from day one along with expectancy and restitution.

So there you have it, all plaintiffs lawyers are allowed to ask for at this stage is $1.6b (which was calculated by defendants own damage expert, not even our own, because our damage expert and lawyers didnt bother countering that number immediately).

It's still possible if we win $2.6b ($1.6b+interest) and assuming defendants appeal the damages verdict, shareholders will be able to appeal to have all 4 of these higher damage models put back into place, so there are still scenarios where shareholders can receive a lot more than the $2.6b total. It's also possible the jury decides to award plaintiffs more than $2.6b because they feel $2.6b shortchanges the damages caused by the breach of contract, and may agree that $27b was the total value lost as our lawyers are making it a point to repeat over and over so far.