Evidence that Gary Hindes removed every prior reference to breach of statutory provisions with the NWS dividend, outlined in his first complaint filed on 8/17/2015. This plan A didn't hold up, as their beloved 10% dividend prompted the same breaches. That's why Hindes, a hedge fund manager, had to file several years later, on 3/16/2017 to be precise, an amended complaint, removing: -Contrary to the best interests of the Companies. -Preventing the companies from rebuilding capital. -Contrary to the FHFA's purported statutory mission to "put the regulated entity in a sound and solvent condition." -Inconsistent with and in manifest conflict with FHFA's statutory functions and responsibilities as conservator of the Companies. The fact that the Supreme Court gets to debate whether a Conservatorship was turned into Nationalization and point out that it's authorized in the Law, is a wake-up call for the Congress. Because that's a big lie to enrich the Government and boost the hedge funds' investment case, now plan B, after the previous plan didn't hold up, as mentioned before. Plan B, the JPS's Liquidation Right, shares the booty with the Govt. A plan B that culminates the previous plan A about a Govt theft story and the key statutory provisions covered up, aiming at the Equity restructuring diatribe (privatization), stock offerings, etc. The Congress' "Do nothing. Blame DeMarco", so that the Supreme Court sets the ground for the hedge funds' slogan "FHFA not subject to any Law", suitable for their plan B, handing out two private corporations to the Government, is futile. There was no Takings but a Separate Account plan according to the Law (FHLBanks-style), to satisfy the underlying 2011 UST's 3-option plan (Privatized system is the common feature. That is, FnF Adequately Capitalized) and "recommendations on ending the Conservatorships" in the Dodd-Frank law, using the exceptions to the Restriction on Capital Distributions in HERA and, later on, in the July 20th, 2011 (time limit for the Acting Director DeMarco, 12 CFR 1237.12), and the fact that there weren't earnings available for distribution as dividends in their Retained Earnings accounts (Deficit)
Is it a bad thing if sctous denies the petition? If scotus accepts and eventually finds in favor of plaintiffs on a direct takings then shareholders will get paid pennies on the dollar and the ownership interests will be cancelled. The alternative is if a derivative takings or temporary/regulatory takings prevails.
If scotus denies petition then shareholders still retain shares and could get a small recovery in other suits while maintaining its ownership stake, although it could be diluted.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
