It's even worse. The paper's premise is purely hypocritical and self-serving while couching itself in subjective moral feel-good terms.
Acting as if the things in this paper are "just" or "fair" is merely a way to justify lining one's own pockets. The argument that these things must be done or else nobody will invest new capital is just plain ludicrous.
What really highlights the hypocrisy is the idea that rewarding those who hold shares in early 2024 is just, fair, and reassuring to new investors. It in fact is none of these.
1) True justice would not reward people who bought shares well after the government's misdeeds in 2008 and 2012.
2) True fairness would not punish prior shareholders because they couldn't hold on to their shares for the 11-15 years they would have had to wait to profit from Bryndon's plan.
3) To the extent that new investors care about "justice" and "fairness" (which in my opinion will be somewhere between "very little" and "not at all"), they will only look to the other two points.
Bryndon himself bought his common shares after the warrants were issued in 2008. That's why his case couldn't challenge them. Complaining about the warrants later is purely motivated by greed. Since the warrants were issued in September 2008, any benefits from cancelling them should ONLY accrue to those who held common shares on that date and NOBODY ELSE.
The same goes for the senior prefs. Making the shares worth huge amounts of money in 2024 will in no way, shape, or form reassure new investors. That's because these new investors aren't stepping into the shoes of 2024 shareholders. They are stepping into the shoes of 2008 and 2012 shareholders (prior to the SPSPAs and NWS respectively).
If you really want to reassure new investors, here is how you do it:
1) Calculate the amount of damages attributable to the SPSPAs/senior prefs/warrants, find out who held shares and how many on the day before the SPSPAs were signed, and compensate only them.
2) Calculate the amount of damages attributable to the NWS, find out who held shares and how many on the day before the NWS was signed, and compensate only them.
3) Buy out all 2024 shareholders at their cost basis plus interest.
4) Have all this happen before FnF raise capital so that the new investors themselves are not harmed by these handouts.
A question for the defenders of this paper, ask yourself this.
1) If everything in the paper happened except that the common equity raise was at $5 per share instead of $100+, would you still support it?
2) If everything in the paper happened except that you and everyone you know had to sell their shares at today's prices (~$0.50) while the rest of the common shares went to $100, would you still support it?
An answer of "no" to either question means you're only in it for the money. There is nothing wrong with that; hypocrisy comes in when one claims to not be in it only for the money when one really is.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
