Replies to post #765619 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Robert from yahoo bd]

Compound or simple interest for Fannie Mae JPS, THAT IS THE QUESTION! Of course, the Government Attorneys are arguing ZERO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST!

The Government: "Shareholders will get whatever WE DECIDE to give them and they will be happy!"

"Is this no better than a Banana Republic?", asked one Federal Judge.

[Ace Trader]

HOW TO UNDERSTAND IT ?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.163155/gov.uscourts.dcd.163155.383.0.pdf

COUNT ONE:
You should not infer or conclude from any comment that I make during the
examination of a witness that I have any opinion on the merits of the case favoring one side
or the other

COUNT TWO:
and my opinion would not be relevant.
BULL SHXT

COUNT THREE:
Nothing I say or do should influence or suggest to you that I favor any party
in this case. I did not mean to express or suggest any opinion about which witnesses should
be believed or which facts are establisheD
BULL SHXT

COUNT FOUR :
The party who makes a claim has the burden of proving it. This burden of proof
means that the plaintiffs must prove every element of their claim by a preponderance of the
evidence.

CONT FIVE:
To establish an element by a preponderance of the evidence, the paiiy must show
evidence that produces in your mind the belief that the thing in question is more likely hue
than not true. The party need not prove any element beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard
of proof in criminal cases, or to an absolute or mathematical certainty.

COUNT SIX:
During the cross examination of Mr. Satriano, the Chief Accountant of FHF A, there was
a statement suggesting that a PowerPoint presentation related to the "Deferred Tax Asset" or
"DTA" issue was "never produced in this case." That statement was inaccurate. As became
apparent during the redirect and re-cross examination of Mr. Satriano, the presentation in
question was in fact turned over during the pretrial discovery process. You should disregard the
suggestion that any party did not produce documents in this case as required.
As I already indicated, my rulings on the admissibility of evidence do not, unless
expressly stated by me, indicate any opinion as to the weight or effect of such evidence. You
are the sole judges of the credibility of all witnesses and the weight and effect of all evidence.

BULLSHIT, YOU MADE CLEAR THAT SOME EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED BUT LET THE DEFENDANTS ADD BS LETTERS AND EVIDENCE.

COUNT SEVEN:
You have heard evidence that a witness previously made statements and that these
statements may be inconsistent with the witness' testimony here at trial. It is for you to
decide whether any of these prior statements was made and, if one or more was made,
whether it is inconsistent with the witness' testimony during this trial. If you find that any
prior statement is inconsistent with the witness' testimony here in court, you may consider
this inconsistency in judging the credibility of the witness.
DE- MARCO

COUNT EIGHT:
In one respect, the law treats prior statements that are inconsistent with court
testimony differently depending on whether or not the prior statement was made under oath.
If the prior inconsistent statement was made under oath, you may consider the statement as
evidence that what the witness originally said was true.
DE-MARCO

COUNT NINE:
In this case, you heard opinion testimony from Professors Bala Dharan, Joseph Mason,
Anjan Thakor, and Mukarram Attari, who have been identified by the parties as expert
witnesses, on various economic issues. The law allows opinion testimony on such matters if
the witness possesses sufficient knowledge, experience, training, or education.
You are not bound to accept these witnesses' opinions. If you find that any opinions
are not based on sufficient knowledge, experience, training, or education, or that the reasons
supporting the opinion are not sound, or that the opinion is outweighed by other evidence,
you may completely or partially disregard the opinion.
BOOM !!!!!!!!!!!

COUNT TEN:
In this case, two of the defendants are government sponsored entities and the other is a
government agency

The FHF A is a federal government agency that also acts as conservator for Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac. When FHF A acts as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it steps into
the shoes of the GSEs. Because the FHFA's adoption of the Net Worth Sweep was taken on
behalf of the GS Es as conservator, FHF A's conduct in entering into the Net Worth Sweep is
deemed to be the conduct of the GS Es.

COUNT ELEVEN:
Second, unlike other kinds of contracts, shareholder contracts are not contained in a
single document. A shareholder's contract with the corporation includes not only documents
such as the stock certificate, certificate of designations, the corporate charter and bylaws, but
also the corporate law under which the corporation is formed and regulated.
Third, the terms of shareholder contracts may change over time without a specific
agreement by the parties to those contracts. For instance, changes to the law that affect the
governance of the GS Es and their relationships with shareholders, such as the Housing and
Economic Recovery Act or "HERA," amend or inform the shareholder contracts.
BULLSHXT. HEAR IS NOT LAW BY THE CONSTITUTION ! IT IS FLAWED !!

COUNT TWIEVE:
All contracts, including plaintiffs' shareholder contracts, contain an implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing

Rather, it
is an obligation to be faithful to the meaning and purpose of the parties' agreement.
BOOM, BOOM,BOOM,BOOM

COUNT THIRTEEN:
A party to a contract violates the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing if it acts
arbitrarily or unreasonably, thereby :frustrating the :fruits of the bargain that the asserting party
reasonably expected.
BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM

COUNT FOURTEEN:
In this case, plaintiffs allege that FHFA, in agreeing to the Net Worth Sweep as a part of
the Third Amendment to the PSP As with Treasury, breached the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing by eliminating any possibility that shareholders other than Treasury would
receive dividends in the future, thereby depriving plaintiffs' shares of much of their value.
BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,

COUNT FITHTENE:
To establish a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in this case,
each class of plaintiffs must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) FHF A's actions in
agreeing to the Net Worth Sweep arbitrarily or unreasonably violated shareholders' objectively
reasonable expectations under the shareholder contracts and (2) as a result, plaintiffs' shares
became less valuable.
NWS AND LP ARE DONE !!!!!!!!

COUNT SIXTENE:
To the extent that the parties offered evidence of statements made or information that
became available after the effective date of the Second Amendment to the PSP As on December
24, 2009, you may not consider that as evidence of what shareholders' reasonable expectations
were under the contract, but you may consider it as evidence of whether FHF A acted arbitrarily
or unreasonably with regard to those expectations.

COUNT SEVENTEEN: BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,
If you award damages to the Class Action Plaintiffs, the amount of damages awarded
to the W.R. Berkley Plaintiffs will be determined automatically based on their holdings of
Fannie Mae preferred shares, Freddie Mac preferred shares, and Freddie Mac common shares
as a percentage of the number of shares in each Class
BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,

COUNT EIGHTENE: FXCKEN A-HOLE JUDGE !!
During this trial, you heard evidence regarding value that the Enterprises transferred to
Treasury after the Third Amendment, in the form of cash dividends under the Net Worth Sweep
and increases to Treasury's liquidation preference under the 2017, 2019, and 2021 letter
agreements that further amended the PSP As. You may not consider this value transferred to
Treasury after the Third Amendment as a way to determine the damages being claimed by
shareholders.
WTF MAN WTF ??????????????


COUNT TWENTY: WTF MAN WTF ?????????????? WTF MAN WTF ?????????????? WTF MAN WTF ??????????????
You may not award any punitive damages in this case. That means that you may not base
any monetary award on a desire to punish defendants, to prevent their conduct from being
repeated in the future,

COUNT TWENTY ONE:
Under Virginia law, which applies to the claims of the Freddie Mac common and junior
preferred shareholders, if you decide to award damages to those plaintiffs in any amount, you
may award prejudgment interest at the rate of 6% per year and fix a date from which interest is to
begin.

COUNT TWENTY TWO: BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,
You are not being asked to determine any award of
prejudgment interest for junior preferred shareholders of Fannie Mae because such interest (if
any) will be assessed by the Court as a matter of Delaware law on any damages you may award.
BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,