Replies to post #777410 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[LuLeVan]

The jury verdict that the NWS breached the implied covenants does not undo the NWS. The Lamberth trial was only about damages for that breach. The plaintiffs will get the damages, and that's it. However, I think that the damages (as of today) were set far too low. The real damages were much higher.

The only way for FHFA to prevent the continuation of the clause that was in violation would be to remove or amend the agreement with that clause.

[kthomp19]

The only way for FHFA to prevent the continuation of the clause that was in violation would be to remove or amend the agreement with that clause.

FHFA is under no obligation to "prevent the continuation of the clause" as a result of the verdict. The only action that the jury mandated was for the companies to pay money to the shareholders.

Again, the verdict was against the companies. Not FHFA.

The money will be paid by the companies. Not FHFA.

The companies were the primary defendants in the lawsuits. They are the ones who breached the implied covenant in the contracts that only the companies and shareholders (not FHFA or Treasury) are party to. The only reason FHFA was even involved is because they are the ones who made the decision as conservator to sign the NWS.

The verdict did not mandate any action at all by FHFA! And yet you try to extend the verdict to imply that Treasury, who is yet another step removed, will have to do anything at all? Let alone anything in particular? That just makes no sense.