my phrase ---- if GOV wants it can say - 300 on the 191 - paid off - retired
I like the extension of logic - makes sense to me
"if the NWS is a violation of the good faith of the common shareholder agreements, then the Treasury should not be put in a position to further engage in predatory practices by using a mechanism of a profit "sweep" into the LP, very similar to the sweep in cash."
(and maybe with a different judge the "return" can be more meaningful)
You don't have to prophesize, but you do have to estimate. At least, if you want actionable numbers to see if owning the common at current prices is worthwhile.
Only a violation by the companies, and by extension FHFA who signed the NWS on the companies' behalf. Treasury never violated the implied covenant because they couldn't; the implied covenant is only between the companies and the shareholders.
Again, the jury verdict had NOTHING to do with Treasury. Treasury is neither a defendant in the case nor a party to the shareholder contracts whose implied covenant was found to have been violated.
I sure hope you don't allow this opinion to be an input in your scenarios that you run. It has no bearing at all on what will actually happen.