Replies to post #793840 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[tford]

“we still live in a free society based on the rule of law“. Good Lord….. you must’ve been in a coma for the last 20 years!

[The Man With No Name]

You're more than welcome to file suit. Then you can learn about res judicata, limitations and standing.

"the common law of contracts is an unmovable barrier to implementing the SPSPAs"

LMAO.

[Donotunderstand]

OK - I can understand your argument and want to believe it
But no court has agreed and we have been to a ton !!!

Because we still live in a free society based on the rule of law, this inconvenient fact pattern of the common law of contracts is an unmovable barrier to implementing the SPSPAs as they are currently written. The SPSPAs do not square with the letter or spirit of the applicable laws and clearly undermine the terms of the existing (legacy)share certificates

YET no court has done shist

[Wise Man]

"Breach of good faith and fair dealings" in the JPS contract is, precisely, what the FHFA-C's Incidental Power is for ("Take any action..."), and you can't complain about it, as long as it doesn't violate the mandate "put FnF in a sound and solvent conditon", that is, the follow-up: "...authorized by this section", concealed by judge Sweeney in her ruling when she just read "Take any action", but judge Willett (5th Cir.) rebuffed her, stressing: "any action within the enumerated powers" in his half-baked ruling because he didn't specify the powers, which was left to Justice Alito (both synced in), who started out his sentence with "Rehabilitate FnF" (from day one. Not now forgiving the SPS debentures accumulated), knowing that, the FHFA-C's Power, with soundness and solvency in a financial company, it refers to the Capital levels, as per the definitions in the Basel-framework chosen (Basel Committee on Supervision, adopted by the U.S. banks too) and in the FHEFSSA.
It doesn't refer to the Net Worth, otherwise you would see low profile officials handing out SPS LP for free to the government, for every dollar of increase in their quarterly Net Worth, which would raise the eyebrows even in China, which is what is happening.

Therefore, the FHFA can carry out a Separate Account plan in bad faith and unfair dealing, that is, lying about it. But, instead of spotting this Incidental Power and the exceptions to the Restriction on Capital Distributions, that would unveil a Separate Account plan similar to the one already carried out with the FHLBanks in 1989, with a statutory provision entitled SEPARATE ACCOUNT FOR THE REPAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL OF THE OBLIGATION RefCorp, along with the fact that the JPS contract or prospectus shown in the image below (at the BOD's discretion) and the law (Restriction on Capital Distributions) allow the suspension of the dividend payments (for the recapitalization, not on a whim), the Fanniegate scammers rose the flag of a breach of "implied in fact contract", just because they are annoyed with the fact that their dividend is kept by FnF for their recapitalization and that's Common Equity.


A dividend suspension clearing explained by the FHFA in the 2011 Final Rule "for the transparency of the conservatorships",


Where now, it must be added a 25% of the Prescribed Capital Buffer for the resumption of dividend payments, with the Table 8: Payout ratio, enacted in the Capital Rule.
First, they must learn that "Payout ratio" refers to the percentage of the Net Income that can be distributed to the Equity holders as dividend.
BECAUSE DIVIDEND PAYMENTS ARE NOT INTEREST PAYMENTS. And there is no such thing as "Mandatory dividends" or "dividend obligation", as stated by the Wall Street law firm representing the FHFA, but the DOJ is behind moving the threads.


Let's pretend. All fake.

[kthomp19]

Can a judge or court ruling really make it go away because of a prior ruling of 800 million awarded to shareholders?

No. My claim that future actions by Treasury are unlikely to result in a successful implied covenant claim by shareholders have nothing to do with the $800M verdict.

FHFA-C under common law (implied covenants) has a duty to act in good faith and fair dealings in upholding the terms of the share certificates.

Yes, that is in essence what Lamberth and the jury decided.



As for the rest, given the facts that no new lawsuits have been filed in a while and that only one of the existing/past ones has succeeded (where "success" meant only a $800M money payment made by the companies), I don't see why you should be so confident that a future lawsuit would even be filed let alone eventually succeed. The only way to ensure even the first of those is to file your own lawsuit. Ball's in your court.