Replies to post #821166 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[DaJester]

Yes, we have been through this before, but you are the one who has things wrong here.

Well you are entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. The resolution will be coming so we will see who is more "wrong" - time will dissolve opinions into cold hard facts.

Jury verdicts have no precedential power in other circuits or in other cases, and the fact that the NWS was found to have breached the implied covenant means any actions taken by FnF afterwards that don't harm shareholders relative to the NWS not a breach themselves because Judge Lamberth said reasonable investor expectations are set as of the most recent change in the contract (which was the NWS itself when it comes to future alleged breaches).

Huh? So the Jury verdict once entered as final judgement, holds less weight than a singular comment the Judge made? Not that I'm disagreeing with "reasonable investor expectations" are set based on changes that occur over time. That's fine. But that doesn't mean that every "change" that occurs is valid in the eyes of a reasonable shareholder. Any contractual change that is a violation of the shareholder agreement would still be a breach - anything that thwarts the shareholder's side of the agreement. That could be NWS 2.0 or it could be a different breach. This is so simple, I just don't understand why you don't get it.