Replies to post #821707 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[DaJester]

Reasonable shareholder expectations are set based on the actual language of contract or amendment, not on their opinion as to the validity or legality of said contract or amendment.

Well now that the jury verdict is entered as final judgement, we don't need to rely on the shareholder's opinion of the validity or legality, do we? It's now clear that the NWS violated the shareholder agreement. Likewise, the language of future contracts or amendments also do not stand on their own. Meaning if the contract gives away shareholder rights, the contract is in breach. You keep talking in circles but you aren't addressing that if something violates the shareholders side of the contract, it's a breach - now and in the future.

The NWS already completely thwarted the implied covenant by denying shareholders any economic value going forward.

If the GSEs were forced to pay the court awarded amount in lieu of shareholders continued holding of interest via the common or preferred shares, then I would agree with you. But the shareholders get the award and keep their shares. Shareholders have a reasonable expectation that the shareholder agreement will not be violated in the future. The shareholder agreement is still in place, not modified whatsoever. The shareholders therefore have a ongoing interest based on those shares and the continuing implied covenant contained therein.