Replies to post #822534 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[DaJester]

"Breach of implied covenant" is fine because it's not ambiguous. Merely saying "breach" is, which is the problem.

Geez... Ok, let me fix it for you, so you don't have to focus on a few words missing instead of the gist of what I'm saying.

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 of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. You keep talking in circles but you aren't addressing that if something violates the shareholders side of the contract, it's a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing - now and in the future.

How do you still not get this? A "reasonable shareholder" who bought their shares AFTER the NWS has no expectations for any economic rights ever, because the NWS removed them.

I would disagree. If someone buys a common share today, clearly after the NWS, they are expecting economic rights. This is reasonable in light of the Conservatorship being temporary, the NWS having been deemed a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the Charter Act which creates these as privately owned entities, not government owned. Are you saying that every buyer of common stock is unreasonable?

Lamberth said that the NWS caused permanent harm. That permanent harm became the reasonable expectation at that point because the NWS became the most recent amendment

Permanent harm and total loss are not the same thing. In addition to the single day drop in share price, there is a ripple effect that was ongoing, via suppressed share price, lack of dividends, etc. Nothing that could be calculated as damages, because we can't say what would have happened if not for the NWS, but there is implied damage beyond the initial price drop. It could also affect the ability to get new investors, it could impact future PE ratios. The GSEs are forever tainted. But at no point did the court say that the GSE shareholders relinquished their rights, or that the GSEs could not be released and/or recover economic value for shareholders. We get the jury award and KEEP the common and preferred shares and economic rights contained therein.

I guess I have to break out the "king of technicalities" crown again here

Apologies if I have been misgendering you. Would you prefer to be called the King of Technicalities or the Queen of Technicalities?