Replies to post #826860 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

Your cherry-picked Lamberth quote

I'm not even the one who cherry-picked it!

f the Conservatorship is temporary and the NWS is temporary, then it is possible for to have future economic rights. You dispute this?

I don't dispute that, but you are missing the point.

The implied covenant is about reasonable expectations (probabilities), not mere possibilities. That likely explains why you have such a blind spot towards it. Saying that a restoration of economic rights in the future is possible is not at all the same as saying it's what a shareholder could reasonable expect. I claim just the opposite, in fact.

If your logic were correct, Lamberth would have thrown out the implied covenant claim also because the possibility existed of the economic rights being restored later.

Maybe I need to put this in my auto-sig until you can understand or at least acknowledge it?

It's a terrible analogy that has no relation to the implied covenant or the NWS. When the LP ratchets were signed, shareholders had zero economic rights (present or in the future given the status quo, which is what informs reasonable expectations), thus they didn't do any extra harm beyond the NWS and weren't implied covenant violations. That's the executive summary version.

I also have signatures turned off, for what it's worth. Your mental health would likely improve if you followed suit.