Replies to post #827958 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

But of course you were!

BZZT. Try again.

One party may not intentionally thwart the other party from reaping their side of the contract. This is distinctly different from "reasonable expectations" or "possibilities".

No, they are not distinct. The thwarting is what shareholders cannot reasonably expect, and those expectations have to do with probabilities, not just possibilities.

It has absolutely nothing to do with what's POSSIBLE for the other party to do.

That means you agree with me!

You said "But that is not the same thing as there can be no future damage. You want to ignore what he didn't say so you can bend it to your narrative. But you can just use simple logic. If the Conservatorship is temporary and the NWS is temporary, then it is possible for to have future economic rights."

That's an assertion that the mere possibility of economic rights being restored in the future affects the viability of an implied covenant claim over the LP. Now you're already contradicting yourself. Pick a lane.

Likewise, it has nothing to do with what's PROBABLE to happen from the investor's point of view.

Wrong. Probability is extremely important because probable events are ones that can reasonably be expected, while improbable ones aren't. That's very nearly a tautology.

It means one party cannot undermine the other party. This is exactly what the NWS did, and why the Jury awarded the damages

It's also why I think an implied covenant suit against the LP ratchet is doomed to fail, because the LP ratchet did not undermine shareholders' rights any further than the NWS did.

If you come and take a piss on the Dude's Rug, that rug may immediately decline in value. That doesn't mean the rug can't appreciate after damages have been paid.

Yet another terrible analogy. For a LP ratchet/implied covenant claim to succeed, you would have to prove that the LP ratchet did harm above and beyond what the NWS did, because the NWS was the most recent amendment before that (the point at which reasonable shareholder expectations were set, according to Lamberth).

Does the LP ratchet undermine the ability for the other party to reap the benefits of their side of the contract?

No, because the NWS already totally prevented it. You can't look at the LP ratchet in a vacuum, you have to consider what the status quo was at the time it was signed, which was the cash NWS being in place.