Replies to post #828439 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

Someone else mentioned Laberth's quote completely independent of our conversation, and you think that means you didn't bring it up in OUR CONVERSATION?

Wrong. It was not independent of our conversation at all. In fact, you responded to it with a continuation of our conversation.

It has to do with thwarting the contract. Nothing to do with thwarting what shareholders expect or don't expect in the course of business operations.

WRONG. The implied covenant is entirely based on reasonable shareholder expectations. Lamberth titled section iii on page 20 "Plaintiffs Plead Sufficient Facts to Support a Finding that their Reasonable Expectations were Violated by the Third Amendment"

How did you get this far into the conversation without knowing that?

This is like saying you can then make a rule that you only allow Purple polka dotted cars to park in your garage. But because you already violated the implied covenant with the handicapped parking spaces, this rule is fine - because there is nothing left to take away from me.

You are really terrible at analogies.

Any breach of the implied covenant can stand on it's own

Absolutely wrong. All implied covenant claims can only be evaluated based on the most recent amendment to the contract. That's exactly what Lamberth himself said on p. 19:

For an investor contract, the time of contracting for the purposes of the implied covenant
inquiry must be the time of the most recent change in contract—whether by amendment or change
in law.

Your argument would subject FnF to double jeopardy: you would have them pay a second time for somehow removing economic rights that the NWS already took away.