|FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION FANNIE MAE filed this Form 10-Q on 05/07/2015|
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)
10b-5 promulgated thereunder; violations of Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; common law fraud and negligence claims; and California state law claims for misrepresentation in connection with Fannie Mae’s December 2007 $7.0 billion offering of 7.75% fixed-to-floating rate non-cumulative preferred Series S stock. Plaintiff sought relief in the form of rescission, actual damages (including interest), and exemplary and punitive damages.
On December 9, 2014, Fannie Mae and plaintiff reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. The settlement amount did not materially impact our results of operations or financial condition. As a result of the settlement and at the request of the parties, the court dismissed the case with prejudice on April 27, 2015.
Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements Litigation
A number of putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against us, FHFA as our conservator, Treasury and Freddie Mac from July through September 2013 by shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac challenging the August 2012 amendment to each company’s senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury. These lawsuits were consolidated and, on December 3, 2013, plaintiffs (preferred and common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac) filed a consolidated class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against us, FHFA as our conservator, Treasury and Freddie Mac (“In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations”). The preferred shareholder plaintiffs allege that the net worth sweep dividend provisions of the senior preferred stock that were implemented pursuant to the August 2012 amendments to the senior preferred stock purchase agreements nullified certain of the shareholders’ rights, particularly the right to receive dividends. The common shareholder plaintiffs allege that the August 2012 amendments constituted a taking of their property by requiring that all future profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be paid to Treasury. Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against us, FHFA and Freddie Mac, a takings claim against FHFA and Treasury, and a breach of fiduciary duty claim derivatively on our and Freddie Mac’s behalf against FHFA and Treasury. Plaintiffs seek to represent several classes of preferred and/or common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac who held stock as of the public announcement of the August 2012 amendments. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees.
A non-class action suit, Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie Mae, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on September 20, 2013 by preferred shareholders against us, FHFA as our conservator, the Director of FHFA (in his official capacity), Treasury, the Secretary of the Treasury (in his official capacity) and Freddie Mac. Plaintiffs bring claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against us, FHFA and Freddie Mac, and claims for violation of the Administrative Procedure Act against the FHFA and Treasury defendants, alleging that the net worth sweep provisions nullified certain rights of the preferred shareholders, particularly the right to receive dividends. Plaintiffs seek damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees.
On September 30, 2014, the court dismissed both lawsuits and plaintiffs in both suits filed timely notices of appeal. On October 27, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit consolidated these appeals with appeals in two other cases involving the same subject matter, but to which we are not a party.
Given the stage of these lawsuits, the substantial and novel legal questions that remain, and our substantial defenses, we are currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.