Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (QB)【FMCCO】株式ニュース

Why the warrants were given for sufficient consideration:

No, consideration does not have to be fair or adequate in value. In common law contract systems (primarily the US, UK, and similar jurisdictions), a contract requires sufficient consideration — something of legal value that is bargained for — but courts generally do not require it to be adequate (i.e., roughly equal or fair in economic value to what is received).

opencasebook.org

This is known as the peppercorn theory (or doctrine) of consideration: even a tiny or nominal amount — a literal peppercorn, $1, or any scintilla of value — can serve as valid consideration for something far more valuable, including property, services, or rights worth millions or billions.

en.wikipedia.org

Why Courts Do Not Police "Fairness" of the BargainCourts enforce the principle of freedom of contract. Parties are generally free to make whatever deal they want, including a "bad" one. The law does not step in to rewrite bargains just because one side got much more value than the other. As long as there is a bargained-for exchange with some legal value (a benefit to one party or detriment to the other), consideration is sufficient.

saalck.pressbooks.pub

The classic statement comes from cases and the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 79: courts ordinarily do not inquire into the adequacy of consideration.Classic ExamplesPeppercorn or nominal sums: English case Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd (1960) held that chocolate bar wrappers (which the recipient would throw away) counted as valid consideration. A peppercorn "does not cease to be good consideration" even if the recipient dislikes it or discards it.
Real estate deeds: It is extremely common to see deeds reciting consideration of "$10.00 and other good and valuable consideration." This satisfies the requirement even if the actual market value of the property is far higher.

reddit.com

Batsakis v. Demotsis (Texas, 1949): During WWII in occupied Greece, one party gave 500,000 drachmas (worth roughly $25 at the time) in exchange for a promise to pay $2,000 later. The court enforced the $2,000 promise. The consideration was sufficient because it had some value and was bargained for — the court refused to examine whether it was "adequate" or fair.

en.wikipedia.org

Can You Really Exchange a Scintilla for a Billion?Yes, in principle. A contract stating something like "$1 in consideration for the transfer of [valuable asset/IP/company rights worth a billion]" would generally satisfy the consideration requirement under common law. Courts have upheld nominal consideration ($1 or similar) in contexts like:Patent or copyright assignments
Option contracts (paying $1 to keep an offer open)
Releases of claims
Many other commercial deals

The law treats the parties as the best judges of value at the time of contracting.Important Caveats and Practical LimitsWhile consideration itself does not need to be fair, extreme disparity can sometimes open the door to other challenges:Sham or disguised gift — If the transaction looks like a gift dressed up as a contract, a court might find no real bargain.
Fraud, duress, undue influence, or unconscionability — Gross inadequacy can be evidence of these other defects (e.g., one party exploited superior bargaining power or hid information).
Tax and regulatory issues — The IRS or other agencies might recharacterize a nominal-price deal as a gift, triggering gift taxes, or scrutinize it for other reasons.
Specific contexts — Some areas (e.g., certain non-compete agreements in particular states, or modifications of existing contracts) have stricter rules.

In short: A scintilla (tiny/nominal amount) can be valid consideration for something worth a billion. The law cares that there was an exchange of value, not that the values were equal.This is a general rule under U.S. common law (and similar systems). Rules can vary slightly by jurisdiction or specific type of contract, and civil law countries (much of Europe and elsewhere) generally do not use the doctrine of consideration at all. For any specific deal, consult a lawyer licensed in the relevant jurisdiction.