What is so special about NWS (unlawful agreement between private shareholder companies FnF and Tsy) agreed by FHFA conservator in violation of many provisions of HERA and also many other laws.
This seems like a loaded question since no one has ruled to date that there have been any violations of HERA from the NWS or that the NWS is unlawful.
Though I'm not sure how this relates to my comment: Anyone who bought after the NWS would almost certainly have their case dismissed for lack of standing.
Does not NWS create standing every quarter when corporate theft happens violating common laws, HERA, US/State laws and constitutional rights?
This question is kind of broad, but I'll do my best.
Standing is determined based on 3 major elements.
First, a plaintiff must have suffered an injury. Courts will look at what the plaintiff "has to lose" (This is sometimes even called the "something to lose doctrine"). In order to determine if the plaintiff had "something to lose", they will look at many factors. Among those factors will be to see if the plaintiff had an expectation not to have the harm brought against them and if the plaintiff mitigated their damages to the best of their ability. There is no court in the world that is going to just ignore the fact that plaintiffs INJURED THEMSELVES by buying a stock with a lot of risk and then is suing to restore the stock to a status that existed before they bought it. That is seriously like walking onto a busy freeway, being hit by a car, and saying that they should be compensated for being hit by the car because they were damaged and didn't expect to be hit. Knowledge matters.
Second, there must be a causal nexus between the plaintiff's injury and the defendants actions.
Basically,...did the defendant take an action that injured the plaintiff in their existing status. You seem to want to reverse this. The defendants took the action, and THEN the plaintiff's were injured because they bought the previously burdened stock. This goes against everything logical in the world. The courts will not ignore that the PLAINTIFF was perhaps more to blame than the defendants for their own injury.
Third, it must be likely that the injury will be redressed by the courts.
Basically...will the court believe that they can help the plaintiff in some way. If the plaintiff has no damages (which someone who bought after the NWS does not), then the court is going to twiddle their thumbs and do nothing.
If barrier of 4617(f) is removed then does standing matter any longer?
Yes...the constitution requires standing elements to be met in every case against the government. Standing isn't a concept that was invented due to HERA.
Does your "lack of standing" applies only to FnF shares or also to MBS/CAS/STACR? There are many such trades involving MBS/CAS/STACR before and after NWS. So can Conservator treat MBS/CAS/STACR holders same way he has been treating shareholders. What is it that make trades involving MBS/CAS/STACR different from share trades.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here...but standing is a universal requirement for anyone filing a lawsuit against the government, regardless what they are suing for.
I read that USCFC can issue injunctions other than just money judgments. Is it applicable to FnF cases?
Of course...if not for HERA restrictions.
