Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Barron was a former state regulator had written regulations and so he is somewhat familiar with the process and what the law usually allows agencies to do. I appreciate the man for taking the time by sharing his knowledge and experience with this board.
Yes, it's a blow to the power of federal agencies. FHFA and its Director are executive branch entities. They cannot make changes to federal laws. Only Congress can change the law. Therefore, the U.S. Congress did not give DeMarco the power to take all the future profits of their wards in conservatorship into perpetuity, thus Nationalizing the GSES, based on an Incidental Power in HERA: The Net Worth Sweep. The U.S. Congress would have given the FHFA more explicit instructions to do so than merely drafting in the HERA to do whatever it feels is in its best interests. DeMarco, this non-elected bureaucrat, has been allowed to steal the companies for the Treasury.
Wise Man is a smart aleck but it’s worth noting what he said…. “ these SPS issued for free” …
The question I had was the SPSPA consummated when no cash changing hands?
Wise Man
Re: Rodney5 post# 753028
Tuesday, 04/18/2023 2:08:20 AM
15 years later, you wonder what $1B SPS was about, on day one of conservatorship.
Also, these SPS issued for free (all others, increased) are an essential evidence of the accounting fraud with today's SPS increased for free, because FnF, in 2008, posted a charge on the Additional Paid-In Capital account (shareholders' pocket) to reflect that they were securities issued for free.
Today, with the APIC exhausted, it's debited from the Retained Earnings account (Core Capital and Common Equity too).
But FnF now don't post the gifted SPS on the Balance Sheets, in order to don't post this offset and peddle the big lie of "FnF build capital".
Playing the fool is not an option, Mr. Pro Se, after 10 years messing around in the U.S. courts. It's called abuse of court process.
Can't wait to see the penalties.
Thanks Barron,
I found the discussion.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171709055
Rodney5
Re: None
Monday, 04/17/2023 9:10:47 PM
I have a question, when the SPSPA took place did any money change hands from the Treasury Department on to the balance sheet of the companies? Recorded in the amount of $1 billion?
Bryndon
04/17/23 9:34 PM
#753030 RE: Rodney5 #753028
I'm pretty sure it was a non-cash activity.
Fannie Mae's December 31, 2008 10-K:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000095013309000487/w72716e10vk.htm#304;
“Treasury Department bought 1million shares of Senior Preferred Shares for $1,000 per share or $1 billion dollars.”
I’m pretty sure no money ever changed hands from the Treasury to the companies. We had this discussion several months back.
amended (past tense) · amended (past participle)
make minor changes
The Charter Acts are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's enabling statutes. FHEFSSA and HERA are regulatory statutes, governing the companies' regulators. All are laws passed by Congress. Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 was amended to establish the Federal Housing Finance Agency. HERA amended certain parts of both FHEFSSA and the Charter Act. AMENDED not to do away with. Safety and Soundness still exists just as the Charter Act still exists.
It was explained to you yesterday.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174654110
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174653835
A ‘Contract’ by definition is a written agreement in the English language; but I do understand your reasoning when suggesting using only the wording written in the SPSPA.
I will not stop using the word contract. It sounds more convicting to speak, illegal ‘Contract’ than to speak illegal Agreement. Face it man the FHFA sold the Shareholders to the Treasury and paid us nothing.
Let’s visit your wording “SEPARATE ACCOUNT FOR THE REPAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL”. This statement is confusing the reader ‘Separate Account’ … I suggest the term, deem the Net Worth Sweep paid in full and cancel the Senior Preferred Stock: more in line with reality of the self dealing between the two government agencies.
JOoa0ky, I say this as humbly as I know how. I want you to know not casting any stones at you. After reading your post a scripture came to my remembrance.
“ Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” Proverbs 26:4-5
Here’s your answer to your post. I encourage you to repent and quit promoting theft from the shareholders. Best Regards
Hey Lady, there’s not an obsession the fact is Barron is one of the few on this board that has actually provided a way out of this prison sentence. The repeated information I keep posting is for anyone new on this board that’s in the dark. Do you get it?
You can return now to your cheerleading for the cram-down, anyone paying attention on this board knows you’re a fraud.
SPSPA which is a contract. 4617f bars courts from questioning the actions of a conservator. The stockholders’ statutory claims are barred by the Recovery Act’s strict limitation on judicial review. See 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f).
Our friend Barron brought this to our attention. You have to prove FHFA / Treasury broke the law.
Notice: the argument doesn’t include the conservator at all. The argument is the FHFA / Treasury violation of the law.
Barron said, “ I propose claims alleging illegal exaction due to Treasury and FHFA violating Federal statutes that any district court has jurisdiction over. The Federal statutes are the Charter Act, the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by HERA, Administrative Procedures Act, and potentially the Chief Financial Officers Act.
None of the current litigation makes any claims of violation of these acts. They all challenge the actions of the Conservator and attempted to squeeze the APA and the 5th amendment takings into the Actions of the FHFA-C within the terms of the SPSPA. all have failed to this point.”
Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992
https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/house-bill/6094/subjects?overview=closed
This is my understanding.
PUBLIC LAW 110–289—JULY 30, 2008
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT
HERA is public law not a contract, the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is a contract not the law.
FHEFSSA
Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 was amended to establish the Federal Housing Finance Agency. HERA amended certain parts of both FHEFSSA and the Charter Act. AMENDED not to do away with. Safety and Soundness still exists just as the Charter Act still exists.
Page 9 Title I
Establishment of the Federal Housing Finance Agency
FHFA is now the Regulator by reason of HERA.
Links:
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION CHARTER ACT
As amended through July 25, 2019
link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Dated September 7, 2008.
link: https://www.fhfa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
ALL THE AGREEMENTS
link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Pages/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Purchase-Agreements.aspx
Charter Act, and the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness act of 1992 (FHEFSSA); Both as amended by the HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008, (HERA).
The Charter Acts are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's enabling statutes. FHEFSSA and HERA are regulatory statutes, governing the companies' regulators. All are laws passed by Congress.
SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) dated as of September 7, 2008, between the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (“Purchaser”) and FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (“Seller”), acting through the Federal Housing Finance Agency (the “Agency”) as its duly appointed conservator (the Agency in such capacity, “Conservator”). Page 1
Link: https://www.fhfa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
The SPSPA is a contract between two government agencies which Fannie and Freddie had no say so. The only legal contract is the one with the U.S. Congress, called the Charter Act.
In 1969, the median home sale price in the United States was approximately $27,900. It’s interesting to note that housing prices have significantly increased since then. If we consider inflation, the difference in value between 1969 and 2024 is quite substantial. In fact, housing prices are 974.33% higher in 2024.
I would think that’s a lame argument you wrote.
The obsolete $2.25B limit at the time created had as much purchasing power as the $200B limit today? In 1969 what was gas maybe 0.40 cents a gallon, new car $3,500?? The $2.25B is the price Congress was willing to put up for providing a public service. Factoring in inflation $200B is not a lot for $7 Trillion today.
It’s been done. I’m not a lawyer as I said, I do not know how to proceed in filing a lawsuit. I put the man in contact with the person that does. Thanks for asking
Yes, much simpler way just increase the amount of the government backstop that was already in place. But that would not have provided the door to kill the companies, the SPSPA provided that door.
Clarence, I’m not sure if you realize in exchange for their Public Mission Congress provided $2.25B. Why didn’t Congress update the obsolete $2.25B limit to the amount of $200B? Absolutely no need for the SPSPA contract.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION CHARTER ACT
PURCHASE OF OBLIGATIONS BY TREASURY; CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
The Secretary of the Treasury shall not at any time purchase any obligations under this subsection if such purchase would increase the aggregate principal amount of the Secretary’s, then outstanding holdings of such obligations under this subsection to an amount greater than $2,250,000,000. Page 14
Charter
Link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
ewtrader, I also noticed the conflicting reporting in volume. Either way taking the larger number Fannie Mae’s common stock outstanding 1,158,087,567… Friday’s 14,750,452 million shares traded calculates 1.28 percent less than 2 percent of all shares outstanding not a large number.
Maybe, the Market Maker took the stops out in order to fill a large order? I’ve read the MM’s will run the price up to sell and bring the price down to buy. For whatever reason that’s a significant difference in price at the end of the day.
In exchange for their Public Mission Congress should have updated the obsolete $2.25B limit in the amount of backup. But that’s not what happened Paulson wanted to kill the companies. And this attempt to kill off the companies was through the illegal contract the SPSPA by creating the SPS.
The SPSPA itself states that the SPS are authorized by section 304…
SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT
dated as of September 7, 2008
Page 1
B. Purchaser is authorized to purchase obligations and other securities issued by Seller pursuant to Section 304(g) of the Federal
National Mortgage Association Charter Act, as amended (the “Charter Act”). The Secretary of the Treasury has determined, after
taking into consideration the matters set forth in Section 304(g)(1)(C) of the Charter Act, that the purchases contemplated herein are
necessary to (i) provide stability to the financial markets; (ii) prevent disruptions in the availability of mortgage finance; and
(iii) protect the taxpayer.
Link: https://www.fhfa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
Fannie Mae’s common stock outstanding 1,158,087,567
5 million shares traded calculates 0.43 percent less than 1/2 percent of 1 percent of all shares outstanding.
That’s a bald face lie!
Quote: “ The reality is that due to the c-ship rules, the govt can't cancel any existing equity under c-ship.” End of Quote WRONG
Apply the law lady…
It’s bad faith and unfair dealing when the Regulator is authorized to pay down the Senior Preferred Stock and sent the Net Worth without the pay down option. The FHFA Director doesn’t need the Treasury approval to pay down the Senior Preferred Stock the Director has the authority from Congress written in HERA:
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
RESTRICTION ON CAPITAL DISTRIBUTIONS.— page 2731
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A regulated entity shall make no capital distribution if, after making the distribution, the regulated entity would be undercapitalized. The exception.
Quote: “Page 2732
EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Director may permit a regulated entity, to the extent appropriate or applicable, to repurchase, redeem, retire, or otherwise acquire shares or ownership interests if the repurchase, redemption, retirement, or other acquisition— ‘‘(A) is made in connection with the issuance of additional shares or obligations of the regulated entity in at least an equivalent amount; and ‘‘(B) will reduce the financial obligations of the regulated entity or otherwise improve the financial condition of the entity.’’.
NOTE: REPURCHASE, REDEEM, RETIRE...
WILL REDUCE THE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE REGULATED ENTITY.
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
In essence allows the trustees of Fannie and Freddie to go to the market at any time to raise new capital, including new capital with lower dividend coupons, to buy back the Treasury’s senior preferred. Any loyal conservator of Fannie and Freddie would take advantage of this refinancing option to end the bailout arrangement, by paying off the senior preferred in full. The Treasury did not take a Perpetual Equity Investment in the enterprises, the Treasury stated a temporary investment period!
The calculation of the pay down of the liquidation preference of the Senior Preferred Stock, I am asking this committee to apply the law written in the HERA legislation passed by Congress.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15978NWfDcTtuClMBnwgWFmoPnwK94vWn/view
The liquidation preference has be paid and the Senior Preferred Stock should be canceled.
The law actually exists! FHFA and its Director are executive branch entities. They can not make changes to federal laws. Only Congress can change the law.
Therefore, the U.S. Congress did not give DeMarco the power to take all the future profits of their wards in conservatorship into perpetuity, thus Nationalizing the GSES, based on an Incidental Power in HERA: The Net Worth Sweep.
The U.S. Congress would have given the FHFA more explicit instructions to do so than merely drafting in the HERA to do whatever it feels is in its best interests. DeMarco, this non-elected bureaucrat, has been allowed to steal the companies for the Treasury.
The SCOTUS upholding the NWS does not change the fact the liquidation preference can be paid down and the Senior Preferred Stock redeemed under the terms of the law of HERA. The money kept by the Treasury by the NWS should be applied to principle and 10% interest and over payment should be returned to the companies. $301 billion is more than enough to pay the liquidation preference and redeem the Senior Preferred Stock.
Most likely having brain cramps in the process. I have to agree with you on this one lady. Ha
real777mellon, you want numbers? Below calculation back in January. If you will notice the response to KT short seller…
Rodney5
Re: kthomp19 post# 784661
Wednesday, 01/31/2024 8:21:32 PM
Quote: “ The existing "owners of the company" (by which I assume you mean the legacy common, even though you're wrong about that too) have about $2B worth of wealth: 1.8B outstanding shares times around $1.30/share in market value.” End of Quote… WRONG
The Treasury pays the Shareholders fair market value for the Common and Preferred equity ownership; Anything less is stealing.
Mr. Bryndon Fisher gave us the calculation of the pay down of the liquidation preference no need of a third-party RE-IPO.
The companies are fully capitalized by the payment of the liquidation preference the Senior Preferred Stock should be canceled.
THE TREASURY HAS COLLECTED ENOUGH.
NOW WE HAVE 8-0 JURY verdict.
Link to the calculation.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15978NWfDcTtuClMBnwgWFmoPnwK94vWn/view
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE CALCULATED VALUE PAY THE SHAREHOLDERS FOR THE EARNINGS POWER OF THE BUSINESSES:
The Value calculation should start with the number $436.1 billion. This is the Intrinsic Value of both companies businesses including the JPS, the estimated value of Fannie and Freddie.
$402.9 billion earnings power plus $33.2 billion JPS = $436.1 billion.
Fannie Mae
EARNINGS POWER OF THE BUSINESS
$263 Billion Intrinsic Value
Freddie Mac
EARNINGS POWER OF THE BUSINESS
$139.9 Billion Intrinsic Value
Fannie Mae JPS $19.1 billion par value
Freddie Mac JPS $14.1 billion par value
The amount of $402.9 billion is the calculated Intrinsic Value of the Earnings Power of both businesses combined using a Price to Earnings Ratio of 14.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173747946
This is the mistake of the JPS Lawyers, Your Honor, I work for JPS Shareholders and these JPS Shareholders don't care about the company or the common shareholders, matter of fact we want the Treasury to cram-down, place the company in receivership or whatever it takes so we can collect Par Value on our investment! The SPSPA Contract, first amendment, second amendment we don't care. My clients are asking this Court to draw a line in the sand (third amendment) with a 'color-able claim' so we can collect Par Value.
Barron Quote: “The problem is and always has been that the plaintiffs attorneys have only challenged the “Actions of the Conservator” such as the NWS or other provisions of SPSPA which is a contract. 4617f bars courts from questioning the actions of a conservator.” End of Quote
Clarence, think about this…
Where is "maximize profits for taxpayers" written in the Charter Act? Specifically, in this provision entitled Fee Limitation of the United States:
Charter act prohibits the commitment fees (Seniors, warrants, variable liquidation preference). More importantly the actions of Treasury to appropriate 200 billion in taxpayer debt, take non regulatory control of the companies through the SPSPA (require Treasury permission at least 10 separate times) and ownership of more than 50% of the companies requires them under the GAO act and the CFO act to consolidate the GSEs onto the nations balance sheet. The fact that that hasn't happened means the Treasury has violated the 14th amendment to the Constitution by repudiating the 5 trillion plus in debt the Treasury has acquired through their actions since 2008. Their actions have resulted in a takings of the entire enterprise value of the formerly private companies. These actions have necessarily turned the GSEs back into agencies of the executive branch as they were originally created. This is the definition of a major question and also a separation of powers problem since Congress did not authorize the actions Treasury took and continues to take.
Neither the Charter Act nor did HERA authorize the Treasury to charge a commitment fee on a line of credit to be paid by the Enterprise. The United States prohibition on assessment or collection of fee or charge to Fannie Mae, (section 304 Fee Limitation). Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).
SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATION
Fee Limitation
Quote: “(f) PROHIBITION ON ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF FEE OR CHARGE BY UNITED STATES.—Except for fees paid pursuant to section 309(g) of this Act and assessments pursuant to section 1316 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, no fee or charge may be assessed or collected by the United States (including any executive department, agency, or independent establishment of the United States) on or with regard to the purchase, acquisition, sale, pledge, issuance, guarantee, or redemption of any mortgage, asset, obligation, trust certificate of beneficial interest, or other security by the corporation. No provision of this subsection shall affect the purchase of any obligation by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to subsection (c) of this section.” End of Quote. Page 16
Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).
SEC. 309. GENERAL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AND FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
Federal Reserve Banks to Act as Fiscal Agents (Fannie Mae and GNMA)
Quote: “(g) DEPOSITARIES, CUSTODIANS, AND FISCAL AGENTS.—The Federal Reserve banks are authorized and directed to act as depositaries, custodians, and fiscal agents for each of the bodies corporate named in section 302(a)(2), for its own account or as fiduciary, and such banks shall be reimbursed for such services in such manner as may be agreed upon; and each of such bodies corporate may itself act in such capacities, for its own account or as fiduciary, and for the account of others.” End of Quote. Page 29
Link:
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION CHARTER ACT
As amended through July 25, 2019
link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
The difference is you're encouraging theft...
Advice to Common Shareholders to sell their shares at the absolute bottom 9 months ago just before a 386% return. Continues to give out advice!
Quote: JOoa0ky Monday, June 12, 2023,
"Commons are going to sink... Sell out now while you still can..."
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172114484
self-proclaimed prophet…
no name said, quote: "Never gonna happen."
Every time I hear someone say what will or will not happen that's a red flag! I think you, no name, are a con artist pushing the theft. YES, I said it and I’d say to your face!
In addition, short seller kthomp19 wants the Common Shareholders wiped out. Now we know. kthomp mistakenly made it known to this board that he’s a short seller. Consistently bashing the Common Shareholders.
kthomp19
Re: DaJester post# 777906
Friday, 12/22/2023 11:44:06 AM
For some more transparency, I closed both legs of this trade earlier this week. I sold FNMAO for $3.77 and covered the FNMA short at $0.724. That's about a 23% gain on FNMAO and a 2% loss on FNMA for an overall gain of roughly 20%. Not bad, even though FNMAO's bid is $4.19 right now so I could have done even better.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173486743
And LuLuvan is a foreigner from somewhere in Europe encouraging the U.S. Government to steal from it's people.
That's the difference.
Anyone new to this board LuLeVan, the man with no name, JOoaoky and kthomp19… all are contemplating pushing for what’s described as a cram-down forever destroying the common shareholders.
Every time the common stock moves upward in price these people show up on this board bashing the Common Shareholders claiming that minimum if any value at all will remain for the shareholders upon exit of conservatorship.
These people should have some dignity stop with the restructuring theft and the need for third party capital, return the money confiscated by the Treasury and the companies will be fully capitalized. The shareholders have been abused by the government.
KT admitted it was stealing.
Kthomp Quote: "Yes, the companies were adequately capitalized when they were put into conservatorship. Shortly thereafter, when Lockhart stuffed FnF full of non-cash accounting losses, they went balance sheet insolvent. None of that has made a bit of difference in court so far." End of Quote
Note: "so far" Hello Barron we need you.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173554089
Transfer of Ownership Cram-Down
Explained,
Legacy Shareholders means, collectively, each person that owns common stock of the Company immediately prior to the closing of the Transaction (cram-down) which in no event shall include any of the Investors; or very few will remain afterwards maybe 1% or less.
A cram-down deal refers to a situation where an investor or creditor is forced into accepting undesirable terms in a transaction or bankruptcy proceedings.
In the case with Fannie Mae the Treasury's holding of senor preferred stock in the amount of $120.8 billion, with a liquidation preference of $199 billion.
If the Treasury converts this amount of SPS into common stock the Treasury in essence will own 99.9% of all the common stock outstanding. The number of shares outstanding depends on price per share at the time converted. The amount of shares outstanding after the cram-down does not matter at all, it's the percent ownership, a transfer of ownership from the legacy common shareholders to the Treasury. This transaction will cause the legacy common stock to vanish along with any short positions, naked short positions as well as any counterfeit common stock outstanding. Afterwards, the Treasury can do a reverse split reducing the amount in number of the new common stock outstanding to what ever amount desired.
No, The SPS should not have been purchased under subsection (c), as a UST backup of the enterprises to finance their operations …. The Senior Preferred Stocks are illegal because the Stocks have an illegal commitment fee attached to it.
Yes, in exchange for their Public Mission Congress should have updated the obsolete $2.25B limit in the amount of backup. But that’s not what happened Paulson wanted to kill the companies. And this attempt to kill off the companies was through the illegal contract the SPSPA by creating the SPS.
Clarence, for your convenience...
Quote "The SPSPA itself states that the SPS are authorized by section 304." End of Quote
SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT
dated as of September 7, 2008
Page 1
B. Purchaser is authorized to purchase obligations and other securities issued by Seller pursuant to Section 304(g) of the Federal
National Mortgage Association Charter Act, as amended (the “Charter Act”). The Secretary of the Treasury has determined, after
taking into consideration the matters set forth in Section 304(g)(1)(C) of the Charter Act, that the purchases contemplated herein are
necessary to (i) provide stability to the financial markets; (ii) prevent disruptions in the availability of mortgage finance; and
(iii) protect the taxpayer.
Link: https://www.fhfa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
I like that description “Abomination”…
“A fee that violates the plain letter law of the very section 304 that prohibits such an abomination.”
The Senior Preferred Stock upon creation was created as a new type of Preferred Stock Fannie and Freddie had never sold before. The Regulator, the unelected bureaucrat of the 4th branch of government, failed to apply the APA… FHFA as Regulator / Treasury broke the law by not following the APA governing the Regulator.
Senior Preferred Stock
STOCK = PRODUCT
Definition with example
INVESTMENT PRODUCTS
Accounts & Products
https://www.schwab.com/
Senior Preferred Stock is a product by definition.
Below all categories are investment products.
Mutual Funds
ETFs
Index Funds
Stocks
Options
Bonds, CDs & Fixed Income
Money Market Funds
Cash Solutions & Rates
Cryptocurrency
More Investment Products
THE ATTORNEYS DID NOT CHALLENGE THE CONSERVATORSHIP! THE ATTORNEYS ASKED THE COURTS TO RULE ON THE ILLEGAL CONTRACT, SPSPA: JUSTICE BREYER TOLD THEM HOW TO WIN!
UPMOST IMPORTANT: JUSTICE BREYER: Quote: “Thank you. I think in reading this you could, with trying to simplify as much as possible, do you -- the shareholders' claim as saying we bought into this corporation, it was supposed to be private as well as having a public side, and then the government nationalized it. That's what they did. If you look at their giving the net worth to Treasury, it's nationalizing the company. Now, whatever conservators do and receivers do, they don't nationalize companies. And when they nationalized this company, naturally they paid us nothing and our shares became worthless. And so what do you say?” End of Quote, page 12
The link may not work anymore, the above statement was made and recorded in the transcript.
Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2020/19-422_3e04.pdf
UPMOST IMPORTANT
SPSPA which is a contract. 4617f bars courts from questioning the actions of a conservator.
THE PLAINTIFFS BROUGHT THE WRONG LAWSUIT.
We hold that the stockholders’ statutory claims are barred by the Recovery Act’s strict limitation on judicial review. See 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f).
Millett and Ginsburg summarized the case and their 70-page opinion as follows:
Quote: “A number of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stockholders filed suit alleging that FHFA’s and Treasury’s alteration of the dividend formula through the Third Amendment exceeded their statutory authority under the Recovery Act, and constituted arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). They also claimed that FHFA, Treasury, and the Companies committed various common-law torts and breaches of contract by restructuring the dividend formula.
We hold that the stockholders’ statutory claims are barred by the Recovery Act’s strict limitation on judicial review. See 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f). We also reject most of the stockholders’ common-law claims. Insofar as we have subject matter jurisdiction over the stockholders’ common-law claims against Treasury, and Congress has waived the agency’s immunity from suit, those claims, too, are barred by the Recovery Act’s limitation on judicial review. Id. As for the claims against FHFA and the Companies, some are barred because FHFA succeeded to all rights, powers, and privileges of the stockholders under the Recovery Act, id. § 4617(b)(2)(A); others fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The remaining claims, which are contract-based claims regarding liquidation preferences and dividend rights, are remanded to the district court for further proceedings.“ End of Quote
Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/21/d-c-circuit-concludes-recovery-act-bars-judicial-review-of-suits-against-fhfa-over-treatment-of-fannie-and-freddie-shareholders/
Here’s another example of failure lawsuit with no reference of the Regulator breaking the law.
UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Wazee Street Opportunities Fund IV LP,
Filed 04/03/23
Quote: "This lawsuit does not challenge the foregoing arrangement made in
September 2008. While Plaintiffs do not concede that all the measures taken in September 2008 were justified or necessary, they are not here to challenge the placement of Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship at the height of the financial crisis, or the original deal struck by Treasury and FHFA at that time." End of Quote. Page 7
The lawyers are focused on the third amendment net worth sweep. By Public Law the whole contract is illegal, the contract is illegal based on the United States is not permitted to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the enterprises.
Link: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.uscfc.37252/gov.uscourts.uscfc.37252.30.0.pdf
Notice: the argument doesn’t include the conservator at all. The argument is the FHFA / Treasury violation of the law.
Rodney5
12/02/23 6:19 PM
Post #776586 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)
Barron makes an excellent argument, how to win… The mistake of the current lawsuits the attorneys are going after the conservator! The lawyers failed to mention Federal Law.
Barron said, “ I propose claims alleging illegal exaction due to Treasury and FHFA violating Federal statutes that any district court has jurisdiction over. The Federal statutes are the Charter Act, the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by HERA, Administrative Procedures Act, and potentially the Chief Financial Officers Act.
None of the current litigation makes any claims of violation of these acts. They all challenge the actions of the Conservator and attempted to squeeze the APA and the 5th amendment takings into the Actions of the FHFA-C within the terms of the SPSPA. all have failed to this point.”
Anyone on this board interested should read through our Friend Barron’s post.
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profile.aspx?user=414159
Simon, I believe the confusion among Shareholders concerning the lawsuits has been the APA…
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is a federal act that governs the procedures of administrative law.
Barron Quote: “The problem is and always has been that the plaintiffs attorneys have only challenged the “Actions of the Conservator” such as the NWS or other provisions of SPSPA which is a contract. 4617f bars courts from questioning the actions of a conservator.” End of Quote
I asked the question…
Barron, Did DeMarco violate the law by implementing the Net Worth Sweep without public disclosure?
Barron4664
08/08/23 10:58 AM
#761755 RE: Rodney5 #761719
No. The APA does not apply to the actions of the conservator. Courts already threw that out. The APA applied to the actions of the Regulator (Dir Lockhart) with the creation of the Senior Preferred Shares with a variable Liquidation Preference. This was a new product that the GSEs sold to Treasury for the purpose of stabilizing the secondary mortgage market. This product required publication in the federal register, public notice and rule making, either prior to signing the SPSPA or after a temporary approval for emergency purposes.
This is the root of all the GSE problems and the only avenue for an appropriate legal strategy to reverse the injuries in my opinion.
Rodney5
04/29/24 9:46 AM
Post #792856 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is a federal act that governs the procedures of administrative law.
Director Regulator / Conservator two different positions. Strangely enough Director Lockhart Regulator, and Director Lockhart Conservator held both positions as Regulator and Conservator at the same time.
The Senior Preferred Stock, with a variable liquidation preference outlined in the SPSPA and its amendments and share certificates is a new product for the purposes of the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 as amended by HERA.
Congress directed the Director of FHFA to apply the Administrative Procedures Act to the new products sold to Treasury. The FHFA did not follow the administrative procedures congress required in the plain language of the safety and soundness act.
The Director of FHFA as regulator violated the safety and soundness act and the administrative procedures act by not following the statutory duty to approve new products issued by the GSEs to Treasury for the purpose of stabilizing the secondary mortgage market.
The law required the publication in the federal register of the SPS with their variable rate liquidation preference tied to the commitment. It requires a public comment period, and a rule making process to make the SPS legal. It is the same law that required the capital rule. And the same law that required FHFA a year ago issue the new products law for MBS products. They have ignored this requirement for 15 years.
Director Lockhart Regulator, and Director Lockhart Conservator. Holding both positions as Regulator and Conservator; Conservator Lockhart is required by law to file notice to himself as Regulator.
The Safety and Soundness Act required Director Lockhart as regulator not conservator to approve a new product issued by Director Lockhart acting as conservator FHFA-C (SPS with variable liquidation Preference) to Treasury under the terms of the SPSPA for the purpose of carrying out the secondary mortgage market. He was required as regulator to file notice in the federal register, seek public comment and issue federal regulations for the new product we call the Senior Preferred shares sold to Treasury.
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
Page 2689
SEC. 1321. PRIOR APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR PRODUCTS.
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
I’ll work on it. Thank you
Look at previous post by our friend Barron.
I wish Barron would file. This board wouldn’t have known this option existed if it wasn’t for him. Actually, he made suggestion that multiple shareholders file in local district courts all over the country.
I am not a lawyer I do not have the necessary knowledge to file a lawsuit. Our Friend Barron has contributed valuable information to this board, and I very much appreciate him. I personally have done what I can to help our cause.
Yes, our friend Barron recommended just what you suggested.
Barron4664
Re: EternalPatience post# 762310
Saturday, 08/12/2023 11:25:20 AM
If you were paying attention to my posts you would have realized that my proposed strategy that Rodney has been posting relies on filing little tucker act claims in the local federal district court. If you file a takings claim for greater than $10,000, it has to be heard in Sweeny’s court of federal claims. If you challenge any aspect of the SPSPA, such as the NWS the terms of the agreement requires all claims to be heard in the DC district Court aka Lamberth.
I propose neither. I propose claims alleging illegal exaction due to Treasury and FHFA violating Federal statutes that any district court has jurisdiction over. The Federal statutes are the Charter Act, the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by HERA, Administrative Procedures Act, and potentially the Chief Financial Officers Act.
None of the current litigation makes any claims of violation of these acts. They all challenge the actions of the Conservator and attempted to squeeze the APA and the 5th amendment takings into the Actions of the FHFA-C within the terms of the SPSPA. all have failed to this point. It is called a categorical error. Kind of like the “war on terror” how do you fight a war against a weapon?
Rather, I propose a simple set of questions:
1) is a variable Liquidation preference pegged to the amount of commitment drawn by the GSEs (with a 10% rate later changed to NWS, later to LP increased for free) attached to the sale of 1000 Senior Preferred Shares considered a charge or fee for the purposes outlined in the Charter Act?
2) are the warrants in consideration of the Commitment a charge or fee?
3) If they are determined to be a charge or a fee attached to a GSE obligation or a security, are they prohibited by the plain language of the Charter Act?
4) what appropriations law did treasury use to make $200 billion of tax payer debt available for the GSEs to draw from?
5) are the SPS with a variable liquidation preference outlined in the SPSPA and its amendments and share certificates a new product for the purposes of the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 as amended by HERA?
6) If they are a new Product, Congress directed the Director of FHFA to apply the Administrative Procedures Act to these new products sold to Treasury. Did FHFA follow the administrative procedures congress required in the plain language of the safety and soundness act?
7) The CFO act requires the Treasury department based on published accounting standards to determine if their actions of funding through appropriations, ownership of 100% of the GSEs net worth and non-regulatory control of the GSEs through the SPSPA require the consolidation of the GSEs liabilities onto the nations balance sheet. Do the actions of Treasury under the SPSPA require such consolidation under the plain language of the Chief Financial Officers Act?
The answers to these questions would hopefully result in the voiding of the SPSPA in its entirety and a cash sum of less than $10,000 to me. Each of these questions can be answered by just reading the plain language of the statute and the Agreements. No fancy legal doctrines are needed for mental gymnastics. It is plain letter law that avoids all the traps. The only doctrine involved is the doctrine of continuing claims. Otherwise we are limited to the SOL on the 4th amendment to the SPSPA.
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172580067