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.
Does this mean the ‘Cram Down’ is off the table?
Donotunderstand,
said Quote: “lets understand the size of a possible gain if the court finds the SPSPA null and void -“ End of Quote
I gave you the numbers based on Barron’s win with the little tucker act in local federal district court.
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172596100
Brooge, this is what Barron said,
Quote: "Barron4664
Re: EternalPatience post# 759486
Sunday, July 16, 2023 11:38:58 AM
Post#
759491
of 763103
Thanks for the suggestion. I think a gofundme at this point would be self-defeating. The nature of the anticipated claim being contemplated is a lawsuit in federal district court alleging an illegal exaction arising from a continuation of injury from the Treasury assessing a commitment fee in the form of increasing Liquidation Preference on the Senior Preferred Shares. Under the little tucker act, the claim must demonstrate monetary damages less than $10,000. The common shares were bought in 2014. The statute of limitations is 6-years. The latest letter agreements and amendments to the SPSPA changing the form of Liquidation Preference fee occurred within the past 6 years and after I purchased the shares. This should extend the SOL from the original agreement according to published DOJ policy. That should establish standing. At this point, I don‘t know how to quantify the monetary injury to share price for these changes to the SPSPA agreement. I dont want to even calculate it because that would devolve down a rabbit hole of expert opinions, testimony etc. just look at the Lamberth Jury trial fiasco.
What I will have is receipts from the federal court for filing and serving the officials. This is a concrete indisputable money damage that arrises from attempting to mitigate a continuous injury to my property arising out of the commitment fee imposed by the Treasury. A question I have is if I limit the exaction to court costs alone, will I have failed to state a claim? If I use other peoples money such as a gofundme at this point, then I couldnt state a claim because I didnt pay the costs.
I anticipate 3 different outcomes.
The most likely would be the claim is dismissed on procedural grounds and subject matter is never adjudicated. This seems to be the preferred method of disposing claims by the gov. I will lose my money.
The claim will be dismissed on subject matter grounds. The Judge will agree that the Treasury had every legal right to impose the commitment fees for access to the line of credit. SpSPA stands, I pay court costs.
The claim is upheld. I am awarded court costs and the Judge finds the SPSPA null and void as agreed to by Treasury for violating FNMA incorporation documents." End of Quote
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172353217
I remember someone stated on this board 'Domino Effect' only need one to start the beginning of the end.
Brooge, you asked "please share details"
12 U.S. Code § 4541 - Prior approval authority for products
There you have it.
Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/4541
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172449191
Barron Quote:
“I posit that the variable liquidation preference outlined in the SPSPA and all amendments are an illegal commitment fee/charge attached to the purchase of the senior preferred shares. Prohibited by the Charter Act. The warrants are also a fee in consideration for access to the commitment. Prohibited by the Charter Act.
I posit that the senior preferred shares with their variable liquidation preference as outlined in the SPSPA constitute a new product for the purpose of the secondary mortgage market outlined in the charter act at sec 1719.
I posit that under the safety and soundness act as modified by HERA, the sale of SPS with a variable liquidation preference to Treasury under authority of sec 1719(g) of the Charter Act required notice in the federal register, opportunity for public comment, and official rule making by the plain language of the safety and soundness act.
I posit that the above statutory violations necessarily violate the warranties on behalf of the FHFA-C contained in the SPSPA.
301 Billion to be returned to the corporation. LP and warrants canceled. Future of 191 billion of taxpayer debt illegally given to corps to be determined.” End of Quote
He has posted about this for months. Read his post history.
I’m with you, I would like to see the response from UST and FHFA. Press Conference.
Again, Someone help me understand this. The Plaintiffs win against the FHFA under the terms of "Implied good faith and fair dealings." The FHFA gave away the company to the Treasury Department by the Net Worth Sweep and the share price dropped. The jury awarded the shareholders the one day price drop. Yet, the Net Worth Sweep some how remains legal?? Two government agencies making a deal between themselves. What am I missing here? It’s crazy.
Okay, Mr Wiseman with your
“According to the law, there's been a Separate Account plan:”
The only separate account is the billions of dollars the Treasury Department has siphoned off the companies, and it’s recorded as the Liquidation Preference that continues to grow. If you’re so determined to back the Treasury Department’s actions tell me when will this Separate Account plan credit back to the balance sheet of the enterprises?? It’s been 15 years! Hello
Katie Buehler
@bykatiebuehler
BREAKING: A DC federal jury found the @FHFA wrongly amended stock purchase agreements related to the governments bailout of @FannieMae
& @FreddieMac and awarded shareholders $612.4 million in damages, broken out as follows:
Fannie Junior Preferred: $299.4 million
Freddie Junior Preferred: $281.8 million
Freddie Common: $31.2 million
Not sure about the per share amount.
From the Yahoo
Quote: "Gregory
2 hours ago
Bullish
I love the negative comments. What a bunch of asshats. The gov was found by a jury in the most government-friendly jurisdiction in US to have violated private shareholders’ contactual rights to good faith and fair dealing. That means the net sweep amendments was done in BAD FAITH and DISHONESTLY!!! So where from here? As a lawyer—and owner of a massive stake in the Twins—I see this as precedent that will be used in the other cases. I haven’t done the full analysis, but I’m betting that this has use in one or more of the other cases as collateral estoppel. Further, this will change the tide of the naysayers and foot-draggers as it relates to lifting the conservatorship. You think the current people involved didn’t notice what just happened to their predecessors?! Of course they did!!! And no one wants to be found—or even accused—of being part of an illegal regime. Bottom line: $2 within 2 weeks, and the big explosion up ($20-$40) within 4 years. Sell whenever you like, bc we all have motivations that drive us individually. But this thing is now a 🚀!!!!!" End of Quote
No, not the FHFA it’s the Treasury’s call. This has been covered on this board several times before. Again this morning I wrote.,,
“ Note: Purchaser Treasure
“ Purchaser may, in its sole discretion, by written notice to Conservator and Seller, declare this Agreement null and void“
Only if the Treasury says it’s void.”
The Treasury is the purchaser.
The FHFA is the Conservator.
Again, Someone help me understand this. The Plaintiffs win against the FHFA under the terms of "Implied good faith and fair dealings." The FHFA gave away the company to the Treasury Department by the Net Worth Sweep and the share price dropped. The jury awarded the shareholders the one day price drop. Yet, the Net Worth Sweep some how remains legal?? Two government agencies making a deal between themselves. What am I missing here? It’s crazy.
Note: Purchaser Treasure
“ Purchaser may, in its sole discretion, by written notice to Conservator and Seller, declare this Agreement null and void“
Only if the Treasury says it’s void.
Lite,
What I hope will happen, Treasury declares Liquidation Preference paid in full and Senior Preferred Stock canceled release the companies back to the shareholders.
If the Treasury’s LP continues to grow the regulator is authorized or required to place the companies into receivership under specified conditions, which would result in our liquidation. Money received by the Treasury pays off the LP by confiscation of our companies.
As we speak the value of the LP is greater than the entire business operation of Fannie and Freddie. Which wipes out both common and JPS.
Company’s Financial Statement
Risk Factors Summary
GSE and Conservatorship Risk
Quote: "Our business activities are significantly affected by the senior preferred stock purchase agreement. Our regulator is authorized or required to place us into receivership under specified conditions, which would result in our liquidation. Amounts recovered by our receiver may not be sufficient to pay claims outstanding against us, repay the liquidation preference of our preferred stock or to provide any proceeds to common shareholders." End of Quote Page 33
Link: https://www.fanniemae.com/media/46276/display
"In the event the assets legally available for distribution to stockholders are insufficient to pay the liquidation preference of all Preferred Stock in full, the assets available for distribution will be divided among all holders of Preferred Stock on a pro rata basis, based on the value of the liquidation preference of each series of Preferred Stock." Page 5
Link: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000031052220000121/descriptionofsecuritie.htm
Lite, you asked “fair market value.”
The below calculation is based on Barron’s win with the little tucker act in local federal district court. Either way, if the Treasury walks away with 79.9% of the common stock and a possible cram down with more diluted shares, it does not change the intrinsic value of the earnings power of the business. The question, how much value will each equity holder receive?
Freddie Mac
JPS are due $14.1 billion (par value) and the common shares own the company.
Common Shareholders $214.08 per share Intrinsic Value.
Freddie Mac
June 30, 2023
Freddie Mac Reports Net Income of $2.9 Billion for Second Quarter 2023
Earnings Power of the Business
A multiple of 12 is not unreasonable
EARNINGS POWER OF THE BUSINESS
Freddie Mac common stock outstanding 650,059,553
$2.9 billion net income for the second quarter of 2023.
Freddie Mac net earnings $2.9 billion per quarter, a projection of $11.6 billion net per year.
$11.6 billion net / 650,059,553 = $17.84 per share of earnings
Price to Earnings Ratio of 12 x $17.84 = $214.08 per share Intrinsic Value
Fannie Mae
JPS are due $19.1 billion (par value) and the common shares own the company.
Common Shareholders $207.24 per share Intrinsic Value.
Fannie Mae
June 30, 2023
Fannie Mae Reports Net Income of $5.0 Billion for Second Quarter 2023
Earnings Power of the Business
A multiple of 12 is not unreasonable
EARNINGS POWER OF THE BUSINESS
Fannie Mae’s common stock outstanding 1,158,087,567
$5.0 billion net income for the second quarter of 2023.
Fannie Mae’s net earnings $5.0 billion per quarter, a projection of $20 billion net per year.
$20 billion net / 1,158,087,567 = $17.27 per share of earnings
Price to Earnings Ratio of 12 x $17.27 = $207.24 per share Intrinsic Value
Barron Quote:
“I posit that the variable liquidation preference outlined in the SPSPA and all amendments are an illegal commitment fee/charge attached to the purchase of the senior preferred shares. Prohibited by the Charter Act. The warrants are also a fee in consideration for access to the commitment. Prohibited by the Charter Act.
I posit that the senior preferred shares with their variable liquidation preference as outlined in the SPSPA constitute a new product for the purpose of the secondary mortgage market outlined in the charter act at sec 1719.
I posit that under the safety and soundness act as modified by HERA, the sale of SPS with a variable liquidation preference to Treasury under authority of sec 1719(g) of the Charter Act required notice in the federal register, opportunity for public comment, and official rule making by the plain language of the safety and soundness act.
I posit that the above statutory violations necessarily violate the warranties on behalf of the FHFA-C contained in the SPSPA.
301 Billion to be returned to the corporation. LP and warrants canceled. Future of 191 billion of taxpayer debt illegally given to corps to be determined.” End of Quote
The conservatorship cannot be justified to continue indefinitely nor justified by placing the companies making billions in profits in receivership. But the Treasury has to look good in the eyes of the public.
Solution, The Treasury could buy the shareholders out at fair market value, clean up the counterfeit shares behind the scenes, sell the companies in the open market with an IPO. And by doing this the lawsuits go away.
Returning the companies to the NYSE to trade at fair market value the Treasury could say “We saved the world” and made all this money for the taxpayers.
Several years ago I did a search on the Nasdaq exchange, pulled the trading history of Fannie and Freddie and sure enough the spike in the number of impossible shares outstanding traded during the time frame written in the report.
Most prominent word in this whole debacle “Redacted”
Lots of information hidden.
Seems to me the Market Makers would be responsible for making it right.
TRADING FLOOR OF THE MARKET-MAKER: The primary market-makers in these GSE's are Goldman Sachs (Fannie Mae) and LaBranche & Co. (Freddie Mac). These are the specialists on the NYSE where the GSE's are listed, thus all trades executed on the NYSE in the GSE's must flow through these market-makers.
Think about it, in 2008 when the the Market Makers took the companies down with the counterfeit shares (Naked Short) and with this amount of illegal shares outstanding the only way to cover this up is by keeping the companies in perpetual conservatorship or by placing the companies in receivership. Why else would this continue for 15 years with seemingly no ending?
Someone help me understand this. The Plaintiffs win against the FHFA under the terms of "Implied good faith and fair dealings." The FHFA gave away the company to the Treasury Department by the Net Worth Sweep and the share price dropped. The jury awarded the shareholders the one day price drop. Yet, the Net Worth Sweep some how remains legal??
Two government agencies.
What am I missing here? It’s crazy.
If you do not receive a cash payment you will know.
Now we find out if anyone is holding counterfeit shares of Freddie Mac common stock. Every common shareholder of Freddie Mac will have to be counted for.
Failure to Deliver
What happens when the shareholders find out their shares possibly do not exist?
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission knew about this, it's reported on their website.
In a "naked" short sale, the seller does not borrow or arrange to borrow the securities in time to make delivery to the buyer within the standard two-day settlement period. As a result, the seller fails to deliver securities to the buyer when delivery is due; this is known as a "failure to deliver" or "fail."
COUNTERFEITING
INFORMATION FROM: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission web site.
The counterfeiting of U.S. assets. Theft from pension funds, State employee retirement accounts, and U.S. Citizens. The counterfeiting of shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Where are our regulators and who are they protecting?
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-09/s70809-407a.pdf#:~:text=Fannie%20Mae%20and%20Freddie%20Mac%20are%20publicly%20traded,was%20occurring%20in%20the%20trading%20of%20the%20GSEs.
https://www.sec.gov/answers/nakedshortsale
Barron, if you win your case with the little tucker act in your local federal district court, when appealed to a higher court would the next step up be the SCOTUS?
This is a failure of the legal strategies. Not a failure of the Judges. If we go back to the Statutes we find that the controlling Statute is the Charter Act. FHFA is a child of this law not the other way around. If there is no GSEs created there is no safety and Soundness. If we look at the SPSPA it is stated that only the Charter Act enables Treasury to enter into the agreement. Not the actions of a Conservator. Further Congress enumerated as Judge Lamberth has said “Clear as Day” that a capital distribution that lowers FNMAs capital below the limits established in the Safety and Soundness Act is prohibited unless prior written approval of the director of FHFA is obtained. This is a direct responsibility of the director enumerated by Congress and predates HERA. If Congress didnt want this in the statute, they could have eliminated it when amending the Charter Act. Instead they changed the the name of the agency to FHFA. This is the proper law to challenge the NWS under.
Code of Federal Regulation
1237.12 Capital distributions while in conservatorship.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a regulated entity shall make no capital distribution while in conservatorship.
(b) The Director may authorize, or may delegate the authority to authorize, a capital distribution that would otherwise be prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section if he or she determines that such capital distribution:
No 1: Will enhance the ability of the regulated entity to meet the risk-based capital level and the minimum capital level for the regulated entity;
No 2: Will contribute to the long-term financial safety and soundness of the regulated entity;
No 3: Is otherwise in the interest of the regulated entity; or
No 4: Is otherwise in the public interest.
Section c, this section is intended to supplement and shall not replace or affect any other restriction on capital distributions imposed by statute or regulation.
DID THE NET WORTH SWEEP
Enchance the ability to meet risk-based capital level? NO
Contribute to the long-term financial safety and soundness of the regulated entity? NO
In the interest of the regulated entity? NO
Is otherwise in the public interest? NO
(The taxpayers are responsible of the liabilities of the enterprises).
The Net Worth Sweep could not possibly have any rehabilitative effect and that one of the principal duties of the FHFA Director is to preserve and conserve assets.
Fannie is allowed to retain its earnings until it fully meets its applicable risk-based capital requirement (it’s currently short by $247.8 billion), but those increased retained earnings are matched by a dollar-for-dollar increase in Treasury’s liquidation preference.
https://gov.ecfr.gov/current/title-12/chapter-XII/subchapter-B/part-1237/subpart-D/section-1237.12
Barron4664
Re: Rodney5 post# 761719
Tuesday, 08/08/2023 10:58:47 AM
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
12 U.S. Code § 4541 - Prior approval authority for products
There you have it.
Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/4541
Barron Quote: “ In stead we have been lead down the rabbit hole with legal obfuscations of ultra vires actions of the Conservator when they could have voided the whole damn thing without ever considering the Conservator.” End of Quote
Thompson tried the APA of the Conservator not the Director. The Plaintiffs are stuck on the Third Amendment NWS and it’s not working. Read what Barron wrote. It’s an APA violation of the Director not the Conservator. It’s crazy that the FHFA Director holds both positions.
Quote: “ For those unfamiliar with the law, the following sections of this law detail the administrative procedures that are required of the Director to approve new products. It is black and white law. The conservatorship had no bearing on this requirement. This is the same law that required the publishing of the Capital Rule that catman created. So why didnt Director Lockhart perform his statutory duty under the law? It is the same duty that he had under the OHFEO. This is why having the head of the regulatory agency who “Steps into the shoes” of the entity he is regulating and become its conservator is a bad idea. The law as written is insanity. Director Lockhart as Conservator was required to issue a written request to Director Lockhart the regulator requesting permission to offer a new product authorized under section 1719 (g) of the charter act (Senior Preferred Shares with a variable liquidation preference tied to a commitment from Treasury of $100 billion of Appropriated Public Debt.) Director Lockhart the Regulator must then either publish the proposal and seek public Comment for 30 days and issue a final rule for the SPS, or he could issue a temporary approval under emergency circumstances and perform the rule making at a later date.” End of Quote
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172449191
Did anyone actually expect anything different?
Quote: So there you have it. A blatant Administrative Procedures Act violation. Where were all the attorneys for the past 15 years? Our supposed betters. The experts class with fancy degrees? The APA violations have been staring us in the eyes out in the open since day one. In stead we have been lead down the rabbit hole with legal obfuscations of ultra vires actions of the Conservator when they could have voided the whole damn thing without ever considering the Conservator. I wish I had read this law years ago instead of just recently. Instead we are following the silly trial for the second time in Lamberths Court. And yet Hamish Hume ignored me when I offered him this statute for this trial and the Wazee case. But at least I tried." End of Quote
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172449191
"This is the same law that required the publishing of the Capital Rule that catman created. So why didnt Director Lockhart perform his statutory duty under the law?" Ha
12 U.S. Code § 4541 - Prior approval authority for products
There you have it.
Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/4541
Worth reading again: by Barron,
Quote: "It is exciting to follow the trial. Thanks to all for posting updates. Keep in mind that this trial will bring minimal rewards if successful. The real fireworks will begin hopefully in a few months. I believe I have found the key to unlock the entire debacle. It really is so simple. The SPS with a variable liquidation preference were a new product authorized under sec 1719 (g) of the FNMA charter act. But new products offered under this section required public notice in the Federal Register, opportunity for public comment, and formal rule making. This is a requirement of the Director of FHFA at section 4541 of the safety and soundness act
“a) In general
The Director shall require each enterprise to obtain the approval of the Director for any prod- uct of the enterprise before initially offering the product.
(b) Standard for approval
In considering any request for approval of a product pursuant to subsection (a), the Director shall make a determination that—
(1) in the case of a product of the Federal National Mortgage Association, the product is authorized under paragraph (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 1717(b) or section 1719 of this title;
(2) in the case of a product of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the prod- uct is authorized under paragraph (1), (4), or (5) of section 1454(a) of this title;
(3) the product is in the public interest; and
(4) the product is consistent with the safety and soundness of the enterprise or the mort- gage finance system.”
For those unfamiliar with the law, the following sections of this law detail the administrative procedures that are required of the Director to approve new products. It is black and white law. The conservatorship had no bearing on this requirement. This is the same law that required the publishing of the Capital Rule that catman created. So why didnt Director Lockhart perform his statutory duty under the law? It is the same duty that he had under the OHFEO. This is why having the head of the regulatory agency who “Steps into the shoes” of the entity he is regulating and become its conservator is a bad idea. The law as written is insanity. Director Lockhart as Conservator was required to issue a written request to Director Lockhart the regulator requesting permission to offer a new product authorized under section 1719 (g) of the charter act (Senior Preferred Shares with a variable liquidation preference tied to a commitment from Treasury of $100 billion of Appropriated Public Debt.) Director Lockhart the Regulator must then either publish the proposal and seek public Comment for 30 days and issue a final rule for the SPS, or he could issue a temporary approval under emergency circumstances and perform the rule making at a later date.
So there you have it. A blatant Administrative Procedures Act violation. Where were all the attorneys for the past 15 years? Our supposed betters. The experts class with fancy degrees? The APA violations have been staring us in the eyes out in the open since day one. In stead we have been lead down the rabbit hole with legal obfuscations of ultra vires actions of the Conservator when they could have voided the whole damn thing without ever considering the Conservator. I wish I had read this law years ago instead of just recently. Instead we are following the silly trial for the second time in Lamberths Court. And yet Hamish Hume ignored me when I offered him this statute for this trial and the Wazee case. But at least I tried." End of Quote
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172449191
Can you send I don’t have his address. Maybe he will view the information on this board. At times he does post here.
Definition with example
Products
INVESTMENT PRODUCTS
Stocks
Right hand side menu scroll down to
Accounts & Products to INVESTMENT PRODUCTS
https://www.schwab.com/
Senior Preferred Stock is a product by definition.
If it’s not a product what is it?
There is no problem applying the Charter Act it’s the Law. And in the Charter Act the Treasury cannot charge a commitment fee.
Code of Federal Regulation
1237.12 Capital distributions while in conservatorship.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a regulated entity shall make no capital distribution while in conservatorship.
(b) The Director may authorize, or may delegate the authority to authorize, a capital distribution that would otherwise be prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section if he or she determines that such capital distribution:
No 1: Will enhance the ability of the regulated entity to meet the risk-based capital level and the minimum capital level for the regulated entity;
No 2: Will contribute to the long-term financial safety and soundness of the regulated entity;
No 3: Is otherwise in the interest of the regulated entity; or
No 4: Is otherwise in the public interest.
Section c, this section is intended to supplement and shall not replace or affect any other restriction on capital distributions imposed by statute or regulation.
DID THE NET WORTH SWEEP
Enchance the ability to meet risk-based capital level? NO
Contribute to the long-term financial safety and soundness of the regulated entity? NO
In the interest of the regulated entity? NO
Is otherwise in the public interest? NO
(The taxpayers are responsible of the liabilities of the enterprises).
The Net Worth Sweep could not possibly have any rehabilitative effect and that one of the principal duties of the FHFA Director is to preserve and conserve assets.
Fannie is allowed to retain its earnings until it fully meets its applicable risk-based capital requirement (it’s currently short by $247.8 billion), but those increased retained earnings are matched by a dollar-for-dollar increase in Treasury’s liquidation preference.
https://gov.ecfr.gov/current/title-12/chapter-XII/subchapter-B/part-1237/subpart-D/section-1237.12
ignoring the facts that the NWS could not possibly have any rehabilitative effect
kthomp19
07/27/23 5:53 PM
#760502 RE: Barron4664 #760484
KT Quote: “ The Supreme Court said in its Collins opinion that FHFA could "rehabilitate" FnF in a way that advances the public interest, while ignoring the facts that the NWS could not possibly have any rehabilitative effect and that one of the principal duties of the FHFA Director is to preserve and conserve assets, which takes precedence over an incidental powers clause.” End of Quote
Tim Howard Quote: “Fannie is allowed to retain its earnings until it fully meets its applicable risk-based capital requirement (it’s currently short by $247.8 billion), but those increased retained earnings are matched by a dollar-for-dollar increase in Treasury’s liquidation preference.” End of Story
These expert lawyers never mention the Charter Act!
Barron said it best. Introduce this into the courtroom.
Quote: “ I posit that the variable liquidation preference outlined in the SPSPA and all amendments are an illegal commitment fee/charge attached to the purchase of the senior preferred shares. Prohibited by the Charter Act. The warrants are also a fee in consideration for access to the commitment. Prohibited by the Charter Act.
I posit that the senior preferred shares with their variable liquidation preference as outlined in the SPSPA constitute a new product for the purpose of the secondary mortgage market outlined in the charter act at sec 1719.
I posit that under the safety and soundness act as modified by HERA, the sale of SPS with a variable liquidation preference to Treasury under authority of sec 1719(g) of the Charter Act required notice in the federal register, opportunity for public comment, and official rule making by the plain language of the safety and soundness act.
I posit that the above statutory violations necessarily violate the warranties on behalf of the FHFA-C contained in the SPSPA.
301 Billion to be returned to the corporation. LP and warrants canceled. Future of 191 billion of taxpayer debt illegally given to corps to be determined.” End of Quote
Rodney5
Re: Barron4664 post# 760445
Thursday, 07/27/2023 11:13:08 AM
Barron, I understand what you have pointed out the Director broke the law on the public notice violation.
Question, did sec 1719 (g) "new products offered" under this section of the Charter Act allow the Treasury to charge a fee? (If the New Product was approved after the public notice.)
Charter Act: Fee Limitation “(f) PROHIBITION ON ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF FEE OR CHARGE BY UNITED STATES.
Barron4664
07/27/23 2:53 PM
#760484 RE: Rodney5 #760453
Rodney, good question. I think that since Congress did not exempt the Treasury’s temporary authority to purchase products of the GSEs under sec 1719 from the prohibition of assessing a fee or charge in connection with the purchase, then any reasonable person would conclude that the fees are illegal. Had a formal rule making process occurred for the new financial instrument we know as the Senior Preferred Shares with a variable Liquidation Preference pegged to a Treasury commitment of Taxpayer debt, then the statutory analysis would have stricken the Warrants offered “ in Consideration” of access to the commitment through the SPS as an illegal fee. I would think the variable liquidation Preference is also a fee since it is based on the amount of taxpayer debt funding rather than the purchase of the Senior Preferred Shares. I find it interesting that the very smart expert in the super secret separate account plan has stopped responding to my posts once I brought this inconvenient section of the statutes up. Same with KT. I look forward to their analysis and refutations as they are usually very informative and I like to hear their opinions as to why I am probably wrong. Hope to get a response at some point.
kthomp19
07/27/23 5:53 PM
#760502 RE: Barron4664 #760484
KT Quote: “ The Supreme Court said in its Collins opinion that FHFA could "rehabilitate" FnF in a way that advances the public interest, while ignoring the facts that the NWS could not possibly have any rehabilitative effect and that one of the principal duties of the FHFA Director is to preserve and conserve assets, which takes precedence over an incidental powers clause.
Bottom line: the deck is completely stacked against us in every single court case. The courts are not how FnF will exit conservatorship, if they ever do. It will have to be administrative action.” End of Quote
I didn’t quote the whole of what KT wrote, anyone can go and read it. Wanted to point out what KT said “(every single court case)” ……. The strategy of the Plaintiffs have failed up to this point. In my opinion Barron has the solution, and it’s not by administrative action.
stvupdate, I’m not a lawyer and to draft what Lamberth deserves in an open letter on behalf of all FNMA/FMCC shareholders surely there are more qualified people on this board can do a far better job than myself.
I could easily put together the history of the theft of Fannie/Freddie up to this point in time based off the Charter Act. but this case is limited to certain parts "Implied good faith and dealings." In my opinion this is going nowhere just as the other suits. The Plaintiffs are stuck on the NWS only. The focus should be the SPSPA is an illegal contract. The Treasury is not authorized to charge a commitment fee based on The Charter Act.
Barron gave us the solution,
Quote: “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.”
You asked, "Have you tried to call - email - or text them and explain ?"
I did and told you I did.
Rodney5
Re: Donotunderstand post# 752241
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171641764