Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Dollars1]

Macey amicus brief for Perry Capital appeal (just Table of Contents to give you and idea)

BRIEF OF JONATHAN R. MACEY AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT AND REVERSAL ______________________
Jonathan R. Macey
Sam Harris Professor of Corporate Law,
Corporate Finance, and Securities Law Yale Law School
127 Wall Street
New Haven, Connecticut 06511 Telephone: [phone]
Eric Grant [e-mail]
Hicks Thomas LLP
8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 172 Sacramento, California 95826 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Jonathan R. Macey
USCA Case #14-5243 Document #1561151 Filed: 07/06/2015 Page 2 of 26
CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES
Pursuant to Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), I hereby certify as follows:
(A) Parties and Amici. All parties, intervenors, and amici appearing be- fore the district court and in this Court are listed in the Initial Opening Brief for In- stitutional Plaintiffs (filed June 29, 2015) or in the Initial Opening Brief for Class Plaintiffs (filed June 30, 2015).
(B) Rulings Under Review. Accurate references to the rulings at issue ap- pear in the two aforementioned briefs.
(C) Related Cases. Accurate references to related cases appear in the two aforementioned briefs.
Dated: July 6, 2014.
s/ Eric Grant Eric Grant
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Jonathan R. Macey
?i
USCA Case #14-5243 Document #1561151 Filed: 07/06/2015 Page 3 of 26
CERTIFICATE REGARDING SEPARATE AMICUS BRIEF
Pursuant to Circuit Rule 29(d), I hereby certify that a separate brief for Ami- cus Curiae Jonathan R. Macey is necessary. As elaborated in the Interest of Amicus Curiae section below (p. 1), Amicus teaches corporate law, corporate finance, and securities regulation at one of the nation’s leading law schools. His extensive re- search and recognized expertise in these fields is especially valuable in discussing how the challenged governmental action has deprived Plaintiff shareholders of all economically beneficial uses of their property and otherwise interfered with their reasonable investment-backed expectations.
Dated: July 6, 2014.
s/ Eric Grant Eric Grant
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Jonathan R. Macey
?ii
USCA Case #14-5243 Document #1561151 Filed: 07/06/2015 Page 4 of 26
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES ..............i CERTIFICATE REGARDING SEPARATE AMICUS BRIEF .............................. ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .....................................................................................v GLOSSARY............................................................................................................ vii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ..........................................................................1 ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................1
I. Owning shares in a regulated entity does not deprive Plaintiff
shareholders of a cognizable property interest in the dividends or
liquidation preferences that shareholders expect to receive when
they purchase their shares................................................................................1
A. Plaintiff shareholders had no reason to expect the entirety
of the GSEs’ net profits to be seized.....................................................2
B. 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(A)(i) does not grant the FHFA the
right to seize dividends, intended for shareholders, for itself ...............4
II. The Third Amendment’s net worth sweeps constitute regulatory takings..............................................................................................................5
A. The Third Amendment’s net worth sweeps constitute per se regulatory takings, as they deprive Plaintiff shareholders of
“all economically beneficial uses” of their property.............................5
iii
Page
USCA Case #14-5243 Document #1561151 Filed: 07/06/2015 Page 5 of 26
Page
B. Alternatively, the Penn Central factors weighed in balance
and in an ad hoc fashion establish the Third Amendment’s
net worth sweeps as regulatory takings.................................................8
1. Regardless of the “character of the government’s
action” in relation to the Third Amendment, the other
two factors are sufficient to evidence a regulatory
taking ........................................................................................... 9
2. The economic effects of the Third Amendment’s net
worth sweeps are severe..............................................................9
a. The Third Amendment’s net worth sweeps
deprive Plaintiff shareholders of any and all
hope for dividends in the future........................................9
b. The Third Amendment’s net worth sweeps
drastically decrease the probability of capital
gains upon the sale of Plaintiff shareholders’
shares ..............................................................................10
3. The Third Amendment’s net worth sweeps interfered
with Plaintiff shareholders’ reasonable “investment-
backed expectations” ................................................................11
a. It is a violation of Plaintiff shareholders’ funda-
mental rights for a firm to deprive them of any
and all hope for dividends in the future..........................13
b. Purchasers of shares reasonably expect those
shares to retain their tradability and liquidity.................14
III. Under the District Court’s conception of a regulatory taking, no
share of stock could ever be subject to a regulatory taking...........................15
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................15 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE