No, that's not at all what I EVER said. I have posted link after link where it was stated that a wind down was announced by two Treasury Secretaries, leaders of both political parties during the 2008 campaign, numerous Senators and Congressmen/Congresswomen and the head of the House Budget Committee who recently was made Speaker of the House. A wind down is not liquidation until declared by the Director of FHFA.
What I recently observed was the text of HERA which I previously cited in links posted on this message board that stated that the Director of FHFA could have elected to declare a receivership going back to 2009 because Fannie Mae was unable to deliver on its commitment to the 10% SPD. He chose not to do so, and I think that exhibits a huge break given the GSEs to allow them to remain in business and not sent into liquidation. When Amendment 3 was eventually imposed, it was only after 4 years of failure to pay the 10% SPD. Again, FHFA acted by implementing a sweep of all profits instead of implementing a receivership that would have left shareholders penniless. For this largesse, the FHFA was rewarded with a new round of shareholder lawsuits. Very ungrateful, if you ask me. Judge Lamberth even recognized the odd scenario where many of the plaintiffs bought shares despite full knowledge of the added risks of investing in a regulated entity.
You claim that unpaid SPD simply gets added to the liquidation obligation. I don't find that within the text of the law. You also claim that unpaid dividends are not an obligation that would trigger a receivership, yet the exact text of the law clearly states a requirement that all obligations to creditors and others must be paid. A fixed payment to UST certainly seems to meet that criteria, and the intent of the law.
I do agree with Judge Lamberth's ruling on ripeness as I understand it.
It strikes me that any appeal of Lamberth's ruling becomes farcical when it devolves into a morass of further discovery and new conspiracy theories that have no relevance to the Judge's rationale for dismissal. All this is, of course, just my opinion. And it is also my further opinion that a constitutional challenge could easily have be filed and resolved because it would address the "opening" that the Lamberth ruling clearly left open as a way forward for a different sort of verdict.
