Another completely incorrect conclusion to the case.
For the record, I have read the full case opinion.
The court does not contradict with Lamberth. In fact, in most ways, the court CONCURS Lamberth's opinion.
It quite clearly states that "The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has twice held that the shareholders of statutorily regulated financial institutions lacked the requisite property interests to support a takings claim." and that "the Federal Circuit found that, given the existing regulatory structure permitting the appointment of a conservator or receiver, the financial institutions in that case “lacked the fundamental right to exclude the government from its property at those times when the government could legally impose a conservatorship or receivership” on the institutions." and that "had no cognizable property interest in the institution’s assets, because the owner had no right to exclusive possession given that the government could place the institution into conservatorship and receivership" and that "Freddie Mac has been subject to regulatory oversight, including the potential for conservatorship under which the regulatory agency succeeds to “all the powers of the shareholders, directors, and officers of the enterprise."" and that "Given this regulatory environment, plaintiff “lacked the fundamental right to exclude the government” from his property rights under his employment agreement when the FHFA placed Freddie Mac into conservatorship".
All of this points VERY clearly that the court supports Lamberth and says that shareholders have no takings right in a government regulated entity such as Freddie Mac.
They even CITE Perry! ". . . no supplementation of the factual record could alter dismissal here.” Perry Capital,2014"
Their conclusion could not be more clear:
"Given the regulatory environment at the time he entered into his employment agreement, and the authority that federal regulators had to prohibit executive compensation, plaintiff simply could not have had a cognizable property interest in the severance compensation called for under his employment agreement."
There is NO implication that the court supports takings suits of any kind for any class of shareholder in any situation. I don't understand where these false conclusions are coming from. In fact, the court even recognizes that it is not addressing the Takings at all, and that no discovery has occurred, because there is simply no right to sue.
AI
