Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[ano]

the problem with Moelis lays in the fact they do recognize the lawsuits, and this is a hanging sword of Damocles above their heads, for future investors it is important that in the next crisis not all their funds can be confiscated, in the Moelis 1 plan http://gsesafetyandsoundness.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Safety-and-Soundness-Blueprint.pdf they did not talk about lawsuits and in the moelis 2 plan one year later, neither,(although they meanwhile figured out an IPO is not possible) https://gsesafetyandsoundness.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Blueprint-for-Restoring-Safety-and-Soundness-to-the-GSEs-Final.pdf

instead they talk about

“The first step must be to begin rebuilding capital by suspending dividends paid to Treasury. The second step is to recognize the government’s profits by acknowledging that Treasury’s senior preferred stock has been repaid with interest. While the senior preferred remains outstanding, it will be impossible for the GSEs to raise equity from the private markets. The third step is for FHFA to direct Fannie and Freddie to submit capital restoration plans, as authorized by HERA. Taking these three steps immediately starts on the path towards restoring safety and soundness to protect American taxpayers.

Putting Fannie and Freddie on sound footing and ending the conservatorship remains the final piece of outstanding crisis-era financial reform. It is time for the Administration to finally act at this 10-year anniversary of conservatorship.

While it should read, the first step must be to end the lawsuits, so new investors have certainty about their future investments, the claims that lay in front of the government are now

Breach of contract
Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
Just compensation under the Fifth Amendment
Against Treasury and Secretary Lew for violation of the Administrative Procedure Act: (i) Treasury’s conduct exceeds its statutory authority under HERA and (ii) Treasury’s conduct was arbitrary and capricious
Against FHFA and Acting Director DeMarco for violation of the Administrative Procedure Act: (i) The FHFA’s conduct exceeds its statutory authority under HERA and (ii) the FHFA’s conduct was arbitrary and capricious
against Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHFA, as Conservator, for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
Against the United States of America for just compensation under the Fifth Amendment
Breach of contract against FHFA for (i) modification of the certificates and series of stock without shareholders’ consent and (ii) elimination of dividends Anticipatory breach of contract against FHFA for repudiation of shareholders’ right to any eventual liquidation surplus
Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against FHFA
Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because Treasury and FHFA’s conduct (i) exceeded their statutory authority and (ii) was arbitrary and capricious
No just compensation under the Fifth Amendment
Violation of the Takings Clause
FHFA’s and Treasury's conduct exceeds their statutory authority
Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act: FHFA’s and Treasury's conduct was arbitrary and capricious
Breach of contract against FHFA as Conservator of Fannie and Freddie
Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against FHFA as Conservator of Fannie and Freddie
Breach of fiduciary duty against FHFA as Conservator of Fannie and Freddie: Claim for equitable and
declaratory relief
Derivatively on behalf of FNMA: Unlawful taking without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution
Violation of the APA -- Treasury's and FHFA's conduct exceeds its statutory authority
Violation of the APA -- Treasury's and FHFA's conduct was arbitrary and capricious
(The APA is codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559 serves to police improper agency behavior, protect public safety, and secure proper entitlements. The APA governs all three main agency functions: rulemakings, adjudications, and licensing. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-5/subchapter-II )


So while looking thru above you will notice all are talking about, unjust, irrational, unlawful and when considering The warrant is bought for $0.00001, and not for the then market price ~$0.78, this is probably correct, as the government cannot confiscate something without return, unless they compensate of course.


So for now the government broke every rule there is in the book, and to solve the conservatorship a lot needs to be undone, and there is hope as as MC says "Whatever the policy issue, my first question will always be “what does the statute say?”
So that is a slam dunk for us