Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[chessmaster315]

Commander,
You posted:

As readers know, the 9 to 7 majority opinion led by Judge Willett was a prospective Net Worth Sweep cancellation. But his 7 to 9 minority opinion was a pure and simple vacatur of the NWS, meaning a retrospective cancellation. Read the reimbursement to Fannie and Freddie of the amount they paid Treasury in excess of the amount they borrowed. In Willett’s writing, the numbers were $250 billion repaid at the time of the suit, against $187 billion borrowed. Actually, as of Q2, 2019, the amount repaid was a total of $306 billion, for an excess of $120 billion.

Treasury is opposed to this, and argues that taxpayers, on whose accounts it acts, are entitled to compensation for lending the money in the first place. Makes sense, but my first reaction was to counter with the Trouble Asset Relief Program, aka TARP.

I looked up the legal defination of "vacatur" and this is what it said:

It is made null and void.

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/vacatur

It said nothing of it being "retrospective" (or not!). However, I looked up "null and void", also, where it stated (null and void):

null and voidadjective abrogated, annulled, canceled, defeated, defunct, disannulled, effectless, extinct, extinguished, forceless, ineffective, ineffectual, inefficacious, inoperative, invalid, negated, no longer law, not valid, nugatory, obliterated, of no binding force, of no effect, of no legal weight, of no validity, omitted, overruled, quashed, repealed, rescinded, reversed, revoked, set aside, strengthless, superseded, suspended, unauthorized, useless, vacated, valueless, void, withdrawn, without authority, without legal effect, without legal force, without potency, without value, worthless

Source: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/null+and+void

While the decision "did not" suggest that x billion be returned to shareholders, it also did not allow for any compensation due to the treasury for making this invalid "loan" by an unconstitutional agency. The En Banc decision did say that shareholders were "injured". And, by law, parties injured through illegal processes are entitled to compensation.
While Obit explained that there will be briefs in the remand courts, the plaintiffs (sharholders) have established that they were "injured" by the government's net worth sweep, and so the net worth swipe has been superseeded, and is without legal effect or legal force.