Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[obiterdictum]

Thanks for the response.

You are welcome.

I just wondered:

If the article 1 Court of Federal Claims; in allowing the derivative suit to proceed can disregard the succession clause because the defendant is the government,

Has HERA's succession clause been disregarded by Judge Sweeney? (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/disregard)

The issue concerning the succession clause is whether or not FHFA when stepping into the shoes of the GSEs as mandated by 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(A)(i) is or is not the United States for purposes of the Tucker Act. The succession clause cannot be disregarded. HERA's succession clause as presented in the Plaintiffs' and Defendant's arguments must be carefully considered by Judge Sweeney and a reasoned argument presented that details how FHFA is not the US for purposes of the Tucker Act. We do not yet know how or what Judge Sweeney's reasoned or opined on this matter. When Judge Sweeney's redacted opinion is published, this information will be available.

and if the CFC would have any meaningful difference from article 3 courts as it relates to the defendant being UST.

The US Court of Federal Claims is the only court with national jurisdiction allowed to handle monetary claims against the US government (i.e. takings) that are "founded upon the Constitution, federal statutes, executive regulations, or contracts, express or implied in fact."