Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

So what does Fairholme want?

This is a good breakdown, thank you for posting it.

Glaring in its absence is something Fairholme does not ask for: any review or change to the original SPSPAs, let alone any other decisions from 2008. It is clear from your list that they only want the NWS unwound, along with prospective (future) injunctions against behavior by a conservator that does not conserve and preserve the wards' assets.

If you look at this from the point of view of standing, you'll realize that Fairholme doesn't even have standing to ask Lamberth to change anything from 2008.

You do have a clear error in your reasoning, though:

c. Declaring that, by entering the Net Worth Sweep, FHFA violated its fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs.

In c) they hold that they are entitled to damages “Fiduciary Duty” When someone has a fiduciary duty to someone else, the person with the duty must act in a way that will benefit someone else, usually financially.

The person who has a fiduciary duty is called the fiduciary, and the person to whom the duty is owed is called the principal or the beneficiary. If the fiduciary breaches the fiduciary duties, he or she would need to account for the ill-gotten profit. The beneficiaries are typically entitled to damages. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty”

So in short if a) and b) are granted, c) will also be legitimate

Lamberth already dismissed a) and c). He only allowed b) to go to trial. Sweeney also directly said that FHFA has no fiduciary duty to shareholders. Thus c) has already failed, even though b) was granted. It would have failed even if a) was granted as well. Those three things were separate lines of attack.

Nov-8 2019 Lamberth came out with his MEMORANDUM OPINION document 112
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.160910/gov.uscourts.dcd.160910.112.0.pdf
in this document the questions in connection to the RFP are:

Note that all of these questions, other than two, have only to do with the NWS, as in they have nothing to do with the original SPSPAs. The two exceptions:

* How did the events surrounding the placement of the Companies into conservatorship affect the reasonable expectations of the parties?

* Did private shareholders in 2008 reasonably expect the conservatorships to be temporary?

The first is pertinent to the NWS because if Lamberth were to rule that the NWS doesn't violate the (perhaps modified by the conservatorships) reasonable expectations of investors at the time of the NWS, he could rule against the plaintiffs. The second question is essentially the same thing.

Neither of these questions is any indication that Lamberth will come anywhere close to trying to change anything from the original SPSPAs. You're really barking up the wrong tree if you think he even can do this, let alone will.