so where does it all fit in with this weeks events?
(1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to assert derivative claims
notwithstanding the succession clause contained in the
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA),
12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(A)(i).
(2) Whether actions by the Federal Housing Finance Agency
(FHFA) as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are
attributable to the United States such that the Court possesses
subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain plaintiffs’ derivative
takings and illegal exaction claims.
(3) Whether plaintiffs’ allegations that FHFA entered into an
implied-in-fact contract with the Enterprises to operate the
conservatorships for shareholder benefit fail as a matter of law.
from the Dec 6th statement
(1) whether an implied conflict-of-interest exception to the succession clause contained in the Housing and
Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) provides plaintiffs standing to pursue shareholder
derivative claims; (2) whether actions by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) as
conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Enterprises) are attributable to the United States
such that the Court possesses subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act to entertain
plaintiffs’ derivative takings and illegal exaction claims; and (3) whether plaintiffs plausibly
alleged that FHFA entered into an implied-in-fact contract with the Enterprises to operate the conservatorships for shareholder benefit.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court should certify the December 6 opinion for interlocutory
appeal by amending the order to add the following statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(2):
The Court finds that this order involves the following controlling
questions of law with respect to which there is a substantial ground
for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the
order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the
litigation.
(1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to assert derivative claims
notwithstanding the succession clause contained in the
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA),
12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(A)(i).
(2) Whether actions by the Federal Housing Finance Agency
(FHFA) as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are
attributable to the United States such that the Court possesses
subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain plaintiffs’ derivative
takings and illegal exaction claims.
(3) Whether plaintiffs’ allegations that FHFA entered into an
implied-in-fact contract with the Enterprises to operate the
conservatorships for shareholder benefit fail as a matter of law.
In addition, if it certifies the December 6 opinion, the Court should also stay further
proceedings pending the Federal Circuit’s resolution of our petition for interlocutory appeal and,
if the petition is granted, the Federal Circuit’s decision on that appeal.
