Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

Starting at the bottom of page 2 there are three questions brought by the defendants, which correspond to questions 4-6 on page 5:

And defendant focuses on three different questions that it believes support certification:

(1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to assert derivative claims notwithstanding the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008’s (“HERA”) succession clause, 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(A)(i) (2018).

(2) Whether the FHFA-C’s actions 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 the FHFA entered into an implied-in-fact contract with the Enterprises to operate the conservatorships for shareholder benefit fail as a matter of law.

These issues were already decided in favor of the plaintiffs, which is why the defendants are appealing them. Questions 1-3 were decided in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiffs bring those.

Sweeney already declined to dismiss the plaintiffs' derivative breach-of-implied-contract claims, meaning that she didn't buy the defendants' argument that there was no mutuality of intent to contract. See Section C on page 47 of her Fairholme opinion.

So again, the defendants so far have already failed on question 6, and yet the conservatorship continues. This directly contradicts your earlier statement of "If this question fails for defendant the conservatorship is over".