Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[ano]

No, a conservator should in the first place conserve and preserve and not steal money from a company that under conservatorship and their actions became insolvent, and all under their control, then in Seila “for cause in unconstitutional, so we now know the actions taken by the single director are unconstitutional, if the director did what he had to do under the statute, the action could stay intact, but the single director(s) did not act according to the statute, so not all the actions can stay intact, for instance a single director agreed to the SPSPA, but would a multimember board also instantly agree?(if the companies are solvent at the time) or if it stays a single director how can you logically explain Ginnie is undercapitalized and Fannie and Freddie need to give away 79.9% of their company for no return, so then the fiduciary duty kicks in,
so in FHFA case it will either become
1) Independent single director with multimember board (republican and democrats who tend to end in a no decision)
2) Executive agency with single director and fiduciary duty (in all forms of it towards everybody)

A million possibilities but this doesn’t look good for the government, as it is not cricket, not cricket at all, and what we said years ago, don’t go this route, the embarrassment for the government is huge

Ano re: SCOTUS decision. Does this mean everything FHFA has done must remain intact?