Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[ano]

It is already established in Seila the “for cause “is unconstitutional, then the FHFA is no longer an independent agency as it is at will of the president, but this also means 4617(f) must be stricken as it forbids judicial review and the separation of powers does not allow a roadblock between judicial power and the power of the president, so 4617(f) is unconstitutional according to the separation of powers

12 U.S.C. §4617(b)(2)(A)(i) succeed to all rights, titles, powers, and privileges(succession clause) in full :
(2)General powers
(A)Successor to regulated entity The Agency shall, as conservator or receiver, and by operation of law, immediately succeed to—
(i) all rights, titles, powers, and privileges of the regulated entity, and of any stockholder, officer, or director of such regulated entity with respect to the regulated entity and the assets of the regulated entity

But then if it precludes shareholders for bringing a lawsuit, who must file the lawsuit against the unlawful NWS? Who is in control here and who controls? right the FHFA, so if it is precluded, the FHFA failed to bring a lawsuit, but even worse it agreed to the unlawful NWS in the first place, but is has fiduciary duty toward the conservatee and that makes the FHFA accountable for the NWS action, while a conservator statute is only to preserve and conserve and not giving away stuff for free, so it acted outside their statute and that is why we have the separation of powers in the first place to prevent abuse, the FHFA director(s) did something that is not allowed by law, but we both agree on that

The fiduciary duty is direct and indirect, the FHFA has a fiduciary duty towards Fannie and Freddie always, as Fannie and Freddie are the conservatee, however the FHFA also does have fiduciary duty towards shareholders, as the FHFA only has an implied-in-fact-contract, that the BOD only could have agreed to as the shareholder outcome would be positive, otherwise the FHFA would not have established any contract with Fannie and Freddie

The 6.7 and 6.12 of the SPSPA are discussed before in post 593743 but it will come back time and time again, a conservator should act in the best interest of the companies and obviously but arguable they did not and were self-dealing without any consideration to the shareholders, the NWS was clearly outside this framework and doesn’t need a lot of imagination to understand that is not something a conservator can do to the conservatee https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conservatee
However by law as conservatee you can challenge the actions taking by your conservator, but the FHFA stepped in the shoes of Fannie and Freddie and also per the law it forbids Fannie and Freddie to take any action, but the FHFA did not challenge it, and that is a lack too, so to say it is a nothingburger does not really give thought to the scope of conservatorship, dividing the loot before it is established what the correct remedy is to end the conservatorship is not wise or logical, I understand most of us want this to be over, and figure a way out of this mess by stating to convert or heavy dilution mantras , but if we face the facts NOTHING so far that the FHFA has done contributes to the consent they probably received from the BOD (and keeps on hiding) or is logical as being a conservator, so all guesses are logical from a human point of view, but the shareholders first must see the facts on consent given to proceed to any resolution, the FHFA ONLY could have received consent from the BOD if the shareholders would survive (meaning not to be diluted by prefs on cost of the common or get away with a theft of shareholders ownership because they need to raise capital that FHFA thru a self-dealing contract confiscated and are allowed to per HERA and not per the law as conservator

The questions asked by Collins are of such an order that the facts surrounding the actions taken must be uncovered before the court can determine a remedy, so do they have a legal contract (implied-in-fact) and is the SPSPA a contract that logically will flow out of this implied-in-fact contact and is the NWS therefore logical and most importantly legal, spoiler alert, none of them are, then if SCOTUS comes to understand this, it rules in favor of plaintiffs, at least I see no other option as otherwise too much needs to be uncovered, self-dealing by 2 executive agencies that acted contrary to their statute is not something to be proud of as conservator and as “world class regulator” you will have a lot of explaining to do in the future, let alone it will achieve their mission in the future


The petition Collins filed in SCOTUS on sept 25, 2019
http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-422/116983/20190925131502103_Collins%20Petition--PDFA.pdf

Identified these FHFA actions violate following statutory provisions:

Relief because of:
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be—in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to
be— arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law

Violated:
44 U.S.C. § 3502 (5) Term “independent agency” means the Board of Governors of the FHFA
12 U.S.C. § 4511(a) Establishment
12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2) Term
12 U.S.C. § 4516(f)(2) Not Government funds
12 U.S.C. § 4617(a) HERA empowered FHFA to appoint itself as the conservator
12 U.S.C. § 4617(f) Limitation on court action (anti-injunction clause)
12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(A)(i)(not J) Incidental powers (succession clause)