Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[bcde]

"In accordance with the Opinion and Order entered this date, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim."


http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/17-cv-00497-0066.pdf

What about the below rulings in the above url.
----------------------------

E. Conclusion
In summary, Plaintiffs’ claims can proceed. The claims are derivative but Plaintiffs have prudential standing to bring them. Defendants have not shown that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion or by HERA’s succession clause


One consequence of the difference in these roles is that, unlike a receiver, a conservator does not fully step into the shoes of the entity under its management.


Conservators, unlike receivers, have a fiduciary duty running to the corporation itself.

It does not stand to reason that the FHFA was acting as the equivalent of a private party when making such an arrangement. In short, the FHFA is undeniably an executive agency with a variety of powers given to it
by a federal statute. It used those powers for the benefit of the Government when adopting the Third Amendment.

The Constitution requires the exercise of such power to be subject to the control of the President through the President’s removal power, so that the President can faithfully execute the law. The removal protection for the FHFA’s Director, when combined with the FHFA’s structure (an agency directed by a single individual serving a five-year term), is almost certainly unconstitutional.

This Court concluded that the FHFA exercised governmental power when adopting the Third Amendment. In other words, the FHFA is not a private entity and did not act as such.