Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[ano]

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac conservator Litigation, FNMA, FMCC updated Nov 24, 2020
(Control-F “#” for update)

1) 19-422 Patrick J Collins v. Mnuchin .… Common & Preferred, Derivative
2) 19-563 Mnuchin v. Patrick J Collins ……. Relates to all cases
COURT: SUPREME COURT of the United States
Judges: Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/collins-v-mnuchin/
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mnuchin-v-collins/
Above 2 cases are consolidated, the related 3 cases are :
- 17-497 Rop v. Federal Housing Finance agency ……. Common & Preferred, Derivative
- 18-2506 Atif F. Bhatti vs. FHFA ………………………… Common & Preferred, Derivative
- 18-3478 Wazee Street Opportunities v. USA …… Common, Class action, Derivative
Collins Claim:
(1) Whether FHFA’s structure violates the separation of powers; and
(2) Whether the courts must set aside a final agency action that FHFA took when it was unconstitutionally structured and strike down the statutory provisions that make FHFA independent.
Collins identified the FHFA breached following statutory provisions by its actions:
a) 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
b) 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
And found following U.S. Codes have issues because of the actions FHFA have taken
c) 44 U.S.C. § 3502 (5) Term “independent agency” means the Board of Governors of the FHFA
d) 12 U.S.C. § 4511(a) Establishment
e) 12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2) Term (5th circuit found it violates the separation of powers)
f) 12 U.S.C. § 4516(f)(2) Not Government funds
g) 12 U.S.C. § 4617(a) HERA empowered FHFA to appoint itself as the conservator
h) 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f) Limitation on court action (anti-injunction clause)
i) 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(D) put in sound and solvent condition; and preserve and conserve
j) 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(A)(i) General powers (succession clause)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-422/116983/20190925131502103_Collins%20Petition--PDFA.pdf
Mnuchin claims:
(1) Whether the statute’s anti-injunction clause, which precludes courts from taking any action that would “restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the Agency as a conservator,” 12 U.S.C. 4617(f), precludes a federal court from setting aside the Third Amendment.
(2) Whether the statute’s succession clause (12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(A)(i)) —under which FHFA, as conservator, inherits the shareholders’ rights to bring derivative actions on behalf of the enterprises—precludes the shareholders from challenging the Third Amendment.
According to the Government it has following U.S. Codes that allowed them to implement the NWS
a) 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f) Limitation on court action (anti-injunction clause)
b) 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(A)(i) General powers (succession clause)
c) 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(B) Operate the regulated entity
d) 12 U.S.C. § 4617 Authority over critically undercapitalized regulated entities
e) 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(D) put in sound and solvent condition; and preserve and conserve
http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-563/120380/20191025201313249_Mnuchin%20FINAL.pdf

July 9, 2020 The U.S. Supreme Court granted the Collins Plaintiffs’ and the government’s petitions to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision that state, APA claims are barred by 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f), and REMAND declaring the “for cause” 12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2) violates the Constitution’s separation-of-powers principles.
Aug 17, 2020 - Aaron Nielson, Esquire, of Provo, Utah, is invited to brief and argue, as amicus curiae, in support of the position that the structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency does not violate the separation of powers
Aug 18, 2020 - Mnuchin, et al., shall file an opening brief on the questions presented by the petition in No. 19-563, limited to 13,000 words, by Monday, August 17, 2020 Collins, et al., shall file a consolidated response in No. 19-563 and opening brief in No. 19-422, limited to 20,000 words, by Wednesday, September 16, 2020. That brief shall bear a light red cover. The Court-appointed amicus curiae shall file a brief, limited to 13,000 words, by Friday, October 16, 2020. That brief shall bear a dark green cover. Mnuchin, et al., shall file a consolidated reply and response brief, limited to 13,000 words, by Friday, October 23, 2020. Collins, et al., shall file a consolidated reply and response brief to brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae, limited to 6,000 words, by Monday, November 23, 2020. That brief shall bear a tan cover. The brief of any amicus curiae in support of Collins, et al., or in support of neither set of parties, shall be filed by Wednesday, September 23, 2020. Those briefs shall bear a light green cover. The brief of any amicus curiae in support of Mnuchin, et al., or in support of Court-appointed amicus curiae, shall be filed by Friday, October 30, 2020. Those briefs shall bear a dark green cover
- Mnuchin, filed an opening brief by Monday, August 17, 2020 http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-422/150469/20200817200402203_19-563tsUnitedStates.pdf
- Collins, shall file a response by Wednesday, September 16, 2020
- Aaron Nielson (amicus curiae) shall file a brief, by Friday, October 16, 2020
- Mnuchin, et al., shall file a reply and response brief, by Friday, October 23, 2020
- Collins, shall file a reply to amicus curiae, by Monday, November 23, 2020.
- Aaron Nielson amicus curiae in support of Collins, et al., or in support of neither set of parties, shall be filed by Wednesday, September 23, 2020
- Aaron Nielson (amicus curiae) in support of Mnuchin, et al., or in support of Court-appointed amicus curiae, shall be filed by Friday, October 30, 2020
- documents available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public\19-422.html
Sep 16, 2020 SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, December 9, 2020
Oct 8, 2020 Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit
#Oct 16, 2020 Aaron L. Nielson’s Brief For Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae
#Oct 23, 2020 Federal Parties delivered their brief to the U.S. Supreme Court: conclusion The judgment of the court of appeals should be re-versed as to the statutory claim and affirmed as to the constitutional claim. In other words Treasury agrees “For cause” is illegal and
12 U.S.C. § 4617(f) Limitation on court action (anti-injunction clause)
12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(A) Incidental powers (succession clause)
Are legal, but the 3th amendment are not within the powers of the FHFA so cannot be declared legal on these statuary provisions as it is anti “conserve and preserve”
#Nov 19, 2020 Reply Brief Of Patrick J. Collins
#for Dec 9, 2020 the oral argument in SCOTUS are allotted as follows:
35 minutes for the Acting Solicitor General
15 minutes for the Court-appointed amicus curiae
40 minutes for Patrick Collins, et al.


3) (13-1025) (1:13-cv-01025-RCL), 14-5243)
Perry Capital LLC v. Jacob Lew …… Common & Preferred, Derivative
CLAIM: Derivative APA, 3th amendment
District Court, District of Columbia
Judge: Royce C. Lamberth
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4212073/perry-capital-llc-v-lew/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/3054444/perry-capital-llc-v-jacob-lew/
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
On appeal before Judge: Brown, Millett, Ginsburg
Consolidated with:
1:13-cv-01053, 14-5254(Fairholme)
1:13-cv-01439, 14-5260 (Arrowood),
1:13-cv-01288, 14-5262 (In re: Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior)
Feb 21, 2017 following claims are remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
a) breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing regarding liquidation preferences
b) and the claim for breach of the implied covenant with respect to dividend rights, which claims we remand (to Lamberth) for further proceedings consistent with this opinion
c) it also found We hold that the stockholders’ statutory claims are barred by the Recovery Act’s strict limitation on judicial review. See 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f).
d) claims against FHFA and the Companies, some are barred because FHFA succeeded to all rights, powers, and privileges of the stockholders under the Recovery Act, id. § 4617(b)(2)(A)
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-caDC-14-05243/pdf/USCOURTS-caDC-14-05243-1.pdf
July 1, 2020 complete fact discovery by January 22, 2021, trial date is set May 16, 2022


4) 13-1053 (14-5254) (1:13-cv-01053)
Fairholme Fund, Inc. v. FHFA……Preferred, Direct & Derivative
Honorable: Royce C. Lamberth
Claim: 3th amendment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
District Court for the District of Columbia
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4212077/fairholme-funds-inc-v-federal-housing-finance-agency/
July 12, 2019 Request For Production of documents (RFP) Treasury should produce (page 39-46)
https://gselinks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/13-cv-01053-103.pdf
Nov 18, 2019 RFPs 1-8, 10-14, 15(a)-(d), 16-26, and 29-30. Granted, Treasury should produce these documents
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.160910/gov.uscourts.dcd.160910.112.0.pdf
July 1, 2020 complete fact discovery by January 22, 2021, trial date is set May 16, 2022

5) 13-1288 (1:13-mc-01288)
In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement
Class Action Litigations …. Common & Preferred, Class Action, Direct & Derivative, Jury Demand
Honorable: Royce C. Lamberth
District Court for the District of Columbia
Direct claim, breaches of contract, breaches of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breaches of fiduciary duties,
and violations of Delaware and Virginia law governing dividends
If the Direct claims are denied it also claims these Derivative: breaches of fiduciary duty, compensatory damages and disgorgement, breached the terms of the certificates of designation and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, appropriate equitable and injunctive relief to remedy breaches of contract, breaches of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breaches of fiduciary duty, and violations of Delaware and Virginia Corporate law, including rescission of the Third Amendment. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.163155/gov.uscourts.dcd.163155.71.0.pdf
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4212341/in-re-fannie-maefreddie-mac-senior-preferred-stock-purchase-agreement/
The Class:
6) N. Bradford Isbell ....... Common
7) Michelle M. Miller ...... Common
8) Charles Rattley ………… Common
9) Timothy J. Cassell ...... Common
10) 111 John Realty Corp… Preferred
11) United Equities Commodities Com ….. Preferred
12) 1:13-cv-01149 Joseph Cacciapalle ..... Preferred
13) 1:13-cv-01421 Marneu Holdings, Co .. Preferred
14) 1:13-cv-01169 American European Insurance Co ... Preferred
15) 1:13-cv-01443 Barry P. Borodkin ....... Preferred
16) 1:13-cv-01094 Mary Meiya Liao ....... Preferred
July 1, 2020 complete fact discovery by January 22, 2021, trial date is set May 16, 2022

17) 13-1439 (1:13-cv-01439)
Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie Mae……Preferred, Direct & Derivative
Honorable: Royce C. Lamberth
Claim: 3th amendment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
District Court for the District of Columbia
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6995674/arrowood-indemnity-company-v-federal-national-mortgage-association/
July 1, 2020 complete fact discovery by January 22, 2021, trial date is set May 16, 2022

18) 16-3113 (4:16-cv-03113)( 17-20364)
Patrick J Collins v. FHFA-C, FHFA, and Treasury …………………….…Common & Preferred, Derivative
Honorable: Judge Nancy F Atlas
District Court, S.D. Texas
Claim: “for cause” separation of powers §?4512(b)(2)
1) are not in accordance with and violate HERA within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C)
2) that Treasury acted arbitrarily and capriciously within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)
3) by executing the Net Worth Sweep, and that FHFA’s structure violates the separation of powers
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4533994/collins-v-lew/
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit:
Before Judge Stewart, Haynes and Willett
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6179579/patrick-collins-v-steven-mnuchin-secretary/
July 16, 2018 Conclusion 5th circuit:
We AFFIRM the district court’s order granting the Agencies’ motions to dismiss the Shareholders’ APA claims because such claims are barred by 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f).(no court may take any action)
We REVERSE the district court’s order granting the Agencies’ motion for summary judgment regarding the Shareholders’ claim that the FHFA is unconstitutionally structured in violation of Article II and the Constitution’s separation of powers, and we REMAND to the district court with instructions to enter judgment declaring the “for cause” limitation on removal of the FHFA’s Director found in 12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2) violates the Constitution’s separation-of-powers principles.
The 5th circuit remanded this back to Judge Nancy F Atlas in District Court, S.D. Texas
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-20364-CV0.pdf
https://www.courtlistener.com/pdf/2018/07/16/patrick_collins_v._steven_mnuchin_secretar.pdf
Sept 25, 2019 Petition filed in SCOTUS see 19-422

19) 17-497 (1:17-cv-00497) 20-2071
Rop v. Federal Housing Finance agency and Treasury…….Common & Preferred, Derivative
Honorable: Paul Lewis Maloney
District Court, W.D. Michigan
Claim: voiding 3th amendment & “for cause” and striking down HERA’s:
12 U.S.C. § 4511(a) Establishment
12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2) Term (5th circuit found it violates the separation of powers)
12 U.S.C. § 4617(a)(7) Agency not subject to any other Federal agency
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13521280/rop-v-federal-housing-finance-agency/
Sept 27, 2019 Notice of supplemental authority concerning Collins v. Mnuchin 17-20364
Michael Rop: http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/17-cv-00497-0060.pdf
FHFA: http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/17-cv-00497-0063.pdf
Treasury: http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/17-cv-00497-0064.pdf
July 14, 2020 FHFA advises Count I and Count II in Collins are identical to the Rop lawsuit
Count I Rop: Violation of the President’s Constitutional Removal Authority Against FHFA as Both Regulator and Conservator and Treasury
Count II Rop: Violation of the Separation of Powers Against FHFA as Both Regulator and Conservator and Treasury http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/17-cv-00497-0065.pdf
Sept 8, 2020 very strange ruling by judge Maloney:
“Plaintiffs’ amended complaint fails to state a claim. Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss on that basis.” While it already was decided by the 5th circuit 12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2) the term violated the constitution, obviously some precedents were ignored in this case, as it was already acknowledged on Sept 27, 2019 by the 5th circuit and later confirmed by the FHFA,
#Oct 30, 2020 on appeal in the Sixth Circuit, If the appellant's principal brief is filed late, the
case is at risk of being dismissed for want of prosecution.
Appellant's (Rop) Principal Brief Due by December 9, 2020
Appellee's (FHFA) Principal Brief Due by January 8, 2021
Appellant's (Rop) Reply Brief is due 21 days after the last appellee brief (Optional Brief)
#Nov 2, 2020 Mediation Conference planned for December 2, 2020 at 9:30 am ET
#Nov 17, 2020 Mediation Conference planned for December 2, 2020 is Cancelled


20) 18-2506 (17-2185) (0:17-cv-02185)
Atif F. Bhatti vs. FHFA and Treasury ……………Common & Preferred, Derivative
Honorable: Patrick Joseph Schiltz
District Court, D. Minnesota
Claim: 3th amendment & “for cause” striking down Hera’s provisions:
12 U.S.C. § 4511(a) Establishment
12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2) Term (5th circuit found it violates the separation of powers)
12 U.S.C. § 4617(a)(7) Agency not subject to any other Federal agency
12 U.S.C. § 4617(f) Limitation on court action (anti-injunction clause)
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7379258/bhatti-v-federal-housing-finance-agency-the/
On appeal in the 8th circuit, Oral Argument 10/15/2019
http://media-oa.ca8.uscourts.gov/OAaudio/2019/10/182506.MP3
https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/65849/atif-bhatti-v-federal-housing-finance-agency/
(The court strives to issue the opinion within 90 days after oral
Argument or submission to a nonargument panel. http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/newrules/coa/iops06-19update.pdf)
July 14, 2020 Bhatti advices the USCA court it can no longer be credibly argued that FHFA’s structure is constitutional.

21) 18-3478 (2:18-cv-03478)(2:18-cv-03478-NIQA)
Wazee Street Opportunities v. FHFA and Treasury ………Common, Class action, Derivative, Jury Demand
Honorable: Nitza I Quinones Alejandro
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Claim: 3th amendment & “for cause” striking down Hera’s provisions:
12 U.S.C. § 4511(a) Establishment
12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2) Term (5th circuit found it violates the separation of powers)
12 U.S.C. § 4617(a)(7) Agency not subject to any other Federal agency
12 U.S.C. § 4617(f) Limitation on court action (anti-injunction clause)
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7681282/wazee-street-opportunities-fund-iv-lp-v-the-federal-housing-finance-agency/
Oct 3, 2019 Waiting on Collins, document 38 Supplemental authority filed by Defendant ….. in the matter of Collins v. Mnuchin, No. 17-20364, now 19-422 / 19-563)
July 15, 2020 FHFA advices Counts I and II Wazee are identical to the separation of powers in Collins
Counts I Wazee: Violation Of The President's Constitutional Removal Authority Against FHFA, As Regulator And Conservator, And Treasury
Counts II Wazee: Violation Of The Separation Of Powers Against FHFA, As Regulator And Conservator, And Treasury
http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/18-cv-03478-0042.pdf
https://gselinks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/18-cv-03478-0001-Complaint-8-20-18.pdf
July 20, 2020 judge Alejandro advices it keeps on staying after 9 months ~Until - Set/Clear Flags AND Suspense Order
Aug 17, 2020 Remark


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cases in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Sweeney)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

22) 2020-1912 2020-1914 (20-121) (20-122) (2020-121)(2020-122) (13-465C) (1:13-cv-00465) (17-1122)(17-104)
Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States………..Common & Preferred, Direct & Derivative
Honorable: Margaret M. Sweeney
United States Court of Federal Claims
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4198608/fairholme-funds-inc-v-united-states/
Claim: SEALED 413 AMENDED COMPLAINT (Entered: 03/08/2018)
Redacted version without coercion attacks available at:
https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Fairholme-Funds-Inc-et-al-v-USA/REDACTED-DOCUMENT-filed-by-ACADIA-INSURANCE-COMPANY-ADMIRAL-INDEMNITY-COMPANY-ADMIRAL-INSURANCE-COMPANY-ANDREW-T-BARRETT-BERKLEY-INSURANCE-COMPANY-BERKLEY-REGIONAL-INSURANCE-COMPANY-CAROLINA-CASUALTY-INSURANCE-COMPANY-CONTINENTAL-WESTERN-INSURANCE-CO/cofc-1:2013-cv-00465-00422
#Related Cases In The United States Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit
#20-1912 Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. U.S.
#20-1914 Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. U.S.
#20-1934 Owl Creek Asia I, L.P. v. U.S.
#20-1936 Mason Capital L.P. v. U.S.
#20-1938 Akanthos Opportunity Fund L.P. v. U.S.
#20-1954 Appaloosa Investment Limited Partnership I v. U.S.
#20-1955 CSS, LLC v. U.S.
#20-2020 Arrowood Indemnity Company v. U.S.
#20-2037 Cacciapalle v. U.S.
#20-2190 Washington Federal v. U.S.
#Related cases pending in the Court of Federal Claims
#13-608C Fisher v. U.S.
#14-152C Reid v. U.S.
#14-740C Rafter v. U.S.
http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/20-2020-0020.pdf
March 9, 2020 the interlocutory appeal was granted the
CFC identified six “controlling questions of law” raised by its order, the first three of
which pertain to the CFC’s decision to dismiss Petitioners’ direct claims:
(1) Whether the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ direct
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of implied-in-fact contracts.
(2) Whether plaintiffs who purchased stock in Fannie and Freddie after the
PSPA amendments lack standing to pursue their direct claims.
(3) Whether plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their self-styled direct claims
because those claims are substantively derivative in nature.
The last three controlling questions identified by the CFC related to its decision
to deny the motion to dismiss Petitioners’ derivative claims:
(4) Whether plaintiffs have standing to assert derivative claims notwithstanding HERA’s succession clause. 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(A)(i) (Fairholme & Fisher)
(5) Whether the [FHFA-as-conservator’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. (Fairholme & Fisher)
(6) 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.
http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/20-121-0002.pdf
April 7, 2020 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on March 5, 2020 before Chief Judge Margaret M. Sweeney. Total No. of Pages: 1-77. Available at: https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Fairholme-Funds-Inc-et-al-v-USA/cofc-1:2013-cv-00465 for $3.99

June 18, 2020 IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petitions are granted. This case is transferred to the regular docket. The appeals will be consolidated. Fairholme’s appeal will be designated as the lead appeal, and the government’s appeal will be designated as a cross-appeal. Fairholme’s opening brief is due within 60 days of the date of filing of this order (Aug 18, 2020)
(2) Owl Creek’s motion is granted to the extent that the amicus brief is accepted for filing. Any request for fur-ther relief from the court should be made after docketing.
July 31, 2020 - The United States respectfully requests that this Court hold this appeal and
cross-appeal and several companion appeals in abeyance until the Supreme Court
issues its decision in Mnuchin v. Collins, No. 19-563, and Collins v. Mnuchin, No. 19-422
(collectively, Collins)
Aug 5, 2020 ORDER Upon consideration of the appellants’ unopposed mo-tion to extend by 36 days, to September 22, 2020, the time to file their opening brief,
Aug 10, 2020 Fairholme Plaintiffs take no position on the Government’s motion to hold the appeals in abeyance
Aug 29, 2020 The motions to stay are denied
Sept15, 2020 The appellants related appeals submit a motion to modify the briefing schedule and to permit a modified briefing procedure. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The briefing schedules are stayed pending the court’s disposition of the motions
#Oct 5, 2020 Order:
the appellants to file their opening briefs October 23, 2020
the government’s response/principal brief is due no later than January 11, 2021;
the appellants’ reply brief is due no later than February 5, 2021
the government’s reply brief in Appeal No. 2020-1914 is due no later than March 5, 2021
#Oct 30, 2020 Brief Of Amici Curiae Bryndon Fisher, Bruce Reid, And Erick Shipmon In Support Of Neither Party Filed


The following List Of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Shareholder Suits are Pending

23) 13-496C American European Insurance.…. Preferred, Class Action, Direct
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4198611/american-european-insurance-company-v-united-states/
24) 13-542C Francis J. Dennis ………………….…. Preferred
March 27, 2020 above 3 Plaintiff’s think none of their counts should be dismissed

25) 20-2190 2020-2190 (13-385C) (1:13-cv-00385)
Washington Federal v. United States . Common & Preferred, Class Action, Direct*
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4198605/washington-federal-v-united-states/
April 2, 2020 Plaintiff argues None of the claims in Fairholme apply to their case
April 16, 2020 the government thinks:
A) Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Shareholders Lack Standing To Assert Substantively-Derivative Claims As Direct Claims
B) The Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Review The Merits Of The Enterprises’ Placement In Conservatorship
C) The Washington Federal Plaintiffs May Not Pursue Derivative Claims
July 9, 2020 The court must dismiss plaintiffs’ claims for lack of standing, If plaintiffs had asserted derivative claims in their amended complaint, the “conflict of interest” holding in First Hartford would have aided plaintiffs in their quest to establish standing. But they did not do so, Opinion and order:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.uscfc.28070/gov.uscourts.cofc.28070.100.0.pdf
Aug 17, 2020 Washington Federal filed a notice of appeal
Aug 24, 2020 WF to file its opening brief on or before Oct. 20, 2020
#Oct 23, 2020
The appellants (WF) opening brief is due no later than November 19, 2020
The appellee’s (US) brief is due no later than January 19, 2021
The appellants’ (WF) reply brief is due no later than February 18, 2021.
#Nov 19, 2020 Appellants’ Principal Brief (Nonconfidential)


26) 13-608C Bryndon Fisher (FNMA) .........….. Common Derivative*
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4198614/fisher-v-united-states/
June 11, 2020 interlocutory appeal process Granted on following
(1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to assert derivative claims notwithstanding HERA’s succession clause. 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(A)(i) (Question 4 in Fairholme)
(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. (Question 5 in Fairholme)
27) 14-152C Bruce Reid (FMCC) …………………… Common Derivative*
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7737030/reid-v-united-states/
May 18, 2020 Fisher/Reid file motion to certify interlocutory appeal
May 19, 2020 Fisher: the court DENIES defendants motion to dismiss continues to stay and denies motion to lift the stay (doc74)
June 4, 2020 Fairholme plaintiffs’ amicus brief in support of neither party
June 25, 2020 Plaintiffs delivered their petition to the Federal Circuit asking to pursue interlocutory appeal

28) 13-672C Erick Shipmon……..…………………… Common Derivative
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4198615/shipmon-v-united-states/
March 27, 2020 above 3 Plaintiff’s think their claim is substantially the same as Fairholme’s
Aug 21, 2020 (Judges O’MALLEY, BRYSON, and TARANTO) Under the express language of § 1292(d)(2), this court has “discretion” whether to “permit an appeal” under the provision.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petitions for permission to appeal are denied with-out prejudice to seeking leave to participate in Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 2020-1912, -1914, as amici.

29) 20-2020 (13-698C) Arrowood Indemnity Company ….. Preferred Direct*
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17277778/arrowood-indemnity-company-v-united-states/
April 6, 2020 Plaintiff’s think none of the Fairholme counts apply to their case
May 15, 2020 the court dismisses plaintiffs’ claims because it lacks jurisdiction to entertain their fiduciary duty and implied-in-fact-contract claims, and plaintiffs lack standing to pursue any of their claims. The court therefore GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.uscfc.28858/gov.uscourts.cofc.28858.69.0_1.pdf
Appeal filed in U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
July 22, 2020 Filing 1 Appeal docketed. Received: 06/29/2020. [709375] Entry of Appearance is due 08/05/2020. Certificate of Interest is due on 08/05/2020. Docketing Statement is due 08/21/2020. Appellant's brief is due 09/21/2020. [JAL] [Entered: 07/22/2020 04:26 PM] https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/20-2020
#Aug 4, 2020 Filing 6 MOTION of Appellee US to stay appeal
#Aug 27, 2020 Filing 11 ORDER filed, denying the motions to stay.
# Sept 15, 2020 Filing 13 ORDER staying the briefing schedules pending the court's disposition of the motions. Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court
#Sept 21, 2020 Opening brief filed
#Oct 23, 2020 Supplemental Opening Brief Filed



30) 14-740C Louise Rafter .........…………………. Common Direct & Derivative*
https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Rafter/14-740-0027.pdf
March 31, 2020 plaintiff continue to stay until 21 days following resolution of Fairholme

31) 20-2037 (13-466C) Joseph Cacciapalle ………..………… Preferred, Class Action, Direct*
Class: Melvin Bareiss, Bryndon Fisher, Bruce Reid, Erick Shipmon,
American European Insurance Company, Francis J. Dennis,
32) 20-1934 (18-281C) Owl Creek Asia I L.P...........………. Preferred, Direct *
33) 20-1938 (18-369C) Akanthos Opportunity Master Fund .. Preferred, Direct *
34) 20-1954 (18-370C) Appaloosa Investment .........……. Preferred, Direct *
35) 20-1955 (18-371C) CSS LLC ……………………………………. Preferred, Direct *
36) 20-1936 (18-529C) Mason Capital L.P...........………….. Preferred, Direct *
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4198610/cacciapalle-v-united-states/
July 17, 2020 hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the Opinion and Order [ECF No. 105] and Judgment [ECF No. 106]
June 26, 2020 The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain plaintiffs’ judicial takings claim and their fiduciary duty claim. Further, plaintiffs lack standing to bring their contract claims due to the absence of privity (relation between two parties that is recognized by law) with the United States, and lack standing to bring their nominally direct takings, illegal-exaction, and fiduciary duty claims because the nature of these claims is derivative, not direct. The court therefore GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.uscfc.28232/gov.uscourts.cofc.28232.105.0.pdf
March 26, 2020 above 5 plaintiffs don’t want to give up the direct claims and doubt the counts in Fairholme properly represent their counts, and point out the law was breached
June 8, 2020 the court DISMISSES plaintiff’s complaint because the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain its fiduciary duty and implied-in-fact-contract claims, and plaintiff lacks standing to pursue any of its claims. https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv0369-60-0
June 8, 2020 again a very damaging ruling for the government but still the case is dismissed as: (FHFA can) “take any action authorized by [12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)),
which (it) determines is in the best interest of the (Enterprise) or the (FHFA)(Itself) .”
http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/18-00281-0064.pdf
U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
July 28, 2020 assigned case No. 2020-2037 to the proceeding, and set Sept. 22, 2020, as the deadline to file its opening brief
Aug 10, 2020 Plaintiffs’ Combined Opposition To Motion To Hold Appeals In Abeyance:
“There is no just basis for delaying them any further”
Oct 5, 2020 Sweeney ordered following schedule :
October 23, 2020 to file their opening briefs
January 11, 2021 government’s response/principal brief is due no later than
February 5, 2021 the appellants’ reply brief is due no later than
March 5, 2021 and the government’s reply brief in Appeal No. 2020-1914 is due

37) 18-1124C Wazee Street……………….………… Common, Class Action, Direct & Derivative
38) 18-1150C Highfields Capital………………….. Common & Preferred, Direct
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/25303845/HIGHFIELDS_CAPITAL_I_LP_et_al_v_USA Related To: Fairholme, Arrowood, Cacciapalle, 13-469, Dennis, Wazee Street, Fisher, Shipmon, Reid, Rafter, Owl Creek, Appaloosa, Akanthos, Css, Mason, 683 Cap. Partners, Patt
39) 18-711C 683 Capital Partners………..……….. Common, Preferred, Direct
40) 18-712C Joseph S. Patt………………………..… Preferred, Direct
41) 18-1226C Perry Capital LLC……………………. Common & Preferred, Direct & Derivative
42) 18-1155C CRS Master Fund LP…..…………… Preferred, Direct
Above 6 Plaintiffs are staying

43) 18-1240C Quinn Opportunities Master LP … Preferred, Direct
May 19, 2020 - Status unknown

44) 20-737C Joshua J. Angel v United States Treasury ….. Preferred, Direct, Class action
June 8, 2020 complaint filed, prayer for relief: Award $16 billion in compensatory damages to the Class against Treasury; C, Award prejudgment and post-judgment interest on those compensatory damages
Aug 18, 2020 Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Pro Se Complaint: the Court should dismiss Mr. Angel’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted
Sept 9, 2020 After meeting and conferring, the parties agreed that the deadline for Plaintiff to oppose Defendant’s motion to dismiss should be extended until September 30, 2020 (a 15 day extension)
Sept 17, 2020 plaintiff filed an opposed motion for a stay of briefing on defendant’s motion to dismiss Accordingly, the court SUSPENDS briefing on defendant’s motion to dismiss until further order of the court. Briefing of plaintiff’s motion shall proceed pursuant to the rules of the court
#Oct 27, 2020 The clerk is directed to STAY this case until further order of the court. The parties shall FILE a joint status report within thirty days of the Collins decision proposing further proceedings in this matter


* Jones Days plaintiffs

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cases below are dismissed (without a ruling on merit)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

45) 19-7062 (1:18-cv-01142) (18-1142)
Joshua J. Angel v. BOD of FNMA,FMCC & FHFA-C ….….Preferred, Direct
Previously assigned to: Honorable: Royce C. Lamberth
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6880882/angel-v-federal-home-loan-mortgage-corporation/
Claim: Breach of quarterly BOD duties, breach of contract, breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contractual rights for dividends, Breach of implicit guaranty on Junior Preferred dividends
District Court for the District of Columbia
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/26534/joshua-angel-v-federal-home-loan-mortgage-co/
On appeal Judges Henderson, Griffith and Wilkins decided Mr. Angel’s appeal without oral argument
They decided april 24, 2020: “We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Angel’s initial complaint as time-barred.” “ ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the decision of the district court be AFFIRMED”
CASE LOST ON: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/19-7062-1839674.pdf

46) Arnetia Robinson v. Fed. Housing Fin. Agency (6th Cir. 2017)
(15-109, 7:15-cv-00109, 7:15-cv-109, 16-6680 )
CLAIM: Derivative, APA 3th amendment
District Court, E.D. Kentucky
Judge: Karen K. Caldwell
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4510286/robinson-v-federal-housing-finance-agency/ ??
On appeal before judge: Batchelder, Gibbons, and Cook
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4445969/arnetia-robinson-v-fed-housing-fin-agency/
CASE LOST ON: HERA (“Congress is the proper governmental body to address poor legislative decisions” )
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4445969/arnetia-robinson-v-fed-housing-fin-agency/

47) David J. Voacolo V. Federal National Mortgage Association (D.N.J. 2017)
(1:16-cv-01324)(16-1324)(17-5667)
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4214876/voacolo-v-federal-national-mortgage-association-fannie-mae/
District Court, D. New Jersey,
CLAIM: Derivative & Direct, APA 3th amendment, Damages (shares would have value of $35.- as of Aug-2017) https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Voacolo2/17-cv-05667-0001.pdf
Judge: Rudolph Contreras
On appeal https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6354770/voacolo-v-fannie-mae/
Judge: Brian R. Martinotti
CASE LOST ON: Voacolo’s failure to oppose the motion
https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Voacolo2/17-cv-05667-0020.pdf

48) Saxton v. Federal Housing Finance Agency (N.D. Iowa 2015)
(15-0047) (1:15-cv-00047)(17-1727)
CLAIM: Derivative & Direct, APA 3th amendment, Damages
District Court, N.D. Iowa
Judge: Linda R. Reade
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5391361/saxton-v-federal-housing-finance-agency/
On appeal before judge: Benton, Kelly, and Stras
CASE LOST ON: HERA (A troublesome verdict for the government “12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(J)(ii)
(emphasis added). That is no typo” ” Congress, intentionally or otherwise, may have created a MONSTER by handing an agency breathtakingly broad powers and insulating the exercise of those powers from judicial review”) (the 5th circuit en banc decision conflicts this ruling)
12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(J)(ii) take any action authorized by this section, which the Agency determines is in the best interests of the regulated entity or the Agency(FHFA).
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/17-1727/17-1727-2018-08-23.pdf?ts=1535038225)

49) Jacobs v. Federal Housing Finance Agency (D. Del. 2015)
(1:15-cv-00708)(15-708)(17-3794)
CLAIM: Derivative & Direct, 3th amendment, Damages
District Court, D. Delaware
Judge: Gregory Moneta Sleet
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4220900/jacobs-v-federal-housing-finance-agency/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7297926/david-jacobs-v-federal-housing-finance-agency/
On appeal Before judge: Hardiman, Krause, and Bibas
CASE LOST ON: HERA
http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/17-3794-0033.pdf

50) Continental Western Insurance Company v. FHFA (District Court, S.D. Iowa, 2014)
(14-42)( 4:14-cv-00042)
CLAIM: Derivative & Direct, APA 3th amendment, Damages
Judge: Robert W. Pratt
District Court, S.D. Iowa
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4247079/continental-western-insurance-company-v-the-federal-housing-finance-agency/
CASE LOST ON: HERA
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.iasd.51533.68.0.pdf

51) Christopher Roberts v. FHFA (7th Cir. 2018)
(16-2107)(1:16-cv-02107)(17-1880)
CLAIM: Derivative, 3th amendment, Treasury’s securities declared invalid
Judge: Edmond E. Chang
District Court, N.D. Illinois
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5642392/roberts-v-the-federal-housing-finance-agency/
On appeal before judge Wood, Bauer and Easterbrook
CASE LOST ON: HERA disempowers courts and existing stockholders, directors, and officers https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4495195/christopher-roberts-v-fhfa/
(the 5th circuit en banc decision conflicts this ruling)

52) Rafter v. Department Of The Treasury 14-1404 (1:14-cv-01404)
District Court, District of Columbia
Judge: Royce C. Lamberth
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4212962/rafter-v-department-of-the-treasury/
https://www.valueplays.net/2015/01/21/lambreth-rules-pershing-v-treasury/
CASE LOST ON: Voluntary Dismissal one business day before Defendants dispositive motions
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.167678.20.0.pdf

53) Pagliara v. Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) (1:16-cv-00193)
District Court, D. Delaware
Judge: Gregory Moneta Sleet
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4499522/pagliara-v-federal-national-mortgage-association/
CASE LOST ON: Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
http://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=257440
54) Pagliara v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FMCC) (1:16-cv-00337)
District Court, E.D. Virginia
Judge: James Chris Cacheris
CASE LOST ON: The Court has little confidence Pagliara seeks these records for valuation purposes
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4536190/pagliara-v-federal-home-loan-mortgage-corporation/

55) In re: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Derivative Litigation (1:08-cv-00773-LMB-TCB)
District Court, E.D. Virginia
Judge: Leonie M. Brinkema
The Class:
1:08-cv-773, Adams Family Trust v. Syron
1:08-cv-849, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v. Syron
1:08-cv-1247, Bassman v. Syron
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4832137/in-re-federal-home-loan-mortgage-corporation-derivative-litigation/
https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Federal-Housing-Finance-Agency-v-Hsbc-North-America-Holdings-Inc-et-al/Exhibit/nysd-1:2011-cv-06189-00152-037
CASE LOST ON: HERA, the sweeping language of HERA, which not only transfers "all rights, titles, powers, and privileges" of stockholders to the FHFA, but also bars a court from "restraining or affect(ing) the exercise of powers or functions of the (FHFA) as a conservator or a receiver



Sisti v. Federal Housing Finance Agency
Case number: 17-005 (90-1762)(17-042)(20-2025)(20-02025)
Honorable: John James McConnell, Jr
District Court, D. Rhode Island
Claim: FHFA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac are government entities
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6900150/sisti-v-federal-housing-finance-agency/
March 24, 2020 Stipulation ~Until - Set Scheduling Order Deadlines
The Parties report to the Court that they are currently re-engaged in negotiations aimed at resolving the action. In order to afford the Parties with sufficient time to complete these discussions and discovery (if necessary), the Parties jointly request the Court extend the scheduling order deadlines by three (3) months to the following:
Factual Discovery to close by 6/30/2020;
Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures shall be made by 7/30/2020;
Defendants' Expert Disclosures shall be made by 8/28/2020;
Expert Discovery to close by 9/30/2020; and
Dispositive Motions due by 10/30/2020.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.41482/gov.uscourts.rid.41482.53.0.pdf
When decided FHFA, FNMA and FMCC are government entities for matters of constitutional claims of due process and will confirm or not the paragraph nobody can take action while in conservatorship.
https://ecf.rid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2017cv0005-39
Sept 15, 2020 Notice of Hearing
Sept 29, 2020 Main Doc¬ument Miscellaneous Relief(not online yet)
Sept 30, 2020 Hearing Cancelled
Sept 30, 2020 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
Sept 30, 2020 Judgment
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6900150/sisti-v-federal-housing-finance-agency/
#Nov 13, 2020 Motion To Coordinate Appeals,
#20-02025 Cynthia Boss v. FNMA, FHFA
#20-02026 Sisti v. Freddie Mac
#20-01673 Montilla v. Fannie Mae
#Nov 23, 2020 the opening brief in Montilla is due today


Seila law v. Consumer Financial Protection bureau (CFPB)
Case number: 19-7 (17-56324)
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 3, 2020—Decided June 29, 2020
(1) “for-cause” removal protection is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
(2) 12 U.S.C. §5491(c)(3) can be severed from the Dodd-Frank Act
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-7_n6io.pdf