Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[RumplePigSkin]

HoldenWalker aka JPS_Converted (I'm sure he'll now pop replying to yourself)

From page 11 of the WaFed appeal - and frankly it's exhausting correcting you.

STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
The following are related cases under Federal Circuit Rule 47.5(b), pending in this Court: Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. U.S., Nos. 20-1912 & -1914; Owl Creek Asia I, L.P. v. U.S., No. 20-1934; Mason Capital L.P. v. U.S., No. 20-1936; Akanthos Opportunity Fund L.P. v. U.S., No. 20-1938; Appaloosa Investment Limited Partnership I v. U.S., No. 20-1954; CSS, LLC v. U.S.,
No. 20-1955; Arrowood Indemnity Company v. U.S., No. 20-2020; and
Cacciapalle v. U.S., No. 20-2037 (collectively, “Related Actions”).

Those appeals, along with this one, are being treated as companion cases to be assigned to the same merits panel. Only this appeal, however, is being briefed separately from the Related Actions.1

The following are also related cases, pending in the Court of Federal Claims (“CFC”): Fisher v. U.S., No. 13-608C, pet. to appeal denied, No. 20- 138 (Fed. Cir.); Reid v. U.S., No. 14-152C, pet. to appeal denied, No. 20-139 (Fed. Cir.); and Rafter v. U.S., No. 14-740C.

Page 14

The dismissal order erroneously treated this case as little more than an offshoot of Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States, 147 Fed. Cl. 1 (2019)—when, ironically, the Washington Federal Plaintiffs were the first Fannie and Freddie shareholders to seek relief in the CFC.

There is a lot more related to how WaFed says all parties are seeking the end to the NWS and damages, which is the premise for the Sweeney dismissal. WaFed goes onto say their case is different. Sweeney did dismiss because she wants to focus on the NWS and any damages there of is sufficient, in her mind, for all plaintiffs.

Here is the link courtesy of Mr. Bradford:
http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/20-2190-0017.pdf