So MANY smoking guns: "An internal Treasury document prepared on July 30, 2012, stated that the Net
Worth Sweep should be announced shortly after August 7, when Treasury anticipated the
Companies would “report very strong earnings . . . that will be in excess of the 10% dividend.”
On August 1, a Treasury official similarly emphasized that the Net Worth Sweep should be
announced in mid-August because the Companies’ “[e]arnings will be in excess of current 10%
dividend.” FHFA’s Mr. Ugoletti reported a “renewed push” from Treasury to implement the Net
Worth Sweep on August 9, 2012—the same day that Fannie’s CFO told Treasury that it was
likely that her company would soon be in a position to make an accounting decision that would
add tens of billions of dollars to its earnings. And on August 17, 2012, Mr. Ugoletti wrote to Mr.
DeMarco and other FHFA officials that “other than a transitory buffer,” the Net Worth Sweep
“does not allow the Enterprises to build up a retained surplus, which may give the impression
that they are healthy institutions.
127. That the Net Worth Sweep was not intended to advance any legitimate interest of
FHFA as conservator is further demonstrated by the fact Treasury was the driving force behind
the initiative. Indeed, FHFA agreed to the Net Worth Sweep only at the insistence and under the
direction and supervision of Treasury. The Net Worth Sweep was a Treasury initiative and
reflected the culmination of Treasury’s long-term plan to seize the Companies and see that they
were operated for the exclusive benefit of the federal government. Indeed, Mr. Parrott has
testified that the Net Worth Sweep was imposed through a “Treasury-driven process.” It was
Treasury that informed the Companies just days before the Net Worth Sweep that it was
forthcoming, and a meeting addressing the Net Worth Sweep was held at Treasury during which
a senior Treasury official announced the changes. Secretary Geithner apparently believed that
even before the Net Worth Sweep was imposed, “we had already effectively nationalized the
GSEs . . ., and could decide how to carve up, dismember, sell or restructure those institutions.”
Plaintiff’s Corrected Post-Trial Proposed Findings of Fact 26.2.1(a), Starr Int’l Co. v. United
States, No. 1:11-cv-779-TCW (Fed. Cl. Mar. 2, 2015), ECF No. 430. And Treasury officials
intimately involved in the development of the Net Worth Sweep testified that they could not
recall Treasury making any backup or contingency plans to prepare for any possibility that
FHFA would reject the Net Worth Sweep proposal."
