Monday, June 07, 2021 11:00:20 AM
No. The original SPSPAs were signed during the George W Bush administration while Michael Stegman, who said that line, only served during the Obama administration.
The Obama administration wanting to use the SPSPAs (plus the NWS) to wind down FnF doesn't mean that the original SPSPAs, which happened during the George W Bush administration, were designed to wind down FnF. Quoting an Obama appointee doesn't prove your point, and thus one of your later arguments is defeated.
FHFA-C couldn't act alone. If Treasury didn't want to renegotiate the SPSPAs then there's nothing FHFA-C could do about that. The best they could have done was pay the NWS dividends in kind instead of in cash.
I think you have completely forgotten what 4617(f) even says. Here it is again:
How could a court possibly "restrain or affect the exercise of" an inaction?
But you said it best yourself: "so the courts can always take action if ultra vires". That means 4617(f) stays. There is no need to strike it down, and the Collins plaintiffs didn't get anywhere close to asking for it to be struck down. This quixotic quest of yours will require a new lawsuit.
The Supreme Court ruling won't have anything to do with the documents (redacted or not) in the Washington Federal case. Different cases, different allegations, different timeframes.
In addition, the Supreme Court's ruling will come out before any documents in Washington Federal are unredacted. Washington Federal is currently fighting merely to have their case heard (it was dismissed in its entirety by Judge Sweeney); trying to get those case documents unredacted isn't close to the top of their priority list at the moment.
Are you still acting as if the FHFA director could impose conservatorship for any reason at any time regardless of what 4612(a)(3) says?
Completely and utterly wrong. 5% is massive, and represents enough to keep the companies afloat (and thus MBS investors 100% whole) through any reasonable crisis. While credit is not capital and FnF need to build actual capital by regulation, the MBS market cares greatly about that backstop and it would be severely disrupted if that backstop were to disappear. There is an enormous difference between the $49B of capital FnF have on the books (which includes $19B of non-loss-absorbing DTAs) and the $49B plus an extra $200B.
Wrong. Treasury could exercise the warrants tomorrow if they wanted to. The only lawsuit that involves the warrants at all is Washington Federal, and they only want the warrants factored into a damage award.
The January letter agreement clearly shows that Treasury and the Department of Justice think the warrants are fully legal as is, and the Biden budget includes a warrant valuation that past budgets didn't, again showing that Biden's administration views the warrants as legal and likely intends to exercise them in full.
FEATURED Element79 Gold Corp. Announces Sale of 100% Interest in Elder Creek, North Mill Creek, and Elephant Projects to 1472886 B.C. Ltd. • Sep 9, 2024 9:34 AM
North Bay Resources Commences Gold Shipments, Fran Gold Project, British Columbia; Enters Taber Gold Mine JV, Sierra County, California • NBRI • Sep 9, 2024 9:15 AM
Simple Stock Loans Announces Unique Solutions For Investors Looking for Alternative Liquidity Amidst Recent Small Cap Rally Sep 6, 2024 9:30 AM
Reliant Coffee Debuts at #271 on the Inc. 5000 List of Fastest Growing Companies - Coffee Service Industry Disruptor Brews Up Exponential Growth Sep 5, 2024 11:51 AM
VAYK Confirms Receiving Revenue from First Airbnb Property with 1.4 Million Annual Revenue Goal • VAYK • Sep 4, 2024 9:34 AM
Mawson Finland Limited Expands Known Mineralized Zones at Rajapalot: New Lens Intercepts 21.75 m at 5.25 g/t Gold & 515 ppm Cobalt • MFL • Sep 4, 2024 9:02 AM