Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[ano]

It appears you are reading the "discretion" part of 4617(a)(2) to mean that the director can unilaterally impose conservatorship whenever and for whatever reason he wants, without any regard for the rest of HERA or the Constitution. That interpretation is completely false. Government officials, whether executive or independent, are only authorized to take actions that their governing statutes allow for, and 4617(a)(3) puts bounds on the discretion allowed for in 4617(a)(2). In fact, that discretion only allows FHFA to choose whether or not to impose conservatorship or receivership even if one of the conditions is met.

Yes that is correct, for now the “reason” is sealed for public review, so it cannot be determined was the reason was, from the government we know the companies were in distress, and from the same government only other people we know, the companies were sound and solvent just 14 days prior to conservatorship, from plaintiffs we know the financial documents are sealed and the lawsuits against PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deloitte & Touche, LLP are settled, so As soon as the FHFA becomes executive if will need to unseal the 4617(a)(3) legally questioned documents, after that the action becomes quasi executive, but since 4617(a)(3) documents are sealed for now it is an executive action as 4617(a)(2)

It's completely legal as long as that officer was acting within the bounds of the statute. HERA allows FHFA to appoint itself conservator if the boards consent, and that's exactly what happened.

yes this is correct, the board consented. If it was free will we will see the unsealed documents soon, maybe Judge Sweeney was reading the documents wrong, afterall she was only a judge in the federal court, everybody can make mistakes, but because it is legal the BOD will have a problem, their duty of candor does not allow them to give the company away, so the BOD will have to produce the documents and find a reason why it did not tell the shareholders the company was in distress prior to conservatorship, and the corresponding financial documents that proof their point

Quote:
________________________________________
NO independent single director has any executive power/discretion EVER, they all have some form of quasi-executive power
________________________________________
You are misinterpreting the meaning of "discretion". It merely means that the FHFA director has the ability to make a choice, not to do whatever he pleases regardless of the language of the controlling statute (HERA).

The Director can do whatever pleases him, he put the companies in conservatorship, and all documents surrounding the event are sealed, that is the action it took at the “discretion” of the director (no financial data, no nothing, until un-redacted we do not know what happened so it was in his sole discretion)

You missed the one that counts: "4617(a)(3)(I) Consent".

The action it took, as “independent” agency at the “Duly called meeting” with the BOD is still sealed, for now we do not know what the contract says, and if it indeed was consent

The documents being redacted means that anyone who is trying to overturn the conservatorships (which is nobody right now) has to prove wrongdoing. That will take a new lawsuit. Quit expecting other plaintiffs and judges to do your dirty work.

You heavily underestimate the whole situation, we are not in an episode of “the great con-artist”, all actions the government takes need to be legal and on paper, literally meaning EVERYTHING, nothing evaporates into thin air, and it is very very disturbing that they did what they did, now for it to become legal we will need to see what the SCOTUS interpretation of legal is.

The actions plaintiffs took:

16-3113 (17-20364) Collins v. Lew …………………….… Common & Preferred
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
a. Declaring that the Net Worth Sweep, and its adoption, are not in accordance with and violate HERA within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C), that Treasury acted arbitrarily and capriciously within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) by executing the Net Worth Sweep, and that FHFA’s structure violates the separation of powers; (=5 U.S. Code §?706 (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be—(A)arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;(C)in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right)
b. Enjoining Treasury and its officers, employees, and agents to return to Fannie and Freddie all dividend payments made pursuant to the Net Worth Sweep or, alternatively, recharacterizing such payments as a pay down of the liquidation preference and a corresponding redemption of Treasury’s Government Stock rather than mere dividends;
c. Vacating and setting aside the Net Worth Sweep, including its provision sweeping all of the Companies’ net worth to Treasury every quarter;
d. Enjoining FHFA and its officers, employees, and agents from implementing, applying, or taking any action whatsoever pursuant to the Net Worth Sweep;
e. Enjoining Treasury and its officers, employees, and agents from implementing, applying, or taking any action whatsoever pursuant to the Net Worth Sweep;
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.1391317/gov.uscourts.txsd.1391317.1.0.pdf

18-2506 (17-2185) Bhatti vs. FHFA …………… Common & Preferred
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. Vacating and setting aside the third amendment to the PSPAs, including its
provision sweeping all of the Companies’ net worth to Treasury every quarter;
2. Enjoining Defendants and their officers, employees, and agents from
implementing, applying, or taking any action pursuant to the third amendment to the
PSPAs, including its provision sweeping all of the Companies’ net worth to Treasury
every quarter;
3. Enjoining Treasury and its officers, employees, and agents to return to
Fannie and Freddie all dividend payments made pursuant to the Net Worth Sweep or,
alternatively, recharacterizing such payments as a pay down of the liquidation preference
and a corresponding redemption of Treasury’s Government Stock rather than mere
dividends;
4. Declaring that FHFA’s structure violates the separation of powers, that
FHFA may no longer operate as an independent agency, and striking down the provisions
of HERA that purport to make FHFA independent from the President and unaccountable
to any of the three Branches of the federal government, including 12 U.S.C. §§ 4511(a),
4512(b)(2), 4617(a)(7), and 4617(f);
5. Awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable costs, including attorneys’ fees,
incurred in bringing this action; and
6. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Bhatti/17-cv-02185-0027.pdf
“the non-delegation doctrine stands for the general proposition that Congress cannot delegate the power to legislate to anyone else, specifically the executive branch. The doctrine is derived from Article I of the Constitution, which says that, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. . . .”

13-1288 Miscellaneous Class Action … Common & Preferred
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1) Awarding Plaintiffs and the Classes the amount of damages they sustained
as a result of Defendants’ 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
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.163155/gov.uscourts.dcd.163155.71.0.pdf


17-497 Rop v. Federal Housing Finance agency ……. Common & Preferred
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
a. Vacating and setting aside the third amendment to the PSPAs, including
its provision sweeping all of the Companies’ net worth to Treasury every quarter;
b. Enjoining Defendants and their officers, employees, and agents from
implementing, applying, or taking any action whatsoever pursuant to the third
amendment to the PSPAs, including its provision sweeping all of the Companies’ net
worth to Treasury every quarter;
c. Enjoining Treasury and its officers, employees, and agents to return to
Fannie and Freddie all dividend payments made pursuant to the Net Worth Sweep or,
alternatively, recharacterizing such payments as a pay down of the liquidation preference
and a corresponding redemption of Treasury’s Government Stock rather than mere
dividends;
d. Declaring that FHFA’s structure violates the separation of powers, that
FHFA may no longer operate as an independent agency, and striking down the provisions
of HERA that purport to make FHFA independent from the President and unaccountable
to any of the three Branches of the federal government, including 12 U.S.C. §§ 4511(a),
4512(b)(2), and 4617(a)(7)
https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Rop/17-cv-00497-0001.pdf


18-3478 Wazee Street Opportunities Fund IV LP v. United States …………… Common
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1) Vacating and setting aside the third amendment to the PSPAs, including its
provision sweeping all of the Companies' net worth to Treasury every quarter;
2) Enjoining Defendants and their officers, employees, and agents from implementing, applying, or taking any action pursuant to the third amendment to the PSPAs, including its provision sweeping all of the Companies' net worth to Treasury every quarter;
3) Enjoining Treasury and its officers, employees, and agents to return to
Fannie and Freddie all dividend payments made pursuant to the Net Worth
Sweep or, alternatively, recharacterizing such payments as a pay down of
the liquidation preference and a corresponding redemption of Treasury's
Government Stock rather than mere dividends;
4) Declaring that FHFA's structure violates the separation of powers, that
FHFA may no longer operate as an independent agency, and striking down
the provisions of HERA that purport to make FHFA independent from the
President and unaccountable to any of the three Branches of the federal
government, including 12 U.S.C. §§ 4511(a), 4512(b)(2), 4617(a)(7), and
4617(f);
http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/18-cv-03478-0001.pdf


19-7062 Joshua J. Angel v. Freddie Mac ……………. Preferred
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
A. Declaring that Defendants breached the terms of the Certificates of Designation
governing Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s Junior Preferred stocks;
B. Declaring that Defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing inherent in the Certificates of Designation governing the Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac Junior Preferred stock;
C. Awarding compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff and against the Defendants. for breach of Plaintiff's contractual rights for dividends, with interest thereon from the respective missed dividend payment dates.
D. Awarding in compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff and against the Defendants for breaches of the Company’s Certificates of Designation and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, including interest thereon from the respective missed dividend payment dates;
E. Awarding compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff for Aiding and Abetting the
Federal Government in avoiding payment on its implicit guaranty of Junior Preferred dividends, with interest thereon from the respective missed dividend payment dates.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.196956/gov.uscourts.dcd.196956.1.0.pdf

13-1439 Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie Mae …… Preferred
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
a. Declaring that the Net Worth Sweep, and its adoption, are not in
accordance with and violate HERA within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C), and that
Treasury acted arbitrarily and capriciously within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)
by executing the Net Worth Sweep;
b. Enjoining Treasury and its officers, employees, and agents to return to
Fannie and Freddie all dividend payments made pursuant to the Net Worth Sweep or,
alternatively, recharacterizing such payments as a pay down of the liquidation preference
and a corresponding redemption of Treasury’s Government Stock rather than mere
dividends;
c. Vacating and setting aside the Net Worth Sweep, including its provision
sweeping all of the Companies’ net worth to Treasury every quarter;
d. Enjoining FHFA and its officers, employees, and agents from
implementing, applying, or taking any action whatsoever pursuant to the Net Worth
Sweep
e. Enjoining Treasury and its officers, employees, and agents from
implementing, applying, or taking any action whatsoever pursuant to the Net Worth
Sweep;
f. Enjoining FHFA and its officers, employees, and agents from acting at the
instruction of Treasury or any other agency of the government and from re-interpreting
the duties of FHFA as conservator under HERA;
g. Awarding Plaintiffs damages resulting from the breach of fiduciary duty
by FHFA, Fannie, and Freddie;
h. Awarding Plaintiffs damages resulting from the breach of contract and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by FHFA, Fannie, and
Freddie;
i. Awarding Plaintiffs damages and injunctive relief resulting from the
restructuring of dividends on Treasury’s senior preferred stock in violation of Delaware
and Virginia law;
https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Arrowood/13-cv-01439-0083.pdf


13-1053 Fairholme Fund, Inc. v. FHFA …… Preferred
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
a. Declaring that the Net Worth Sweep, and its adoption, are not in
accordance with and violate HERA within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C), and that
Treasury acted arbitrarily and capriciously within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)
by executing the Net Worth Sweep;
b. Enjoining Treasury and its officers, employees, and agents to return to
Fannie and Freddie all dividend payments made pursuant to the Net Worth Sweep or,
alternatively, recharacterizing such payments as a pay down of the liquidation preference
and a corresponding redemption of Treasury’s Government Stock rather than mere
dividends;
c. Vacating and setting aside the Net Worth Sweep, including its provision
sweeping all of the Companies’ net worth to Treasury every quarter;
d. Enjoining FHFA and its officers, employees, and agents from
implementing, applying, or taking any action whatsoever pursuant to the Net Worth Sweep;
e. Enjoining Treasury and its officers, employees, and agents from
implementing, applying, or taking any action whatsoever pursuant to the Net Worth
Sweep;
f. Enjoining FHFA and its officers, employees, and agents from acting at the
instruction of Treasury or any other agency of the government and from re-interpreting
the duties of FHFA as conservator under HERA;
g. Awarding Plaintiffs damages resulting from the breach of fiduciary duty
by FHFA, Fannie, and Freddie;
h. Awarding Plaintiffs damages resulting from the breach of contract and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by FHFA, Fannie, and
Freddie;
i. Awarding Plaintiffs damages and injunctive relief resulting from the
restructuring of dividends on Treasury’s senior preferred stock in violation of Delaware
and Virginia law;
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.160910/gov.uscourts.dcd.160910.74.0.pdf

----------------------------------------------------
Cases in Sweeney’s court (Derivative)
----------------------------------------------------

18-1124C Wazee Street Opportunities Fund IV LP v. United States …………… Common
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. Certifying that this action is a proper class action under Rule 23(a) and
(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Classes
defined herein;
2. Finding that the Defendant has taken Plaintiffs’ property without just
compensation, has illegally exacted Plaintiffs’ property, and has breached
the express and implied terms of Plaintiffs’ contracts;
3. Determining and awarding to Plaintiffs and the Classes the just
compensation and/or damages sustained by them as a result of the
violations set forth above;
4. On Count IX, ordering restitution and reformation as appropriate to
ensure full compensation to Fannie Mae and the Fannie Common Class
for damages suffered from the Third Amendment;
5. Awarding Plaintiffs prejudgment interest on any damages or just
compensation to which Plaintiffs are entitled;
6. Awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this
action, including counsel fees and expert fees
COUNT IX DERIVATIVE CLAIM ON BEHALF OF FANNIE MAE
199. appropriating and illegally exacting the property of Fannie Mae shareholders, the Third Amendment also appropriated and illegally exacted the property of Fannie Mae.
200. Moreover, if the Third Amendment is held to have been entered into in violation of HERA or the Constitution, then it is unlawful and void.
201. As a party to an unlawful and void agreement, Fannie Mae is entitled to seek a return of all amounts transferred to Treasury pursuant to the Third Amendment.
202. In addition, Fannie Mae is entitled to reformation of the underlying PSPA to invalidate and excise the Third Amendment.
203. Fannie Mae has suffered injury as a direct and proximate result of the unlawful Third Amendment, including monetary damage.
204. Fannie Mae is controlled by FHFA, which was a party to, and as an agency of the Government benefitted from, the illegal and unconstitutional actions challenged here. FHFA is therefore not disinterested with regard to Plaintiffs’ claims, and thus it would be
futile to demand that FHFA bring these claims on behalf of Fannie Mae. Additionally,
Plaintiffs’ alternative derivative claim is not a collusive action intended to confer jurisdiction on this Court that it would otherwise lack and they were shareholders at the time of the transaction complained of. Plaintiffs and the Fannie Common Class are therefore entitled to bring these claims on a derivative basis on Fannie’s behalf, to the extent the claims are held to be derivative rather than direct.
http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/18-cv-03478-0001.pdf

18-1150 Highfields Capital v. United States ……………………………. Common & Preferred
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
A. Finding that the United States has taken or illegally exacted Plaintiffs’ private
property in violation of the Takings or Due Process Clauses of the Constitution;
B. Awarding Plaintiffs just compensation under the Fifth Amendment for the United
States’ taking of its property;
C. Determining and awarding to Plaintiffs the damages sustained by them as a result
of the violations set forth above;
D. Awarding rescissory damages, based upon the breach of fiduciary duty that occurred;
E. Awarding Plaintiffs pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
http://gselinks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/18-01150-0001-Complaint-Filed-8-8-18.pdf

13-465C FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC. v. United States ………….. Common & Preferred
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Excluding the “SEALED” second amended complaint prayer of relief
A. Awarding Plaintiffs just compensation under the Fifth Amendment for the Government’s taking of their property;
B. Awarding Fannie and Freddie just compensation under the Fifth Amendment for the Government’s taking of their property;
C. Awarding Plaintiffs damages for the Government’s illegal exaction of their stock;
D. Awarding Fannie and Freddie damages for the Government’s illegal exaction of their net worth;
E. Awarding Plaintiffs damages for the Government’s breach of fiduciary duty;
F. Awarding Fannie and Freddie damages for the Government’s breach of fiduciary duty;
G. Awarding Plaintiffs damages for the Government’s breach of implied-in-fact contract;
H. Awarding Fannie and Freddie damages for the Government’s breach of implied-in-fact contract;
I. Awarding Plaintiffs pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0404.pdf

18-281C OWL CREEK ASIA I L.P...........……………………….Preferred
A. Finding that the United States has taken or illegally exacted Owl Creek’s private
property in violation of the Takings or Due Process clauses of the Constitution;
B. Awarding Owl Creek just compensation under the Fifth Amendment for the
United States’ taking of its property;
C. Determining and awarding to Owl Creek the damages sustained by it as a result of
the violations set forth above;
D. Awarding rescissory damages, based upon the breach of fiduciary duty that
occurred;
E. Awarding to Owl Creek the costs and disbursements of this action, including
reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees, costs and expenses; and
F. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

13-385C WASHINGTON FEDERAL ………………………………… Common & Preferred
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
A. Determining that this action may be maintained as a class action;
B. Certifying Classes of, (A) for Fannie Mae (1) all persons or entities who held shares
of Fannie Mae common stock on or before September 5, 2008, and (2) all persons or entities who
held shares of Fannie Mae preferred stock on or before September 5, 2008; and, (B) for Freddie
Mac (1) all persons or entities who held shares of Freddie Mac common stock on or before
September 5, 2008, and (2) all persons or entities who held shares of Freddie Mac preferred stock
on or before September 5, 2008.
C. Finding that Plaintiffs have met the requirements of a class representative and may
maintain this action as representatives of the Classes;
D. Finding that the Defendant has taken and/or illegally exacted Plaintiffs’ and the
Classes private property in violation of the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the United States
Constitution;
E. Determining and awarding Plaintiffs and the Classes damages suffered by them by
virtue of the Defendant’s taking and/or illegal exaction in the amount of $41 billion, or some other
amount to be determined at trial;
F. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest, together with any and all further costs,
disbursements and reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees;
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.uscfc.28070/gov.uscourts.uscfc.28070.70.0_1.pdf

13-672C SHIPMON …………………………………………………………… Common
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
A. Finding that the United States has unlawfully taken the private property of
Fannie Mae for public use without just compensation in violation of the
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
B. Determining and awarding Fannie Mae just compensation for the
Government's taking of its property;
C. Awarding Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of the action, including
reasonable attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees, costs, and other expenses; and
D. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cofc.28831.1.0.pdf


13-608C BRYNDON FISHER FNMA .........……………………………… Common
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Unlawful Taking Without Just Compensation
Under the Fifth Amendment to U.S. Constitution
102. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation
of the preceding paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein.
103. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no
person shall "be deprived of life liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
104. By imposing the Net Worth Sweep, which in Treasury's own words was
designed to take "every dollar of earnings [Fannie Mae] generates ... to benefit
taxpayers," the Government took all reasonable value of the Company for public use.
105. When the Government takes private property for a public use or a public
purpose, the Fifth Amendment requires the payment of "just compensation."
106. The Government did not pay just compensation to Fannie Mae for its
taking of the entire net worth of the Company. As a result, Fannie Mae was injured and
is entitled to just compensation in a sum equal to the amounts taken by the Government
through its unlawful imposition of the Net Worth Sweep.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of Fannie Mae, demand judgment against the
United States of America as follows:
A. Finding that the United States has unlawfully taken the private property of
Fannie Mae for public use without just compensation in violation of the
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
B. Determining and awarding Fannie Mae just compensation for the
Government's taking of its property;
C. Awarding Plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of the action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, experts' fees, costs, and other expenses; and
D. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cofc.28753.1.0.pdf

14-152C BRUCE REID FMCC .........……………………………………… Common
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Unlawful Taking Without Just Compensation
Under the Fifth Amendment to U.S. Constitution
115. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation
of the preceding paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein.
116. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no
person shall “be deprived of life liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
117. By imposing the Third Amendment, which in Treasury’s own words was
designed to take “every dollar of earnings [Freddie Mac] generates ... to benefit
taxpayers,” the Government took all reasonable value of the Company for public use.
118. When the Government takes private property for a public use or a public
purpose, the Fifth Amendment requires the payment of “just compensation.”
119, The Government did not pay—and under the Third Amendment will not
pay—just compensation to Freddie Mac for its taking of the entire net worth of the
Company. As a result, Freddie Mac has been injured and is entitled to just compensation
in a sum equal to the amounts taken by the Government through its unconstitutional
imposition of the Third Amendment.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of Freddie Mac, demand judgment against
the United States of America as follows:
A. Finding that the United States has unlawfully taken the private property of
Freddie Mac for public use without just compensation in violation of the
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
B. Determining and awarding Freddie Mac just compensation for the
Government’s taking of its property;
C. Awarding Plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of this action, including
reasonable attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees, costs, and other expenses; and
D. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.uscfc.29350/gov.uscourts.uscfc.29350.1.0.pdf

14-740C LOUISE RAFTER .........………………………………….. Common
CLAIM I – Just Compensation Under the Fifth Amendment for the Taking of Private
Property for Public Use (Derivative Claim on Behalf of Fannie Mae by Plaintiff Rafter and
the Rattien Plaintiffs)
CLAIM II – Just Compensation Under the Fifth Amendment for the Taking of Private
Property for Public Use (Direct Claims by All Plaintiffs) CLAIM III – Illegal Exaction (Derivative Claim on Behalf of Fannie Mae by Plaintiff Rafter and the Rattien Plaintiffs) CLAIM IV – Breach of Contract: Reformation of Contract to Undo Unlawful Amendment
to Contract and Restitution of Funds (Derivative Claim on Behalf of Fannie Mae by Plaintiff
Rafter and the Rattien Plaintiffs)
CLAIM V – Breach of Contract: Fannie Mae’s Charter, By-Laws and the Delaware General Corporations Law (Direct Claim by All Plaintiffs)
CLAIM VI – Breach of Contract: Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Implied in Fannie
Mae’s Charter (Direct Claim by All Plaintiffs)
CLAIM VII – Breach of Contract: Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Implied in Freddie Mac’s Charter (Direct Claim by Plaintiff Pershing Square)
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
a. On Claim I, awarding Fannie Mae just compensation under the Fifth Amendment
for the Government’s taking of its property, in amount to be determined at trial;
b. On Claim II, awarding Plaintiffs just compensation under the Fifth Amendment for
the Government’s taking of their property, in an amount to be determined at trial;
c. On Claim III, awarding Fannie Mae damages for the Government’s illegal exaction
of its money, in amount to be determined at trial;
d. On Claims IV, awarding Fannie Mae damages, reformation, disgorgement,
equitable restitution or other appropriate relief for the United States’ illegal amendment to and breach of contract;
e. On Claims V, VI and VII, awarding Plaintiffs damages, disgorgement, restitution
or other appropriate relief for the United States’ breach of contract, in amount to be determined at trial;
f. Awarding Plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable
attorneys’ and experts’ fees, costs and expenses; and
g. Granting such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.
https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Rafter/14-740-0027.pdf

13-466C JOSEPH CACCIAPALLE … …….. …… …… …… ………Preferred
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief and judgment, as follows:
1. Certifying that this action is a proper class action under Rule 23 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims on behalf of the Classes defined herein;
2. Finding that the Defendant has taken Plaintiffs’ property without just compensation, has illegally exacted Plaintiffs’ property, and has breached the express and implied terms of Plaintiffs’ contracts;
3. Determining and awarding to Plaintiffs the just compensation and/or damages sustained by them as a result of the violations set forth above;
4. Awarding Plaintiffs prejudgment interest on any damages or just compensation to which Plaintiffs are entitled;
5. Awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees; and
6. Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Cacciapalle/13-466-0067.pdf

13-496C AMERICAN EUROPEAN INSURANCE …….. ……. Preferred
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
A. Certifying this action as a class action and Plaintiff as Class representatives:
B. Awarding Plaintiff and the Class just compensation for the Government’s taking
of their property;
C. Awarding Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable
attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees, costs, and other expenses; and
D. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cofc.28421.1.0.pdf

Excluded prayers for relief:
FRANCIS J. DENNIS (deceased)…. …… ……. ………Case No. 13-542C Preferred
ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY .........…Case No. 13-698C Preferred
OWL CREEK ASIA I L.P........... …… …… …… ……….Case No. 18-281C Preferred
AKANTHOS OPPORTUNITY MASTER FUND ...Case No. 18-369C Preferred
APPALOOSA INVESTMENT ......... …… …… ……….Case No. 18-370C Preferred
CSS LLC …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… ……….Case No. 18-371C Preferred
MASON CAPITAL L.P........... …… …… …… …… ……..Case No. 18-529C Preferred
683 CAPITAL PARTNERS …… …… …… …… …… …….Case No. 18-711C Preferred
PATT ….. …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… ……….Case No. 18-712C Preferred