Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[imbellish]

Are we really unaware of the other two outstanding cases? http://delawarebayllc.com/images/Time_for_a_fresh_look_2.pdf

"Collins v. Mnuchin
I list this case first only because a decision
is pending from the Supreme Court. Originally
filed in Texas, this case was argued before the
justices on December 9th of last year and a ruling
is expected at any time between now and June
30th. Without getting into too much detail, the
shareholders are expected to lose their bid to have
the Net Worth Sweep (“NWS”) declared
unconstitutional but are expected to win what is
called the “APA claim”, which would send the
case back down to the trial judge for a “do-over”
(in other words, they tell the judge he was wrong
on the law in dismissing the case, so now hear it
on the facts). But in many respects, it really
doesn’t matter what SCOTUS decides in the
Collins case because it is the next one which
provides the fastest path to a shareholder win.

Fairholme Funds v. FHFA
The procedural shenanigans now in the
rear-view mirror, this case is on the front burner.
Like Collins, it was initially dismissed by the trial
court (Judge Royce Lamberth of the D.C.
District). Also, like Collins, he was overruled by
the appeals court and ordered to hold a trial. (It
later came out that the government had lied to him
in its initial pleadings.) Motions for summary
judgement are due on October 15 and November
19 of this year, with a trial date (if necessary) set
for May 16 of next year. Ifsuccessful – again, the
evidence of the government’s misconduct is
overwhelming – shareholders would be entitled to
par value plus interest (at approximately six
percent) dating back to the imposition of the Net
Worth Sweep in 2012.

Fairholme Funds v. the United States
This case is in the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims and once again, the shareholders have
successfully fought off a motion to dismiss
(although the government is appealing). The
claim asserts that the imposition of the NWS was
a “taking” of private property without
compensation. Final briefing on the
government’s motion is due at the end of March,
after which a date will be set for oral argument.
Expect a decision in late fall. Presuming the
shareholders continue to prevail, a trial would
most likely begin (if not circumvented by a
motion for summary judgement) a year thereafter.
Like the case in Judge Lamberth’s court,
shareholders would be entitled to interest going
back to August of 2012

Bottom line: The longer this goes on the
more we make (and the more it will cost the
government). Which is why I believe the new
Administration will realize that the TINA rule
applies here. Fingers crossed for an
administrative solution by year-end."