Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Robert from yahoo bd]

Found this today in a 2016 Law Review Journal: "What is reasonable
for investors in a world of significant market failures with serious
macroeconomic consequences must surely reflect regulatory responses that
are otherwise valid. Of course, that dynamism cannot be unbounded and
the federal government’s authority to intervene must reflect conditions that
justify that intervention.". Pg. 741 Maryland Law Review
Volume 75 | Issue 3 Article 4
Resetting the Baseline of Ownership: Takings and
Investor Expectations After the Bailouts
Nestor M. Davidson

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr

Part of the Banking and Finance Law Commons, and the Constitutional Law Commons

This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact
[e-mail]://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol75/iss3/4/?utm_source=digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu%2Fmlr%2Fvol75%2Fiss3%2F4&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

This I believe may be relevant in the COFC, the governments claim and the SCOTUS wording in Collins that the nws was justified because of the "death spiral", is contrary to the facts in this case already obtained through discovery.

Since the nws was approximately 4 years subsequent to the emergency financial crisis, I think this horse may have legs to run, but like everyone it's hard to believe that the government is capable of believing that the "King or Sovereign can do no wrong!", and no court to date has declared relief to be granted.

The Plaintiffs can show economic harm via the nws, unlike the AIG case where the court found for Hank Greenberg (i.e., there WAS A TAKING involving AIG shareholders, but the court ruled, HaHa you would have gone bankrupt anyway without the bailout and therefore no compensation for the Taking Claim!).

"Ultimately, although Starr proved its
exaction claim, Starr could not show that it suffered any economic loss, and
thus could not recover any damages.77
The proposition that resolved the Starr case—that failure to show
economic harm from a governmental action yields no compensation—is a
well-recognized aspect of regulatory takings jurisprudence. It certainly
informs one prong of the Penn Central regulatory takings test, which is the
“economic impact of the regulation on the claimant.”78 The fact that a
governmental action causes no economic harm does not immunize the
government from all potential takings claims, but factors heavily into the
threshold calculus. More fundamentally, the Supreme Court has made clear
that, even if a taking might have occurred as an abstract matter, a party is
not entitled to just compensation absent actual economic harm.79 In short,
the theory on which the challenge to the AIG takeover was resolved
strongly suggests that federal intervention in the face of imminent
bankruptcy and a significant, or even entire, loss of investor equity
ultimately yields no compensable takings for those investors.80"