Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[ano]

The FHFA received authority from the legislative branch in HERA, the FHFA is by HERA also the FHFA-C, the conservatorship is performed by the FHFA and the only agency responsible for the action the FHFA takes is the FHFA, the mandate from a conservatorship point of view is to preserve and conserve, so although HERA says it can take any action, common law describes in for instance the “Handbook for Conservators”, what it means to be a conservator, in my opinion, HERA reads as a conservator should conserve and preserve, while the receiver can take any action, the judges and the government somehow do not understand this and interpreted common law as it can be vacated, as the legislative branch permitted them to do whatever they want, however this got the government deeper and deeper into trouble with the common law and common sense

But to come back to 4617(a)(6): 4617 is the authority given to the FHFA pursuing either conservatorship or receivership, in A6 the BOD is no longer liable to shareholders, so all the DUTIES from the BOD are taken and transferred to the FHFA (while simultaneously performing their FHFA-C duties while they are legally owned by the FHFA) among others the BOD also has fiduciary duties towards shareholders, so this duty by A6 is also transferred to the FHFA, the FHFA statute however says it can take any action, so depending on what action is taken it might or might not breach it,

with the NWS this provision initially did not breach anything, but given that the FHFA gave away all profits in perpetuity and the NWS overpaid more than 10%, the FHFA breached their fiduciary duty they received from the BOD in A6, so in the NWS it breaches A6 by itself

In entering into the PSPA the BOD agreed to be put into sound and solvent condition by FHFA, the PSPA however micromanaged the companies and the agreement has nothing to do with putting an entity into solvent condition, only to wind it down, so in this the FHFA breached A6 too

Then if you combine A6 and F it is clear the BOD gave the duties to the FHFA, among other the fiduciary duty, but if 4617(f) prevents plaintiffs from pursuing misconduct in the duties the FHFA received from the BOD it breaches 4617(f) as A6 breaches fiduciary duty, and 4617(f) breaches pursuing misconduct as “now we know” they are profitable without a possibility on the conservatorship ending

Then from a constitutional point of view, it is weird the FHFA obtained powers in A6, that when breached no action can be taken due to 4617(f), this common law breaches the separation of powers, non-delegation doctrine, public non-delegation doctrine, conservator statute, and common sense

So in A6 they received Duties, but misconduct on these Duties cannot be tested in court because this was limited by the legislative branch in HERA who limited the judicial branch power in the executive branch agency in 4617(f), so the legislative branch can do whatever it wants and confiscate private property without being liable for the damages because they gave themselves this power, that only benefits their own account and takes private property without compensation and while doing it ties the hands of the Judicial branch

Considering these are only 2 provisions, one can imagine FHFA is in Deep Deep Deep Trouble

These two cannot conflict because (a)(6) only applies at the time FHFA appoints itself conservator, while (f) only applies to actions FHFA takes as conservator, which by definition cannot happen until after FHFA has appointed itself conservator!
12 USC 4617(a)(6) “BOD shall not be liable to the shareholders”
12 USC 4617(f) “Limitation on court action”

The Fifth Amendment taking is legal sure, the complication starts when it is a taking, attracting large sums of new capital will prove impossible as no one can allow their property rights to be taken for granted

Quote:
________________________________________
as the government cannot take fiduciary duty from the board to become untouchable themselves without paying just compensation
________________________________________
Remember, a government taking under the Fifth Amendment is legal by definition