The Owl creek lawsuit can be compared to the Fairholme Federal court case (both claims are based on the 5th amendment taking) and are direct claims, the government argues that the claims belong to the companies and not the shareholders, if this was the case shareholder would not have standing to bring their case.
If the claim is derivative the government claims the powers it has in § 4617(b)(2)(A)(i)(succession clause) voids the derivative claims
The direct versus derivative claims discussions are nonstarters, it doesn't really matter if the claim is direct or derivative, former Sweeney concluded the claim was derivative, but it really is both, plaintiffs covered basically every inch in their lawsuits and it is impossible for the government to legally escape
1) Direct claims establish it is a "5th amendment taking" and the government now is the sole owner of Housing, it must buy out all shareholders and it can no longer be a publicly-traded company as the government took the property
2) Derivative claims establish that the 3rd amendment money is returned to the companies, to establish damages the financials/meeting minutes must be disclosed as those are redacted, the derivative claim is much more complicated as the FHFA took the power of the BOD, the FHFA tries to solve these issues as ERCF, CSP/CSS, CRT, but it still needs to be seen if this illegally modifying the companies was allowed
3) ranking above the direct and derivative claims are the constitutional claims, these establish that the FHFA can no longer be independent as the separation of powers does not allow an executive single director that can be fired at will by the president to be the head of an independent agency, the agency is thus executive and cannot block the Judicial power on which they lost the APA claims
1) Direct
Common and preferred shareholders missed dividends, if the redacted financials surrounding conservatorship are not released, the suspension of this dividend is thus a Direct claim as it belongs to the shareholders only, and it is not proven the suspension is legitimate
2) Derivative
Common and preferred shareholders challenge the 3rd amendment, it is illegal for a conservator to give away money that belongs to the conservatee, this money belongs to Fannie and Freddie and thus if illegal it must be returned to the legal owner of the money, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, this is the Derivative claim
