Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[obiterdictum]

thank you, we are having trouble enterpreting if the dissent would have helped or hurt the shareholders?

If the dissenters were in the majority, the Shareholders would receive declaratory relief through a declaratory judgment that would state that the Shareholders injury is remedied by the removal of the “for cause” restriction. That is all. No help at all. These judges simply repeated what they previously opined in their previous dissent. See below and compare.

In summary, the Shareholders’ ongoing injury, if indeed there is one,7 is remedied by a declaration that the “for cause” restriction is declared removed. We go no further. We will not let the Shareholders pick and choose parts of the PSPAs to invalidate when the President had adequate oversight over their adoption and particularly when two different presidents have selected agency heads who have supported the Net Worth Sweep. The appropriate remedy is the one that fixes the Shareholders’ purported injury. That is exactly what our declaratory judgment does. Consequently, we decline to invalidate the Net Worth Sweep or PSPAs.8 Instead, we conclude, given that the majority of the court has found the FHFA unconstitutionally structured, that the appropriate remedy for that finding is to declare the “for cause” provision severed. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-20364-CV3.pdf - See page 60. - 09/06/2019

In other words, I think we should modify the district court’s judgment by granting declaratory relief in the Plaintiff’s favor, stating that the “for cause” removal provision as to the Director of the FHFA is unconstitutional. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-20364-CV3.pdf - See page 4. - 03/04/2022