In regards to #1 it seems like its all about the ability to "exclude" the government. Since HERA permits the government to take, it doesn't matter if its 5% or 100%. It is legal... so the takings case is completely killed off.
In regards to #2... that question is not being answered by the court of federal claims. That is what LAMBERTH is addressing. That will be answered there.
In regards to #3... it doesn't matter if its the congress or anyone else for that matter. You can put whatever you want in the contract and as long as you get the counter party to sign it, anything will go. - This does set a precedent for any other company to think THRICE before signing on for conservatorship. - Exhibit A would be BOEING refusing govt aid during covid.
Hi Clarence,
It looks like the "right to exclude" language effectively killed the derivative takings. The wording seems to imply that once HERA was written, shareholders had no right to exclude the gov't from F&F's net worth, and that their reasonable expectations could not have been violated because there's no expectation that Treasury wouldn't take all the money.
My questions are as follows:
1. Based on this interpretation with exclusion as the only criteria, wouldn't the fact that eminent domain exists mean that the government could not be excluded from any private property? Does this ruling therefore permit any governmental taking without just compensation?
2. Doesn't the 80% warrants effectively establish that shareholders had a reasonable expectation of still owning some (i.e.- 20%) of the companies?
3. Is Congress allowed to legislate away property rights by making exclusion impossible, and also prevent redress via a succession clause? Wouldn't this have rather broad implications for property rights in general, and conservatorships in particular?
Thanks in advance :]
EDIT: One more: How do we appeal this ruling--is it to SCOTUS?--and when can we expect a response?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
