it doesn't matter Lamberth or not. Plaintiffs have had at best consolation words, probably from the short-straw-drawing, dissenting-opinion judge on panels because they must appear to have considered all aspects from all perspectives. Because these are expansive issues, some things must be addressed to avoid common-law issues moving forward. Examples are very non-specific "shareholders have certain Constitutional rights" and the qualification of FHFA "independence" from Collins.
I just hope that some of these v FHFA, v Jack Lew, v Geithner? ..... get as much airtime in the future as the now famous, thanks to the GSE victim-Plaintiffs, DRUM ROLL PLEASE! "HUMPHREY"S EXECUTOR"!!!!! from the pivotal year of 1935.
Apparently, any GSE value before the hostile takeover/?give-over? that should belong to GSE shareholders is not protected by Constitutional guarantees like the 5th Amendment takings clause. Shareholders certainly have the right to freedom of speech, religion, and the right to bring suit even though SCOTUS didn't specifically mention those as consolation.
Apparently, it is OK for the government to take ALL of the liquidation preference at the expense of what were previously known as "Preferred Shares". Apparently, the government can take all the profits, or at least keep them from those normally entitled to dividends into "retained capital". That "retained capital" is a misnomer because cash is not necessarily capital, often based in borrowed money.
Even meanings are not protected by the Constitution or the statute because and "retained earnings", applied to "capital retention" are not actually capital. They are borrowed out of the 100% of profits and value due to UST each and every quarter.
I don't want to rehash the "independent"....as if DeMarco, Watt, Calabria and ST don't do exactly as instructed. It was unnecessary for Collins to specify that. Letters aside, the GSEs would not have been released even if Calabria had started the day after Trump's inauguration.
2 Likes