Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Wise Man]

The claim arises from the retention of securities, not from the purchase. Thus, the date of issuance or purchase that you mention, is pointless.

these purchases occurred prior to the conservatorship, when FHFA did not even exist.

This concept was taken from the FHFA Final Rule on July 20, 2011, where the director talked extensively about the payment of Securities Litigation claims in the preface, ending up with: "Prohibiting payments...."

Also, it seems that you don't understand what you were accused of. You omitted the FHFA as defendant and, secondly, you mention FnF as Defendants instead, that can't be named defendants. 2 mistakes.
A conservatorship isn't about suing the conservatees and later, the conservator represents them in court, kind of giving powers to an attorney for the representation.

FHFA must assume the legal defense in conservatorship on behalf of the real defendants, Fannie and Freddie, precisely because FHFA is acting as conservator.

There is a transfer of powers and rights (momentarily) to carry out a task: statutory goals. It means that you don't have them (Voting Right, ASMs, etc.) and instead, the FHFA is using them and acting on your behalf (in your name), though we know that it may not be in your best interests like a Trustee. Which doesn't mean that the conservator's task is to deliberately attack your interests by the way, because there are other Fiduciary Duties like loyalty.
Fiduciary duties arise always when someone is acting on behalf of other.
Judge Sweeney was warned by certified mail, that the conservator's Incidental Power sounds a lot like a Fiduciary Duties provision, and the "authorized by this section" after "take any action", looks like the Duty of Care (uphold the law) owed to us.
As judge Willett explained, it refers to actions "within its enumerated Powers (Rehab)". Also pointed out by justice Alito that began with "rehabilitate FnF" in the interpretation of this Incidental Power.

It's important because now, this breach of Duty of Care isn't a tort claim because it's statutory, and therefore, it falls squarely within the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction. Tort claim was the excuse used by judge Sweeney to toss the claim brought by Arrowhood in the trash bin, after shamelessly omitting the "authorized by this section" wording and ignoring that Fiduciary Duties is a plural form for a reason: there are more than one (best interests).
Judge Sweeney, former DOJ employee, is known as The Tipp-Ex Queen.