Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[bmp152]

The gov may or may not have appropriate legal recourse to request a motion to dismiss. We shall see how this is interpreted by a judge.

By reading the document, it appears to me that this suit may get tossed out on the grounds that there is 1) no defendable claim to taking and 2) the lack of appropriate court jurisdiction.

1) The defense argues that since the lawsuit specifically relates takings with liquidation preference rights and dividend rights of junior preferred shareholders, there is no valid takings. Because liquidation pref and dividends are based on future financials of Freddie/Fannie, no explicit value can be currently assigned to these financial instruments. The gov argues that takings cannot be executed on something that doesn't exist.

2) The gov also points out that they have no direct involvement in executing the SPSA 3rd amendment sweep since this agreement was between Treasury and the FHFA. FHFA acted on behalf of the gov, but according to the "Tucker Act", the gov is not held responsible for a governmental regulator's actions during a conservatorship. The gov is careful not to question the validity or legal ramifications of the 3rd amendment sweep. In my opinion, the gov is basically saying you can't sue us on these grounds, but go after the FHFA if you want.

These are my 2 cents. Somebody like Obi is probably better equipped to parse the document with more legal acumen.

I think that the lawsuit to really look out for is the Perry Capital vs. Lew/FHFA which challenges enactment of the PSPA 3rd amendment sweep.