Hi rosen62, that was a long look through several thousand pages of mainly public reports from 2008 to 2012.
As far as an administrative record goes, there is very little in it that can be used to overcome the allegations made by the Plaintiffs. The record is almost entirely of publicly available information and data and DeMarco's statements and testimony that is exclusively concerned with the "taxpayer."
In fact, the submission of this compendium of public filler does not relate well to the decisional paper trail leading to the formation, adoption and execution of the Third Amendment to the PSPAs. The post hoc argument presented in the beginning does not perfectly jibe with the US Treasury account of what the Third Amendment is about. Also, highlight certain sections of Moody's December 2012 analysis, is another attempt to justify the Third Amendment in a post hoc manner.
More importantly, the gross misjudgment of the GSEs increasing profitability as found in the 10-Qs of the first two quarters of 2012 and the lack of draws by Fannie in the first quarter of 2012 and both GSEs in the 2nd quarter 2012, should have alerted the US Treasury and FHFA that the GSEs could pay the dividends as originally contracted at 10%. There was no need or justification to amend the PSPAs for a third time. The reasons why the third amending was done are shown by their own records to be faulty and unnecessary. And so, it should be vacated on that account alone. It was simply a bad move and the easy way out is to vacate the Third Amendment and rescind all that was done by its adoption and execution.
So the assertion that they needed to amend the PSPAs for a third time to protect the GSEs solvency is very poor decision-making and contractual policy as demonstrated by enormous total payments made to the US Treasury made in 2012 and 2013.
Apparently, these administrative records, presented as is by the FHFA (and the US Treasury), can be used to support and prove the Plaintiffs allegations and not as a defense against them.
Of course, there may be privileged information not included in these records. However, that can only be found out later and it is highly unlikely that it will be supportive of their defense if this administrative record is used as front running material.
