PISZEL CASE REVEALS APEALS COURT THINKING REGARDING "TAKINGS" (of private property)
The Piszel Case what legal theories the Appeals court bases decisions regarding 'Takings' and property under the current guardianship status of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - (1) that Piszel DID have cognizable Fifth Amendment property interest (ie. his Golden Parachute contract with Freddie Mac), when Piszel first joined Freddie Mac (2) but, that because Freddie Mac , under the HERA act, went into a 'Pervasive Federal Regulation' situation, Piszel no longer had this property interest; and that he knew the chance of it being removed ('assumed the risk') at the time he signed with Freddie Mac.
COURT MAINTAINS PISZEL HAD A PROPERTY INTEREST - BUT, LOSES IT
" The government argues, and the Claims Court found, that Mr. Piszel lacked a cognizable Fifth Amendment property interest. We disagree. " - Here the 'Appeals' court does NOT agree with the Claims court - Piszel DID have a property interest ( and yes, therefore, he did have 'standing' - ie, he coud lose his property - ie. contracted Golden Parachute). But, because Freddie Mac went into Guardianship, this property interest was now at the mercy of the Guardianship - which decided not to recognize Piszel's 'Golden Parachute'.
Piszel " assumed the risk of future regulation and thus cannot claim a vested interest in property that was likely to be subject to additional regulation. Because Mr. Piszel voluntarily entered into a highly regulated area, he lacked a right to exclude the government from his property" - Here the court agrees with the legal theory about 'Takings' WHEN the entity is under legal Federal Guardianship. AS per HERA - it is the Government which decides to honor or not to honor a property interest.
The court does establish FHFA as the 'government'.
THE OVERRIDING QUESTION - IS HOW THE APPEALS COURT WILL USE THIS THEORY IN RELATION TO TAS.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
