ok
From Havoc5 --- the case divides in four (I think two but this looks like a copy of official language)
In Count I, they allege the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C), (D), affords relief because FHFA exceeded its statutory conservator authority under 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(D). •
In Count II, they allege the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C), (D), affords relief because Treasury exceeded its securities-purchase authority under 12 U.S.C. §§ 1455(l), 1719(g). Specifically, they allege that Treasury purchased securities after the sunset period, failed to make the required “[e]mergency determination[s],”and disregarded statutory “[c]onsiderations.”•
In Count III, they allege the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), affords relief because Treasury’s adoption of the net worth sweep was arbitrary and capricious.•
In Count IV, they allege FHFA violates Article II, §§ 1 and 3 of the Constitution because, among other things, it is headed by a single Director removable only for cause.
SO
It does appear - as I re found this -- that we won two of two against the FHFA ---- i.e. the court says to lower court we are telling you FHFA acted WRONG ……….. we lost two of two against TREASURY … and the court explained WHY we lost those two but I BET in ENGLISH it can be argued it was not horrible for TREASURY with its multiple purposes and goals and obligations to do what is alleged -- i.e. within their scope
YET -- key for us - the EN BANC said that FHFA was wrong wrong and who the hell is this agency that is not constitutional
not sure what this means for time and process but boy --- IMO --- this puts a ton of pressure on Calabria and FHFA to move in our direction with actions ---- actions that moot the damage
end the nws or set capital buffers allowed (with an existing NWS) high enough to hit core capital needs
and
in any and all actions where they use warrants or think warrants and new shares --- FHFA must be cautious to its impact on us shareholders !~
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
