Replies to post #586040 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

This just gets stranger and stranger...

Then you need to ask yourself: Treasury makes a deal with HUD that ONLY benefits Treasury thru a SPSPA ?

The original SPSPAs benefited both FnF and Treasury. Treasury made a great return on its investment, and FnF got a funding commitment that allowed them to avoid mandatory receivership under HERA.

Only the NWS is suspect by this line of thinking because FnF received no return consideration. But the NWS is being challenged from several other different angles anyway, so this new one isn't necessary.

More importantly, there is no lawsuit out there that alleges any of these things you bring up. Until and unless a new lawsuit does so, such points are irrelevant. Why do you think that this new line of attack has not been brought up by anyone in any of the existing court cases?

Please also note this ruling is effective as of July-16-2018 (when the 5th circuit came to the conclusion “for cause” needs to be removed), this is important as then is concluded Treasury and HUD’s FHFA made a deal with each other

If the effective date of the ruling is in 2018, and assuming that the Supreme Court upholds it, why would anything before 2018 be reviewed? The Fifth Circuit en banc panel already refused to undo or change any FHFA decisions whatsoever due to their finding of unconstitutionality of the leadership structure.

[Donotunderstand]

ok

and which court - judge - is looking at this (and did it come from ENBANC)