Replies to post #615393 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

Are you suggesting that every action made can or should be reversed since 2008? Or are you talking only about the decisions that are challenged?

The latter.

Your question is a result of a consistent conflation that the respondee is guilty of.

No case, other than Washington Federal, challenges anything other than the NWS. Even WF only can result in money damages to named plaintiffs if class certification is denied, or shareholder of record as of September 5 2008 if class certification is granted. Current shareholders who bought after September 5 2008 cannot benefit from the WF case in any way.

The Fifth Circuit en banc panel already ruled, by a 9-7 majority, that the NWS violates the APA. Contrary to continually spouted common nonsense on the respondee's part, the NWS was not found to be unconstitutional, and the rest of the SPSPAs are not in jeopardy as a result of that en banc panel's opinion.

And, for the umpteenth time, if the NWS is struck down by a court, the rest of the SPSPA stands. Period.

The clause in the SPSPAs that allows for the unwinding of the whole agreement can only be invoked by the Purchaser, which is Treasury. Since Treasury stands to lose hundreds of billions of dollars by doing so, it is safe to say that they will never do so.

[ano]

The decisions challenged will have implications for the other “illegal” actions they took, for instance “for cause” is illegal, do they have the authority to put companies into conservatorship that are solvent, and even though the BOD agreed would they have agreed to act in the worst case possible for shareholders, and because they acted the way they did is the old BOD responsible or FHFA-C, the law says certain things and those things even if not challenged will give a problem to the solution, as the government cannot act outside their own statute, so relief must be given on the lawsuits, and challenged wrongdoings, and all actions taken by FHFA-C that do not follow their statute need to be reversed, because they need to follow the statute on which they act and that is not implement or allow a 3th amendment so it needs to be reversed inside court or outside, it is just something that NO regulator could do

Then they agree to the SPSPA but is that what the BOD agreed to? and where they received consent for? either the SPSPA is voided or we need to hear from the old BOD on which/what they gave the consent and what the terms are, it is very easy to say something but it will prove to be harder to take action on meritless claims they have which are backed by an implied-in-fact contract that becomes voidable ones the 3th amendment is voided by FHFA or the courts, then because they took on the duties of the BOD they are obligated to act in the best interest of the shareholders and void the SPSPA as that is something a regulator should do “delete claims if possible”

Then 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(J) (to act in the best interest of itself) is in conflict with U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(D) (conserve and preserve) but because it can act in the best interest of itself the lawsuits are dismissed, does that mean they are gone? No, one of the 2 need to go, and solvency law says “conserve and preserve” so probably this conflict in law needs to be severed for HERA, but then the lawsuits were dismissed on the wrong legal standing.

And the list goes on and on, But to make a long story short, FHFA runs into problems that are not challenged but still need to be fixed