Replies to post #678865 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

Independent agencies can fund itself thru assessments, executive agencies are funded thru the appropriations act

Then why aren't the plaintiffs trying to overturn that?

When executive the Director may not appoint the Agency as conservator or receiver for a regulated entity, as that will be a legislative decision, based on numbers

Then why aren't the plaintiffs trying to overturn that?

When executive all actions in the separation of powers can be questioned and not limited

False. The Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which established and governed OHFEO, had a similar anti-injunction clause even though OHFEO was a non-independent, executive agency.

Oh, and also, why aren't the plaintiffs trying to overturn that?

The Agency should (not may), as conservator, take such action that are (not as may be) necessary to put the regulated entity in a sound and solvent condition;

This is something the Supreme Court will have to rule on. But the plaintiffs didn't bring this up as something that needs to be overturned. Why not?

it will only succeed to the general powers if the agency is independent, if executive it will need to rely on legislation to succeed to all rights

False again, as proved by the GSE Act of 1992 that included a similar succession clause even though the OHFEO was not an independent agency.

Then if those 2 agencies go into a contract that only benefits the government and not the shareholders it breached their fiduciary duty

A fiduciary duty to shareholders that FHFA does not have, regardless of its independence.

the FHFA-C should only care for the company and its shareholders

No. Only the companies, not the shareholders. Those two things are not nearly the same thing.

as it the fiduciary for those 2 parties, not for the government, it should not look for any benefit for the government, only for the company it controls and it shareholders

Not the shareholders, only the companies. All talk of FHFA having fiduciary duty to the shareholders is invented by you, and is not implied by or included in any part of HERA. Three different judges have said so.

Yes rescind, it takes two to tango
"6.12. Non-Severability. Each of the provisions of this Agreement is integrated with and integral to the whole and shall not be severable from the remainder of the Agreement. In the event that any provision of this Agreement, the Senior Preferred Stock or the Warrant is determined to be illegal or unenforceable, then Purchaser may, in its sole discretion, by written notice to Conservator and Seller, declare this Agreement null and void, whereupon all transfers hereunder (including the issuance of the Senior Preferred Stock and the Warrant and any funding of the Commitment) shall be rescinded and unwound and all obligations of the parties (other than to effectuate such rescission and unwind) shall immediately and automatically terminate. "

Look at the bolded part. MAY. Not "shall". You are talking about a voluntary decision that Treasury would have to make, not what a court can or will order.

the FHFA-C gave 79.9% of the companies away without any additional funds

False. The companies got the funding commitment, which allowed them to avoid mandatory receivership both at that point and in the future (unless all $200B per company of the funding commitment was drawn upon), in return for both the seniors and the warrants. The companies absolutely did receive return consideration for the warrants (and the seniors). You cannot separate the two.

it states: “by valid action at a duly called meeting of the Board of Directors on September 6, 2008, consented to the appointment of the Agency as conservator” but the documents are redacted

The redactions don't matter. The warrants are valid.