Replies to post #680332 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[jog49]

"Don't you think we should wait for the SCOTUS to rule before we guesstimate the future shareholder values?"

Sure sign of a small TIA to think people here are not going to guess!

[kthomp19]

Thanks for the OMB link.

I think Biden's budget including the warrants is more telling than the OMB's inclusion because Biden actually has the power to direct Yellen to exercise them.

Don't you think we should wait for the SCOTUS to rule before we guesstimate the future shareholder values?

That hasn't stopped anyone yet! But the Budget line just took the number of warrant shares and multiplied by the market price when they made the table. It isn't a projection of future value.




(from another post)

I think under HERA you only had a 60 day time frame from the September 06, 2008 placement of the gses into Conservatorship to actually challenge the validity of the Conservatorship in the courts (aka the Statute of Limitations).

I believe you are referring to 12 USC 4617(a)(5):

(5) Judicial review

(A) In general

If the Agency is appointed conservator or receiver under this section, the regulated entity may, within 30 days of such appointment, bring an action in the United States district court for the judicial district in which the home office of such regulated entity is located, or in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for an order requiring the Agency to remove itself as conservator or receiver.
(B) Review

Upon the filing of an action under subparagraph (A), the court shall, upon the merits, dismiss such action or direct the Agency to remove itself as such conservator or receiver.

You can bet that after FnF are released, any future attempt to put them into conservatorship will be immediately challenged from a dozen different angles.

Although I think the Washington Mutual case may be the only remaining viable case that has challenged the Conservatorship itself.

A common misunderstanding. Washington Federal only "challenges" the imposition of conservatorship in that they want the USCFC to take its alleged illegality into account when calculating damages. They don't actually want the conservatorships (or SPSPAs or even the NWS) to be overturned. They only want money, and only for pre-conservatorship shareholders.

It really isn't a "challenge" at all, in effect.




(from another post)

That's an interesting find, thanks for doing the research. Jones Day is represents the plaintiffs in some of the NWS cases. Mooppan would naturally not become part of those teams.

I don't think your link "When the Government Changes Sides in Ongoing Litigation" applies, though. That link talks about when the government changes its stance mid-case due to an administration change, not when an individual lawyer joins the plaintiffs, especially when it's not the same case. Mooppan finished his duties in Collins and will presumably not be part of any more NWS cases.