On 02-21-17, the USCT of Appeals said: "We hold that the stockholders’ statutory claims are barred by the Recovery Act’s strict limitation on judicial review. See 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f). We also reject most of the stockholders’ common-law claims. Insofar as we have subject matter jurisdiction over the stockholders’ common-law claims against Treasury, and Congress has waived the agency’s immunity from suit, those claims, too, are barred by the Recovery Act’s limitation on judicial review. Id. As for the claims against FHFA and the Companies, some are barred because FHFA succeeded to all rights, powers, and privileges of the stockholders under the Recovery Act, id. § 4617(b)(2)(A); others fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The remaining claims, which are contract-based claims regarding liquidation preferences and dividend rights, are remanded to the district court for further proceedings."
Over 2.5 years later the 16 judge majority opinion in the 5th Circuit EnBanc Ruling ruled differently.
WHAT SPECIFICALLY DID YOU FIND MORE CONVINCING IN LAMBERTH'S COURT THAN THE 5TH CIRCUIT AND WHY? I'M LOOKING FOR SOME SUBSTANCE IN YOUR LEGAL ANALYSIS, SPARE ME THE ONE OR TWO LINERS! For instance, you could reply, I found the legal reasoning in the US Court of Appeals more convincing than the 5ths because 1, 2, 3...