Replies to post #693909 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[altruism]

So if “just compensation” is a given and eventual.. why isn’t every hedgefund out there (they all have lawyers that can ascertain the obvious) vying for every common share? Seems fnf should be trading $10 - $20 with the limited supply of shares … yes? Hmmm the math doesn’t work it doesn’t add up. From my observations anyhoo..

[Donotunderstand]

You have lost me

My take away ??

Gov can (and has) taken lots of stuff - ownership - power - property

Indeed often legal under various parts of the law

In all cases (ok 99%) such taking requires compensation

Where do I mail my address if they want to send a check by snail mail

[kthomp19]

The point you bring 12 U.S. Code § 4617(a)(6) conflicts with 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f) however is correct and should fail as a matter of law too

Wrong yet again.

12 USC 4617(a)(6):

(6) Directors not liable for acquiescing in appointment of conservator or receiver

The members of the board of directors of a regulated entity shall not be liable to the shareholders or creditors of the regulated entity for acquiescing in or consenting in good faith to the appointment of the Agency as conservator or receiver for that regulated entity.

12 USC 4617(f):

(f) Limitation on court action

Except as provided in this section or at the request of the Director, no court may take any action to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the Agency as a conservator or a receiver.

These two cannot conflict because (a)(6) only applies at the time FHFA appoints itself conservator, while (f) only applies to actions FHFA takes as conservator, which by definition cannot happen until after FHFA has appointed itself conservator!

as the government cannot take fiduciary duty from the board to become untouchable themselves without paying just compensation

Remember, a government taking under the Fifth Amendment is legal by definition.

[mrfence]

Thanks for the clarification of the legal nuance...

The point you bring 12 U.S. Code § 4617(a)(6) conflicts with 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f) however is correct and should fail as a matter of law too, as the government cannot take fiduciary duty from the board to become untouchable themselves without paying just compensation

I suppose the imposition of Conservatorship had not crossed the untouchable line at inception but that was then and this is now a Taking as SCOTUS has ruled it's traceable to the NWS which was only possible because FHFA made the BOD that answered to shareholders untouchable at inception. Without the SCOTUS Ruling the Taking Case couldn't be made at the begining so it wasn't Lawyer laziness per se but moving forward someone needs to light a fire under some lazy Lawyers arses IMO. I swear that's what the lower Courts Justices were actually trying to do with all the interruptions during the oral arguements after the SCOTUS remand.