Replies to post #746012 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Barron4664]

What the scotus ruled is that under HERA the FHFA-C can act in its interest to the detriment of the entities. They did not rule that FHFA-C can act contrary to the law. Do the letter agreements and the 3rd and 4th amendments to the stock certificates state that prior to issuing a dividend for the Senior Preferred Shares that lowers the capital of FNMA below the levels set in the safety and Soundness Act, the Director of FHFA must first approve the distribution in writing? Is this stated in the “Contract”with Treasury? I dont think so. The money will all go back to the entities eventually. New lawsuits are warranted and coming.

[Robert from yahoo bd]

After SCOTUS it's unlikely that the NWS can still be successfully challenged legally. The government would have no interest either, because of the time pressure. So further lawsuits against the NWS will most likely be dismissed in advance on flimsy grounds.

Okay Cardozo, well you can save me and others a lot of time and money if you can tell me exactly why the CFPB case will fail and/or why the legal principles in that case are inapplicable to the NWS.

Don't worry, I'll call David Thompson and let him down easy!

Also if you could share why all constitutional challenges in any future litigation will fail, that would also be helpful too.

[EternalPatience]

Counter argument


If 8 years of Obama can leave it for the next government (Thinking that it could be Hillary or Trump) and if 4 years of Trump can leave it for the next government (thinking that it could be 4 more for him or a new Biden)

then Biden can also leave it to the next government to solve (thinking that he will get 4 more years or may be a 8 years of Republican president)

so i dont buy that logic...

[Wise Man]

Another guy saying NWS, instead of NWS dividend.

After SCOTUS it's unlikely that the NWS can still be successfully challenged legally.

Dividend:
-Restricted
-Suspended
-Out of funds legally available (Retained Earnings surplus account)
The Supreme Court didn't rule about the purpose of the funds transferred to the Treasury Department. It just said that transferring the funds was "beneficial to the Agency". The fact that it omitted "authorized by this section", is a tell-tale sign that it knows it can't be for Government spending, that is, beneficial interest.