Replies to post #758102 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[stvupdate]

Let's stick to the following facts and make up your mind.It's a shame, what happened and still continue to happen to FNMA/FMCC.

1. In 2019 Scotus determined, that Lamberth decision as of 2014 was incomplete,since it didn't address shareholders reward issue and asked 5th Circuit to look into this issue.
2. Later 5th Circuit rewiewed 2014 Lamberth decision and again recognized that it didn't address FNMA/FMCC shareholders reward issue,and therefore it's need to be re-done.
3. In 2022 Lamberth again in charge of the case, which included jurors, and again it failed. As per existing law, trial had to resume in 90 days, which means no later than January of 2023, but it's scheduled to start on July 24th (6th month later).
4. Just to remind everybody, that FNMA commons are excluded of this trial.

[The Man With No Name]

The following is why every lawsuit to date has and will continue to fail. It is called a categorical error. Read and understand.

You aren't reading and understanding, obviously.

Further Congress enumerated as Judge Lamberth has said “Clear as Day” that a capital distribution that lowers FNMAs capital below the limits established in the Safety and Soundness Act is prohibited unless prior written approval of the director of FHFA is obtained.

Which was obtained in the 3rd Amendment.

This is such a basic fact that I can only assume the attorneys weren’t really interested in reversing the NWS. Does anyone know of any argument put foreword to date in a Court case that argues along these lines? Lamberth would have overturned the NWS sweep on this alone had the argument been made.

No argument to be made as the law was followed.

The money is all coming back.

The money is never coming back. Ever.

[kthomp19]

What is all this about "JPS funded lawsuits" and "JPS challenges" and "JPS lawsuits"?

You do realize that common shareholders have filed lawsuits too, and that all of those have had the same fate (and in many cases the exact same legal teams) as those filed by junior pref shareholders, right?

The bias here is staggering. Any failures that can be attributed to "JPS holders" and "JPS lawyers" are equally attributable to "common holders" and "common lawyers". When you point one finger, four more point back at you.

Not the actions of a Conservator.

Wrong. HERA's succession clause allowed FHFA to sign the SPSPAs on Fannie and Freddie's behalf.

Further Congress enumerated as Judge Lamberth has said “Clear as Day” that a capital distribution that lowers FNMAs capital below the limits established in the Safety and Soundness Act is prohibited unless prior written approval of the director of FHFA is obtained.

Every time a NWS dividend was sent it was with the approval of the FHFA Director at the time. Maybe you could try suing to see copies of the written approvals? It's your time and money.

An act of Congress that enumerates a Responsibility of the Director of FHFA supersedes any words on a page of an agreement that violates this direct responsibility. No matter the action is due to conservatorship.

The Supreme Court said that the NWS was a valid act of a conservator, authorized by HERA. There really isn't any more to say about that. Disagree all you want, it won't change that fact.