Replies to post #768002 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

Really? Wouldn't that depend on the likely success of the alleged Constitutional Violation or have you already figured out every POSSIBLE Constitutional Challenge and exactly how the Federal Judiciary will rule?

Constitutional violations wouldn't be subject to the 4617(f) bar, so that doesn't apply to what we were talking about.

What part of the Constitution would a senior-to-common conversion violate anyway? If you say "takings" or "illegal exaction" then once again the dilution couldn't be undone because those things are always after-the-fact claims; the case would rest on the idea that the dilution was the takings so standing would depend on the dilution happening.

[Barron4664]

4617f is only a wall or roadblock if the plaintiffs continue to only challenge actions of a conservator such as the NWS or potential cramdown. If instead someone such as yourself or any other shareholder filed a little tucker act suit in district court alleging illegal exaction due to say Treasury violations of the Charter Act, or FHFA violation of APA for allowing GSEs to issue new products to Treasury (SPS) without following statutory APA duties of the director, well then, if Judge agreed 4617f would not apply. The SPSPA would need to be unwound. An injunction to stop further injury could be issued from any federal district court in America if a judge found that one of those laws was broken and as a result led to an injury.