Replies to post #768695 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[EternalPatience]

Mods - permanent sticky please

[RickNagra]

Oh wow. Great post. Here here.

[Donotunderstand]

4617 f

best I recall - the EN BANC decision pushed through this particular MASSIVE obstacle

but - I have never understood how SCOTUS felt that this taking did not get compensated ? (Or did the arguments (plea - case?) in front of SCOTUS not include the takings argument . (I think that case has been beat up but may still be on an appeal? to EN BANC ?)

[kthomp19]

He asked why the good faith and fair dealings were allowed given 4617(f) anti injunction clause. You stated because the penalties will come from the GSEs and not affect the powers of the conservator. Nonsense.

I said "Ordering FnF to pay money to shareholders neither restrains nor affects FHFA's exercise of powers or functions." and that statement is correct. If it was incorrect, 4617(f) would have prevented the claim from proceeding.

Lamberth originally dismissed this claims based on HERA. The appeals court overruled him and remanded this claim back to him to adjudicate.

He dismissed 24 of the 31 claims due to 4617(f), and he dismissed the contract claims due to lack of ripeness and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

He was given explicit instructions to base his decision on certain HERA sections.

No. Here is a link to the CAFC's opinion.

Lamberth was told that his two reasons for dismissing the contract claims were incorrect, and neither of those were due to HERA. His decision that the claims weren't ripe was overturned based on "a doctrine of accelerated ripeness" (pages 71-72) and the failure to state a claim part was overturned because it should have been based on the legal standard of reasonable expectations of the parties (page 69).

Notice that 4617(f) was not one of the provisions of HERA he could use to determine reasonable expectations such as good faith and fair dealings of a contract. And he didn’t. Because Common Law contract doctrines can’t just be nullified by Congressional Statute willy nilly such as HERA.

Exactly. The contract claims didn't involve injunctive relief - they didn't restrain or affect FHFA's powers as conservator - and so 4617(f) couldn't bar those claims.