Replies to post #778380 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[trunkmonk]

Ps understand this just like we do. They can’t go with the truth, they are filled with hate towards common shares. They think commons failure is preferred gain, in fact that could not be farther from the truth.

[Rodney5]

In addition the FHFA / Treasury are both government agencies acting under the authority of the same Congress; one department acting loan officer the other department conservator both answer to the president. The Treasury has a connection under the same boss; the Treasury is just as guilty as the FHFA. It’s all illegal and unconstitutional.

[Wise Man]

Don't expect the SCOTUS to know what capital is.
What was important is that justice Alito understood that the conservator must rehabilitate FnF, and that only means to restore capital levels.

[imbellish]

SCOTUS ONLY RULES ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and not necessarily the legal substrate below it. Yes of course the government can break the law in acting in the public interest. But the remedy must be determined in a lower court if it is not a constitutional matter in their consideration.

Even high up lawyers in the US have trouble reconciling this fact.

[Donotunderstand]

seems
"some" are saying - one can breach a contract - hurt the other party - but such breach in the "criminal code sense" is not illegal

wrong and punishable --- is not illegal ?

[basesloaded]

Checkmate

[kthomp19]

if I remember correctly, SCOTUS ruled that FHFA had the right to make decision on behalf of the shareholders regarding the NWS, as long as the decision is beneficial to the GSEs or FHFA. But that doesn’t make NWS legal

No. This is wrong for several reasons:

1) The shareholders never had any decision-making power when the NWS was signed because FHFA, as conservator, succeeded to all powers and rights of the shareholders and boards of directors.
2) The Supreme Court said that the NWS harmed the companies but was still authorized by statute (i.e. legal) because FHFA is allowed by 12 USC 4617(b)(2)(J)(ii) to take actions that harm the companies but benefit FHFA and by extension the public that FHFA serves. See the first part of paragraph (a) on page 2 of their Collins opinion.
3) The Supreme Court said that the NWS was within FHFA's statutory authority, which means it was legal.

given jury trial ruled that FHFA did breach the good faith in making the NWS contract. So, NWS is still illegal in a different prospective.

No. The Supreme Court already said the NWS was legal. No jury can reverse that.

Judge Lamberth said:

But whether a certain act falls within FHFA’s statutorily authorized discretion and whether
FHFA may incur monetary damages for exercising that discretion in a manner inconsistent with
its independent contractual obligations are two separate inquiries.

which means that even a legal act like the NWS could still breach the implied covenant and cause FnF to have to pay monetary damages.