Replies to post #781332 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[LuLeVan]

The breach of contract at issue in Lamberth is the breach of the implied contract between Fannie and Freddie and their shareholders. These contracts were consummated with the purchase of their respective shares (C + P), and these purchases occurred prior to the conservatorship, when FHFA did not even exist.

The actual breach of the implied contract occurred later in conservatorship, when FHFA approved the NWS in 2012.

It's obvious (and trivial) that FHFA must assume the legal defense in conservatorship on behalf of the real defendants, Fannie and Freddie, precisely because FHFA is acting as conservator.

Importantly, the government and Treasury are not defendants in Lamberth, as Barron falsely claimed. So there is no legal basis for the government to appeal (or not to appeal, as Barron also claimed).

Not a coincidence the omission of FHFA "defendant" in its capacity as conservator, in the post of LuLeVan that I was replying to before...