If you are serious about filing a claim, it must be done in the federal district Court in Newark, not a NJ small claims court. Read through my posts to get an idea of what a possible claim could entail, if you are still interested, let me know. There is still time under the statute of limitations for the recent letter agreements and there may be a chance of pulling in the original agreement using the doctrine of continuing claims. There are others interested as well.
Simon, I believe the confusion among Shareholders concerning the lawsuits has been the APA…
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is a federal act that governs the procedures of administrative law.
Barron Quote: “The problem is and always has been that the plaintiffs attorneys have only challenged the “Actions of the Conservator” such as the NWS or other provisions of SPSPA which is a contract. 4617f bars courts from questioning the actions of a conservator.” End of Quote
I asked the question…
Barron, Did DeMarco violate the law by implementing the Net Worth Sweep without public disclosure?
Barron4664 08/08/23 10:58 AM #761755 RE: Rodney5 #761719 No. The APA does not apply to the actions of the conservator. Courts already threw that out. The APA applied to the actions of the Regulator (Dir Lockhart) with the creation of the Senior Preferred Shares with a variable Liquidation Preference. This was a new product that the GSEs sold to Treasury for the purpose of stabilizing the secondary mortgage market. This product required publication in the federal register, public notice and rule making, either prior to signing the SPSPA or after a temporary approval for emergency purposes.
This is the root of all the GSE problems and the only avenue for an appropriate legal strategy to reverse the injuries in my opinion.
Rodney5 04/29/24 9:46 AM Post #792856 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA) The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is a federal act that governs the procedures of administrative law.
Director Regulator / Conservator two different positions. Strangely enough Director Lockhart Regulator, and Director Lockhart Conservator held both positions as Regulator and Conservator at the same time.
The Senior Preferred Stock, with a variable liquidation preference outlined in the SPSPA and its amendments and share certificates is a new product for the purposes of the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 as amended by HERA.
Congress directed the Director of FHFA to apply the Administrative Procedures Act to the new products sold to Treasury. The FHFA did not follow the administrative procedures congress required in the plain language of the safety and soundness act.
The Director of FHFA as regulator violated the safety and soundness act and the administrative procedures act by not following the statutory duty to approve new products issued by the GSEs to Treasury for the purpose of stabilizing the secondary mortgage market.
The law required the publication in the federal register of the SPS with their variable rate liquidation preference tied to the commitment. It requires a public comment period, and a rule making process to make the SPS legal. It is the same law that required the capital rule. And the same law that required FHFA a year ago issue the new products law for MBS products. They have ignored this requirement for 15 years.
Director Lockhart Regulator, and Director Lockhart Conservator. Holding both positions as Regulator and Conservator; Conservator Lockhart is required by law to file notice to himself as Regulator.
The Safety and Soundness Act required Director Lockhart as regulator not conservator to approve a new product issued by Director Lockhart acting as conservator FHFA-C (SPS with variable liquidation Preference) to Treasury under the terms of the SPSPA for the purpose of carrying out the secondary mortgage market. He was required as regulator to file notice in the federal register, seek public comment and issue federal regulations for the new product we call the Senior Preferred shares sold to Treasury.
THE ATTORNEYS DID NOT CHALLENGE THE CONSERVATORSHIP! THE ATTORNEYS ASKED THE COURTS TO RULE ON THE ILLEGAL CONTRACT, SPSPA: JUSTICE BREYER TOLD THEM HOW TO WIN!
UPMOST IMPORTANT: JUSTICE BREYER: Quote: “Thank you. I think in reading this you could, with trying to simplify as much as possible, do you -- the shareholders' claim as saying we bought into this corporation, it was supposed to be private as well as having a public side, and then the government nationalized it. That's what they did. If you look at their giving the net worth to Treasury, it's nationalizing the company. Now, whatever conservators do and receivers do, they don't nationalize companies. And when they nationalized this company, naturally they paid us nothing and our shares became worthless. And so what do you say?” End of Quote, page 12
The link may not work anymore, the above statement was made and recorded in the transcript.
SPSPA which is a contract. 4617f bars courts from questioning the actions of a conservator.
THE PLAINTIFFS BROUGHT THE WRONG LAWSUIT.
We hold that the stockholders’ statutory claims are barred by the Recovery Act’s strict limitation on judicial review. See 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f).
Millett and Ginsburg summarized the case and their 70-page opinion as follows:
Quote: “A number of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stockholders filed suit alleging that FHFA’s and Treasury’s alteration of the dividend formula through the Third Amendment exceeded their statutory authority under the Recovery Act, and constituted arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). They also claimed that FHFA, Treasury, and the Companies committed various common-law torts and breaches of contract by restructuring the dividend formula. We hold that the stockholders’ statutory claims are barred by the Recovery Act’s strict limitation on judicial review. See 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f). We also reject most of the stockholders’ common-law claims. Insofar as we have subject matter jurisdiction over the stockholders’ common-law claims against Treasury, and Congress has waived the agency’s immunity from suit, those claims, too, are barred by the Recovery Act’s limitation on judicial review. Id. As for the claims against FHFA and the Companies, some are barred because FHFA succeeded to all rights, powers, and privileges of the stockholders under the Recovery Act, id. § 4617(b)(2)(A); others fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The remaining claims, which are contract-based claims regarding liquidation preferences and dividend rights, are remanded to the district court for further proceedings.“ End of Quote
Here’s another example of failure lawsuit with no reference of the Regulator breaking the law.
UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Wazee Street Opportunities Fund IV LP, Filed 04/03/23
Quote: "This lawsuit does not challenge the foregoing arrangement made in September 2008. While Plaintiffs do not concede that all the measures taken in September 2008 were justified or necessary, they are not here to challenge the placement of Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship at the height of the financial crisis, or the original deal struck by Treasury and FHFA at that time." End of Quote. Page 7
The lawyers are focused on the third amendment net worth sweep. By Public Law the whole contract is illegal, the contract is illegal based on the United States is not permitted to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the enterprises.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
