Rodney5
5 hours ago
I want to thank our friend Barron for bringing his knowledge to this board.
“ Notice I do not touch the conservatorship. That is a failed legal strategy of 15 years.”
Barron4664
08/16/23 2:32 PM
Post #763179 on Fannie Mae (FNMA)
The idea behind my proposal is for the little share holders to use their local federal district courts to put foreword direct claims for illegal exaction based on actions of Treasury and FHFA as regulator that I believe violate the Charter Act, Safety and Soundness Act, Administrative Procedures Act, and possibly the Chief Financial Officers Act. Notice I do not touch the conservatorship. That is a failed legal strategy of 15 years now and counting. A legal rabbit hole. The Treasury violates the Charter Act by attaching a variable liquidation Preference based on the amount of public debt used to the purchase of a set number of senior preferred shares and calls this a commitment fee. The same with the warrants. Defined as “in consideration for access to the commitment (public debt)”. 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 and not one plaintiff attorney has bothered to ask why Dir Lockhart didnt do his job. My idea is that if multiple shareholders file in different districts using the little tucker act, we might get some results. Even better if different districts get different results as it would then be a controversy. These are plain language laws. If we win then everything in the SPSPA would be null. What does that mean? I don’t know. Someone smarter than me would have to figure out the unwinding of this. I do know that Mr. Kelly would be the biggest benefactor of a positive ruling of this sort. I would imagine all money returned to the GSEs. SPS and warrants cancelled.
clarencebeaks21
7 hours ago
The assertion that “4617f bars courts from questioning the actions of a conservator” is a false statement.
As background, 4617f is the so-called anti-injunction clause.
I suggest reading Collins v Yellen, particularly published pages 12-15 in Justice Alito’s opinion. Alito expressly states that “where the FHFA does not exercise but instead exceeds those powers or functions, the anti-injunction clause imposes no restrictions. With that understanding in mind, ***we must decide whether the FHFA was exercising its powers or functions as a conservator***” (emphasis added).
After analyzing statutory construction and reviewing the Agency’s actions, Alito concludes in the last sentence of page 14 that “the FHFA could have reasonably concluded that (the Third Amendment) was in the best interests of the … public. The Recovery Act therefore authorized the Agency to choose this option.” So, not only is your assertion false, its converse is true:
Courts first are duty-bound to decide whether the FHFA exceeded its authorized powers or functions as conservator. Only if this review (i.e., in your words—questioning the conservator) shows that FHFA did not exceed its powers or functions, is 4617f then triggered.
Whether or not some lower courts had the correct understanding before Collins, the approach in Collins is the law. We would all be wise to understand it.
Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-422_k537.pdf
jog49
8 hours ago
If these "high profile" lawyers can't bring the proper suit before the court for the plaintiffs, then they ought to be liable. As it is now, win or lose, they make out like bandits, financially speaking. When they display they have no expertise, let's let them get their asses handed to them by hitting their bank accounts. They have no problem hitting ours!
Rodney5
11 hours ago
UPMOST IMPORTANT
SPSPA which is a contract. 4617f bars courts from questioning the actions of a conservator.
THE PLAINTIFFS BROUGHT THE WRONG LAWSUIT.
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
Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/21/d-c-circuit-concludes-recovery-act-bars-judicial-review-of-suits-against-fhfa-over-treatment-of-fannie-and-freddie-shareholders/
Barron4664
09/20/23 9:36 AM
Post #768746 on Fannie Mae (FNMA)
The problem is not with the rulings of the courts. 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. As it should. None of the 15 + years worth of court cases have challenged the action of the FHFA as regulator or Treasury with respect to the statutes that actually matter. The charter act, safety and soundness act, chief financial officer act, etc. To get a takings or an illegal exaction verdict, you have to show that the gov broke the laws. The actions of the conservator cant break a law. But if you go before a judge and say the SPSPA is bad and the gov stole our companies and limiting the argument to the specifics of the SPSPA agreement and the amendments you get 15 years of no results.“ End of Quote
Wise Man
17 hours ago
FACT: The authority of UST was about the PURCHASE of securities, and it hasn't purchased even one security.
No one has ever wondered how is this even possible.
It all began with the issuance of $1B worth of SPS free of charge (1 million stocks at $1,000 per stock), with the objective to reduce the Core Capital in the same amount (It carries an offset: it reduced the Additional Paid-In Capital account. Source) and justify the Conservatorship with (G) LOSSES: Likely to incur losses that deplete capital.
Since then, all the SPS LP corresponding to the draws from the UST (1:1) has been increased and that's a Securities Law violation because the securities must be dated at the time the company raises fresh cash, and necessary for the deed of purchase (necessary for the capital gains tax, etc).
Other theme is that, for reporting purposes, they can be unified in one security if they have the same price and characteristics.
The objective was to skip the deadline on the "TEMPORARY" second UST backup of FnF inserted by HERA with unlimited yield SPS, of December 31, 2009, because the deadline refers to the authority on PURCHASES mentioned, and there's been none.
The Warrant is another security that was issued for free on day one, in an attempt to override the prerequisite on PURCHASES by the UST of (iii) to protect the taxpayer (collateral). Once spotted, collateral it is. Collaterals aren't allowed in the original Fee Limitation of the United States ("PROHIBITION...."), this is why Calabria/Pelosi's HERA continues to raise our eyebrows.
This is one of the 7 Securities Law violations that need to be settled and also it serves as Punitive Damages that the Equity holders require to the DOJ. Although the common shareholders waive this claim in the case of "as is" and "takeover" resolution of Fanniegate, not in the case of a Takings at BVPS.
The same with the second round of Punitive Damages due to the Deferred Income accounting, in the case that it's allowed to amortize it into Earnings in one fell swoop without the existing shareholder ($61B Deferred Income together as of end of 2023, is recorded as Debt, not Equity. $42B in Freddie Mac alone)
The third round of Punitive Damages, is against the plotters of the government theft story in formal documents: court briefs, books, articles, etc., for the cover-up of many statutory provisions (Restriction on Capital Distributions; "May" recap is imperative once the capital is generated; etc.) and financial concepts (Dividends, a distribution of Earnings, unavailable with Accumulated Deficit Retained Earnings accounts).
2- SPS LP increased for free since December 2017 and its offset, are missing on the balance sheets (Financial Statement fraud)
3- Fannie Mae posted a charge on the Income Statement, when no SPS LP was required to be increased in the 1Q2020 Earnings report.
4- Stock price manipulation.
5- The value of the Warrant was credited to Additional Paid-In Capital account.
6- Dividends paid out of an Accumulated Deficit Retained Earnings account (for the Separate Account plan).
7- CRTs. Although it's a breach of the Charter Act (Credit Enhancement clause: not among the enumerated ones), it's included here to simplify and because it can also be considered a Securities Law violation. A credit enhancement operation in mortgages where the credit event is the credit loss, is a scam, because it occurs after the company carries out costly foreclosure prevention actions. For instance, Freddie Mac's STACR DNA or HQA notes. Whereas the credit event that triggers the claim of payment in the STACR DN or HQ notes, is serious delinquency. Since 2015, Freddie Mac only issues the former.
They are an excuse to make FnF pay an outstanding annual rate of return on these debt notes, currently between 9%-13% rate (Source: Earnings reports).
The CRTs look more like a continuation of the fraud in early conservatorship, with their 30-year zero coupon callable Medium Term Notes, redeemed at a 5% and 6% annual rate of return soon after they were issued, as a way to extort money from them, commented on Friday showing documentary evidence.
With the CRTs they made a mistake.
$19B in CRT expenses/recoveries is due because it's barred in the Charter Act, no questions asked.
stockanalyze
1 day ago
"Since then he seems to be less optimistic of anything happening..", like a weather man, change tune every week, every month, every year. you know what it is called, manipulation ? fraudster? . don't speak if you don't know, shut the fok up. stop taking his name here, no one cares, zero credibility.
Level up your trading with our powerful tools and real-time insights all in one place.
Ispro
8 hours ago
Ace Trader
9 hours ago
Wingsjr
9 hours ago
Freddie bagholder
10 hours ago
RickNagra
1 day ago
Hot Features
Premium
