This is excellent, thank you!!! I was always very bothered by the various lower court's unwillingness to understand, gloss over, delve into and or acknowledge the initial terms of HERA DID contemplate the possibility of the GSEs not generating sufficient income to pay the 10% by adding the 12% PIK feature. PIK features are often used feature of distressed and restructured loans. There was no need to "re-contemplate" via the NWS. I really hope you are right on the SJ and we don't run into a ridiculously lengthy trial at some point.
There are several other issues with GSE conservatorship.
1. HERA takes away Boards of Directors' duty to serve shareholders in agreeing to conservatorship.
2. HERA allows FHFA to put GSEs under conservatorship. Justice Sotomayor says it belongs to judicial authority, not an executive agency. Washington Federal may eventually bring this up.
3. Conflict of interests in senior share purchase agreement. FHFA represents GSES to sign contract with government, but it is also a part of government.
4. FHFA sued many banks. It won, but the money went into Treasury's pocket. The real victims were GSEs. GSEs should have received the money
One part of the en banc ruling that clearly laid out whether fact trial would be required or not.. As the majority ruled, “We ground this holding in statutory interpretation, not business judgment."
Put differently, business judgment (motive and/or facts) is not relevant to the majority's conclusion of its statutory analysis that the NWS violated HERA, and there are no possible set of facts that can conclude that the NWS wasn’t a violation of HERA as per the statute.
Summary judgement w/o trial should be sufficient as per the en banc majority's ruling.
“18.9 billion dollars, to be treated as a pay-down of principal. And that would essentially deem the government paid back.”
I think that should be 189...
“If Collins Ps win on the APA before SCOTUS, there would be no final decision on the merits of the APA claim and immediate remedy order,”
Shouldn’t that be, “If Collins Ps win on *only* the APA before SCOTUS, there would be no final decision on the merits of the APA claim and immediate remedy order,”
for what it's worth I passed this on via a message/link to John Carney at Breitbart. He sent a message back saying that he would read it.
This is excellent, thank you!!! I was always very bothered by the various lower court's unwillingness to understand, gloss over, delve into and or acknowledge the initial terms of HERA DID contemplate the possibility of the GSEs not generating sufficient income to pay the 10% by adding the 12% PIK feature. PIK features are often used feature of distressed and restructured loans. There was no need to "re-contemplate" via the NWS. I really hope you are right on the SJ and we don't run into a ridiculously lengthy trial at some point.
Grateful for your service.
I haven't seen discussion of this event on Tim Howard's page, though I tried to upload (unsuccessfully) the link multiple times before it ocurred:
https://www.brookings.edu/events/forum-on-the-future-of-the-federal-home-loan-bank-system/
This is the 4 hour video seminar on the Brookings site. If you think this would be of interest would you please post to Tim's page, thanks.
If SCOTUS issues a favorable APA opinion, can other related closed lawsuits be reopen?
There are several other issues with GSE conservatorship.
1. HERA takes away Boards of Directors' duty to serve shareholders in agreeing to conservatorship.
2. HERA allows FHFA to put GSEs under conservatorship. Justice Sotomayor says it belongs to judicial authority, not an executive agency. Washington Federal may eventually bring this up.
3. Conflict of interests in senior share purchase agreement. FHFA represents GSES to sign contract with government, but it is also a part of government.
4. FHFA sued many banks. It won, but the money went into Treasury's pocket. The real victims were GSEs. GSEs should have received the money
Can any winning plaintiff tell court: I don't care about the NWS and forever lasting conservatorship. Just give me monetary compensation.
One part of the en banc ruling that clearly laid out whether fact trial would be required or not.. As the majority ruled, “We ground this holding in statutory interpretation, not business judgment."
Put differently, business judgment (motive and/or facts) is not relevant to the majority's conclusion of its statutory analysis that the NWS violated HERA, and there are no possible set of facts that can conclude that the NWS wasn’t a violation of HERA as per the statute.
Summary judgement w/o trial should be sufficient as per the en banc majority's ruling.
Thanks, ROLG! What are the biggest weaknesses in P's arguments?
“18.9 billion dollars, to be treated as a pay-down of principal. And that would essentially deem the government paid back.”
I think that should be 189...
“If Collins Ps win on the APA before SCOTUS, there would be no final decision on the merits of the APA claim and immediate remedy order,”
Shouldn’t that be, “If Collins Ps win on *only* the APA before SCOTUS, there would be no final decision on the merits of the APA claim and immediate remedy order,”
Could you opine on a probable time line for a ruling from SCOTUS and subsequent actions by the lower courts? Are we looking at months or years?
Thank you very much for your expertise and legal opinion