The investors in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage finance twins have lost their lawsuit against the government. The plaintiffs, led by Perry Capital, claimed that the government has violated the law by pocketing most of the profits from the companies. The case is now on appeal. The Supreme Court has rejected this portion of the lawsuit. It remains to be seen if the case can be revived.
The shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have filed a lawsuit against the government.
They claim that the profit sweep was illegal and prevented them from rebuilding capital. They also alleged that the structure of the FHFA was unconstitutional and that the director of the FHFA was abusing his power. They also allege that Fannie and Freddie overpaid the Treasury by $124 billion. They are suing to stop the Treasury from collecting any more profits.
Tim Howard, the former Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae, is the leading plaintiff in the lawsuit. He argued that the 2008 Housing and Economic Recovery Act violated shareholders’ contractual rights and deprived the two firms of valuable cash. The suit will seek compensatory damages in federal court. Further, it is important to note that Tim Howard is the only plaintiff in the Fannie Mae lawsuit against the government.
The lawsuit also cites the “succession clause,” which gives the federal government conservatorship over Fannie and Freddie Mac all the legal rights to file suits against shareholders. The government has not responded to requests for comment. The company’s name remains confidential and has not responded to inquiries about it. The case is currently under appeal, which means that the government will have to prove that it acted within its authority and is preventing Fannie and Freddie from building capital.
The government has put over 11,000 documents under protective orders after the firms filed a lawsuit against the government.
The documents contain classified information that the government claims could endanger the United States’ national security. Moreover, it claims that the president’s actions are illegal and could lead to a new financial crisis. This suit is not just another case against the government. Several other important factors need to be considered before filing a lawsuit against the federal government.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of the shareholders of Fannie Mae. The Trump administration wants to avoid lawsuits against the government because it would cause financial harm to the shareholders. The companies are already under government conservatorship, and the U.S. taxpayers should not be allowed to restructure the company without a legal guarantee of fair compensation. If the shares of Fannie and Freddie fail to recover, the lawsuit could endanger the entire economy.
The plaintiffs in the Fannie Mae lawsuit against the government have argued that the 2012 agreement – signed by Bush — exceeded the authority of the FHFA.
According to the shareholders, the government’s action does not violate the Constitution. However, it does not allow the government to force the companies to pay the money to the shareholders in their name. This action is a clear violation of their constitutional rights, and the plaintiffs want the ruling vacated.
The FHFA took control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008. The federal government agreed to provide them with 100 billion dollars each in exchange for a guarantee of repayment. The FHFA did not oblige the companies to accept all the money, but two subsequent amendments allowed them to draw more money from the federal government. This led to the government taking over the companies. The current owners of Fannie and Freddie are not paying the full sum of the loans.
The lawsuit was filed in federal court on behalf of the investors in Fannie Mae. The company has been under government conservatorship since 2008. The FHFA now requires the two companies to pay all of their net income to the federal government each quarter. The shareholders in Fannie and Freddie have not paid their dividends since. The investors in the case say that the government took away their private money. The company faces bankruptcy.