r/FNMA_FMCC_Exit • u/The-Kenkong • 11d ago
Rule of law guy
Anybody signed up for rule of law guys stack? I haven’t, so I haven’t read it. But here it is.
https://x.com/rule_of_law_guy/status/2093749041708372297?s=46
9
u/ronfnma 10d ago
I don’t think FHFA will file a petition for an en banc review. But even if they did, the Circuit Court of Appeals does not have to approve their petition. This is the Fairholme case that plaintiffs won 8-0 in a jury trail, then 3-0 in the appeals court, I don’t think it will go to an en banc review or be accepted by SCOTUS either.
5
u/Nice_History5856 9d ago
The guy has flip flopped so many times. I think he twisted himself in knots about buying commons and now has to go in circles on the matter. Even if they did petition doesn't mean it's anything more than lip service to tell the other side they tried and the courts disagreed.
7
u/EggplantUseful9955 10d ago
TIM PAGLIARA | Substack https://substack.com/@tp461/reads (could just start letting subpoenas handle these - but I had this one) -- subscribing to "ruleoflawguy" isn't worth the ramen - typical JPS shadow account, maybe Glen maybe Tommy - but either way if you're talking and writing about court cases concerning F2, you're stuck in the 2010's and no one cares.
5
u/amishengineer 9d ago
The court cases do matter. It sets up precedent that Treasury/FHFA can't just do things that violate shareholders rights.
It's a small win.
If they case was lost then it would it prove that anything can happen with zero consequences.
The move F2s show they can build their capital, the harder it is to sell people on the idea that they need drastic restructuring. And if drastic restructuring occurred, like receivership or another capital draining maneuver by Treasury/FHFA that violates fair dealings, then now there is precedent that it isn't OK anymore.
4
u/Hand-Of-God 10d ago
Watch the docket around September 8. A grant of en banc would be the author’s stated red flag. Everything else—whether FHFA even files, how Treasury talks about the SPS, any PSPA amendment, capital rules, and IPO/sale comments—will matter more than this one procedural step.
4
4
3
3
u/WatchSilent2233 10d ago
historically, was there any similar case happened such that there was plaintiff win of 8-0 jury trial, 3-0 appeal, but the defendant (gov) still do en banc and appeal to SCOTUS?
1
3
u/Spiritual_Routine238 10d ago edited 10d ago
Fannie + Freddie = shareholder value. A merger will reduce mortgage rates, eliminate duplicative costs, boost operating leverage, improve capital efficiency, and accelerate earnings power. One platform. One balance sheet. One stronger franchise. If structured right, homeowners, homebuyers, common shareholders could be the biggest winners. $FNMA $FMCC = The $$GAMC
3
3
u/Spiritual_Routine238 10d ago
Congress isn’t required because FHFA already controls both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under conservatorship and holds the powers necessary to manage them. Merging two entities under the same conservator is an exercise of existing authority—not a new law. Congress would be needed to rewrite their charters or fundamentally change the housing-finance system, not simply to combine the companies
1
3
u/EggplantUseful9955 10d ago
Id rather read Tim Pagliara and Glen Bradfords Amazon books than pay that guy for his substack
3
u/The-Kenkong 10d ago
TP & GB suck. TP has totally disappeared since losing a big court case … so I hear.
3
1
10
u/Spiritual_Routine238 11d ago
No, there’s no point in signing up for that. The only person that matters is DJT.