“This week, government lawyers essentially reiterated that the terms of the conservatorship under the HERA, as well as the Sweep of Fannie and Freddie’s profits, are related to a federal statute. Period. The Treasury brief essentially said HERA negated shareholders’ rights.
The HERA statutes referred to in the above are: 4617(b)(2)(A) and 4617(f).
FHFA’s brief asserted its broad powers as conservator under HERA to justify the Sweep. Remarkably, FHFA and Treasury have consistently omitted mention of the part of HERA that requires FHFA to “preserve and conserve” the assets of Fannie and Freddie. The siphoning of funds from privately-held companies, even companies with government charters, is not allowed in corporate law.Somehow, government lawyers would have the court believe that it is acceptable when the looting is done by the government. This conjures up Richard Nixon’s contortion about his culpability in the Watergate scandal in an interview with David Frost: “When the president does it, it is not illegal.”
Though 4617(b)(2)(A) grants almost complete authority and discretionary power to the conservator and 4617(b)(2)(A) gives an anti-injunction clause that prohibits courts from interfering with the exercise of such power, there are outstanding legal precedents that can be used to prove conflict of interest exceptions to the HERA statutes and these exceptions can be deemed to represent the intent of the Congress when making the above statutes.
The conflict of interest exceptions are the bases on which the Plaintiffs should have procedural standing in the courts and to be allowed to make derivative suits and substantive claims for the courts to judge on the merits. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120645424