Fannie Mae Appeal Issues Presented to Appellate Court by Todd Sullivan, ValuePlays
Things are getting cranked up in the Appellate Court in the Fannie Mae / Federal National Mortgage Assctn Fnni Me (OTCBB:FNMA) and Freddie Mac / Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (OTCBB:FMCC) shareholder appeal…
Here it is in chart form (H/T Peter Chapman):
Charlie Munger: Invert And Use “Disconfirming Evidence”
Charlie Munger is considered to be one of the best investors and thinkers alive today. His thoughts and statements on investment research, investment psychology, and general rational behavior are often incredibly insightful. Anyone can learn something from this billionaire investor and philosopher. Q2 2020 hedge fund letters, conferences and more If you’re looking for value Read More
Below is the consolidated statement and then one from each plaintiff:
Fannie Mae: Preliminary Issues Statement
Pursuant to this Court’s October 21, 2014 Order, Appellants American European Insurance Company, Melvin Bareiss, Joseph Cacciapalle, John Cane, Francis J. Dennis, Marneu Holdings, Co., Michelle M. Miller, United Equities Commodities, Co., 111 John Realty Corp., Barry P. Borodkin, and Mary Meiya Liao (together, “Appellants”) respectfully submit this preliminary statement of issues to be raised in this appeal.
Appellants seek review of the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on September 30, 2014 by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Lamberth, J.), in which the District Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Appellants also seek review of the Order entered on September 30, 2014 by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Lamberth, J.), in which the District Court denied as moot the Fairholme Plaintiffs’ motion (which Appellants in this matter joined) for supplementation of the administrative record, suspension of briefing on the Defendants’ dispositive motions, and a status conference.
The issues to be raised on appeal are:
1. Whether the District Court erred in dismissing Appellants’ claim under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
2. Whether the District Court erred in holding that Appellants had failed to plead a cognizable property interest under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
3. Whether the District Court erred in holding that the diversion, in perpetuity, of all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac net profits to the Department of the Treasury on a quarterly basis (“Net Worth Sweep”) had no economic impact on Appellants’ dividend and liquidation preference rights, such that the Net Worth Sweep did not constitute a taking of a property interest under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.