Fannie Mae: Federal Circuit in Piszel Guides D.C. Circuit on “Takings”

0
Fannie Mae: Federal Circuit in Piszel Guides D.C. Circuit on “Takings”
<h4>Fannie Mae</h4> <small>Photo by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/2839158592" target="_blank">NCinDC</a> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/" target="_blank" title="Attribution-NoDerivs License"><img src="https://www.valuewalk.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-inject/images/cc.png" /></a></small>

Fannie Mae: Federal Circuit in Piszel Guides D.C. Circuit on “Takings”

One of the core arguments the government made during the appeal of Judge Lamberth’s GSE lawsuit dismissal was that shareholders could not sue the government because, according to them, no taking had actually taken place.  Just yesterday the Federal Circuit clarified for us all what a “taking” is:

Screen Shot 2016-08-19 at 8.56.12 AM

Southpoint Capital Returns 28.6% In 2020 Thanks To Recovery Bets Like Uber [Exclusive]

Southpoint CapitalLong/short equity fund Southpoint Capital returned 14.7% in the fourth quarter of 2020, and 28.6% for 2020 as a whole, that's according to a copy of the firm's annual letter to investors, which ValueWalk has been able to review. Q4 2020 hedge fund letters, conferences and more This return compared to a 12.1% gain in Read More


The government in these various cases has argued every side of the coin in attempts to win. The plus to that is essentially the old saying “throw a bunch of shit on the wall and see what sticks”. Some of it sticks and they’ve won these earlier cases. However, those decisions are now immortalized as judicial precedent making their arguments in other cases in which they argued the exact opposite look a bit flaccid.

The issue now is becoming, since the government here has argued the exact opposite of what they argued in Piszel (and this is happening in other cases also) how does the government successfully say to the appellate court “yes, we argued the opposite in Piszel and the court agreed in its ruling but we believe the law says the opposite her”. OR, do they say the court in Piszel erred in its ruling but because they won they will not appeal?

They can try and have of course but they are painting themselves into a corner with their own arguments and their own counter arguments are becoming materially weaker. Further,  we’d be foolish to assume judges are not seeing, as Judge Sweeney called it the government’s “schizophrenic approach”  ……

Full letter:

Hume letter

Previous article Book of Value: The Fine Art of Investing Wisely (Columbia Business School Publishing)
Next article Apple Music Gets Frank Ocean’s New Visual Album Endless
Todd Sullivan is a Massachusetts-based value investor and a General Partner in Rand Strategic Partners. He looks for investments he believes are selling for a discount to their intrinsic value given their current situation and future prospects. He holds them until that value is realized or the fundamentals change in a way that no longer support his thesis. His blog features his various ideas and commentary and he updates readers on their progress in a timely fashion. His commentary has been seen in the online versions of the Wall St. Journal, New York Times, CNN Money, Business Week, Crain’s NY, Kiplingers and other publications. He has also appeared on Fox Business News & Fox News and is a RealMoney.com contributor. His commentary on Starbucks during 2008 was recently quoted by its Founder Howard Schultz in his recent book “Onward”. In 2011 he was asked to present an investment idea at Bill Ackman’s “Harbor Investment Conference”.

No posts to display