DRAIN THE SWAMP

NOS. 19-422 & 19-563 In the Supreme Court of the United States PATRICK J. COLLINS, ET AL., Petitioners, v. STEVEN T. MNUCHIN, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, ET AL., Respondents. ________________  STEVEN T. MNUCHIN, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, ET AL., Petitioners, v. PATRICK J. COLLINS, ET AL., Respondents. ________________  On Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ________________  BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE COURT-APPOINTED AMICUS CURIAE The Law Professor Aaron Nielson outlines a superb explanation of the Charter’s and the Conservatorship’s dynamics in his Amicus Curiae brief. By seeing it down in writing, in black and white, this scandal known as Fanniegate has laid bare a reality that has been denounced a thousand times on internet message boards. He stresses the Charter’s “special borrowing rights from Treasury §1719 (b)(c)” and linking it to their Public Mission and the ability of the enterprises to get funds on the market at

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

________________________________________________ Washington Federal v. United States, No. 13-385C WAZEE STREET OPPORTUNITIES v. United States, No. 18-1124C Before Chief Judge Margaret M. Sweeney. In the United States Court of Federal Claims - BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE - The shareholders are witnessing how the plaintiffs (mainly Junior Preferred Stock -JPS- holders) and the Government, along with the FHFA-Conservator collude with judges to favor their economic interest, at the expense of the shareholders (holders of common stocks) A shareholder of a company is related to the ownership interest, that is, the ability to vote directly on the decisions of the management in the Annual Shareholders' Meetings and the appointment of the members of the Board Of Directors, who are tasked with the supervision of the management. A common stock, unlike the debt instruments Obligation, Bond, Note, MBS, etc, reflects the value of the enterprises because it has an econ

According to 2008 HERA, Capital Distributions (like dividends) are restricted for Undercapitalized enterprises. But there are exceptions where they are authorized: if it's in connection with the "purchase of ownership interest" (the SPS are Equity) and it will "reduce the obligations" (the SPS are obligations). In July 2011, when it was clear that FnF would become profitable soon (the losses were driven by the provision set aside for loan modifications and their portfolios were almost fully reserved) and thus, the SPS would be paid back soon (I estimate they were paid back in 2013 for FMCC and 2014 in the case of FNMA), the FHFA, with the excuse of writing regulation to be more transparent about what is set forth in HERA, added one important exception more that would allow FnF to continue paying dividends to the Equity holders: "to meet their Risk-Based Capital levels", that is, for their recapitalization. The Administration's narrative ha

In Spain we know it well. Every time there's a switch of political parties in any Administration (Municipal, Regional or Central State) and the opposition party takes over the helm, the news about unpaid bills emerge. It's commonly known as " bills hidden in the drawer ". So, a new Administration starts its mandate with the coffers in negative territory. This causes many troubles to the private contractors working for the Administrations because their bills are due during months or years. But the authorities in the Eurozone have come up with a brilliant idea. Let's use the Central Banks to advance the payments to the creditors using the money printing press but, as the new bank notes in circulation would show up in the statistics provoking depreciation of the currency and thus, inflation, it's better to conceal it issuing Book Money, which is not legal tender and therefore, it cannot show up in any statistic. In my previous article a talked widely about

Capital Distributions are restricted while in Conservatorship, according to 2008 HERA, where is set forth the regulation. The FHFA has repeated this several times, although referring to payments of claims, etc. But a dividend is also a Capital Distribution. It doesn't matter what is written in the SPSPA signed between the FHFA/US Treasury, because a contract doesn't supersede a law in force. Distributing dividend would go against Established Insolvency Principles and common sense. The companies need to increase capital and not decrease it, retaining earnings and not distributing it. The FHFA has allowed to distribute Capital only to one holder of Equity interest, the holder of Senior Preferred Stocks. Why is that? It turns out that distributing capital to the US Treasury both recapitalizes the enterprises (to be in a solvent condition) and pays off the obligations with the Treasury (to be in a sound condition), which is exactly the Conservator's Power: If you have