Tag Archives: Treasury

The Taking of Fannie and Freddie 2

Posted on by

Today, I look at one more complaint filed in response to the federal government’s amendment to its Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements with Fannie and Freddie (the PSPAs).  Cacciapelle et al. v. United States, filed July 10, 2013, is another takings clause case like the one filed by Fairholme the day before. The facts alleged in the complaint should be familiar to readers of REfinblog.com (here, here and here), although this is a class action complaint.

The plaintiffs state that the members of the class “paid valuable consideration to acquire these rights, and in doing so helped provide financial support for Fannie and Freddie, both before and after the conservatorship, by contributing to a viable market for Fannie’s and Freddie’s issued securities. Plaintiffs certainly had a reasonable, investment-backed expectation that the property they acquired could not be appropriated by the Government without payment of just compensation.” (4-5)

Now having read four complaints dealing with the same issue arising from the financial crisis, I am struck by the importance of narrative in litigation. Given that the federal government saved the Fannie and Freddie from certain financial ruin, we may label the Cacciapelle narrative the “Have Your Cake and Eat It Too” storyline.

One can well imagine the government’s version of events in its inevitable motion to dismiss.

Fannie and Freddie were at the brink of ruin.  We swept in, provided unlimited capital and rescued the companies, the housing market, the country and the world from the Second Great Depression.  To have the private preferred shareholders engage in Monday Morning Quarterbacking and focus on the details from the crisis response that harmed them, to have them ignore the competing concerns that were at stake for each of these critical decisions, adds insult to this injurious lawsuit.  Judge, do not succumb to this hindsight bias!

Let’s label this the Corialanus storyline.

These lawsuits have caught reporters’ eyes and will be well-covered in the press. I would look to see which narratives resonate and I wouldn’t be surprised if the dominant narrative finds its way into the judicial opinions that decide these cases.

Federal Government’s a Fairholme-weather Friend?

Posted on by

Following up on my posts (here and here) about other suits against the federal government over its amendment of the terms of the distribution of dividends and other payments by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I now look at Fairholme Funds, Inc. et al. v. FHFA et al., filed July 10, 2013.  The suit alleges very similar facts to those found in Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States, filed July 9, 2013, but the claims for relief are more similar to those found in Perry Capital, LLC v. Lew et al.

Here are some of the key claims made by the plaintiffs (owners of Fannie and Freddie preferred shares):

  • While the FHFA is the conservator of the two companies, it is acting acting like a receiver by “winding down” Fannie and Freddie’s “affairs and liquidating” their assets, while conservatorship should aim to return a company “to normal operation.” (15) The goal of the conservator, claim the plaintiffs, is to return the company “to a safe, sound and solvent condition.” (15, quoting Conservatorship and Receivership, 76 Fed. Reg. 35, 724, 35, 730(June 20, 2011)) As a result, plaintiffs argue that the Net Worth Sweep (which gives to the federal government substantially all of Fannie and Freddie’s profit) “is squarely contrary to FHFA’s statutory responsibilities as conservator of Fannie and Freddie” because it does not put them in “a sound and solvent condition” and it does not “conserve the assets and property” of the two companies. (25, quoting 12 U.S.C. section 4617(b)(2)(D))
  • “Neither Treasury nor FHFA made any public record of their decision-making processes in agreeing to the Net Worth Sweep.” (29) The plaintiffs argue that the FHFA’s “authority as conservator of” Fannie and Freddie “is strictly limited by statute.” (31, citing 12 U.S.C. section 4617(b)(2)(D)) As a result, the FHFA’s actions were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” (33, quoting the APA, 5 U.S.C. section 706(2)(A))
  • The plaintiffs’ relationship with Treasury as Fannie and Freddie’s controlling shareholders is governed by state corporate law and thus Treasury owes “fiduciary duties to minority shareholders.” (38)
  • “Implicit in every contract is a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The implied covenant requires a party in a contractual relationship to refrain from arbitrary or unreasonable conduct which has the effect of preventing the other party to the contract from receiving the fruits of the bargain.” (41) Plaintiffs argue that their contractual rights pursuant to their preferred shares have been breached by FHFA’s consent to the Net Worth Sweep.

The validity of these claims should not be assessed superficially. The courts will need to read HERA in the context of the APA and the amendment to the terms of the government’s preferred shares in the context of the contractual obligations found in the private preferred shares. The court will also need to assess the extent to which state corporate law governs the actions of the federal government when it is acting in the multiple capacities of lender, investor, regulator and conservator.  Let the memoranda in support and in opposition to motions to dismiss come forth and enlighten us as to how it should all play out . . ..

 

 

 

Fairholme or Foul? Investor Complaint Over Fannie and Freddie Preferred

Posted on by

I recently reviewed the complaint filed by former Solicitor General Olson in Perry Capital LLC v. Lew and today I review the complaint in a similar lawsuit, Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States, filed July 9, 2013.  Fairholme filed another lawsuit the next day, Fairholme Funds, Inc. et al. v. FHFA et al., which I will review tomorrow. Whereas the Perry case alleged violations of the Administrative Procedures Act and the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), the July 9th Fairholme case alleges that the United States must pay just compensations pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution for taking the plaintiffs’ property, by gutting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac preferred shares of all of their worth.

As with the Perry case, the Fairholme complaint turns on whether an amendment to the government’s preferred stock documents which gave to the government all of Fannie and Freddie’s profits created a new security in violation of HERA.  In particular, the complaint alleges that by “changing the dividend on its Government Stock in this manner, FHFA actually created, and Treasury purchased, an entirely new security.” (5) This, it appears to me, is a highly contested claim.

https://www.indianepilepsyassociation.org

Evoking a famous Supreme Court case, the complaint also states that just “as the Federal Government cannot seize the assets of corporations (for example, the nation’s steel mills) for a public purpose without paying just compensation, so too it cannot seize the shares of stock in corporations to accomplish the same end.” (23) This implicit comparison to the Youngstown Steel case does not work as far as I am concerned.  In Youngstown Steel, the Supreme Court struck down President Truman’s exercise of his inherent authority to seize steel mills in order to support the Korean War mobilization.  Here, we have the federal government already knee deep in the affected companies.  Fannie and Freddie are government-sponsored enterprises; were placed in conservatorship; and have the federal government as their majority shareholders.

While the issues here are complex, my first read of the complaint is that the plaintiffs have a tough row to hoe even though the federal government may have upended preferred shareholders’ settled expectations.

Where’s Perry? Are Phannie and Freddie Busted?!?

Posted on by

With all apologies to Perry the Platypus who stars in my sons’ favorite TV show, Phineas and Ferb, today I look at the complaint in Perry Capital, LLC v. Lew et al. Perry Capital has sued the federal government for destroying the value of Fannie and Freddie securities held by Perry and the investment funds it manages. In particular, the complaint (drafted by Theodore Olson and others at Gibson Dunn) states that

Perry Capital seeks to prevent Defendants from giving effect to or enforcing the so-called Third Amendment to preferred stock purchase agreements (“PSPAs”) executed by Treasury and the FHFA, acting as conservator for the Companies. The Third Amendment fundamentally and unfairly alters the structure and nature of the securities Treasury purchased under the PSPAs, impermissibly destroys value in all of the Companies’ privately held securities, and illegally begins to liquidate the Companies. (2)

The plaintiff alleges that the government’s actions violate the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA). The APA governs the decision-making procedures of federal agencies like Treasury and independent agencies like the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). HERA was passed at the outset of the financial crisis and governs the process by which Fannie and Freddie may be put into conservatorship. (I discuss the enactment of HERA in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Future of Federal Housing Finance Policy: A Study of Regulatory Privilege, which is also available on BePress.)

[Warning:  necessary but complex details follow.  Those who are not GSE geeks may skip to the end.]

After the two companies were put into conservatorship in 2008,

Treasury and the FHFA executed the PSPAs, according to which Treasury purchased 1 million shares of the Government Preferred Stock from each company, in exchange for a funding commitment that allowed each company to draw up to $100 billion from Treasury as needed to ensure that they maintained a net worth of at least zero. As relevant here, the Government Preferred Stock for each company has a liquidation preference equal to $1 billion plus the sum of all draws by each company against Treasury’s funding commitment and is entitled to a cumulative dividend equal to ten percent of the outstanding liquidation preference. The PSPAs also grant Treasury warrants to purchase up to 79.9% of each company’s common stock at a nominal price. (2-3)

 According to the complaint, the Third Amendment to the PSPA changed the way that profits would be distributed by the two companies:

Under the original stock certificates, Treasury’s dividend was paid quarterly in the amount equal to an annual ten percent of the Government Preferred Stock’s outstanding liquidation preference. In the Third Amendment, the FHFA and Treasury amended the dividend provision to require that every dollar of each company’s net worth above a certain capital reserve amount be given to Treasury as a dividend. . . . Treasury’s additional profits from the Third Amendment are enormous. (5)

This is a very complex case, and I will return to it in future posts.  For now, I would just flag some issues that may pose problems for Perry.

First, is this case ripe for adjudication?  Perry states that they will be harmed when the two companies liquidate, but they are nowhere near liquidation.  Will the harm Perry predicts necessarily come about? The claim that they are harmed as to their expected dividends is stronger. Yet Perry acknowledges that the PSPAs “explicitly prohibit the payment of any dividend to any shareholder other than Treasury without Treasury’s consent.” (16)

Second, to what extent is this matter governed by the APA? I am not an APA expert, and I am wary of second-guessing Olson’s complaint in a blog post. But I would note that the court may not find that the APA even applies in this case and may find that HERA governs this dispute on its own. And even if the APA applies, the court may give great deference to the decisions of Treasury and the FHFA.

Finally, does the language from HERA that Perry relies on really give it much to hang its hat on? I think the crux of Perry’s argument is that the Third Amendment “created new securities”  instead of changing the terms of existing securities. (24) If a court disagrees with Perry on this (and it seems like a bit of a stretch to me), the theory of the case will be severely weakened.

All of this being said, I would agree with Perry that the holders of the Private Sector Preferred Stock — particularly the holders that predate conservatorship — look like they are receiving a raw deal from the federal government.  Various regulations encouraged lending institutions to hold Fannie and Freddie preferred stock over other investments. Those incentives sure looked like an implied guarantee before the subprime crisis knocked Fannie and Freddie off their feet.

Bottom line: this dispute cannot be settled in a late night blog post.  We’ll have to wait and see if Agent P can pull off what may be his most difficult mission yet.