WWW.ABSTRACT.XLIBX.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Abstract, dissertation, book
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |

«Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A. Jeffrey A. Lamken Stanley M. Chesley Waite, Schneider Bayless & Molo Lamken LLP Chesley Co., L.P.A. ...»

-- [ Page 1 ] --

Waite, Schneider, Bayless &

Chesley Co., L.P.A.

Jeffrey A. Lamken

Stanley M. Chesley

Waite, Schneider Bayless & Molo Lamken LLP

Chesley Co., L.P.A. 600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.

One West Fourth Street

Washington, D.C. 20037

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

T: 202.556.2010

T: 513-621-0267

F: 202.556.2001

F: 513-621-0262

jlamken@mololamken.com

stanchesley@wsbclaw.com

www.mololamken.com

MORTON ROSENBERG, LITIGATION CONSULTANT

33 Eton Overlook Rockville, MD 20850 T: 240-344-2373 August 25, 2010 Mr. Alfred M. Pollard General Counsel Attention: Comments/RIN 2590-AA23 Federal Housing Finance Agency Fourth Floor 1700 G Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20552 Re: Proposed Rule Regarding Conservatorship and Receivership 75 Fed. Reg. 39,462 (July 9, 2010); RIN 2590-AA23

Dear Mr. Pollard:

We submit the following comments and objections to RIN 2590-AA23 (the “Proposed Rule”) on behalf of Lead Plaintiffs Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio and the Class in the currently pending federal securities fraud class action against Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines, Timothy Howard, and Leanne Spencer (In Re Fannie Mae Securities Litigation, Consolidated Case No. 04-cv-1639 (D.D.C.)). The pending litigation is based on the 2001-2005 fraud at Fannie Mae that was discovered and detailed in two comprehensive public reports by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the predecessor to the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA” or the “Agency”). FHFA, through its predecessor, has already obtained a $50 million FHFA August 25, 2010 settlement from Fannie Mae and settlements valued at over $30 million from Raines, Howard, and Spencer based upon that same fraud. Now that FHFA (which was not damaged by the fraud) has obtained those settlements, it has proposed a new rule to prevent the more than 30 million pensioners throughout the 50 States who were damaged by the fraud, as well as other members of the class, from obtaining their just compensation.

That effort violates the express provisions of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (“HERA” or the “Act”), Pub. L. No. 110-289, 122 Stat.

2654, which requires FHFA to accord tort victims priority equivalent to that of other unsecured creditors. The Agency’s Proposed Rule improperly subverts that express statutory priority scheme. Because the Proposed Rule conflicts with the statute, exceeds FHFA’s authority, and is otherwise arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional, we respectfully request that the Agency reject the Proposed Rule or eliminate the improper provisions discussed below.

I. BACKGROUND

HERA authorizes FHFA to act as conservator or receiver for regulated entities including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 12 U.S.C. § 4617(a)(1). The Act sets forth specific powers the Agency may exercise as conservator or receiver, including power to “prescribe such regulations as the Agency determines to be appropriate regarding the conduct of conservatorships and receiverships.” Id.

§ 4617(b). But the Act also contains provisions that limit FHFA’s exercise of that authority. One such provision is the statutory priority scheme for receivership set forth in 12 U.S.C. § 4617(c)(1). Under that provision, “[u]nsecured claims against a regulated entity, or the receiver therefor,... shall have priority in the following

order”:

(A) Administrative expenses of the receiver.

(B) Any other general or senior liability of the regulated entity (which is not a liability described under subparagraph (C) or (D)).

(C) Any obligation subordinated to general creditors (which is not an obligation described under subparagraph (D)).

(D) Any obligation to shareholders or members arising as a result of their status as shareholder or members.

FHFA August 25, 2010

12 U.S.C. § 4617(c)(1) (emphasis added). Subject to limited exceptions not applicable here, “[a]ll creditors that are similarly situated under paragraph (1) shall be treated in a similar manner.” Id. § 4617(c)(2). The statutory priority scheme thus plainly distinguishes between general creditor claims (subsection (B)) and mere equity interests (subsection (D)).

On September 6, 2008, FHFA placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in conservatorship pursuant to HERA. On July 9, 2010, FHFA published the Proposed Rule at issue. See Conservatorship and Receivership, 75 Fed. Reg.

39,462 (proposed July 9, 2010). The Proposed Rule purports to implement HERA for conducting any conservatorship or receivership of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks. Id. at 39,462-72.

In fact, however, the Proposed Rule significantly departs from HERA’s statutory framework. Section 1237.9(a) of the Proposed Rule sets forth a revised priority scheme, in which claims in receivership are satisfied in the following

order:

(1) Administrative expenses of the receiver (or an immediately preceding conservator).

(2) Any other general or senior liability of the regulated entity (that is not a liability described under paragraph (a)(3) or (a)(4) of this section).

(3) Any obligation subordinated to general creditors (that is not an obligation described under paragraph (a)(4) of this section).





(4) Any obligation to current or former shareholders or members arising as a result of their current or former status as shareholders or members, including, without limitation, any Securities Litigation Claim.

Proposed 12 C.F.R. § 1237.9(a) (emphasis added). The term “Securities Litigation Claim” is defined very broadly to include “any claim, whether or not reduced to judgment, liquidated or unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured or unmatured, disputed or undisputed, legal, equitable, secured or unsecured, arising from rescission of a purchase or sale of an equity security of a regulated entity or for damages arising from the purchase, sale, or retention of such a security.” Proposed 12 C.F.R. § 1237.2. The Proposed Rule thus classifies securities fraud claims — even those reduced to final judgment in federal court — as the lowest priority, on par with equity.

FHFA August 25, 2010

The Agency attempts to justify reclassifying securities fraud claims as equity claims on the ground that doing so is “fair and appropriate.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 39,466. The Agency notes that Section 510(b) of the 1978 Bankruptcy Code expressly subordinates securities litigation claims to the lowest level of priority with shareholder claims in bankruptcy. Id. (citing 11 U.S.C. § 510(b)). Although HERA contains no analogous language, the Agency attempts to explain away that omission: HERA “does not contain all of the details governing insolvent entities that the Bankruptcy Code does,” the Agency asserts, “because Congress expected FHFA to fill in the gaps.” Id. The Agency contends that its choice is permissible because Congress enacted HERA “against the backdrop of... statutory and common law... treating Securities Litigation Claims derived from equity ownership as subordinated to or having the same priority as the underlying equity.” Id. at 39,466-67. The Agency also claims support from certain appeals court cases, such as Gaff v. FDIC, 919 F.2d 384 (6th Cir. 1990), that have “looked to the Bankruptcy Code for guidance on relative priorities of shareholder claims as well as other issues arising in receiverships of financial institutions.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 39,467.

Having proposed to subordinate the claims of securities fraud victims in receivership, the Agency also proposes corresponding changes to the provisions governing conservatorship. In particular, Section 1237.13(a), entitled “Payment of Securities Litigation Claims while in conservatorship,” would provide that “[t]he Agency, as conservator, will not pay a Securities Litigation Claim against a regulated entity, except to the extent the Director determines is in the interest of the conservatorship.” And Section 1237.12(a) would provide that, subject to limited exceptions, “a regulated entity shall make no capital distribution while in conservatorship,” which is also defined to include payments on securities litigation claims. See Proposed 12 C.F.R. § 1777.3(3). The Agency explains its nonpayment policy as a corollary of its revised priority scheme: “If the Conservator were to authorize payment of Securities Litigation Claims despite the statutory receivership priority system ranking such claims below all other claims, the purpose of the receivership priority system could be thwarted.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 39,468.

For the reasons explained below, neither the Agency’s proposed surgery on the statutory receivership priority scheme, nor its proposal to rely on that revised scheme to refuse to pay even valid judgments in conservatorship, is consistent with

–  –  –

the statute. Neither proposal can be reconciled with general legal principles or basic notions of fairness. And neither will withstand constitutional scrutiny. In short, both are arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

II. FHFA’S PROPOSED PRIORITY SCHEME CONFLICTS WITH THE

PRIORITIES CONGRESS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN HERA

The Proposed Rule should be rejected because subordination of securities fraud claims is directly contrary to the priority scheme Congress enacted. Contrary to the Agency’s claim, there is no “backdrop of... statutory and common law” that allows an agency to treat securities fraud claims — even those reduced to judgment — as mere equity interests. Rather, under Supreme Court precedent that the Agency does not even deign to cite (let alone attempt to distinguish), securities fraud claims must be treated as creditor claims absent statutory language mandating different treatment. Nothing in HERA supports that different treatment here. To the contrary, the legislative history of the statute on which HERA was modeled shows that Congress specifically considered subordination but overwhelmingly decided against it on a bipartisan basis. Moreover, the sound policy reasons that led Congress to reject subordination of securities fraud claims there — that doing so “would undermine fraud enforcement” and be “unfair to private plaintiffs who were innocent victims of wrongdoing” — apply with compelling force here. As a matter of law and policy alike, the Proposed Rule cannot be adopted.

A. UNDER THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN OPPENHEIMER, SECURITIES FRAUD CLAIMS MUST BE

TREATED AS CREDITOR CLAIMS ABSENT STATUTORY

LANGUAGE TO THE CONTRARY

HERA’s statutory priority scheme expressly distinguishes between creditor claims (“Any other general or senior liability of the regulated entity (which is not a liability described under subparagraph (C) or (D))”) and equity claims (“Any obligation to shareholders or members arising as a result of their status as shareholder or members”), reserving the lowest priority for the latter. 12 U.S.C.

§ 4617(c)(1)(B), (D). Thus, the dispositive question here is whether, under governing legal principles, a defrauded investor’s securities fraud claim is properly considered a creditor claim (like any other tort victim’s claim against the company) or rather a mere equity interest.

FHFA August 25, 2010

1. Although FHFA does not even bother to cite the case, the Supreme Court directly answered that question over 70 years ago in Oppenheimer v.

Harriman National Bank & Trust Co., 301 U.S. 206 (1937). That case stands squarely for the proposition that securities fraud claims are creditor claims, not equity interests, in a receivership, unless Congress provides specific statutory language providing for contrary treatment.

Oppenheimer involved a fraud claim by the purchaser of stock in a bank that had become insolvent and entered receivership. 301 U.S. at 207-08. Much like the class members here, the plaintiff in Oppenheimer claimed he had been defrauded into purchasing stock by the bank officers’ misrepresentations, and sought rescission. Id. at 208. The court of appeals ordered judgment for the plaintiff, but subordinated his claim to other creditors’ claims. Id. The fraud victim sought review, and the Supreme Court unanimously reversed.

The Court described the issue before it as “whether plaintiff’s judgment is entitled to share equally in the receivership estate with other unsecured creditors’ claims.” Oppenheimer, 301 U.S. at 213. It answered that question in the affirmative. “The fraudulent sale was subject to rescission by the plaintiff,” the Court explained, and “[n]either lapse of time while plaintiff remained ignorant of the fraud nor insolvency of the bank detracted from its liability.” Id. at 214. The plaintiff “merely s[ought] to share in the estate as do other unsecured creditors.” Id. That, the Court held, he was entitled to do: Securities fraud claimants “stand on the same footing as other creditors.” Id. at 215. And “[d]iscrimination against their claims is not authorized by the statute.” Id. “It follows,” the Court concluded, “that plaintiff’s judgment is entitled to rank on a parity with other unsecured creditors’ claims.” Id.

Oppenheimer thus stands squarely for the proposition that, except where discrimination is expressly “authorized by the statute,” securities fraud claimants must be treated the same as any other creditor in receivership. 301 U.S. at 213-15.

That 70-year-old holding reflected what was then already well-established law.

See Richardson v. Olivier, 105 F. 277, 280 (5th Cir. 1900) (“There is no sound reason, we think, for refusing to give a shareholder the same remedies against the bank on account of its frauds that are given to other creditors.”); Clark v. BostonCont’l Nat’l Bank, 84 F.2d 605, 607 (1st Cir. 1936) (victim of securities fraud “participate[s] ratably with other creditors in the distribution of the bank’s assets”);

FHFA August 25, 2010

Salter v. Williams, 244 F. 126, 130 (3d Cir. 1917) (defrauded investor “approaches the receiver like an ordinary creditor”); Williams v. Green, 23 F.2d 796, 797-98 (4th Cir. 1928); Fla. Land & Imp. Co. v. Merrill, 52 F. 77, 80-81 (5th Cir. 1892);



Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |


Similar works:

«Discovering an Integral Civic Consciousness in a Global Age Global Problems, Global Governance, and Denial John M. Bunzl ABSTRACT This article asks why, in an age of global crisis, global governance still remains a low priority for the integral community. It posits a civic line of development, suggesting only those possessing a world-centric level of civic awareness can fully comprehend global problems and the need for binding global governance. I argue that modern (orange altitude), postmodern...»

«72 Arbeitstechniken der Sammlung und Lagerung von Wildpflanzensamen keit der Samen, die spezifischen Substratanforderungen für Keimung und Keimlingsetablierung sowie die Rolle von Mykorrhizen für viele heimische Wildarten nicht ausreichend. Somit liegen die wesentlichen Herausforderungen für Saatgutbanken von Wildpflanzen zum einen der Beschaffung von Saatgut in ausreichender Qualität und Quantität und zum anderen in der Erforschung der artoder populationsspezifischen Keimungsbedingungen....»

«Effect of combined therapeutical methods on healing of intra-bony defects in regenerative periodontal surgery Ph.D. Thesis Ferenc Dőri D.M.D. Semmelweis University Consultant: Dr. István Gera Ph.D. Opponents: Dr. Katalin Nagy Ph.D. Dr. Mihály Orosz Ph.D. Chairman of the Examination Committee: Dr. Gábor Varga Ph.D. Members of the Examination Committee: Dr. Márta Ujpál Ph.D. Dr. Vilmos Tóth Ph.D. Budapest Contents 1. Introduction 2. Objectives and studies 2.1. Aims 2.2. Studies 3....»

«The “Rouen “ roll of arms An armorial mistakenly attributed to the siege of Rouen 1418 Introduction and edition by Steen Clemmensen from College of Arms, ms. Vincent 170 ff.154v-183r a.o.mss. This paper is a preliminary version published on the internet pending further research. Comments and suggestions are invited. Please write to info@armorial.dk Copenhagen CONTENTS Introduction 3 Manuscripts 4 Evaluation of entries 5 Analysis of contents 6 Date of collation 7 Summary 8 the Rouen and...»

«Polarforschung 60 (3): 197-218, 1990 (erschienen 1992) eme Die DDR-Antarktisforschung Retrospektive Von Hans-Jürgen Paech* Zusammenfassung: Es wird ein kurzer Überblick der Antarktisforschung der DDR (1959l 990) gegeben. Der politische Hintergrund dazu ist durch zögernde Haltung regierungs amtlicher Stellen gekennzeichnet, so daß erst 1987 die Deklaration der autonomen Georg-Forstcr-Stution möglich war. Wesentliche Bedeutung hatten die logistische Unterstützung lind wissenschaftliche...»

«Sport Nach Der Lebensmitte Not them have it to encourage the foreclosure property if this problems so that they face ideal. It can much drag the home in iPhones into an in-stock when they receive throwing and only you'm to have sole to drive to we. Hong APR did, Accolo real comparison feels your serving conversion. Also, possibility of one is the months of blows of best records. A affordable article for a compliance may long convince all the open anyone concept, to dispute online to as pick you...»

«Unsichtbares Komitee – An unsere Freunde also für Billy, Guccio, Alexis und Jeremy Hammond Es gibt keine andere Welt. Es gibt nur eine andere Art zu leben. Jacques Mesrine Inhaltsverzeichnis Merry crisis and happy new fear Sie wollen uns zum Regieren zwingen, wir werden uns auf diese Provokation nicht einlassen Die Macht ist Logistik. Blockieren wir alles! Fuck off Google Lass uns verschwinden Unsere einzige Heimat: die Kindheit Omnia sunt communia Today Libya, tomorrow Wall Street Die...»

«1 T.C. ADIYAMAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ TEZİN ADI: FRANZ SCHUBERT LİEDLERİ VE SANATSAL ÖZELLİKLERİ TEZİN TÜRÜ: YÜKSEK LİSANS ANABİLİM DALI: SAHNE SANATLARI ANABİLİM DALI TEZİ HAZIRLAYAN: İCLAL BAŞAK AĞDAŞ ADIYAMAN / 2014 FRANZ SCHUBERT LİEDLERİ VE SANATSAL ÖZELLİKLERİ İclal Başak AĞDAŞ FRANZ SCHUBERT LİEDLERİ VE YÜKSEK LİSANS TEZİ ÖZELLİKLERİ SANATSAL Sahne Sanatları Ana Bilim Dalı Danışman: Prof. Kadir KARKIN Adıyaman Adıyaman...»

«Business & Commercial Aviation Exploring High-Altitude Physiology By Robert N. Rossier/Business & Commercial Aviation The other day we had a little celebration. My friend Charlie Gray successfully climbed to the summit of Aconcagua, a 22,831-foot peak in Argentina that marks the highest point on the continent of South America. We received word of his arrival at the summit by satellite phone, and he described the scene in an elated, albeit winded tone. It was quite an accomplishment. Three years...»

«1.IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) ) CRIMINAL NO.ROBERT PHILIP HANSSEN, ) a/k/a “B” ) a/k/a “Ramon Garcia” ) a/k/a “Jim Baker” ) a/k/a “G. Robertson” ) AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ARREST WARRANT AND SEARCH WARRANTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION.3 II. KEY TERMS AND ENTITIES.6 III. BACKGROUND OF ROBERT PHILIP HANSSEN......... 11 A. FEDERAL...»

«Competencies and Skills: Filling old Skins with New Wine Christina Dörge University of Oldenburg, Computer Science Education, 26111 Oldenburg, Germany Christina. Doerge@informatik.uni-oldenburg.de Abstract. “Key competencies”, key skills and “key qualifications” are buzzwords so prominently featured in contemporary scientific treatises that discussions have been prompted about an inflationary use of the terms and what they really should be taken to mean. A similar situation exists in...»

«Forschungsarbeiten aus dem Verkehrswesen Band. Harald Trautsch, MSc eCall Studie 2007/2008 Thanks to Caroline Mayrhofer and Robert L. Martin for their assistance on the English version Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie Wien 2008 eCall Studie 2007 / 2008, Harald Trautsch, MSc  Kurzzusammenfassung Das europäische Notrufsystem eCall soll nach seiner Einführung pro Jahr etwa 2.500 Menschen nach Verkehrsunfällen das Leben retten und die Schwere der Verletzungen...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.abstract.xlibx.info - Free e-library - Abstract, dissertation, book

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.