Skip to main content

Though the judge found that the allegations of securities fraud against Fannie Mae were baseless, Fannie's conservator pays off the plaintiffs rather than allow evidence of Bush Administration malfeasance go into the public record.  

The plaintiffs, former shareholders of Fannie Mae, lost all hope seven months ago, on November 20, 2012, when Judge Richard Leon handed down his latest summary judgement dismissing all legal claims against the individual defendants--former CEO Franklin Raines, former CFO Timothy J. Howard, or former Controller Leanne Spencer. From that  point onward, it was a legal impossibility for Judge Leon to find that the corporation could ever liable for securities fraud, as the plaintiffs alleged in their complaint almost nine years ago.

Corporations may be people in the eyes of Mitt Romney, but in order to proceed to trial on a claim of securities fraud, or accounting fraud, the plaintiff needs to show that a bona fide human being, acting on behalf of the corporation,  knew he was intentionally deceiving investors.  The legal word for this intent to deceive is called, "scienter."  In his three summary judgement dismissals Judge Leon was emphatic.  He ruled that there was no evidence, none whatsoever, of scienter on the part of the former Fannie executives.  See excerpts from his decisions here. He left himself no latitude to rule differently with regard to Fannie Mae itself.

Also, it would be overly gentle to say that Judge Leon's rulings were a slap in the face of two appointees of George W. Bush, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, and the director of the Office of Federal Enterprise Oversight, or OFHEO, James Lockhart.  It's impossible to read court documents and not infer that Cox and Lockhart lied to the public, to Congress and to Leon's colleague, Judge Reggie Walton, who in 2006 accepted a $400 million settlement agreement between Fannie Mae and the SEC, based on on the dishonest claim that Fannie"concealed," $10.6 billion in hedging losses.  

Which is why  Mike DeWine, Ohio's Republican Attorney General, moved so quickly. Representing the plaintiffs, after the first crooked plaintiffs attorney was disbarred,  DeWine immediately filed secret a motion, under seal, calling for a timeout. He sought a stay of proceedings while the parties entered into settlement negotiations.  

Because three of the four parties at the negotiating table were highly conflicted--they had every motivation to conceal all the Bush Administration dirty laundry uncovered during the litigation process--the process became less about protecting the taxpayers, who retain all of Fannie's profits, than it was about maintaining the facade of plausibility for past government actions.

The assigned mediator was Fred Fielding, who, as White House Counsel under the G.W. Bush, asserted that Executive Privilege has no limit. There was the successor agency to OFHEO, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Fannie's conservator, which  consistently stonewalled litigants and the Court, in order to conceal past misdeeds (see some sample filings here). There were the outside lawyers working for DeWine, who wanted to get paid for pursuing this nine-year fiasco, and there was Fannie's former accounting firm, KPMG, which does a lot of business with federal and state agencies.    

And for the next six months, negotiations dragged on, until an announcement last week that the parties had settled for about $153 million, or $76.5 million paid by Fannie and $76.5 million paid by KPMG. Given the size of both of those entities, it's relative drop in the bucket, a small fraction of what they paid out in legal fees over the past eight years.  

And it works to obscure the fact that the famous Fannie Mae accounting "scandal," was always a sham perpetrated by the Bush Administration.  

Word around Washington is the House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling wants to conduct hearings on the Fannie Mae litigation after the case is wrapped up. He might start by issuing subpoenas to these guys:

Former OFHEO Deputy Director Stephen Blumenthal
Pertinent Questions:
Why exactly, did you tell others that, "Fannie and Freddie are the axis of evil and must be destroyed,"?

Why did you compare OFHEO's role as a regulator to Eddie Adams' Pulitzer Prize winning Vietnam War photograph of a point blank execution of a Vietcong prisoner?

Former HUD Inspector General
Pertinent Questions:
Why do you believe that your criminal referral of OFHEO Director Armando Falcon was not acted upon by the Bush Justice Department?

What was your reaction that Falcon had lied to the media, when he claimed that, "I am pleased that a determination has been made that I followed the law, acted wholly within my authority as director,"?

Former Chief SEC Accountant Donald Nicolaisen
Pertinent Questions:
When you testified before Congress you asserted that Fannie Mae's accounting  FAS 133 was "outside professional accounting standards." Later, during your deposition  questioning you stated:

What I expressed was my view and professional judgment. There's no question that it was a professional judgment . . .and, in my opinion, it was outside the professional bounds. But that is an opinion. I mean, I'll be very clear also in saying a lot of other people concluded otherwise.
Before you testified before Congress in 2004, had you consulted with any other accounting firm to get a reality check on you opinion? Were you aware at the time that the top four accounting firms took the opposite view? Were you aware at the time that your predecessor at the SEC, Walter Scheutze, took the opposite view? Can you point to any accounting firm that holds a similar opinion to yours?

Why do you think the SEC insisted to the Court that you should not be allowed to testify?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  So Fannie Mae didn't lose $10.6 billion in this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster, virginislandsguy

    bogus "scandal"?  Or did they just not really conceal it?

    It's impossible to read court documents and not infer that Cox and Lockhart lied to the public, to Congress and to Leon's colleague, Judge Reggie Walton, who in 2006 accepted a $400 million settlement agreement between Fannie Mae and the SEC, based on on the dishonest claim that Fannie"concealed," $10.6 billion in hedging losses.  
    Incidentally, despite being delisted and in recievership, Fannie Mae stock is up an incredible 400% or so in a month on massive accumulation.  

    Someone knows something besides the fact that Fannie and Freddie are churning out enormous profits.

    "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

    by shrike on Sun May 26, 2013 at 03:32:57 PM PDT

    •  It was simple (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shrike, johnny wurster

      The $10.6 B in mark-to-market losses, which are only timing differences, were made as direct adjustments to equity, instead of running them through the P&L.

      Whether or not you agreed with the presentation, anyone who understood Fannie's financial statements could see what was going on. Many other financial entities were doing the same thing. No one was fooled, which is why it never met the definition of securities fraud.

      The SEC and OFHEO concealed from Congress and everyone else that these were timing differences that were fully disclosed by Fannie.

      •  Thanks. (0+ / 0-)

        Another victim of mark-to-market it appears.  Has Fannie Mae been adjusting for the rise in valuations?

        I am still trying to find an explanation in this stock movement.  It is not individual investors accumulating.  

        "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

        by shrike on Sun May 26, 2013 at 03:51:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the price movement is .. (0+ / 0-)

          the bet by hedge funds that Fannie will be restored to its prior status and that shareholders will get some value for their stock in a highly profitable company.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site