This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in related cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The first opinion addresses standing to bring takings claims against the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The second opinion also addresses standing but also subject matter jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum.
Washington Federal v. United States (Precedential)
This is a companion to appeals in eight other matters: Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 20-1912, -1914, Owl Creek Asia I, L.P. v. United States, No. 20-1934, Mason Capital L.P. v. United States, No. 20-1936, Akanthos Opportunity Fund, L.P. v. United States, No. 20-1938, Appaloosa Investment Ltd. Partnership I v. United States, No. 20-1954, CSS, LLC v. United States, No. 20-1955, Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. United States, No. 20-2020, and Cacciapalle v. United States, No. 20-2037. In those cases (collectively, the Fairholme appeals), certain shareholders of the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (collectively, the Enterprises or Companies) challenged actions taken by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) after it placed the Enterprises under conservatorship. Those shareholders alleged that a “net worth sweep” under an amendment to the FHFA’s preferred stock purchase agreements (PSPAs) with the Department of Treasury (Treasury) constituted, inter alia, a direct taking or illegal exaction of their share value. We affirmed decisions of the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) dismissing those claims for lack of standing. Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 20-1912, -1914, -1934, -1936, -1938, -1954, -1955, -2020, -2037, slip op. at 7 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2022).
Here, Washington Federal, Michael McCredy Baker, and the City of Austin Police Retirement System (collectively, the Washington Federal Plaintiffs) also alleged direct takings and illegal exaction claims. We separated this appeal from the Fairholme appeals because the claims here primarily were predicated on the imposition of the conservatorships over the Enterprises, rather than on actions the FHFA later took in its capacity as conservator. Specifically, the Washington Federal Plaintiffs alleged that the FHFA lacked the statutory authority to impose the conservatorships. The Washington Federal Plaintiffs now appeal the Claims Court’s final judgment dismissing their claims for lack of standing. Wash. Fed. v. United States, 149 Fed. Cl. 281 (2020). We affirm.
Fairholme Funds v. United States (Precedential)
Certain shareholders of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) appeal a judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) granting-in-part the government’s motion to dismiss their directly pled constitutional and non-constitutional claims for either lack of standing or lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States, 147 Fed. Cl. 1 (2019); Owl Creek Asia I, L.P. v. United States, 148 Fed. Cl. 614 (2020); Mason Cap. L.P. v. United States, 148 Fed. Cl. 712 (2020); Akanthos Opportunity Master Fund, L.P. v. United States, 148 Fed. Cl. 647 (2020); Appaloosa Inv. Ltd. P’ship I v. United States, 148 Fed. Cl. 679 (2020); CSS, LLC v. United States, 149 Fed. Cl. 363 (2020); Arrowood Indem. Co. v. United States, 148 Fed. Cl. 299 (2020); Cacciapalle v. United States, 148 Fed. Cl. 745 (2020). The government cross-appeals the portions of the Claims Court’s judgment denying its motion to dismiss shareholders’ derivative claims. Because we conclude that the Claims Court correctly dismissed shareholders’ directly pled claims but erred in not dismissing shareholders’ derivatively pled allegations, we affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part.
Allbee v. Department of Homeland Security (Nonprecedential)
Lee Allbee petitions for review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) that affirmed the action of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP” or “agency”) removing him from his position of GS-14 Supervisory Border Patrol Agent. Allbee v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. DA-0752-20-0238-I-1, 2020 WL 6448868 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 26, 2020), App. 1. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.