WAZEE STREET OPPORTUNITIES FUND IV LP v. THE FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, 2:18-cv-03478

Plaintiff, Wazee Street Opportunities Fund IV LP, a holder of Fannie Mae stock, brought suit against the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and the U.S. Treasury, challenging the FHFA's structure as unconstitutional and raising claims regarding the agency's funding mechanism.
The FHFA was created by the 2008 Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA), headed by a Director removable by the President only "for cause."
In 2012, FHFA and Treasury implemented the "Third Amendment" to their agreements, requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to pay virtually all profits to Treasury, rather than shareholders.
The Supreme Court's 2021 Collins v. Yellen decision held the FHFA Director's removal protection unconstitutional and remanded for inquiry into whether the restriction caused harm.
This case had been stayed for several years pending the resolution of related litigation; Plaintiff moved to amend its complaint in 2024 (three years after Collins), seeking to allege harm and add an Appropriations Clause claim.
Defendants opposed amendment on grounds of undue delay, futility, and statute of limitations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held (Court's Ruling)
Whether delay in moving to amend was undue	Delay was justified by other pending cases	Delay was excessive and unjustified	Delay was undue; Plaintiff lacked compelling reason
Whether amendment to add removal-restriction harm viable	Alleged new facts show harm from restriction	Claims are too speculative; rejected by other courts	Claims too speculative; amendment futile
Whether Appropriations Clause claims are viable	Claims relate back to original complaint	Claims are new, untimely, and legally flawed	Claims time-barred; do not relate back
Whether leave to amend complaint should be granted	Justice so requires amendment	Amendment would be futile, cause prejudice	Leave to amend denied on all grounds

Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. 220 (2021) (held the FHFA removal protection for its Director unconstitutional; remanded on harm)
Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Cmty. Fin. Servs. Ass’n of Am., Ltd., 601 U.S. 416 (2024) (held CFPB’s funding did not violate Appropriations Clause)