Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies	14. Commitments and Contingencies We are party to various types of legal actions and proceedings, including actions brought on behalf of various classes of claimants. We also are subject to regulatory examinations, inquiries and investigations and other information gathering requests. In some of the matters, indeterminate amounts are sought. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages or other relief. Jurisdictions may permit claimants not to specify the monetary damages sought or may permit claimants to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. This variability in pleadings, together with our and our counsel's actual experience in litigating or settling claims, leads us to conclude that the monetary relief that may be sought by plaintiffs bears little relevance to its merits or disposition value. On a quarterly and annual basis, we review relevant information about all pending legal actions and proceedings for the purpose of evaluating and revising our contingencies, reserves and disclosures. Legal actions and proceedings of all types are subject to many uncertain factors that generally cannot be predicted with assurance. Accordingly, the outcome of any given matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time is frequently difficult to ascertain. Uncertainties can include how fact finders will evaluate documentary evidence and the credibility and effectiveness of witness testimony, and how trial and appellate courts will apply the law. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel view the evidence and applicable law. Further, FHFA adopted a regulation on June 20, 2011, which provides, in part, that while we are in conservatorship, FHFA will not pay claims by our current or former shareholders, unless the Director of FHFA determines it is in the interest of the conservatorship. The presence of this regulation and the Director of FHFA's assertion that it will not pay claims asserted in certain cases discussed below while we are in conservatorship creates additional uncertainty in those cases. We have established a reserve for those matters where a loss is probable and where we can reasonably estimate the amount of such loss. Reserves have been established for certain of the matters noted below. These reserves did not have a material adverse effect on our financial statements. We note, however, that in light of the uncertainties involved in such actions and proceedings, there is no assurance that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not significantly exceed the reserves we have currently accrued. For the remaining legal actions or proceedings, including those where there is only a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred, we are not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible losses or ranges of losses and we have not established a reserve with respect to those actions or proceedings. We are often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development, where plaintiffs seek substantial or indeterminate damages, or where there may be novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings or settlement negotiations have not occurred or progressed. Further, as noted above, FHFA's regulation and the Director of FHFA's assertion creates additional uncertainty with respect to certain cases. Given the uncertainties involved in any action or proceeding, regardless of whether we have established a reserve, the ultimate resolution of certain of these matters may be material to our operating results for a particular period, depending on, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and the level of our net income or loss for that period. Based on our current knowledge with respect to the matters described below, we believe we have valid defenses to the claims in these proceedings and intend to defend these matters vigorously regardless of whether or not we have recorded a loss reserve. In addition to the matters specifically described below, we are involved in a number of legal and regulatory proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business that we do not expect will have a material impact on our business or financial condition. We have advanced fees and expenses of certain current and former officers and directors in connection with various legal proceedings pursuant to indemnification agreements. In re Fannie Mae Securities Litigation Fannie Mae is a defendant in a consolidated class action lawsuit initially filed in 2004 and currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In the consolidated complaint filed on March 4, 2005, lead plaintiffs Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio allege that we and certain former officers, as well as our former outside auditor, made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs contend that Fannie Mae's accounting statements were inconsistent with GAAP requirements relating to hedge accounting and the amortization of premiums and discounts, and seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and other fees and costs. On January 7, 2008, the court defined the class as all purchasers of Fannie Mae common stock and call options and all sellers of publicly traded Fannie Mae put options during the period from April 17, 2001 through December 22, 2004. On October 17, 2008, FHFA, as conservator for Fannie Mae, intervened in this case. On August 18, 2011, the parties filed various motions for summary judgment. On October 7, 2011, FHFA, as conservator, filed a motion to stay this case for the duration of our conservatorship based on a regulation FHFA adopted on June 20, 2011, which provides in part that while we are in conservatorship, FHFA will not pay claims by our current or former shareholders, unless the Director of FHFA determines it is in the interest of the conservatorship. The Acting Director of FHFA has determined it will not pay the claims asserted in this case while we are in conservatorship. FHFA maintains, therefore, that continuing litigation of this matter would be a waste of resources. Alternatively, FHFA has stated it will seek a stay of this case, while a separate lawsuit challenging the regulation is decided. In September and December, 2010, plaintiffs served expert reports claiming damages to plaintiffs under various scenarios ranging cumulatively from $2.2 billion to $8.6 billion. Given the substantial and novel legal questions that remain, including those raised by FHFA's regulation and the Director of FHFA's determination, we are currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation. 2008 Class Action Lawsuits Fannie Mae is a defendant in two consolidated class actions filed in 2008 and currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York – In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation and In re 2008 Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation. On February 11, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that the cases be coordinated for pretrial proceedings. Given the early status of these matters, the absence of a specified demand or claim by the plaintiffs and the substantial and novel legal questions that remain, we are currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from these lawsuits. In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation In a consolidated complaint filed on June 22, 2009, lead plaintiffs Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management Board and Boston Retirement Board (for common shareholders) and Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System (for preferred shareholders) allege that we, certain of our former officers, and certain of our underwriters violated Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Lead plaintiffs also allege that we, certain of our former officers, and our outside auditor, violated Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lead plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including rescission, damages, interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, and other equitable and injunctive relief. On October 13, 2009, the Court entered an order allowing FHFA to intervene. On November 24, 2009, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims as to all defendants. On September 30, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the Securities Exchange Act claims. As a result of the partial denial, some of the Securities Exchange Act claims remain pending against us and certain of our former officers. On October 14, 2010, we and certain other defendants filed motions for reconsideration of those portions of the Court's September 30, 2010 order denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. Fannie Mae filed its answer to the consolidated complaint on December 31, 2010. Defendants' motions for reconsideration were denied on April 11, 2011. On July 28, 2011 lead plaintiffs filed motions to certify a class of persons who, between November 8, 2006 and September 5, 2008, inclusive, purchased or acquired (a) Fannie Mae common stock and options or (b) Fannie Mae preferred stock. On October 12, 2011, FHFA, as conservator, filed a letter with the court requesting a pre-motion conference to discuss FHFA's intention to file a motion to stay this case for the duration of our conservatorship based on a regulation FHFA adopted on June 20, 2011, which provides in part that while we are in conservatorship, FHFA will not pay claims by our current or former shareholders, unless the Director of FHFA determines it is in the interest of the conservatorship. The Acting Director of FHFA has determined it will not pay the claims asserted in this case while we are in conservatorship. FHFA maintains, therefore, that continuing litigation of this matter is a waste of resources. Alternatively, FHFA will seek a stay of this case while a separate lawsuit challenging the regulation is decided. In re 2008 Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation In a consolidated complaint filed on September 11, 2009, plaintiffs allege that certain of our current and former officers and directors, including former members of Fannie Mae's Benefit Plans Committee and the Compensation Committee of Fannie Mae's Board of Directors, as fiduciaries of Fannie Mae's Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“ESOP”), breached their duties to ESOP participants and beneficiaries by investing ESOP funds in Fannie Mae common stock when it was no longer prudent to continue to do so. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of participants and beneficiaries of the ESOP whose accounts invested in Fannie Mae common stock beginning April 17, 2007. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other fees and costs and injunctive and other equitable relief. On November 2, 2009, defendants filed motions to dismiss these claims, which are now fully briefed and remain pending. On November 2, 2011, we filed a letter notifying the court of two recent decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that are relevant to the defendants' motions to dismiss. Comprehensive Investment Services v. Mudd, et al. This individual securities action was originally filed on May 13, 2009, by plaintiff Comprehensive Investment Services, Inc. against certain of our former officers and directors, and certain of our underwriters in the Southern District of Texas. On July 7, 2009, this case was transferred to the Southern District of New York for coordination with In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation and In re 2008 Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 11, 2011 against us, certain of our former officers, and certain of our underwriters. The amended complaint alleges violations of §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; violations of §20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and violations of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, common law fraud, and negligent misrepresentation in connection with Fannie Mae's May 2008 $2.0 billion offering of 8.25% non-cumulative preferred Series T stock. Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of rescission, actual damages, punitive damages, interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, and other equitable and injunctive relief. On July 11, 2011, defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, which are now fully briefed and remain pending. Given the preliminary stage of this lawsuit, the absence of a specified demand or claim by the plaintiff and the substantial and novel legal questions that remain, we are currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation. Smith v. Fannie Mae, et al. This individual securities action was originally filed on February 25, 2010, by plaintiff Edward Smith against Fannie Mae and certain of its former officers as well as several underwriters in the Central District of California. On April 12, 2010, this case was transferred to the Southern District of New York for coordination with In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation and In re 2008 Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2011, which alleges violations of §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; violations of §20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; common law fraud and negligence claims; and California state law claims for misrepresentation in connection with Fannie Mae's December 2007 $7.0 billion offering of 7.75% fixed-to-floating rate non-cumulative preferred Series S stock. Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of rescission, actual damages (including interest), and exemplary and punitive damages. On July 11, 2011, defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, which are now fully briefed and remain pending. Given the preliminary stage of this lawsuit, the absence of a specified demand or claim by the plaintiff and the substantial and novel legal questions that remain, we are currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation. Alenick v. Merrill Lynch, et al. On May 12, 2011, Zeke Alenick filed an individual securities action against one of our former officers, certain of our underwriters, and an employee of one of our underwriters in New York State Court. Plaintiff alleges common law fraud, recklessness, negligence, and violations of §349 of the New York General Business Law in connection with Fannie Mae's May 2008 $2.0 billion offering of 8.25% non-cumulative preferred Series T stock. The complaint seeks various forms of relief, including damages, punitive damages, and rescission. On June 13, 2011, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and accepted as related to In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation and In re 2008 Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation. On July 18 and 25, 2011, Alenick filed motions to dismiss voluntarily all defendants. The court granted those motions on July 25 and 28, 2011, and closed the case. Investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission On September 26, 2008, we received notice of an ongoing investigation into Fannie Mae by the SEC regarding certain accounting and disclosure matters. On January 8, 2009, the SEC issued a formal order of investigation. We are cooperating with this investigation. Investigation by the Department of Justice On September 26, 2008, we received notice of an ongoing federal investigation by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York into certain accounting, disclosure and corporate governance matters. In connection with that investigation, Fannie Mae received a Grand Jury subpoena for documents. That subpoena was subsequently withdrawn. However, we were informed that the Department of Justice was continuing an investigation and on March 15, 2010, we received another Grand Jury subpoena for documents. We are cooperating with this investigation.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

14. Commitments and Contingencies

We are party to various types of legal actions and proceedings, including actions brought on behalf of various classes of claimants. We also are subject to regulatory examinations, inquiries and investigations and other information gathering requests. In some of the matters, indeterminate amounts are sought. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages or other relief. Jurisdictions may permit claimants not to specify the monetary damages sought or may permit claimants to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. This variability in pleadings, together with our and our counsel's actual experience in litigating or settling claims, leads us to conclude that the monetary relief that may be sought by plaintiffs bears little relevance to its merits or disposition value.

On a quarterly and annual basis, we review relevant information about all pending legal actions and proceedings for the purpose of evaluating and revising our contingencies, reserves and disclosures.

Legal actions and proceedings of all types are subject to many uncertain factors that generally cannot be predicted with assurance. Accordingly, the outcome of any given matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time is frequently difficult to ascertain. Uncertainties can include how fact finders will evaluate documentary evidence and the credibility and effectiveness of witness testimony, and how trial and appellate courts will apply the law. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel view the evidence and applicable law. Further, FHFA adopted a regulation on June 20, 2011, which provides, in part, that while we are in conservatorship, FHFA will not pay claims by our current or former shareholders, unless the Director of FHFA determines it is in the interest of the conservatorship. The presence of this regulation and the Director of FHFA's assertion that it will not pay claims asserted in certain cases discussed below while we are in conservatorship creates additional uncertainty in those cases.

We have established a reserve for those matters where a loss is probable and where we can reasonably estimate the amount of such loss. Reserves have been established for certain of the matters noted below. These reserves did not have a material adverse effect on our financial statements. We note, however, that in light of the uncertainties involved in such actions and proceedings, there is no assurance that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not significantly exceed the reserves we have currently accrued.

For the remaining legal actions or proceedings, including those where there is only a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred, we are not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible losses or ranges of losses and we have not established a reserve with respect to those actions or proceedings. We are often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development, where plaintiffs seek substantial or indeterminate damages, or where there may be novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings or settlement negotiations have not occurred or progressed. Further, as noted above, FHFA's regulation and the Director of FHFA's assertion creates additional uncertainty with respect to certain cases.

Given the uncertainties involved in any action or proceeding, regardless of whether we have established a reserve, the ultimate resolution of certain of these matters may be material to our operating results for a particular period, depending on, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and the level of our net income or loss for that period. Based on our current knowledge with respect to the matters described below, we believe we have valid defenses to the claims in these proceedings and intend to defend these matters vigorously regardless of whether or not we have recorded a loss reserve.

In addition to the matters specifically described below, we are involved in a number of legal and regulatory proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business that we do not expect will have a material impact on our business or financial condition. We have advanced fees and expenses of certain current and former officers and directors in connection with various legal proceedings pursuant to indemnification agreements.

In re Fannie Mae Securities Litigation

Fannie Mae is a defendant in a consolidated class action lawsuit initially filed in 2004 and currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In the consolidated complaint filed on March 4, 2005, lead plaintiffs Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio allege that we and certain former officers, as well as our former outside auditor, made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs contend that Fannie Mae's accounting statements were inconsistent with GAAP requirements relating to hedge accounting and the amortization of premiums and discounts, and seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and other fees and costs. On January 7, 2008, the court defined the class as all purchasers of Fannie Mae common stock and call options and all sellers of publicly traded Fannie Mae put options during the period from April 17, 2001 through December 22, 2004. On October 17, 2008, FHFA, as conservator for Fannie Mae, intervened in this case. On August 18, 2011, the parties filed various motions for summary judgment.

On October 7, 2011, FHFA, as conservator, filed a motion to stay this case for the duration of our conservatorship based on a regulation FHFA adopted on June 20, 2011, which provides in part that while we are in conservatorship, FHFA will not pay claims by our current or former shareholders, unless the Director of FHFA determines it is in the interest of the conservatorship. The Acting Director of FHFA has determined it will not pay the claims asserted in this case while we are in conservatorship. FHFA maintains, therefore, that continuing litigation of this matter would be a waste of resources. Alternatively, FHFA has stated it will seek a stay of this case, while a separate lawsuit challenging the regulation is decided.

In September and December, 2010, plaintiffs served expert reports claiming damages to plaintiffs under various scenarios ranging cumulatively from $2.2 billion to $8.6 billion. Given the substantial and novel legal questions that remain, including those raised by FHFA's regulation and the Director of FHFA's determination, we are currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.

2008 Class Action Lawsuits

Fannie Mae is a defendant in two consolidated class actions filed in 2008 and currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York – In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation and In re 2008 Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation. On February 11, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that the cases be coordinated for pretrial proceedings. Given the early status of these matters, the absence of a specified demand or claim by the plaintiffs and the substantial and novel legal questions that remain, we are currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from these lawsuits.

In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation

In a consolidated complaint filed on June 22, 2009, lead plaintiffs Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management Board and Boston Retirement Board (for common shareholders) and Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System (for preferred shareholders) allege that we, certain of our former officers, and certain of our underwriters violated Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Lead plaintiffs also allege that we, certain of our former officers, and our outside auditor, violated Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lead plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including rescission, damages, interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, and other equitable and injunctive relief. On October 13, 2009, the Court entered an order allowing FHFA to intervene.

On November 24, 2009, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims as to all defendants. On September 30, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the Securities Exchange Act claims. As a result of the partial denial, some of the Securities Exchange Act claims remain pending against us and certain of our former officers. On October 14, 2010, we and certain other defendants filed motions for reconsideration of those portions of the Court's September 30, 2010 order denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. Fannie Mae filed its answer to the consolidated complaint on December 31, 2010. Defendants' motions for reconsideration were denied on April 11, 2011. On July 28, 2011 lead plaintiffs filed motions to certify a class of persons who, between November 8, 2006 and September 5, 2008, inclusive, purchased or acquired (a) Fannie Mae common stock and options or (b) Fannie Mae preferred stock.

On October 12, 2011, FHFA, as conservator, filed a letter with the court requesting a pre-motion conference to discuss FHFA's intention to file a motion to stay this case for the duration of our conservatorship based on a regulation FHFA adopted on June 20, 2011, which provides in part that while we are in conservatorship, FHFA will not pay claims by our current or former shareholders, unless the Director of FHFA determines it is in the interest of the conservatorship. The Acting Director of FHFA has determined it will not pay the claims asserted in this case while we are in conservatorship. FHFA maintains, therefore, that continuing litigation of this matter is a waste of resources. Alternatively, FHFA will seek a stay of this case while a separate lawsuit challenging the regulation is decided.

In re 2008 Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation

In a consolidated complaint filed on September 11, 2009, plaintiffs allege that certain of our current and former officers and directors, including former members of Fannie Mae's Benefit Plans Committee and the Compensation Committee of Fannie Mae's Board of Directors, as fiduciaries of Fannie Mae's Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“ESOP”), breached their duties to ESOP participants and beneficiaries by investing ESOP funds in Fannie Mae common stock when it was no longer prudent to continue to do so. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of participants and beneficiaries of the ESOP whose accounts invested in Fannie Mae common stock beginning April 17, 2007. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other fees and costs and injunctive and other equitable relief. On November 2, 2009, defendants filed motions to dismiss these claims, which are now fully briefed and remain pending. On November 2, 2011, we filed a letter notifying the court of two recent decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that are relevant to the defendants' motions to dismiss.

Comprehensive Investment Services v. Mudd, et al.

This individual securities action was originally filed on May 13, 2009, by plaintiff Comprehensive Investment Services, Inc. against certain of our former officers and directors, and certain of our underwriters in the Southern District of Texas. On July 7, 2009, this case was transferred to the Southern District of New York for coordination with In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation and In re 2008 Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 11, 2011 against us, certain of our former officers, and certain of our underwriters. The amended complaint alleges violations of §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; violations of §20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and violations of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, common law fraud, and negligent misrepresentation in connection with Fannie Mae's May 2008 $2.0 billion offering of 8.25% non-cumulative preferred Series T stock. Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of rescission, actual damages, punitive damages, interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, and other equitable and injunctive relief. On July 11, 2011, defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, which are now fully briefed and remain pending. Given the preliminary stage of this lawsuit, the absence of a specified demand or claim by the plaintiff and the substantial and novel legal questions that remain, we are currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.

Smith v. Fannie Mae, et al.

This individual securities action was originally filed on February 25, 2010, by plaintiff Edward Smith against Fannie Mae and certain of its former officers as well as several underwriters in the Central District of California. On April 12, 2010, this case was transferred to the Southern District of New York for coordination with In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation and In re 2008 Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2011, which alleges violations of §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; violations of §20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; common law fraud and negligence claims; and California state law claims for misrepresentation in connection with Fannie Mae's December 2007 $7.0 billion offering of 7.75% fixed-to-floating rate non-cumulative preferred Series S stock. Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of rescission, actual damages (including interest), and exemplary and punitive damages. On July 11, 2011, defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, which are now fully briefed and remain pending. Given the preliminary stage of this lawsuit, the absence of a specified demand or claim by the plaintiff and the substantial and novel legal questions that remain, we are currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.

Alenick v. Merrill Lynch, et al.

On May 12, 2011, Zeke Alenick filed an individual securities action against one of our former officers, certain of our underwriters, and an employee of one of our underwriters in New York State Court. Plaintiff alleges common law fraud, recklessness, negligence, and violations of §349 of the New York General Business Law in connection with Fannie Mae's May 2008 $2.0 billion offering of 8.25% non-cumulative preferred Series T stock. The complaint seeks various forms of relief, including damages, punitive damages, and rescission. On June 13, 2011, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and accepted as related to In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation and In re 2008 Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation. On July 18 and 25, 2011, Alenick filed motions to dismiss voluntarily all defendants. The court granted those motions on July 25 and 28, 2011, and closed the case.

Investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission

On September 26, 2008, we received notice of an ongoing investigation into Fannie Mae by the SEC regarding certain accounting and disclosure matters. On January 8, 2009, the SEC issued a formal order of investigation. We are cooperating with this investigation.

Investigation by the Department of Justice

On September 26, 2008, we received notice of an ongoing federal investigation by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York into certain accounting, disclosure and corporate governance matters. In connection with that investigation, Fannie Mae received a Grand Jury subpoena for documents. That subpoena was subsequently withdrawn. However, we were informed that the Department of Justice was continuing an investigation and on March 15, 2010, we received another Grand Jury subpoena for documents. We are cooperating with this investigation.