The boards of both GSEs had the opportunity to fight conservatorship and choose to declare insolvency. THEY chose conservatorship, instead.
The government has had the opportunity to put the GSEs in receivership.They chose to maintain conservatorship, instead.
Much of the pending Fanniegate litigation involves claims on preferred shares. This seems to run the gamut from claims of misrepresentation of risk when new pfd share series were marketed, to claims that it violates certain state laws to favor one class of preferred shareholders over another, to claims that FHFA acting as a receiver should trigger the liquidation preference for preferred shareholders, etc., etc. I seriously doubt that any of these plaintiffs that are laser-focused on junior preferred share series agree with your accountancy dismissal and apparent goal to lower their legal standing in Fanniegate to that of any "swinging dick" creditor that must get in line at the back of the bus.
Again, as has been stated by several here. a "wind down" is not the same thing as a "wind up" and receivership. Judge Lamberth drew a line in the sand that stated derivative claims required the situation to be "ripe" meaning, in my mind, that a receivership must be declared by the Director of the regulated entity under the provisions specified in HERA.
I can't claim to have any personal insight into how long a constitutional challenge to HERA might take, its outcome or whether a ruling might or might not trigger another appeal including an eventual SCOTUS ruling. What I can state with certainty is that no such outcome is even possible unless someone gets off their fat butt and takes the action that was seemingly suggested in Judge Royce Lamberth's 2014 ruling.
JMHO.
