You're one of those posters with a very basic general knowledge who does a lot of internet searches believing you can exhaust the realm of specifics without having either actual training, work experience, or a degree in the related fields or the subject matter. More importantly, it is clearly evident in the vast majority of your posts you will argue continually and assuredly that you have the answer when I doubt you are trained in any of these related fields - finance, law, economics, political science to name a few. Your overriding concern is NOT to get to the heart of the particular matter through discussion but to be right.
The post was about shareholder approval for reverse splits. If you read at a high-level and were not more concerned about being "right" you would have understood the emphasis on GENERAL which I called out twice in my post. Some of the actions that could potentially negate the shareholder vote COULD be a conservatorship or bankruptchy, etc. But neither of these implies there will necessarily be a reverse split, or that a reverse split will even be an option; furthermore, a general reverse split execution vis-a-vis voting rights would depend on the specifics of the situation involved - especially the order of execution of events - exit from conservatorship, bankruptcy, other negotiations with creditors, or even the need to change ownership structure at all. This is the situation that would likely make you correct - TSY converts and is not challenged or wins the challenge, TSYs conversion results in an outsized number of shares vis-a-vis market norms, a reverse split is determined to be the best option to get investors to take their positions, and ALL of this is done while in c'ship, not to mention there are no ensuing legal challenges.
It is correct that right now FnF shareholders do not have voting rights, and if the Treasury decided to extract the full value or a good portion of the value of their senior preferred shares by converting to common stock, it is conceviable for an outsized number of shares, but one would have to wait for the specifics before anything could be said on the likelihood that a reverse split would even need to be a consideration. Hopefully, your need to be right about a particular point doesn't override your ability to see all the departure points in that long chain of events. It is NOTHING but mental masturbation and speculation to even talk about the need for a reverse split, much less the legalities involved.
NOBODY here knows Treasury's intentions, what Congress may or may not eventually allow, what the courts may allow or not allow, what future legal challenges may ensue, and a plethora of other variables that makes any discussion of a reverse split totally meaningless at this point. I am hopeful, but not expecting, that you will understand the depth and breadth of this topic and not be so assured that you have ANY idea, much less such certainty, on how a reverse split would eventually be excuted.
One can avoid reality, but one cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.
AI
