you are looking thru the eyes of the government and not to what actually happened in the broader perspective, it is not a matter of what is enforceable by the government, let me know your thought on real life implementation, the government by all means can put google into conservatorship tomorrow, but if it is done under false circumstances (or at least unproven) the government will have a problem until they prove it, now if google lost the EMV https://www.gemalto.com/emv/contactless-us/emv-fundamentals data in the future, nobody will make a fuss about it, now if the IRS will lose data they have a real problem, with severe penalties, the trust in the government is to act in a moral manner, not as a for profit company, no matter if it is possible or not, the government by acting, sets a precedent and it may hunt them later, so they need to do the right thing if they want it or not
now as for 1) after a new investor enters(after RRR) , it also will happen to them in the next crisis and all they invested will be lost in perpetually, and they need to sue the government for more than 10 years 2) the government cannot seize a company and drain it into perpetually, no law says that is even an option 3) if the government does not come clean on what they did, they face difficulty attracting new investors, to me the “16.1B illegal funds” is not a proven figure, as they still withhold 12.000 documents, maybe the whole thing was a hoax, then the 16.1B will not apply IMO 4) SPS or warrant or both, at what cost for the company, legal or illegal, wise unwise, precedent, to name a few, are still thing that need to be figured out, if not figured out, and a quick fix will be installed, both need to be voided, as the government upto now did not come up with any defend on their intensions (saying 1 and doing just the opposite) IMO 5) As government you cannot pave a company with Debts, the government is there to help only, not to destroy or confiscate or make profit by intension
"In this country, people (and government agencies) are innocent until proven guilty. It's up to you to show why a senior-to-common conversion would be illegal; it's not up to me to show why it would be legal. "
kthomp19,
LOL, There is a simple test to prove whether some one is guilty or not.
If some private entities were to do the same as what FHFA Conservator has done so far then Gov would not have treated these entities no better than Maddoff. So why FHFA Conservator be treated any better than Maddoff?
The rules and laws applies the same way to Gov entities as well as private entities. In fact there is an expectation of higher standards from Gov officials .
The "Square Corners" Doctrine: The NJ Supreme Court announced the “square corners” doctrine. That doctrine says, in essence, that in dealing with the public, government agencies must “turn square corners,” “comport itself with compunction and integrity,” and not “conduct itself so as to achieve or preserve any kind of bargaining or litigational advantage” over a member of the public. As the Court observed, this means that “government may have to forego the freedom of action that private citizens may employ in dealing with one another.”
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
