IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New we believe in change, change or we keel you
http://www.businessi...er-chysler-2009-5
The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say they were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person described the administration as the most shocking "end justifies the means" group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was "the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger." Both were voters for Obama in the last election.

One participant in negotiations said that the administration's tactic was to present what one described as a "madman theory of the presidency" in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm.
how very nixon of him
New Ok...
So if you think that THE PEOPLE should take it both ways...

IOW, Would you rather PAY more to "preserve" the Creditors Profits?

I mean, come on, we are paying for it. I'd rather not line more money into a pocket.

They could have just C7'd the company. They got more than going C7.
New If they got more than going c7 why did they want to go c7?
instead of the deal offered?
New Rules and Obligations rather than...
cutting your losses and being done with it.

Think about it, no creditor *WANTS* to be stuck with a lame turkey... that will be slow pay for a long time.

Or don't you see it that way.

Plus it keeps *SOME* of the Muricans werkin'.
New correction


One participant in negotiations said that the administration's tactic was to present what one described as a "madman theory of the presidency" in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm.

how very nixon of him


What you really meant to say was, "how very George W. Bush of him".




"Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from."

-- E.L. Doctorow
New Don't think your correction is needed
playah haytah! ;-)

Think box's assessment was fairly accurate.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New doubly shocking, of course
...to decent, hardworking credit default swap investors, given that the monied class was accustomed to a different, ah, tone under the late junta ("What an impressive crowd: the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base" —George W. Bush).

I am coming to adore this president, not least because he continues to leave his foes so utterly flummoxed. I only wish he was a tenth part the scourge of the "malefactors of great wealth" that the malefactors fear he is.

cordially,
New very good point, so buying secured notes is now a bad idea
since unsecured political cronies take precedent how very Zimbabwe of you
New Ah, "Zimbabwe"
Whatever might have suggested such a metaphor to you, young Massa Oxley?

Couldn't be that...? Nah. Not Our Bill.
New you appear to suggest that hedge funds and bond holders
are the new white farmers of the west, where the government evicts them from their wealth and redistributes it to political factions more palatable to the president. That was the quote from the story "madman theory of the presidency" put forward by their supporters. I wonder if his advisers really understand the ramifications of coming across like Robert Mugabe is a politically smart thing to do.


New Yawn.
http://www.thetrutha...cramdown-tactics/ - see the comments.

Chrysler would have failed months ago without the federal bailout. It's still going to fail unless everyone involved gives up something (and even if it survives, it'll be a shell of its former self). Isn't it refreshing that we have an administration (representing the public that has a lot of money at stake) that is willing to apply some pressure to those who seemingly aren't willing to accept that?

Not that I take the anonymous comments in the stories at face value, of course...

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New How utterly predictable.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New Wouldn't want to disappoint.
New ;-)
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New ;-)
New Right
Conversations with administration officials left them expecting that they would be politically targeted, two participants in the negotiations said.

And this leak would be something else? Both sides are trying to manipulate politics and the public.

So far, the administration has just done a better job at it. The investor group has been limited to whiny statements like this one or heavy handed fluff like their claim that they had to do this to protect the pension plans.

There is probably a bit of real surprise involved here though. After 8 years of the Bush administration helping companies to bypass/alter the law and manipulate the public, any push back probably comes as a shock to them.

Jay
New WTF you mean bypass the law
Bankruptcy law has been very straight forward for a long time. Secured creditors get paid before unsecured. Its the fucking Obama preppie squad that is trying to bypass the law, not the lien holders
Yeah I guess the propaganda crap really works :-(
New The law is hardly ever simple.
If it were simple, we wouldn't need lawyers.

http://www.thetrutha...le-kill-the-sale/

[...]

Chrysler’s opening memorandum of law, however, does not address the important question of why, absent the consent of the dissident lenders, 65% of the equity in New Chrysler should go to junior creditors in satisfaction of their respective claims against Old Chrysler while the claims of senior dissenting lenders go unpaid?

One thing’s for sure, Chrysler’s (and soon GM’s) court battles will afford us a rare opportunity to witness one of bankruptcy law’s most fundamental questions being litigated in the highest stakes battles of all time: when does the “absolute priority rule” which establishes a hierarchy of recovery rights among creditor classes, take a back seat to the “fresh start,” rehabilitative policy of chapter 11?

Chrysler’s opening memorandum touched upon this question by focusing on the US Supreme Court’s pronouncement in NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U.S. 513, 528 (1984). The Court stated that the “fundamental purpose of reorganization is to prevent the debtor from going into liquidation, with an attendant loss of jobs and possible misuse of economic resources.” This principle, Chrysler argues, is paramount and (quoting NY’s judicial patriarch, Bankruptcy Judge Lifland, in the old Eastern Airlines case) “all other bankruptcy policies are subordinated” to it.

Many, however, will surely disagree with Judge Lifland’s statement from twenty years ago that all bankruptcy policies should be subordinated to the reorganization objectives of the Bankruptcy Code. Indeed, even on a practical level, as “Chapter 11’s Failure in the Case of Eastern Airlines” note, such a policy is a failure:

Eastern Airlines’ bankruptcy illustrates the devastating effect of court-sponsored asset stripping—using creditors’ collateral to invest in negative net present value “lottery ticket” investments—on firm value. During bankruptcy, Eastern’s value dropped over 50%. We show that a substantial portion of this value decline occurred because an over-protective court insulated Eastern from market forces and allowed value-destroying operations to continue long after it was clear Eastern should be shut down.


And what of Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Boyd?

Following the Panic of 1893, shareholders and bondholders combined in a proposed reorganization plan to transfer the debtor’s assets to a new company that they would own, while freezing out the railroad’s general unsecured creditors, whose priority fell between the bondholder and shareholder classes (sound familiar?).

The unsecured creditors argued that the foreclosure sale contemplated by the plan “was the result of a conspiracy between the bondholders and shareholders to exclude general creditors” from the new company.

The trial court overruled the unsecured creditors’ objection. They held that as the debtor was insolvent and there was no value for unsecured creditors (or in this case, the dissident lenders). So the unsecured are entitled to nothing.

[...]


Arguments can be made on both sides - it's not simple. See the comments, too.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New you are looking at 11 I am refering to 7
New Either way, the secured bondholders wouldn't get 65%
In April there was a TTAC discussion on this. http://www.thetrutha...top-making-sense/

1) The "secured" bondholders weren't going to get 65 cents on the dollar if Chrysler went Chapter 7. There's a glut of car manufacturing capacity in the US, and who would want Chrysler's factories, brands, and office buildings in Michigan now?

Consider this BW story from 2007 - http://www.businessw...7_10/b4024056.htm - before Daimler spun it off.

Private equity firms see substantial breakup value in Chrysler alone. The Jeep brand plus its factories could bring $5 billion to $7 billion. At least a few of Chrysler's plants would be of interest to Hyundai Motor, Chinese automakers, Renault-Nissan, India's Tata Motors, and possibly Volkswagen. DaimlerChrysler Financial Services, almost a forgotten asset, earned about $2 billion last year. The wild card? A private buyer would have to negotiate UAW worker buyouts and figure out who pays for it.


That was when the economy was still growing. All of those manufacturers, perhaps excluding the Chinese, are hurting. Jeep sales were down 49% in January compared to a year earlier - http://jeepworld.wor...-2009-are-brutal/

Chrysler is worth almost nothing in this environment. Recall that FIAT has proposed to pay $0 for its proposed merger/buyout, and that's with Uncle Sam and others putting in a bunch of money. The only potential way to get any value out of Chrysler is to give it some breathing room and dramatically restructure it.

2) If Chrysler goes under in an uncontrolled way, GM will be hurt even more, as will Ford and other comparably healthy US manufacturers because they have many of the same suppliers. Letting them simply go belly up isn't on the table. They may never exist as a US manufacturer again, but at least the disassembly will be a controlled process with more interests being considered than just a fire-sale to satisfy a few of the bond holders.

Bankruptcy judges do this kind of stuff all the time. If Obama's proposal is so onerous then the courts will slap the proposal down.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New I thinmk you are confused slightly
Bankruptcy judges do this kind of stuff all the time. If Obama's proposal is so onerous then the courts will slap the proposal down.
Obama's proposal is to keep it out of the judges hands, that why all the threats to make the parties accept it
New Maybe. Maybe not.
Pch101 and CamaroKid's takes are similar to my own:

http://www.thetrutha...l#comment-1481315

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New thats gotta be an lrpd
Pch101 and CamaroKid's takes are similar to my own:
well porchmonkey and roach disagree
http://www.economist...story_id=13610871
The investors in these firms are easily portrayed as vultures, but many are entrusted with the savings of ordinary people, and in any case all have a legal claim that entitles them to due process. In a crisis it is easy to put politics first, but if lenders fear their rights will be abused, other firms will find it more expensive to borrow, especially if they have unionised workforces that are seen to be friendly with the government.


New Recall that only a few bondholders were holdouts.
http://dealbook.blog...rtner=rss&emc=rss

What began last Thursday as a collection of about 20 investment firms holding a combined $1 billion in debt has dwindled to a set of five, holding a total of about $295 million. (The group apparently lost a member, since in a filing on Tuesday, it reported holding about $300 million.)

The members include three funds associated with Schultze Asset Management; Stairway Capital Management; Oppenheimer, which holds debt in two funds; Group G Partners, which has holdings in two funds; and Foxhill Capital Partners.

By opposing the Obama administration’s out-of-court debt restructuring plan, this group of holdout creditors has found themselves in the national spotlight. Last Thursday, as Chrysler filed for bankruptcy protection in New York, President Obama criticized the holdouts as “speculators,” even as the creditors argued that they were being treated unfairly under the government’s plan.

The majority of the holders of Chrysler’s $6.9 billion in senior secured debt, a group led by JPMorgan Chase, has agreed to accept the government’s proposal and take a big loss on their holdings.


Those who are complaining about "Obama gutting the Constitution" and using similar hyperbole on this issue need to start using some qualifiers. Only a handful are still holding out. The vast majority have accepted that they won't be first in line to pick Chrysler's carcass.

But, again, a judge is going to rule on this. It's not going to be imposed by Obama's fiat, so to speak. ;-)

We'll see how it turns out.

Cheers,
Scott.
New whats left are the folks who did cave to the threats
"by the crazy president" remember?
New Off-the-record paraphrases of their impressions.
Show me some on-the-record quotes, not spin, and then we'll talk.

Really...

Cheers,
Scott.
New sure, they just made it all up, bad repos
New It doesn't sound a little over the top to you?
Another characterized Obama was "the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger."


Really?

I'm supposed to take that as being indicative of what really happened?

Give me a break...

Cheers,
Scott.
New and from an Obama supporter to boot
so you dont think he is as smart or a smooth as kissinger?
New Legal manuvering
Before they landed in bankruptcy court the sides where free to negotiate what ever they wanted. When the matter landed in Bankruptcy court, Chrysler tried it's pre-filing negotiating position as an opening court position. If the bankruptcy court forces something on Chrysler, it is sure to not follow this suggested deal. Both sides know that well, it probably isn't even legal as court ordered settlement.

The creditors are still breaking down and accepting the deal. Basically, Obama is refusing to roll over and give the creditors more then they could get for liquidation. Think of Chrysler as a guy who owes $500 and has $100 in assets. In a straight liquidation, the assets are sold the creditors get $1 for every $5 they are owed. What is happening here is that the government doesn't want to see they guy get liquidated, so the government is offering the creditors $100 and offering the guy a new $200 loan to get back on his feet. What the creditors are saying is, "Hey, there is $200 there we should be getting." The governments reply is "Fine, we cancel the loan offer, and we are going to tell everybody you ruined this guy."

Jay
New Jane at FDL has more...
http://firedoglake.c...t-welfare-dammit/

[...]

So the co-investors that came together in 2007 to stupidly blow $6.9 billion on the Cerberus buyout of Chrysler thought they had gold on their balance sheets for an otherwise worthless investment. Their loans were in first position and secured, which meant that even if the company got chopped up and sold for parts, they'd be entitled to whatever was left in the event of bankruptcy.

Only that didn't happen. The UAW's VEBA trust had a $10.6 billion lien (and junior creditor position) against Chrysler. In bankruptcy, the judge gave the VEBA trust 55% of the stock, or .43 on the dollar for their investment, and the first position creditors got .30 for theirs, or so went the popular math.

"Long story short, a junior creditor was able to leap the senior-most creditor and in the process make a mockery of longstanding US bankruptcy law...capitalists have no choice but to sit up and take notice," said the cowering Eric Landry of Morningstar.

“The creditors’ rights were trashed and the unions got 55 percent of the company,” said "afraid to speak out" Jack Welch.

Gee, what's missing from this story. Oh yeah:

1. The US government has already dumped $7 billion into Chrysler.
2. At that point, taxpayers became the "super senior creditors." That's what it means when it says "debt owed to the government would be senior to other debts."
3. As Steven Pearlstein and others have observed, the secured debt had a street value of .30 on the dollar -- exactly what the hedge funds got.
4. Had the government not loaned the $7 billion already, that secured debt would have been worth about zero cents on the dollar.
5. The US government will take 8% of the company, which means they've essentially just transferred the bulk of their first position interest to the UAW and all other Chrysler stakeholders -- they haven't robbed the hedge funds crybabies of a dime.

In other words, Jack Welch and the rest of the corporate welfare set just assume that the government investment should go to them. As Pearlstein notes, the hedge funds were free to pump cash into Chrysler too and mitigate the need for government intervention, but they didn't. They wanted to be cocooned from risk by the taxpayers and screw the workers too.

They're incapable of seeing that the government acted not to help its "big labor donors" (which is garbage -- finance dwarfed labor in direct contributions to the Obama campaign). The goal was not to give a way a bunch of money, but to keep Chrysler's collapse from triggering a wave of 2 million job losses that could have precipitated a global economic meltdown.

[...]


(See the story for embedded links.)

HTH! ;-)

Cheers,
Scott.
     we believe in change, change or we keel you - (boxley) - (30)
         Ok... - (folkert) - (2)
             If they got more than going c7 why did they want to go c7? - (boxley) - (1)
                 Rules and Obligations rather than... - (folkert)
         correction - (lincoln) - (1)
             Don't think your correction is needed - (beepster)
         doubly shocking, of course - (rcareaga) - (3)
             very good point, so buying secured notes is now a bad idea - (boxley) - (2)
                 Ah, "Zimbabwe" - (rcareaga) - (1)
                     you appear to suggest that hedge funds and bond holders - (boxley)
         Yawn. - (Another Scott) - (4)
             How utterly predictable. -NT - (beepster) - (3)
                 Wouldn't want to disappoint. -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                     ;-) -NT - (beepster) - (1)
                         ;-) -NT - (Another Scott)
         Right - (jay) - (14)
             WTF you mean bypass the law - (boxley) - (13)
                 The law is hardly ever simple. - (Another Scott) - (11)
                     you are looking at 11 I am refering to 7 -NT - (boxley) - (10)
                         Either way, the secured bondholders wouldn't get 65% - (Another Scott) - (9)
                             I thinmk you are confused slightly - (boxley) - (8)
                                 Maybe. Maybe not. - (Another Scott) - (7)
                                     thats gotta be an lrpd - (boxley) - (6)
                                         Recall that only a few bondholders were holdouts. - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                             whats left are the folks who did cave to the threats - (boxley) - (4)
                                                 Off-the-record paraphrases of their impressions. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                                     sure, they just made it all up, bad repos -NT - (boxley) - (2)
                                                         It doesn't sound a little over the top to you? - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                             and from an Obama supporter to boot - (boxley)
                 Legal manuvering - (jay)
         Jane at FDL has more... - (Another Scott)

A few slices of bread short of a loaf.
91 ms