Post #308,429
5/8/09 2:42:20 PM
|
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
|
Post #308,430
5/8/09 3:34:11 PM
|
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 :-(
|
Post #308,432
5/8/09 3:53:39 PM
|
The law is hardly ever simple.
If it were simple, we wouldn't need lawyers.
http://www.thetrutha...le-kill-the-sale/
[...]
ChryslerÂs 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 thingÂs for sure, ChryslerÂs (and soon GMÂs) court battles will afford us a rare opportunity to witness one of bankruptcy lawÂs most fundamental questions being litigated in the highest stakes battles of all time: when does the Âabsolute priority rule which establishes a hierarchy of recovery rights among creditor classes, take a back seat to the Âfresh start, rehabilitative policy of chapter 11?
ChryslerÂs opening memorandum touched upon this question by focusing on the US Supreme CourtÂs pronouncement in NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U.S. 513, 528 (1984). The Court stated that the Âfundamental 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 NYÂs judicial patriarch, Bankruptcy Judge Lifland, in the old Eastern Airlines case) Âall other bankruptcy policies are subordinated to it.
Many, however, will surely disagree with Judge LiflandÂs 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 ÂChapter 11Âs 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 strippingÂusing creditors collateral to invest in negative net present value Âlottery ticket investmentsÂon firm value. During bankruptcy, EasternÂs 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 debtorÂs assets to a new company that they would own, while freezing out the railroadÂs 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 Âwas 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.
|
Post #308,448
5/9/09 12:02:36 PM
|
you are looking at 11 I am refering to 7
|
Post #308,449
5/9/09 12:35:10 PM
|
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.
|
Post #308,466
5/10/09 11:15:13 AM
|
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
|
Post #308,478
5/10/09 12:54:24 PM
|
Maybe. Maybe not.
Pch101 and CamaroKid's takes are similar to my own:
http://www.thetrutha...l#comment-1481315
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #308,487
5/11/09 7:23:25 AM
|
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.
|
Post #308,488
5/11/09 7:59:17 AM
|
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 administrationÂs 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 Âspeculators, even as the creditors argued that they were being treated unfairly under the governmentÂs plan.
The majority of the holders of ChryslerÂs $6.9 billion in senior secured debt, a group led by JPMorgan Chase, has agreed to accept the governmentÂs 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.
|
Post #308,499
5/11/09 9:43:23 AM
|
whats left are the folks who did cave to the threats
"by the crazy president" remember?
|
Post #308,504
5/11/09 9:55:47 AM
|
Off-the-record paraphrases of their impressions.
Show me some on-the-record quotes, not spin, and then we'll talk.
Really...
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #308,507
5/11/09 10:09:19 AM
|
sure, they just made it all up, bad repos
|
Post #308,509
5/11/09 10:14:37 AM
|
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.
|
Post #308,527
5/11/09 3:49:43 PM
|
and from an Obama supporter to boot
so you dont think he is as smart or a smooth as kissinger?
|
Post #308,463
5/10/09 3:36:28 AM
|
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
|