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 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?
     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)

Same LRPD time, same LRPD channel.
70 ms