Eisboch wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

What do you mean "legal?"
Are laws being broken?
I haven't looked at the details, but I thought this was still in
court.

--Vic


It's in court, but the bond holders threw in the towel for any claim.
This removes any conflicts and allows the bankruptcy court to proceed
with dividing up Chrysler per the desires of the Fed.

The investors/bond holders were being pressured to go public with their
names and/or organizations and
they determined that the public opinion damage done by Obama may put
them at risk, either business-wise or literally physically. Many
people have lumped *all* financial institutions into the scum of the
earth category lately, if you haven't noticed. (although they are, at
the same time, being begged to start lending again).


Personally, I think investors/bondholders should have stayed the
course. I am not advocating them or the other parties involved. I am
disturbed that binding contracts become meaningless due to political
power and influence.
I thought we were supposed to be experiencing a shift to honest,
transparent and open leadership.

Eisboch




I think it perfectly appropriate for the identity of the bondholders to
be made public. Obama didn't put these companies at risk; they put
themselves at risk.

It wouldn't have bothered me if all the troubled financial services
companies went bellyup, and their assets sold off to less troubled
companies. If they had behaved responsibly, they wouldn't have gotten in
as deep as they did.