On Sat, 9 May 2009 18:40:53 -0400, "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.

Here's a different take.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/bu...html?_r=1&dlbk

This ending comment should make many here happy.

"This may come to be seen as Mr. Obama’s Nixon in China moment. Just
as it took a conservative Republican to open relations with the
largest Communist country in the world, it took a liberal Democrat to
break the U.A.W."

I do think this announcement of the UAW's death is premature.

--Vic