On Sat, 09 May 2009 18:40:53 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


The investors/bond holders were being pressured to go public with their
names and/or organizations

Do you have any cites for this allegation that don't trace back to
Lauria? You seem to have accepted his account, while ignoring the White
House denial, and more importantly, Perella Weinberg's denial.

"jps" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 9 May 2009 18:19:51 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:




Is what's happening illegal?

If, indeed, the bond holders (who are secured creditors) were prevented
from negotiating or their proposal ignored, as their lawyer claims, a law
was broken. In a bankruptcy proceeding *all* creditors who want to be
heard, must be heard.


Who has priority and in what order from a legal standpoint?

Secured creditors are first in line. Unsecured creditors (vendors, etc) and
stockholders are last.


In order to receive the percentages you state, there must be some
value. What is being given in return?

That's just it. Virtually nothing. No consideration. Well, in a way there
is. The unions are getting
55% ownership for making previous concessions, I suppose. Fiat, to the
best of my knowledge isn't putting up a nickle. I've tried to find out
what, if anything Fiat is "paying" for their 20% stake. I can't find it. I
did find a reference that stated that they aren't putting any money up for
the stock. They are just assuming the operational and marketing roles. The
Fed owns the rest.

At one point Obama said that Fiat's position would increase if the
taxpayer's bailout money is repaid, but then he changed his tune and quietly
let it be known that the $8B that the Fed has given Chrysler so far
"probably won't be repaid".


I honestly don't know about these proceedings so I'm curious.

Bankruptcy proceedings are well established and are supposed to give fair
consideration to all parties.
This one was railroaded. It's why Obama wanted to avoid it to begin with.

Personally, as a former businessman, I felt that lacking a white knight
buyer or investor, the fairest way for all concerned parties for both
Chrysler and GM to restructure was via the Chapter 11 bankruptcy route.
It's designed to be fair. This time it wasn't.

Eisboch

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

"HK" wrote in message
...


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.

Normally, I would agree. But their concern was due to the current level of
resentment against all financial institutions and the physical threats that
have been the result. There's a lynch mob mentality that exists right now.


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.

You are lumping them all together (which is, in part the problem that
exists).
As I previously pointed out, the Chrysler bondholders are the ones that kept
the
company afloat and provided the funds to pay employees and conduct business.
Chrysler used up all their money, then the Fed money. (which, BTW, I don't
think is even secured)

Eisboch

On Sat, 9 May 2009 15:01:56 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Not all investment firms are crooked. Like them or not, they deserve
consideration based on contract law. These guys were secured investors, by
law.

Just wait until these leftie morons figure out that their 401s and
pension funds are part of these equity stake holders and they lose
another 70% on their investments.

It an't gonna be Bush's fault then.

Obama is out of touch and out of control. And it's gonna bite him in
the ass - sooner rather than later.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 May 2009 18:40:53 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


The investors/bond holders were being pressured to go public with their
names and/or organizations

Do you have any cites for this allegation that don't trace back to
Lauria? You seem to have accepted his account, while ignoring the White
House denial, and more importantly, Perella Weinberg's denial.


I don't. I am going by the attorney statements made on the NPR interview.

But, think about it. The bond holders refused the 29 or 30 cents on the
dollar Fed offer, which forced the Chapter 11 filing.
They were hoping for a better deal via the bankruptcy court.

Then suddenly, they drop their claim, clearing the way for the Fed
recommended deal and walked away from a lot of money.

Why?

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

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


Consider this.

If the Fed had not provided bailout money to Chrysler (and GM) this story
would have an entirely different ending.
What we are witnessing is the government controlling the destiny of a public
corporation and screw the courts and bankruptcy laws.

More to come.

Eisboch

On Sat, 09 May 2009 19:24:51 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Do you have any cites for this allegation that don't trace back to
Lauria? You seem to have accepted his account, while ignoring the
White House denial, and more importantly, Perella Weinberg's denial.


I don't. I am going by the attorney statements made on the NPR
interview.

That would be Lauria. Nothing for nothing, it isn't the first time a
lawyer tried influencing the public in his clients interests.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/20...hreat-to-firm/

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 May 2009 19:24:51 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Do you have any cites for this allegation that don't trace back to
Lauria? You seem to have accepted his account, while ignoring the
White House denial, and more importantly, Perella Weinberg's denial.


I don't. I am going by the attorney statements made on the NPR
interview.

That would be Lauria. Nothing for nothing, it isn't the first time a
lawyer tried influencing the public in his clients interests.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/20...hreat-to-firm/




Sorry. It doesn't pass the "make sense" test.

It's over. The deal is done. There's nothing left to influence the public
about in his clients' interests.

His interview was a postmortem.

Eisboch

"thunder" wrote in message
...

That would be Lauria. Nothing for nothing, it isn't the first time a
lawyer tried influencing the public in his clients interests.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/20...hreat-to-firm/



LOL! I had to read the last part a couple of times to make sure I wasn't
missing something.

First of all, Weinnberg is only one of many parties involved.
Second of all, they caved due to Obama's public statements and a realistic
outcome analysis.
They are *still* of the position that the lenders where justified in pursing
the bankruptcy proceedings.

I guess it depends on how you interpret the statement.


"The decision to accept and support the proposed deal was made by the Xerion
Fund after reflecting carefully on the statement of the President when
announcing Chrysler’s bankruptcy filing. In considering the President’s
words and exercising our best investment judgment, we concluded that the
risks of potentially severe capital loss that could arise from fighting this
in bankruptcy court far outweighed any realistic potential upside."


(if you recall, Obama didn't exactly endorse the interests of the secured
lenders in his announcement)



and:


"We have a very specific mandate from our investors, and that is to
carefully weigh investment risks and rewards. It is not our investment
mandate to pursue political or risky legal campaigns with our investors’
money. This was our assessment of investment risk and reward, nothing
else.



While we did and still do believe that the lenders would be justified in
pressing their objections under conventional bankruptcy law principles, we
believe a settlement would now be in the best interests of all parties in
the context of avoiding a drawn out contested bankruptcy litigation
proceeding, and we encourage our colleagues in the loan syndicate to pursue
this immediately."




Pretty much in line with Lauria's statements, I think.

Eisboch