"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?

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