GM bankruptcy plan eyes quick sale to gov't

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: Jiggz

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87
Hahahaha not a even a week after I predicted this.

Yep. Let's gloat over how the Republicans destroyed our workers.

Another absolute Darwin Award winner!

do you know what a Darwin Award is for? tech's post was about as asinine as they come, but that doesn't make him a Darwin award candidate...

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
No offense. But you guys are dumb as dirt.

Since the underfunded pensions themselves could cost taxpayers an estimated $23 billion thru the PBGC and the retiree medical care liability is underfunded to the tune of $34 billion what kind of 'deals' do you propose?

These unfunded liabilities were well over $70 billion several years ago so, yes, major concessions have already been made.

The last article I saw a few weeks ago put the UAW stake at 39% - except it will not be owned by them. The shares will be owned by a Voluntary Employee Benefits Trust, or VEBA.

I now return you to your OUTRAGE (and you may now fantasize with your conspiracies on how those big bad workers will make the VEBA toe the union line with threats about "sleeping with the fishes ..." )

Nice job trying to put up a smoke screen just because you love your Obama admin so much.

First, PBGC use insurance to guaranty pension benefits. Do you understand the meaning of insurance? Done properly, the insurance is suppose to pay for the benefit not the tax payer.

And stop telling people about VEBA =/= UAW. You are either ignorant or simply being dishonest. VEBA is run by the union for crying out load.

Please tell us why the hell auto company is so special that government need to buy and run the company using us tax payer's money, as well as force the bond holders to give up so much in order to protect UAW's benefit? If this is not political pandering using tax payer's money, I don't know what is.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I guess some of us are in for some "I told you so"s from the members here who saw this coming. I honestly didn't expect the government to let GM and Chrysler off the hook for these loans.

You have to consider, though, the feds have taken a large stake in both of these companies. Maybe they plan to get some of the money back by selling off their stakes later.

Large stake I thought the UAW owns most Chrysler? All this is a big pay back to the unions who helped get the democrats elected. We just flushed billions down the toilet and screwed over bond holders to bail out the UAW. I am sure the same will happen with GM the tax payers and bond holders take a bath to bail out the greedy UAW.

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I guess some of us are in for some "I told you so"s from the members here who saw this coming. I honestly didn't expect the government to let GM and Chrysler off the hook for these loans.

You have to consider, though, the feds have taken a large stake in both of these companies. Maybe they plan to get some of the money back by selling off their stakes later.

Large stake I thought the UAW owns most Chrysler? All this is a big pay back to the unions who helped get the democrats elected. We just flushed billions down the toilet and screwed over bond holders to bail out the UAW. I am sure the same will happen with GM the tax payers and bond holders take a bath to bail out the greedy UAW.

Amen!

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: Jiggz

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87
Hahahaha not a even a week after I predicted this.

Yep. Let's gloat over how the Republicans destroyed our workers.

Another absolute Darwin Award winner!

do you know what a Darwin Award is for? tech's post was about as asinine as they come, but that doesn't make him a Darwin award candidate...

So you do believe in keeping "Techs" asinine gene in the human race gene pool?:roll:

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: Jiggz

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: Jiggz

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87
Hahahaha not a even a week after I predicted this.

Yep. Let's gloat over how the Republicans destroyed our workers.

Another absolute Darwin Award winner!

do you know what a Darwin Award is for? tech's post was about as asinine as they come, but that doesn't make him a Darwin award candidate...

So you do believe in keeping "Techs" asinine gene in the human race gene pool?:roll:

doesn't matter what I believe...it doesn't change the fact that he is not a Darwin candidate...

 

[fire400]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
And the taxpayers still get fucked.

...some people who have a lot of money could still hide their money, right?

 

[OFFascist]

Looks like a blatant payoff to keep alot of union workers that voted for Obama in a job.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.detnews.com/article...200376/Feds-to-inject-$7.5B-more-into-GMAC

Got GMAC now, too!

This is hilarious.

Got the company, the parts supplier, and now the loan dept...

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: OCguy
Government Motors needs to go......

I heard someone refer to it as Obama Motors at the gym about a month and a half ago.

Germany can have their Bavarian Motor Works. We have our Obama Motor Works...

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Anyone with half a brain and a lick of common sense could see this coming six months ago. Smart and honest folks knew that we were just throwing money into a black hole bailing out GM and Chrysler.

My question is this: how much of GM will the UAW get? They were a minor debt holder for Chrysler, and they got a majority stake of the company. Which is completely against the law of bankruptcy, since the major debt holders are the ones who get paid off first (since, you know, they put the most money into the company). What kind of sweetheart deal will Obama give the UAW in GM's case? How many more laws and legal contracts will he trample over?

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
* * *
My question is this: how much of GM will the UAW get? They were a minor debt holder for Chrysler, and they got a majority stake of the company. Which is completely against the law of bankruptcy, since the major debt holders are the ones who get paid off first (since, you know, they put the most money into the company). What kind of sweetheart deal will Obama give the UAW in GM's case? How many more laws and legal contracts will he trample over?

The bolded part is a total fabrication of bankruptcy law and was apparently invented solely to support the conclusion you have reached. If you disagree, please provide a reference to the specific bankruptcy statute you rely on.

I'm sick to death of people taking BS positions based upon pure fiction.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87
Hahahaha not a even a week after I predicted this.

Yep. Let's gloat over how the Republicans destroyed our workers.

This is SO techs :laugh:

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: Jiggz

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: Jiggz

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87
Hahahaha not a even a week after I predicted this.

Yep. Let's gloat over how the Republicans destroyed our workers.

Another absolute Darwin Award winner!

do you know what a Darwin Award is for? tech's post was about as asinine as they come, but that doesn't make him a Darwin award candidate...

So you do believe in keeping "Techs" asinine gene in the human race gene pool?:roll:

doesn't matter what I believe...it doesn't change the fact that he is not a Darwin candidate...

Give him time...

 

[coloumb]

Wow - I should write the president to see if he'll give me a tax payer I'm not going to repay loan to pay off my credit card balances.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
* * *
My question is this: how much of GM will the UAW get? They were a minor debt holder for Chrysler, and they got a majority stake of the company. Which is completely against the law of bankruptcy, since the major debt holders are the ones who get paid off first (since, you know, they put the most money into the company). What kind of sweetheart deal will Obama give the UAW in GM's case? How many more laws and legal contracts will he trample over?

The bolded part is a total fabrication of bankruptcy law and was apparently invented solely to support the conclusion you have reached. If you disagree, please provide a reference to the specific bankruptcy statute you rely on.

I'm sick to death of people taking BS positions based upon pure fiction.

Funny...you are the only one saying this. You can Google up Chrysler/UAW bankruptcy, and you will get a litany of reliable sources that confirm everything that's been said. The UAW (or, if you want to split hairs, the UAW Retiree Fund), which is a minority stake holder (not sure if they are secured or unsecured...regardless, they put far less into Chrysler than the others) is getting 55 cents on the dollar, whereas other secured creditors are getting 29 cents on the dollar.

I'm not economist or lawyer, but this is all pretty clear to me.

"Chapter 11 follows the same priority scheme as other bankruptcy chapters. The priority structure is defined primarily by § 507 of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 507.)

As a general rule secured creditors?creditors who have a security interest, or collateral, in the debtor's property?will be paid before unsecured creditors. Unsecured creditors' claims are prioritized by § 507. For instance the claims of suppliers of products or employees of a company may be paid before other unsecured creditors are paid. Each priority level must be paid in full before the next lowest priority level may receive payment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...d_States_Code#Priority

I would have liked to provide a better link, but I'm at work and Googling up anything related to bankruptcy just spams me endlessly with ad sites trying to hawk a service.

Perhaps someone who understands law better could provide a better source.

 

[Thump553]

RyanPaulShaffer: You originally contended that the bankruptcy law mandated LARGE creditors be paid off first-which I properly challenged as pure fiction. Your response has to do with secured claims, which is a completely different thing and completely irrelevant to the argument you made.

If you have proof that a properly perfected and secured claim is impaired under the Chrsyler bankruptcy, I'd love to see it. As the affected creditors have very high priced and competent counsel representing them, and they withdrew their objections, I doubt greatly that is the case.

Under bankruptcy law not all unsecured claims are treated with the same priority. For example, most wage and pension claims have an elevated priority over general unsecured claims. Technically speaking a higher priority unsecured claim is to be paid in full before the next lower priority class gets a dime.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Thump553
RyanPaulShaffer: You originally contended that the bankruptcy law mandated LARGE creditors be paid off first-which I properly challenged as pure fiction. Your response has to do with secured claims, which is a completely different thing and completely irrelevant to the argument you made.

If you have proof that a properly perfected and secured claim is impaired under the Chrsyler bankruptcy, I'd love to see it. As the affected creditors have very high priced and competent counsel representing them, and they withdrew their objections, I doubt greatly that is the case.

Under bankruptcy law not all unsecured claims are treated with the same priority. For example, most wage and pension claims have an elevated priority over general unsecured claims. Technically speaking a higher priority unsecured claim is to be paid in full before the next lower priority class gets a dime.

So are you saying that the UAW was a secured creditor and that there other creditors, who had a far greater stake in the company than the UAW, were unsecured creditors? If that's the case then fine, however, if it's not the case, then how can you logically explain how the UAW came up with the biggest chunk of the pie while contributing the least, and the biggest contributors to Chrysler came out with the least?

That's the point I was trying to make. It sets a horrible precedence for bankruptcy proceedings, because who is going to lend money to a company when the gov't can just step in and say:

"Well you gave $100 million and this entity only gave $10 million, but we're going to give them 55 cents for every dollar they invested, and you'll only get 29 cents."

I don't know the legality of the whole proceeding, but I do know that it undermines everything that bankruptcy proceedings are supposed to stand for.

You don't find it the least bit suspicious that the UAW came out with the sweetest deal? A known giant contributor to the Democrat party? With a Democratic administration pushing the buttons. Hmm...

 

[LTC8K6]

The effect of the trashing of Chrysler's secured creditors and their failure to stand firm on their rights is just beginning.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...5u0MEwLik7A&refer=home

May 20 (Bloomberg) -- Hedge fund manager George Schultze says he may avoid lending to any more unionized companies after being burned by President Barack Obama in Chrysler LLC?s bankruptcy.

Obama put Chrysler under court protection on April 30 after lenders balked at a proposal giving them about 29 cents on the dollar for their $6.9 billion in debt. The investors said the president?s plan favored a union retiree medical fund whose claims ranked behind them for repayment. It was offered a 55 percent equity stake in the automaker.

Pacific Investment Management Co., Barclays Capital and Fridson Investment Advisors have joined Schultze Asset Management LLC in saying lenders may be unwilling to back unionized companies with underfunded pension and medical obligations, such as airlines and auto-industry suppliers, because Chrysler?s creditors failed to block Obama?s move. The reluctance may put additional pressure on borrowers seeking capital in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

?Lenders will have to figure out how to price this risk,? Schultze, 39, said in a telephone interview from his office in Purchase, New York. ?The obvious one is: Don?t lend to a company with big legacy liabilities or demand a much higher rate of interest because you may be leapfrogged in a bankruptcy.?
...

 

[CPA]

unfucking believable. Libs is this the Change you were wanting? Really?

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I guess some of us are in for some "I told you so"s from the members here who saw this coming. I honestly didn't expect the government to let GM and Chrysler off the hook for these loans.

You have to consider, though, the feds have taken a large stake in both of these companies. Maybe they plan to get some of the money back by selling off their stakes later.

To who? In order to do that you have to create value. Give me one program that the feds have created value that a private investor would be interested in? The Post Office? No. Amtrak? Hell no. NASA? Maybe.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Thump553
RyanPaulShaffer: You originally contended that the bankruptcy law mandated LARGE creditors be paid off first-which I properly challenged as pure fiction. Your response has to do with secured claims, which is a completely different thing and completely irrelevant to the argument you made.

If you have proof that a properly perfected and secured claim is impaired under the Chrsyler bankruptcy, I'd love to see it. As the affected creditors have very high priced and competent counsel representing them, and they withdrew their objections, I doubt greatly that is the case.

Under bankruptcy law not all unsecured claims are treated with the same priority. For example, most wage and pension claims have an elevated priority over general unsecured claims. Technically speaking a higher priority unsecured claim is to be paid in full before the next lower priority class gets a dime.

So are you saying that the UAW was a secured creditor and that there other creditors, who had a far greater stake in the company than the UAW, were unsecured creditors? If that's the case then fine, however, if it's not the case, then how can you logically explain how the UAW came up with the biggest chunk of the pie while contributing the least, and the biggest contributors to Chrysler came out with the least?

That's the point I was trying to make. It sets a horrible precedence for bankruptcy proceedings, because who is going to lend money to a company when the gov't can just step in and say:

"Well you gave $100 million and this entity only gave $10 million, but we're going to give them 55 cents for every dollar they invested, and you'll only get 29 cents."

I don't know the legality of the whole proceeding, but I do know that it undermines everything that bankruptcy proceedings are supposed to stand for.

You don't find it the least bit suspicious that the UAW came out with the sweetest deal? A known giant contributor to the Democrat party? With a Democratic administration pushing the buttons. Hmm...

I don't mean to sound condescending but please read my points carefully (and probably more than once through quickly) as your reading comprehension appears quite poor. I don't know if that poor comprehension is on purpose (to convert my statements to weak straw man arguments that I never set forth) or not.

I never claimed claimed the UAW was a secured credtor-I said the pension claims were PRIORITY claims. Frankly I have never seen the proposed Chrysler Chapter 11 plan (I doubt anyone outside of the process has). From what I've read, the pension plan for the UAW is going to end up the majority stockholder after the plan is approved, voted on and confirmed by the court. My educated guess is that pension plan has a priority secured claim-because it's claim is based on monies due for pensions. It is also my educated guess that the bondholders have unsecured claims with a lesser priority. In a Chapter 7 liquidation (which is the appropriate legal standard) the pension claims would be paid in full before the classes below it receive a dime.

Before any Chapter 11 plan can be voted on by the creditors, it must be approved by the bankruptcy judge. To be approved the plan must comply with the bankruptcy law-an appealable decision. After the bankruptcy judge approves a plan, the creditors vote on it. If the plan receives the required votes, it goes back to court to be confirmed by the judge and then implemented.

I don't have a position on whether or not this is a "good" Chapter 11 plan-the required information just is not out there yet. I'm just trying to tamp down some of the more egregious and clearly unfounded claims that have been made about it-most of which center around the speaker's certainty that literally thousands of claimants with adverse interests will ignore their own interests to benefit the UAW. That's just too paranoid a stretch for me..

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Thump553
I don't mean to sound condescending but please read my points carefully (and probably more than once through quickly) as your reading comprehension appears quite poor. I don't know if that poor comprehension is on purpose (to convert my statements to weak straw man arguments that I never set forth) or not.

I never claimed claimed the UAW was a secured credtor-I said the pension claims were PRIORITY claims. Frankly I have never seen the proposed Chrysler Chapter 11 plan (I doubt anyone outside of the process has). From what I've read, the pension plan for the UAW is going to end up the majority stockholder after the plan is approved, voted on and confirmed by the court. My educated guess is that pension plan has a priority secured claim-because it's claim is based on monies due for pensions. It is also my educated guess that the bondholders have unsecured claims with a lesser priority. In a Chapter 7 liquidation (which is the appropriate legal standard) the pension claims would be paid in full before the classes below it receive a dime.

Before any Chapter 11 plan can be voted on by the creditors, it must be approved by the bankruptcy judge. To be approved the plan must comply with the bankruptcy law-an appealable decision. After the bankruptcy judge approves a plan, the creditors vote on it. If the plan receives the required votes, it goes back to court to be confirmed by the judge and then implemented.

I don't have a position on whether or not this is a "good" Chapter 11 plan-the required information just is not out there yet. I'm just trying to tamp down some of the more egregious and clearly unfounded claims that have been made about it-most of which center around the speaker's certainty that literally thousands of claimants with adverse interests will ignore their own interests to benefit the UAW. That's just too paranoid a stretch for me..

So the people who are claiming they were coerced to accept these deals or else! are lying?

Courts are always impartial and unbiased, amirite?

I mean, you don't even know the details of the deal, and you clearly admit that, yet you're saying that people who do know the details and are speaking out about it are lying?

My reading comprehension is fine, thanks. It seems like you say a whole bunch, but at the end of the day, you admit to knowing as much about the Chrysler Chapter 11 as I do!

How do you know that these claims that are being made are "egregious and clearly unfounded"? You say a lot about bankruptcy law, but you have no details on the Chrysler case!

What we do know is that Chrysler is filing Chapter 11. The UAW is getting 55% of the company while putting little money into it. Other, larger creditors are getting a much worse deal...and some of them have said that they were strong-armed into accepting the deal or bad things would happen.

Considering that this is what we have to go on at the moment, I'd rather believe them then your speculation.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Government Motors needs to go......

First way to balance the budget.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Wow, the gov doesn't get its money back. Like I didn't see that coming, along with everybody else.

What I want to understand is what kind of drug induced state of idiocy some people are in who are actually still BUYING GM stock. THE COMPANY IS GOING TO FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY. The CEO has been talking about it openly for weeks and people are still buying common shares.
* * *

Excellent point on the stock, and I'm just as mystified. It closed at $1.27 today, up 7.63% and it rose yesterday as well. My best guess is that people are guessing GM actually won't file bankruptcy because if it does the stock is valueless. I think that's a sucker's bet, especially in light of how quickly the Chrysler bankruptcy is proceeding (the objecting creditors group collapsed, insiders are now predicting Chrysler will be out of bankruptcy as early as mid-June). The odds on a GM bankruptcy have to be 98%+.

Forgive me for quoting myself, but I just noticed GM stock continues to climb. It closed today at $1.92, a 32.41% gain just today. I'm still totally puzzled how this stock price defies logic-but really wish I bet against my judgment this morning. Anyone have any ideas why this stock continues to rise?