Thump553
Lifer
- Jun 2, 2000
- 12,837
- 2,622
- 136
halik: There is really no such thing as unsecured and secured creditors, just unsecured and secured claims. If the holdouts are truely holding claims that are 100% secured by liquidable assets, then they have the right to object. As I understand it, the government (and all the other creditor classes) contend that the holdouts are only secured to roughly 29% of the amount of their claims in the event of a liquidation, so they should have taken the deal that was offered.
Its like any settlement negotiations. At least one side is bluffing.
Time will tell which side can muster the facts to back up their claims. And how much of the pie is left after bankruptcy costs eat it up (I've seen the figure of $200 million reported as the probable fees for Chyrsler's attys-then the creditors have their own huge atty fees, then the decline in value of the assets if/as the company falls apart).
Its like any settlement negotiations. At least one side is bluffing.
Time will tell which side can muster the facts to back up their claims. And how much of the pie is left after bankruptcy costs eat it up (I've seen the figure of $200 million reported as the probable fees for Chyrsler's attys-then the creditors have their own huge atty fees, then the decline in value of the assets if/as the company falls apart).