The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few

[ZeGermans]

chrysler is an icon of american bloat and consumerism and should be dismantled

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

They did have first crack at them. They could have submitted a bid to take control of Chrysler but they passed. New Chrysler is free to enter into any contract it wants, the bond holders have zero claim to New Chrysler.

If you object to the sale of the assets to Fiat what should happen to them? And explain why .05% of the control of the assets should veto the wish of the remaining 99.95%

First crack in BANKRUPTCY.... are you sure you know what you're talking about? If there is a new Chrysler, it is after the secured bondholders are paid. That's how it works.

Second, the fact that 99.95% of creditors agreed to something still doesn't give you the right to sell something that is not yours. That is why it's going in front of the supreme court.


But here's what should've happened (and I suspect will happen): instead of using populist bullshit ("everyone is making a sacrifice blah blah") just buy out the remaining debt holders. Those entities have legal claims to those assets, so just offer a fair equity swap or just buy them out.

So you finally say what you want to happen.

Bailout the speculators. No way in hell should they get even more tax dollars because they made a bad investment. The bonds are only secured by the assets which where placed up for auction and only one bid was entered. If you or any bond holder doesn't like the result then they should have entered a higher bid.

/FACEPALM

Of all the bailouts here, these "speculators" here are the only ones with LEGAL right to those assets. You're bailing out chrysler and uaw and to some extent fed. gov't itself (the retirement liability would end up there), but the people you call speculators are the only ones that BY LAW have a claim on their money.

Like I said if you don't like the price that New Chrysler/Fiat is paying you where more then free to out bid them. Just don't expect to do so with US tax dollars.

Obama screwing them over is why you consider that "bad investment". Otherwise they get paid out during bankruptcy. But you obviously have no freaking clue what secured debt is, so I'm gonna leave it at that.

They are getting paid out in bankruptcy, sucks for them that they can't find a greater fool to pay more then 27 cents on the dollar.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

They did have first crack at them. They could have submitted a bid to take control of Chrysler but they passed. New Chrysler is free to enter into any contract it wants, the bond holders have zero claim to New Chrysler.

If you object to the sale of the assets to Fiat what should happen to them? And explain why .05% of the control of the assets should veto the wish of the remaining 99.95%

First crack in BANKRUPTCY.... are you sure you know what you're talking about? If there is a new Chrysler, it is after the secured bondholders are paid. That's how it works.

Second, the fact that 99.95% of creditors agreed to something still doesn't give you the right to sell something that is not yours. That is why it's going in front of the supreme court.


But here's what should've happened (and I suspect will happen): instead of using populist bullshit ("everyone is making a sacrifice blah blah") just buy out the remaining debt holders. Those entities have legal claims to those assets, so just offer a fair equity swap or just buy them out.

So you finally say what you want to happen.

Bailout the speculators. No way in hell should they get even more tax dollars because they made a bad investment. The bonds are only secured by the assets which where placed up for auction and only one bid was entered. If you or any bond holder doesn't like the result then they should have entered a higher bid.

/FACEPALM

Of all the bailouts here, these "speculators" here are the only ones with LEGAL right to those assets. You're bailing out chrysler and uaw and to some extent fed. gov't itself (the retirement liability would end up there), but the people you call speculators are the only ones that BY LAW have a claim on their money.

Like I said if you don't like the price that New Chrysler/Fiat is paying you where more then free to out bid them. Just don't expect to do so with US tax dollars.

WHAT BIDS? WHO IS BIDDING? WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Whats your background out of curiosity? I'm losing my motivation to continue to argue here, as your responses are a sequence of facepalms.

 

[alphatarget1]

I guess Obamessiah gets to rewrite business rules and contract law for his union buddies even though he isn't playing by the rule.

There is no question that if Chrysler is to be liquidated, the secured bondholders would get less than what they're being offered now. I think they're mostly pissed off that they should've been the first ones getting paid instead of the unions.

Before you blame spectulators, these are pension/construction funds. Ordinary people paid into the pension funds and the funds have every right to recover as much of their investment as they're legally entitled to. I guess Obama would rather spread the wealth of hard working Americans who paid into pension funds to lazy union workers/unions.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

They did have first crack at them. They could have submitted a bid to take control of Chrysler but they passed. New Chrysler is free to enter into any contract it wants, the bond holders have zero claim to New Chrysler.

If you object to the sale of the assets to Fiat what should happen to them? And explain why .05% of the control of the assets should veto the wish of the remaining 99.95%

First crack in BANKRUPTCY.... are you sure you know what you're talking about? If there is a new Chrysler, it is after the secured bondholders are paid. That's how it works.

Second, the fact that 99.95% of creditors agreed to something still doesn't give you the right to sell something that is not yours. That is why it's going in front of the supreme court.


But here's what should've happened (and I suspect will happen): instead of using populist bullshit ("everyone is making a sacrifice blah blah") just buy out the remaining debt holders. Those entities have legal claims to those assets, so just offer a fair equity swap or just buy them out.

So you finally say what you want to happen.

Bailout the speculators. No way in hell should they get even more tax dollars because they made a bad investment. The bonds are only secured by the assets which where placed up for auction and only one bid was entered. If you or any bond holder doesn't like the result then they should have entered a higher bid.

/FACEPALM

Of all the bailouts here, these "speculators" here are the only ones with LEGAL right to those assets. You're bailing out chrysler and uaw and to some extent fed. gov't itself (the retirement liability would end up there), but the people you call speculators are the only ones that BY LAW have a claim on their money.

Like I said if you don't like the price that New Chrysler/Fiat is paying you where more then free to out bid them. Just don't expect to do so with US tax dollars.

WHAT BIDS? WHO IS BIDDING? WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Anyone that wanted to could have entered a bid. Maybe you should have paid more attention to the bankruptcy process and less time whining about Obama.

 

[ZeGermans]

I'm pretty sure Chrysler owed the unions shitloads in terms of pension funds, etc, making them the main 'winner' in this fractional debt for equity plan. But don't let that interfere with your thinly veiled hatred of workers

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

They did have first crack at them. They could have submitted a bid to take control of Chrysler but they passed. New Chrysler is free to enter into any contract it wants, the bond holders have zero claim to New Chrysler.

If you object to the sale of the assets to Fiat what should happen to them? And explain why .05% of the control of the assets should veto the wish of the remaining 99.95%

First crack in BANKRUPTCY.... are you sure you know what you're talking about? If there is a new Chrysler, it is after the secured bondholders are paid. That's how it works.

Second, the fact that 99.95% of creditors agreed to something still doesn't give you the right to sell something that is not yours. That is why it's going in front of the supreme court.


But here's what should've happened (and I suspect will happen): instead of using populist bullshit ("everyone is making a sacrifice blah blah") just buy out the remaining debt holders. Those entities have legal claims to those assets, so just offer a fair equity swap or just buy them out.

So you finally say what you want to happen.

Bailout the speculators. No way in hell should they get even more tax dollars because they made a bad investment. The bonds are only secured by the assets which where placed up for auction and only one bid was entered. If you or any bond holder doesn't like the result then they should have entered a higher bid.

/FACEPALM

Of all the bailouts here, these "speculators" here are the only ones with LEGAL right to those assets. You're bailing out chrysler and uaw and to some extent fed. gov't itself (the retirement liability would end up there), but the people you call speculators are the only ones that BY LAW have a claim on their money.

Like I said if you don't like the price that New Chrysler/Fiat is paying you where more then free to out bid them. Just don't expect to do so with US tax dollars.

WHAT BIDS? WHO IS BIDDING? WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Anyone that wanted to could have entered a bid. Maybe you should have paid more attention to the bankruptcy process and less time whining about Obama.

Bid for what? And exactly in what way would that change the seniority of secured debt?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I guess Obamessiah gets to rewrite business rules and contract law for his union buddies even though he isn't playing by the rule.

There is no question that if Chrysler is to be liquidated, the secured bondholders would get less than what they're being offered now. I think they're mostly pissed off that they should've been the first ones getting paid instead of the unions.

Before you blame spectulators, these are pension/construction funds. Ordinary people paid into the pension funds and the funds have every right to recover as much of their investment as they're legally entitled to. I guess Obama would rather spread the wealth of hard working Americans who paid into pension funds to lazy union workers/unions.

WTF, if they are getting more then they are entitled to what the fuck are you bitching about?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I guess Obamessiah gets to rewrite business rules and contract law for his union buddies even though he isn't playing by the rule.

There is no question that if Chrysler is to be liquidated, the secured bondholders would get less than what they're being offered now. I think they're mostly pissed off that they should've been the first ones getting paid instead of the unions.

Before you blame spectulators, these are pension/construction funds. Ordinary people paid into the pension funds and the funds have every right to recover as much of their investment as they're legally entitled to. I guess Obama would rather spread the wealth of hard working Americans who paid into pension funds to lazy union workers/unions.

WTF, if they are getting more then they are entitled to what the fuck are you bitching about?

I really doubt that is the case, they have a fiduciary obligation to their trustees to get the most cash they can. If the 27c on the dollar was fair, they would've accepted it.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: halik


Bid for what? And exactly in what way would that change the seniority of secured debt?

http://www.nj.com/business/ind...ysler_auction_cle.html

Good god man, try reading a news paper instead of listening to rush.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I guess Obamessiah gets to rewrite business rules and contract law for his union buddies even though he isn't playing by the rule.

There is no question that if Chrysler is to be liquidated, the secured bondholders would get less than what they're being offered now. I think they're mostly pissed off that they should've been the first ones getting paid instead of the unions.

Before you blame spectulators, these are pension/construction funds. Ordinary people paid into the pension funds and the funds have every right to recover as much of their investment as they're legally entitled to. I guess Obama would rather spread the wealth of hard working Americans who paid into pension funds to lazy union workers/unions.

WTF, if they are getting more then they are entitled to what the fuck are you bitching about?

I really doubt that is the case, they have a fiduciary obligation to their trustees to get the most cash they can. If the 27c on the dollar was fair, they would've accepted it.

uhh, 99% of them did accept it. Guess you lost that point.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: smack Down

WTF, if they are getting more then they are entitled to what the fuck are you bitching about?

Let me break it down for you: Chrysler is being restructured. Secured bondholders should be the 1st in line to get the proceeds. Obama says no, pressures financial entities that accepted TARP funds to take the shaft and made a deal that favors his union buddies. That is contrary to what's been done for a LONG time. ISome bondholders who didn't take TARP funds feel that it's unfair and want to sue to recover more. I don't see a problem with that.

If you were an investor would you still buy bonds of companies with union workers? I certainly wouldn't, not unless I'll get coupons that reflect the risk of the possibility to have my rights as a secured bondholder stripped by the Obamessiah.

It'll be interesting to see how the SCOTUS rules on this.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik


Bid for what? And exactly in what way would that change the seniority of secured debt?

http://www.nj.com/business/ind...ysler_auction_cle.html

Good god man, try reading a news paper instead of listening to rush.

Yeah that was what got stayed today by the SCOTUS. See the o/p

Also coincidentally this auction is in no way related to the secured debt holders bidding on anything. They are saying they OWN some of the stuff that chrysler wants to auction off.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I guess Obamessiah gets to rewrite business rules and contract law for his union buddies even though he isn't playing by the rule.

There is no question that if Chrysler is to be liquidated, the secured bondholders would get less than what they're being offered now. I think they're mostly pissed off that they should've been the first ones getting paid instead of the unions.

Before you blame spectulators, these are pension/construction funds. Ordinary people paid into the pension funds and the funds have every right to recover as much of their investment as they're legally entitled to. I guess Obama would rather spread the wealth of hard working Americans who paid into pension funds to lazy union workers/unions.

WTF, if they are getting more then they are entitled to what the fuck are you bitching about?

I really doubt that is the case, they have a fiduciary obligation to their trustees to get the most cash they can. If the 27c on the dollar was fair, they would've accepted it.

uhh, 99% of them did accept it. Guess you lost that point.

Circular argument is circular. Scroll up half of page up bud; the fact that some people accept a third party deal doesn't strip the remaining people of what they're entitled to.

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

They did have first crack at them. They could have submitted a bid to take control of Chrysler but they passed. New Chrysler is free to enter into any contract it wants, the bond holders have zero claim to New Chrysler.

If you object to the sale of the assets to Fiat what should happen to them? And explain why .05% of the control of the assets should veto the wish of the remaining 99.95%

First crack in BANKRUPTCY.... are you sure you know what you're talking about? If there is a new Chrysler, it is after the secured bondholders are paid. That's how it works.

Second, the fact that 99.95% of creditors agreed to something still doesn't give you the right to sell something that is not yours. That is why it's going in front of the supreme court.


But here's what should've happened (and I suspect will happen): instead of using populist bullshit ("everyone is making a sacrifice blah blah") just buy out the remaining debt holders. Those entities have legal claims to those assets, so just offer a fair equity swap or just buy them out.

So you finally say what you want to happen.

Bailout the speculators. No way in hell should they get even more tax dollars because they made a bad investment. The bonds are only secured by the assets which where placed up for auction and only one bid was entered. If you or any bond holder doesn't like the result then they should have entered a higher bid.

/FACEPALM

Of all the bailouts here, these "speculators" here are the only ones with LEGAL right to those assets. You're bailing out chrysler and uaw and to some extent fed. gov't itself (the retirement liability would end up there), but the people you call speculators are the only ones that BY LAW have a claim on their money.

Like I said if you don't like the price that New Chrysler/Fiat is paying you where more then free to out bid them. Just don't expect to do so with US tax dollars.

WHAT BIDS? WHO IS BIDDING? WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Anyone that wanted to could have entered a bid. Maybe you should have paid more attention to the bankruptcy process and less time whining about Obama.

Smack Down, I think you are SERIOUSLY confused. I am not an expert on this subject, but it seems pretty simple to me. Some people have a legal right to first crack at Chrysler in bankruptcy proceedings. It is a LEGAL right, they are the first to get ANYTHING out of this company in bankruptcy. Obama is overriding this right and giving these assets to someone who is not first in line, essentially telling these people who have a legal right to these assets, 'fuck you, to bad, I can change the law'.

That's a major problem, imo.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: smack Down

WTF, if they are getting more then they are entitled to what the fuck are you bitching about?

Let me break it down for you: Chrysler is being restructured. Secured bondholders should be the 1st in line to get the proceeds. Obama says no and made a deal that favors his union buddies. That is contrary to what's been done for a LONG time. If you were an investor would you still buy bonds of companies with union workers? I certainly wouldn't, not unless I'll get coupons that reflect the risk of the possibility to have my rights as a secured bondholder stripped by the Obamessiah.

It'll be interesting to see how the SCOTUS rules on this.

Here let me break it down for you. The secured creditor's have zero claim against the new Chrysler. It is the new Chrysler that is choosing to assume the union liabilities and has zero impact on the payout to the speculators.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

They did have first crack at them. They could have submitted a bid to take control of Chrysler but they passed. New Chrysler is free to enter into any contract it wants, the bond holders have zero claim to New Chrysler.

If you object to the sale of the assets to Fiat what should happen to them? And explain why .05% of the control of the assets should veto the wish of the remaining 99.95%

First crack in BANKRUPTCY.... are you sure you know what you're talking about? If there is a new Chrysler, it is after the secured bondholders are paid. That's how it works.

Second, the fact that 99.95% of creditors agreed to something still doesn't give you the right to sell something that is not yours. That is why it's going in front of the supreme court.


But here's what should've happened (and I suspect will happen): instead of using populist bullshit ("everyone is making a sacrifice blah blah") just buy out the remaining debt holders. Those entities have legal claims to those assets, so just offer a fair equity swap or just buy them out.

So you finally say what you want to happen.

Bailout the speculators. No way in hell should they get even more tax dollars because they made a bad investment. The bonds are only secured by the assets which where placed up for auction and only one bid was entered. If you or any bond holder doesn't like the result then they should have entered a higher bid.

/FACEPALM

Of all the bailouts here, these "speculators" here are the only ones with LEGAL right to those assets. You're bailing out chrysler and uaw and to some extent fed. gov't itself (the retirement liability would end up there), but the people you call speculators are the only ones that BY LAW have a claim on their money.

Like I said if you don't like the price that New Chrysler/Fiat is paying you where more then free to out bid them. Just don't expect to do so with US tax dollars.

WHAT BIDS? WHO IS BIDDING? WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Anyone that wanted to could have entered a bid. Maybe you should have paid more attention to the bankruptcy process and less time whining about Obama.

Smack Down, I think you are SERIOUSLY confused. I am not an expert on this subject, but it seems pretty simple to me. Some people have a legal right to first crack at Chrysler in bankruptcy proceedings. It is a LEGAL right, they are the first to get ANYTHING out of this company in bankruptcy. Obama is overriding this right and giving these assets to someone who is not first in line, essentially telling these people who have a legal right to these assets, 'fuck you, to bad, I can change the law'.

That's a major problem, imo.

Except the fuck you, to bad isn't at the speculators it is at the tax payers.

Repeat after me the speculators have zero legal claims against the new Chrysler.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Here let me break it down for you. The secured creditor's have zero claim against the new Chrysler. It is the new Chrysler that is choosing to assume the union liabilities and has zero impact on the payout to the speculators.

It is becoming obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Before there is any "new Chrysler", secured creditors need to be paid. Regardless of what % of the original secured issue they might be and regardless whatever UAW/Fiat deals might be in the pipeline. The deal and new Chrysler will not happen and does not exist until secured debt is paid out / rolled over / etc.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I guess Obamessiah gets to rewrite business rules and contract law for his union buddies even though he isn't playing by the rule.

There is no question that if Chrysler is to be liquidated, the secured bondholders would get less than what they're being offered now. I think they're mostly pissed off that they should've been the first ones getting paid instead of the unions.

Before you blame spectulators, these are pension/construction funds. Ordinary people paid into the pension funds and the funds have every right to recover as much of their investment as they're legally entitled to. I guess Obama would rather spread the wealth of hard working Americans who paid into pension funds to lazy union workers/unions.

WTF, if they are getting more then they are entitled to what the fuck are you bitching about?

I really doubt that is the case, they have a fiduciary obligation to their trustees to get the most cash they can. If the 27c on the dollar was fair, they would've accepted it.

uhh, 99% of them did accept it. Guess you lost that point.

Circular argument is circular. Scroll up half of page up bud; the fact that some people accept a third party deal doesn't strip the remaining people of what they're entitled to.

Every time you try and rehash that the creditors must be some kind of genius because they are rejecting the deal. I will continue to point out that 99% have accepted the deal and there the fact that 1% have rejected the deal is not evidence that the deal is unfair.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: smack Down

WTF, if they are getting more then they are entitled to what the fuck are you bitching about?

Let me break it down for you: Chrysler is being restructured. Secured bondholders should be the 1st in line to get the proceeds. Obama says no, pressures financial entities that accepted TARP funds to take the shaft and made a deal that favors his union buddies. That is contrary to what's been done for a LONG time. ISome bondholders who didn't take TARP funds feel that it's unfair and want to sue to recover more. I don't see a problem with that.

If you were an investor would you still buy bonds of companies with union workers? I certainly wouldn't, not unless I'll get coupons that reflect the risk of the possibility to have my rights as a secured bondholder stripped by the Obamessiah.

It'll be interesting to see how the SCOTUS rules on this.

yeap. though SCOTUS has made some bad decisions in the past. i really don't expect them to make the right one.

IF They allow this to go through its going to change how business is done (and not for the better).

why are you guys argueing with smackdown? really. read some of his threads you should know better.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Here let me break it down for you. The secured creditor's have zero claim against the new Chrysler. It is the new Chrysler that is choosing to assume the union liabilities and has zero impact on the payout to the speculators.

It is becoming obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Before there is any "new Chrysler", secured creditors need to be paid. Regardless of what % of the original secured issue they might be and regardless whatever UAW/Fiat deals might be in the pipeline. The deal and new Chrysler will not happen and does not exist until secured debt is paid out / rolled over / etc.

No New Chrysler is a new company that is completely independent from the old company. The new company bid on and won the assets from the old company.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik


Bid for what? And exactly in what way would that change the seniority of secured debt?

http://www.nj.com/business/ind...ysler_auction_cle.html

Good god man, try reading a news paper instead of listening to rush.

Yeah that was what got stayed today by the SCOTUS. See the o/p

Also coincidentally this auction is in no way related to the secured debt holders bidding on anything. They are saying they OWN some of the stuff that chrysler wants to auction off.

They don't own any of Chrysler's assets. If they did then they wouldn't be Chrysler's assets. Now they are free to enter a bid at the auction to buy Chrysler's assets and may enter it use debt in lieu. But in this case not a single credit decided to do that.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I guess Obamessiah gets to rewrite business rules and contract law for his union buddies even though he isn't playing by the rule.

There is no question that if Chrysler is to be liquidated, the secured bondholders would get less than what they're being offered now. I think they're mostly pissed off that they should've been the first ones getting paid instead of the unions.

Before you blame spectulators, these are pension/construction funds. Ordinary people paid into the pension funds and the funds have every right to recover as much of their investment as they're legally entitled to. I guess Obama would rather spread the wealth of hard working Americans who paid into pension funds to lazy union workers/unions.

WTF, if they are getting more then they are entitled to what the fuck are you bitching about?

I really doubt that is the case, they have a fiduciary obligation to their trustees to get the most cash they can. If the 27c on the dollar was fair, they would've accepted it.

uhh, 99% of them did accept it. Guess you lost that point.

Circular argument is circular. Scroll up half of page up bud; the fact that some people accept a third party deal doesn't strip the remaining people of what they're entitled to.

Every time you try and rehash that the creditors must be some kind of genius because they are rejecting the deal. I will continue to point out that 99% have accepted the deal and there the fact that 1% have rejected the deal is not evidence that the deal is unfair.

You cannot change the principal or any other debt terms w/o unanimous consent of the bond holders, which is why your argument makes no sense. Unanimous > 99%

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

They did have first crack at them. They could have submitted a bid to take control of Chrysler but they passed. New Chrysler is free to enter into any contract it wants, the bond holders have zero claim to New Chrysler.

If you object to the sale of the assets to Fiat what should happen to them? And explain why .05% of the control of the assets should veto the wish of the remaining 99.95%

First crack in BANKRUPTCY.... are you sure you know what you're talking about? If there is a new Chrysler, it is after the secured bondholders are paid. That's how it works.

Second, the fact that 99.95% of creditors agreed to something still doesn't give you the right to sell something that is not yours. That is why it's going in front of the supreme court.


But here's what should've happened (and I suspect will happen): instead of using populist bullshit ("everyone is making a sacrifice blah blah") just buy out the remaining debt holders. Those entities have legal claims to those assets, so just offer a fair equity swap or just buy them out.

So you finally say what you want to happen.

Bailout the speculators. No way in hell should they get even more tax dollars because they made a bad investment. The bonds are only secured by the assets which where placed up for auction and only one bid was entered. If you or any bond holder doesn't like the result then they should have entered a higher bid.

/FACEPALM

Of all the bailouts here, these "speculators" here are the only ones with LEGAL right to those assets. You're bailing out chrysler and uaw and to some extent fed. gov't itself (the retirement liability would end up there), but the people you call speculators are the only ones that BY LAW have a claim on their money.

Like I said if you don't like the price that New Chrysler/Fiat is paying you where more then free to out bid them. Just don't expect to do so with US tax dollars.

WHAT BIDS? WHO IS BIDDING? WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Anyone that wanted to could have entered a bid. Maybe you should have paid more attention to the bankruptcy process and less time whining about Obama.

Smack Down, I think you are SERIOUSLY confused. I am not an expert on this subject, but it seems pretty simple to me. Some people have a legal right to first crack at Chrysler in bankruptcy proceedings. It is a LEGAL right, they are the first to get ANYTHING out of this company in bankruptcy. Obama is overriding this right and giving these assets to someone who is not first in line, essentially telling these people who have a legal right to these assets, 'fuck you, to bad, I can change the law'.

That's a major problem, imo.

Except the fuck you, to bad isn't at the speculators it is at the tax payers.

Repeat after me the speculators have zero legal claims against the new Chrysler.

Repeat after me:

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. There is not a new chrysler until the legal proceedings have occurred in the correct legal order. Primary holders have been skipped over when they have a legal claim to assets. Just because Obama is skipping them, doesn't make it legal.


Just about everyone in this thread has pointed out how misinformed you are. Both Dem's and Rep's. I don't think this is a partisan thing, I think it is a legal thing. And I think you are one of the very few that thinks what Obama is doing is in any way legal.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I guess Obamessiah gets to rewrite business rules and contract law for his union buddies even though he isn't playing by the rule.

There is no question that if Chrysler is to be liquidated, the secured bondholders would get less than what they're being offered now. I think they're mostly pissed off that they should've been the first ones getting paid instead of the unions.

Before you blame spectulators, these are pension/construction funds. Ordinary people paid into the pension funds and the funds have every right to recover as much of their investment as they're legally entitled to. I guess Obama would rather spread the wealth of hard working Americans who paid into pension funds to lazy union workers/unions.

WTF, if they are getting more then they are entitled to what the fuck are you bitching about?

I really doubt that is the case, they have a fiduciary obligation to their trustees to get the most cash they can. If the 27c on the dollar was fair, they would've accepted it.

uhh, 99% of them did accept it. Guess you lost that point.

Circular argument is circular. Scroll up half of page up bud; the fact that some people accept a third party deal doesn't strip the remaining people of what they're entitled to.

Every time you try and rehash that the creditors must be some kind of genius because they are rejecting the deal. I will continue to point out that 99% have accepted the deal and there the fact that 1% have rejected the deal is not evidence that the deal is unfair.

You cannot change the principal or any other debt terms w/o unanimous consent of the bond holders, which is why your argument makes no sense. Unanimous > 99%

Again you said that the deal wasn't fair as evidenced by the fact that 1% of the bond holders rejected it. I say you full of shit because 99% accepted it.