White House Press Corp Used To Intimidate Chrysler Lenders

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
In a radio interview with Frank Beckmann of WJR radio in Detroit (linked below), Attorney Tom Lauria explains that the White House press corp was used to intimidate lenders.


Tom Lauria:
"Let me tell you it?s no fun standing on this side of the fence opposing the President of the United States. In fact, let me just say, people have asked me who I represent. That?s a moving target. I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That?s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence."

Beckman:
"Was that Perella Weinberg?"

Lauria:
"That was Perella Weinberg."


Lauria represented senior creditors that he explained originally took on a low rate of return in exchange for greater security. Legally they were entitled to be paid first before any junior creditors like the unions. However they agreed to accept only 50% of their first lien position in order to help rehabilitation of Chrysler despite having no legal obligation to do so.

These are the people Rep John Dingell of Michigan called "rouges and vultures" (and whose investors include Yale University?s endowment, the University of Kentucky?s endowment, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and lots of retirement fund, smaller investors etc.)

Senior creditors were offered 29 cents on the dollar while junior creditors get full recovery value for their $10.6 billion retiree health-care claims. Obama's proposal also called for Treasury to forgive a $4 billion loan to the company in return for an 8% stake in the auto maker.

Lauria also decries 1) the executive office using its power to break legal agreements protected by Constitution (right to property and right to contracts) and 2) the executive branch encroaching on powers of the judicial branch.

Even if one allows for "cram downs" and such as allowed by bankruptcy law in some circumstances, it's clear Obama @ Co clubbed lenders like baby seals while hijacking value and transferring it to the unions (who paid for Obama) while also giving some control to itself.

Fascinating Radio Interview Here:
http://www.wjr.net/Article.asp?id=1301727&spid=6525



 

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
It's Interesting to contrast Obama's lies during the "enchanting" press conference with statement of lenders.

Obama (parenthetical comments are mine of course):

"While many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you some did not (Alinsky defamation coming up). In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout(like the subprime folks maybe?). They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none (in reality they offered 50 cents on dollar). Some demanded twice the return that other lenders were getting (JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and other secured lenders were offered only 22 cents on the dollar so 50 cents on the dollar would double that aye). I don?t stand with them. I stand with Chrysler?s employees (and voters and contributors) and their families and communities. I stand with Chrysler?s management, its dealers and its suppliers. I stand with the millions of Americans who own and want to buy Chrysler cars (not according to Obama's other comments they don't). I don?t stand with those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices (with guns to their heads). And that?s why I?m supporting Chrysler?s plans to use our bankruptcy laws (quite flexible aren't they Barry?) to clear away its remaining obligations so the company can get back on its feet and onto a path (of Obama's choosing) of success."


Lenders:

Chrysler's smaller creditors - the ones that didn't take TARP money - have issued a statement complaining that they were shut out of negotiations with the Obama administration, which tried to screw them over in order to secure a better deal for the United Autoworkers Union.

Here's an excerpt from the statement:

"What created this much-publicized impasse? Under long recognized legal and business principles, junior creditors are ordinarily not entitled to anything until senior secured creditors like our investors are repaid in full. Nevertheless, to facilitate Chrysler's rehabilitation, we offered to take a 40% haircut even though some groups lower down in the legal priority chain in Chrysler debt were being given recoveries of up to 50% or more and being allowed to take out billions of dollars. In contrast, over at General Motors, senior secured lenders are being left unimpaired with 100% recoveries, while even GM's unsecured bondholders are receiving a far better recovery than we are as Chrysler's first lien secured lenders.

Our offer has been flatly rejected or ignored. The fact is, in this process and in its earnest effort to ensure the survival of Chrysler and the well being of the company's employees, the government has risked overturning the rule of law and practices that have governed our world-leading bankruptcy code for decades.

We have a fiduciary responsibility to all those teachers, pensioners, retirees and others who have entrusted their money to us. We are legally bound to protect their interests. Much as we empathize with Chrysler's other stakeholders, the capital is just not ours to contribute to their cause by accepting a deal that is outside the well established legal framework and cannot be rationalized as being commercially reasonable."



http://www.hyscience.com/archi...04/chryslers_senio.php
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Anyone get the feeling that this thing is going to be in the courts for years if not decades??
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
Pretty messed up. The more that comes out about this the more it sounds like these creditors were legitimately wronged. I hope they fight this and win.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,545
1,124
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Does it save taxpayers money?

In the long run, it will cost the taxpayers even more.

This will go to court, and the Obama admin and Fiat Chrysler will eventaually lose and they WILL have to pay the senior creditors + legal costs + even more interest.

The tax payers would have been better off letting Chrysler go through Chapter 7 and lbe liquidated. All Obama did this time around was bail out the Union, not Chrysler or the taxpayers.

Not to mention the odds of the Fiat-Chrylser deal being a long term success are very low.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Does it save taxpayers money?
You know the interesting thing is that if we stopped calling these 'bail outs' and instead called them job programs then they might actually make sense.

We give GM a few billion and in return thousands and thousands of people get to keep their jobs, remain tax payers and stay off the welfare and unemployment rolls.

I did the math during one of our earlier debates and it might actually be cheaper for the government to keep funding GM than to let them liquidate. Of course that assumes that all the jobs would be lost and none would be replaced etc etc. But it still makes for an interesting idea.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: senseamp
Does it save taxpayers money?

In the long run, it will cost the taxpayers even more.

This will go to court, and the Obama admin and Fiat Chrysler will eventaually lose and they WILL have to pay the senior creditors + legal costs + even more interest.

The tax payers would have been better off letting Chrysler go through Chapter 7 and lbe liquidated. All Obama did this time around was bail out the Union, not Chrysler or the taxpayers.

Not to mention the odds of the Fiat-Chrylser deal being a long term success are very low.

It also means that Chysler (and to a certain extent, any company that has accepted government money) will effectively be unable to access the debt market going forward. Why would anyone in their right mind be willing to buy Chrysler bonds in the future after seeing how the previous bondholders were treated? IMHO, this has made it that much harder for the company to survive as a going concern.

Couple this treatment with the arm-bending of BoA to buy Merrill (the threat to remove Ken Lewis and the rest of the board if they didn't go through with the deal), and it effectively drives a stake through any previously announced government programs such as the "Public-Private Investment Partnership" for the banks, etc. Obama is effectively declaring war on the capital class.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Originally posted by: glenn1
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: senseamp
Does it save taxpayers money?

In the long run, it will cost the taxpayers even more.

This will go to court, and the Obama admin and Fiat Chrysler will eventaually lose and they WILL have to pay the senior creditors + legal costs + even more interest.

The tax payers would have been better off letting Chrysler go through Chapter 7 and lbe liquidated. All Obama did this time around was bail out the Union, not Chrysler or the taxpayers.

Not to mention the odds of the Fiat-Chrylser deal being a long term success are very low.

It also means that Chysler (and to a certain extent, any company that has accepted government money) will effectively be unable to access the debt market going forward. Why would anyone in their right mind be willing to buy Chrysler bonds in the future after seeing how the previous bondholders were treated? IMHO, this has made it that much harder for the company to survive as a going concern.

Couple this treatment with the arm-bending of BoA to buy Merrill (the threat to remove Ken Lewis and the rest of the board if they didn't go through with the deal), and it effectively drives a stake through any previously announced government programs such as the "Public-Private Investment Partnership" for the banks, etc. Obama is effectively declaring war on the capital class.

Your analysis is correct, except the government is financing Chrysler in the near future. Our taxpayer money to finance interest free loans so union members can collect their pensions.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: glenn1
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: senseamp
Does it save taxpayers money?

In the long run, it will cost the taxpayers even more.

This will go to court, and the Obama admin and Fiat Chrysler will eventaually lose and they WILL have to pay the senior creditors + legal costs + even more interest.

The tax payers would have been better off letting Chrysler go through Chapter 7 and lbe liquidated. All Obama did this time around was bail out the Union, not Chrysler or the taxpayers.

Not to mention the odds of the Fiat-Chrylser deal being a long term success are very low.

It also means that Chysler (and to a certain extent, any company that has accepted government money) will effectively be unable to access the debt market going forward. Why would anyone in their right mind be willing to buy Chrysler bonds in the future after seeing how the previous bondholders were treated? IMHO, this has made it that much harder for the company to survive as a going concern.

Couple this treatment with the arm-bending of BoA to buy Merrill (the threat to remove Ken Lewis and the rest of the board if they didn't go through with the deal), and it effectively drives a stake through any previously announced government programs such as the "Public-Private Investment Partnership" for the banks, etc. Obama is effectively declaring war on the capital class.


About fucking time after what they did to the economy.

 

Sacrilege

Senior member
Sep 6, 2007
647
0
0
Originally posted by: ZeGermans
Originally posted by: glenn1 Obama is effectively declaring war on the capital class.

that conservatives see this as a bad thing is the most pathetically hilarious

Many people seem to derive some sort of sexual pleasure in bending over and taking it in the ass from their economic superiors.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: glenn1
Obama is effectively declaring war on the capital class.


About fucking time after what they did to the economy.
I hope you understand that most of the jobs in this country are provided by these people.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: glenn1
Obama is effectively declaring war on the capital class.


About fucking time after what they did to the economy.
I hope you understand that most of the jobs in this country are provided by these people.

No, idiots don't understand the concept, they'd rather just have the government control everything and provide them handouts.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Oh... and let's not forget that anyone in the country with an IRA, retirement fund, stocks or mutual funds is a member of the 'capital class'

As it says in the article a lot of these bonds are owned by retirement accounts and even other unions.

Also, anything that causes the cost of capital to go up with have a horrendous effect on the economy. I am becoming more and more convinced that the economic recession will end this year, but we will be stuck with very slow growth for the next several years as Obama and the Democrats pursue a political agenda that will act as an anchor on our economy.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,365
1,223
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Oh... and let's not forget that anyone in the country with an IRA, retirement fund, stocks or mutual funds is a member of the 'capital class'

As it says in the article a lot of these bonds are owned by retirement accounts and even other unions.

Also, anything that causes the cost of capital to go up with have a horrendous effect on the economy. I am becoming more and more convinced that the economic recession will end this year, but we will be stuck with very slow growth for the next several years as Obama and the Democrats pursue a political agenda that will act as an anchor on our economy.

And if those people were allowed to have the right to seek their retirement funds, how would comrade B-rock and his friends control them through government programs?
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: glenn1
Obama is effectively declaring war on the capital class.


About fucking time after what they did to the economy.
I hope you understand that most of the jobs in this country are provided by these people.

It's like during the G20 summit in London, there were all those protests against Capitalism, but when any of them were asked what they wanted in place of Capitalism, no one had any fucking clue what wanted :laugh:




As to the subject of this thread, it goes back down to the government gaining power to rewrite private contracts. The government wants the UAW employees to keep most of their retirement benefits at the expense of the evil capitalist investors... who are partially comprised of other people's retirement benefits. Nothing about that is fair. It is all about political power. One of the primary functions of Capitalism is keeping the political games away from parts of our lives where it does not belong.

If you support Obama being able to rewrite private contracts, then you also have to be in favor of the next Dubya rewriting private contracts. Not so funny now, is it...

Oh, but these are "extraordinary times"! Face it, it's always extraordinary times... The Sept. 11 attacks were extraordinary times.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
"I don?t stand with them. I stand with Chrysler?s employees and their families and communities. I stand with Chrysler?s management, its dealers and its suppliers. I stand with the millions of Americans who own and want to buy Chrysler cars. I don?t stand with those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices. And that?s why I?m supporting Chrysler?s plans to use our bankruptcy laws to clear away its remaining obligations so the company can get back on its feet and onto a path of success."


It's quite simple, the President's job is to blindly enforce the law. The President should never take sides for one group over another. If he wants to do what he is saying, he should have stayed in congress.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,545
1,124
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Oh... and let's not forget that anyone in the country with an IRA, retirement fund, stocks or mutual funds is a member of the 'capital class'

As it says in the article a lot of these bonds are owned by retirement accounts and even other unions.

Also, anything that causes the cost of capital to go up with have a horrendous effect on the economy. I am becoming more and more convinced that the economic recession will end this year, but we will be stuck with very slow growth for the next several years as Obama and the Democrats pursue a political agenda that will act as an anchor on our economy.

In all likelyhood, the recession will peak this year, but wont be over until 2010 and you're right there will likely be a period of very slow growth and stagflation to follow.

 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
How much longer will it be before the tax payer funded ACORN starts running buss tours of investment managers' homes?
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,545
1,124
126
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: glenn1
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: senseamp
Does it save taxpayers money?

In the long run, it will cost the taxpayers even more.

This will go to court, and the Obama admin and Fiat Chrysler will eventaually lose and they WILL have to pay the senior creditors + legal costs + even more interest.

The tax payers would have been better off letting Chrysler go through Chapter 7 and lbe liquidated. All Obama did this time around was bail out the Union, not Chrysler or the taxpayers.

Not to mention the odds of the Fiat-Chrylser deal being a long term success are very low.

It also means that Chysler (and to a certain extent, any company that has accepted government money) will effectively be unable to access the debt market going forward. Why would anyone in their right mind be willing to buy Chrysler bonds in the future after seeing how the previous bondholders were treated? IMHO, this has made it that much harder for the company to survive as a going concern.

Couple this treatment with the arm-bending of BoA to buy Merrill (the threat to remove Ken Lewis and the rest of the board if they didn't go through with the deal), and it effectively drives a stake through any previously announced government programs such as the "Public-Private Investment Partnership" for the banks, etc. Obama is effectively declaring war on the capital class.


About fucking time after what they did to the economy.

Theres a select few that "did that to the economy." And the government over the last 20 years ate it up. What Obama is doing is going to bite him in the ass long term.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Many people seem to derive some sort of sexual pleasure in bending over and taking it in the ass from their economic superiors.
Others seem to derive some sort of sexual pleasure in bending over and taking it in the ass from the government.

 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,837
2,622
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Anyone get the feeling that this thing is going to be in the courts for years if not decades??

Certainly. It shows how simplistic the repeated calls here and elsewhere to "just enter into a prepackaged Chapter 11 instead of bailing them out" were.

Back on topic, I can understand the creditors' attorney's desire and duty to act as a PR agent and spin the situation as much in their favor as possible, but I don't see how either (1) the President controls the White House press corps or (2) how having the press look into this situation is a bad thing at all. What do they want to hide?