PDA

View Full Version : Economics Chrysler sale stopped


HonestChieffan
06-08-2009, 03:13 PM
Imagine that. I guess giving it to UAW, making the bond holders tank, and no time to object or say no may not be the right way to have ObamMotors get off the ground.

Stewie
06-08-2009, 03:15 PM
There will be NO OPPOSITION!!!

KC Dan
06-08-2009, 03:16 PM
just delayed, not stopped

SBK
06-08-2009, 03:23 PM
Hopefully it's stopped, having a President steal a company seems a little bit out of the law to me.

dirk digler
06-08-2009, 03:26 PM
Wow I had no idea the Supreme Court got involved in this. Is this SOP?

SBK
06-08-2009, 03:27 PM
Is this SOP?

With what Obama is trying to do I hope so.

KC Dan
06-08-2009, 03:28 PM
The two big issues are:
1) Moving unsecured creditors (UAW) ahead of secured creditors (bond holders)
2) Using TARP funds for auto buying without congressional approval since TARP was for Bank assets not car companies.

petegz28
06-08-2009, 03:56 PM
The two big issues are:
1) Moving unsecured creditors (UAW) ahead of secured creditors (bond holders)
2) Using TARP funds for auto buying without congressional approval since TARP was for Bank assets not car companies.

Not sure how the courts can rule on #2....but #1 is a clear cut legal case that Obama should lose. Hopefully the courts will enforce the law instead of allowing the law to be blatantly broken for political purposes.

Stewie
06-08-2009, 03:58 PM
If either #1 or #2 happens then we are screwed as a country.

BTW, I'm watching Pink Panther cartoons right now to get my mind on something real, unlike what's going on in this country. :)

KC Dan
06-08-2009, 04:00 PM
Not sure how the courts can rule on #2....but #1 is a clear cut legal case that Obama should lose. Hopefully the courts will enforce the law instead of allowing the law to be blatantly broken for potical purposes.While I think that #1 is seriously important to holding up contractual agreements in this country, #2 is a pure attempt to usurp the seperation of powers between executive and legislative branches of gov't. The TARP has become a huge slush fund and that needs addressing by the court on its legality IMHO

Stewie
06-08-2009, 04:01 PM
While I think that #1 is seriously important to holding up contractual agreements in this country, #2 is a pure attempt to usurp the seperation of powers between executive and legislative branches of gov't. The TARP has become a huge slush fund and that needs addressing by the court on its legality IMHO

You're kidding, right?

petegz28
06-08-2009, 04:02 PM
While I think that #1 is seriously important to holding up contractual agreements in this country, #2 is a pure attempt to usurp the seperation of powers between executive and legislative branches of gov't. The TARP has become a huge slush fund and that needs addressing by the court on its legality IMHO

That would be interesting to see.

KC Dan
06-08-2009, 04:05 PM
You're kidding, right?
Let me rephrase - What the gov't is pulling with this "managed" bankruptcy by shifting position of unsecured and secured creditors is blatanty WRONG. There is no other way to see it. I hope that the SCOTUS strikes this managed plan down in flames. #1 is also usurping how the courts work by the Executive branch thus another method of slipping by the separation on powers - just as important if not more so than #2. Hard for me to desribe my meaning but the court needs to act to protect secured creditors.

Stewie
06-08-2009, 04:09 PM
Let me rephrase - What the gov't is pulling with this "managed" bankruptcy by shifting position of unsecured and secured creditors is blatanty WRONG. There is no other way to see it. I hope that the SCOTUS strikes this managed plan down in flames. #1 is also usurping how the courts work by the Executive branch thus another method of slipping by the separation on powers - just as important if not more so than #2. Hard for me to desribe my meaning but the court needs to act to protect secured creditors.

Both are usurping normal business. It's absolutely insane that the game is changing mid-stream... and the courts should have no say.

KC Dan
06-08-2009, 04:12 PM
Both are usurping normal business. It's absolutely insane that the game is changing mid-stream... and the courts should have no say.
Agreed but the SCOTUS MUST step in now because the bankruptcy court or whatever the hell they are using doesn't seem to follow contract and bankruptcy laws.

Taco John
06-08-2009, 04:24 PM
The two big issues are:
1) Moving unsecured creditors (UAW) ahead of secured creditors (bond holders)
2) Using TARP funds for auto buying without congressional approval since TARP was for Bank assets not car companies.

So basically you have a problem with:

#1 - the goal of this whole rigamarole &
#2 - the method of funding that goal

This whole manufactured charade is about putting industry in the hands of the workers. They might succeed this time. They might not. But they'll keep trying until they do. They're in the red zone right now, and are on first down.

I wonder who the UAW will elect as its Czar when they finally get control of the industry away from private owners.

KC Dan
06-08-2009, 04:31 PM
So basically you have a problem with:

#1 - the goal of this whole rigamarole &
#2 - the method of funding that goal

This whole manufactured charade is about putting industry in the hands of the workers. They might succeed this time. They might not. But they'll keep trying until they do. They're in the red zone right now, and are on first down.Yep and we have Bartee playing CB on our side against their Jerry Rice....:banghead:

HonestChieffan
06-08-2009, 04:31 PM
If either #1 or #2 happens then we are screwed as a country.

BTW, I'm watching Pink Panther cartoons right now to get my mind on something real, unlike what's going on in this country. :)

The old Movies with Peter Sellers are classics

petegz28
06-08-2009, 04:33 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/08/breaking-supreme-court-halts-chyrsler-sale-fiat/

The Supreme Court on Monday granted an emergency appeal asking it to halt the impending government-backed sale of Chrysler to Italian automaker Fiat.

The order stops for now Chrysler's sale, which the company claims could scuttle the deal.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg signed the order, but it may be only temporary.

A federal appeals court in New York had earlier approved the sale, but gave opponents until 4 p.m. ET Monday to try to get the Supreme Court to intervene. Ginsburg issued her order just before 4 p.m.

Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock said the ruling was a small victory for Indiana pensioners, who brought the request for an injunction for fear of losing their stake.

"The ... thing I hear is, 'Oh, if this doesn't happen, the sale won't take place.' Let's not forget Fiat is not paying one penny for 20 percent of this deal. If I am going to receive $400 million worth of assets on day one and I don't have to make an investment, I don't care so much if it happen Monday, Tuesday or next week, I am going to be there in the end."

The court needs more time to figure out what it wants to do. In order for the stay to have a more lasting effect, five justices need to sign on it. That has not happened, or at least not yet. The court may yet deny the emergency request or grant it and await arguments about why it should actually hear an appeal.

Ginsburg could decide on her own whether to extend the delay or ask the full court to decide. It is unclear when she or the court will act.

Rep. Gary Peters, D-Mich., whose congressional district is home to Chrysler world headquarters, said the state of Indiana pension funds' attempt to stop the sale is an effort to prevent a swift emergence from bankruptcy in the name of a small sum.

Indiana's pension funds would lose $4.8 million if Chrysler is allowed to emerge from bankruptcy, Peters said, while the state will lose more than $20.7 million in tax revenue if Chrysler is liquidated, as well as incur tens of millions in lost revenue, expenses and new unemployment claims.

"Other stakeholders, including other secured lenders and Chrysler's autoworkers, accepted shared sacrifice because they recognized their interest was better served keeping Chrysler alive rather than forcing liquidation. Why the officials who decided to take their objections all the way to the Supreme Court can't recognize this is beyond me," Peters said.

Greg Signore, a Dodge dealer whose company is closing down as a result of the Chrysler sell-off, told FOX News he'd be in a better position starting from scratch than allowing the sale to go through.

"We're small dealers, we're getting crushed in all this. Why should we have to pay?" Signore asked. "If they liquidate the company, that's fine with me. But then everybody is on the same playing field. Then the big dealers are crushed too. Why should the small dealer have to get hit on this? Why should it cost me a half million dollars? I'd be in better shape."

HonestChieffan
06-08-2009, 05:38 PM
Who do they expect to be shut down, big profitable high volume dealers? This is proof the government cannot run a business and they will fail in a heartbeat.

KC Dan
06-08-2009, 05:58 PM
Rep. Gary Peters, D-Mich., whose congressional district is home to Chrysler world headquarters, said the state of Indiana pension funds' attempt to stop the sale is an effort to prevent a swift emergence from bankruptcy in the name of a small sum.

Indiana's pension funds would lose $4.8 million if Chrysler is allowed to emerge from bankruptcy,
Since when was a small sum $4.8 million dollars? I guess the people with their pension money in those funds can just eat round steak instead of Sirloin. What a crock.

petegz28
06-08-2009, 06:05 PM
Since when was a small sum $4.8 million dollars? I guess the people with their pension money in those funds can just eat round steak instead of Sirloin. What a crock.

Exactly.

***SPRAYER
06-08-2009, 08:46 PM
How soon before the B.O. administration starts throwing people in re-education camps for buying a Honda?

KcFanInGA
06-08-2009, 09:58 PM
Soon I can buy a Fiat 300 with my Euros.