PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues SCOTUS Clears Chrysler Sale


petegz28
06-09-2009, 10:32 PM
Well...that is that...the SCOTUS is not interested in contract law, etc, etc.

Obama successfully ****ed the law over and got away with it.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31194105

The Supreme Court Tuesday evening cleared the way for the U.S. government-backed sale of Chrysler to a group led by Italian carmaker Fiat, a victory for the bankrupt automaker and the Obama administration.

The high court rejected a request from Indiana pension funds and other opponents of the transaction to delay the deal while they challenge Chrysler's sale to a group led by Fiat [FIATY 10.52 -0.18 (-1.68%) ], a union-aligned trust and the U.S. and Canadian governments.

The Chrysler case has been widely regarded as setting a precedent for General Motors, which is using a similar quick-sale strategy in its bankruptcy in New York.

The Supreme Court in a brief two-page order said the challengers had not met their burden of showing that a delay was justified.

The court's action was not a decision on the merits of the underlying legal issues, the justices said. And they said their assessment was "based on the record and proceedings in this case alone."

Read the Supreme Court's Chrysler Order
The Chrysler dispute marked the first time the Supreme Court had been confronted by legal issues involving the U.S. government's power to deal with the economic crisis.

The White House welcomed the high court's action.

"We are delighted that the Chrysler-Fiat alliance can now go forward, allowing Chrysler to reemerge as a competitive and viable automaker," said an White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"We are gratified that not a single court that reviewed this matter, including the U.S. Supreme Court, found any fault whatsoever with the handling of this matter by either Chrysler or the U.S. government," the official said.

Capped Three Days Of High Court Activity

The Supreme Court's refusal to block the deal capped three days of intense activity, with written briefs filed over the weekend and even earlier on Tuesday by both sides in the legal battle.

The court lifted a temporary stay of the sale granted by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on late Monday in a move widely seen as giving the court more time to weigh whether to intervene.

The pension funds argued that the Chrysler sale unlawfully rewarded unsecured creditors ahead of secured lenders, that it amounted to an illegal reorganization plan, and that the U.S. Treasury Department overstepped its powers by using bailout funds for Chrysler when Congress intended the money for banks.

Chrysler and the Obama administration urged the Supreme Court to allow the sale to go forward and said a long delay could kill the deal, resulting in the automaker's liquidation and the loss of more than 38,000 jobs.

They cited Chrysler's worsening financial situation, with $100-million-a-day losses. The sale agreement sets a June 15 deadline to close.

It would have taken the votes of five of the nine Supreme Court members to put the deal on hold. The court acted with no recorded dissent from any of the justices.

Chrysler filed for bankruptcy protection on April 30 to complete the sale and alliance with Fiat within 60 days, in a case that analysts have seen as a test for the much bigger and more complex bankruptcy of GM.

The $2 billion sale of Chrysler's assets to a new company that will be 68 percent controlled by a healthcare trust aligned with the United Auto Workers union was approved by a U.S. bankruptcy judge on June 1.

Fiat will control 20 percent, the U.S. and Canadian governments will control the other 12 percent.

Both a federal bankruptcy judge and a U.S. appeals court in New York have approved the sale

SBK
06-09-2009, 10:34 PM
Obama has nothing to do with this, it was 100% Chrysler's decision.

petegz28
06-09-2009, 10:36 PM
Obama has nothing to do with this, it was 100% Chrysler's decision.

Then why does the article state the Obama Admin along with Chrysler urged the court....etc. etc?

SBK
06-09-2009, 10:37 PM
Then why does the article state the Obama Admin along with Chrysler urged the court....etc. etc?

The reporter has clearly misreported.

petegz28
06-09-2009, 10:37 PM
And fiat just got 20% of the company for free. I am so glad we dumped billions of our tax $'s into this.

petegz28
06-09-2009, 10:38 PM
The reporter has clearly misreported.

clearly....LMAO

Jenson71
06-09-2009, 10:38 PM
Chrysler and the Obama administration urged the Supreme Court to allow the sale to go forward and said a long delay could kill the deal, resulting in the automaker's liquidation and the loss of more than 38,000 jobs.

IS THERE NO MORE SEPARATION OF POWERS!?!? ALL GLORY IS FLEETING.

Chiefshrink
06-09-2009, 10:40 PM
Dictator Obama has officially begun!!! The Rule of Law is No More! It is going to get nasty in these U.S. these next few yrs!!

petegz28
06-09-2009, 10:41 PM
IS THERE NO MORE SEPARATION OF POWERS!?!? ALL GLORY IS FLEETING.

One of the scary parts of this Jenson, is that TARP money was used for the Autos. TARP was not approved for the Autos and the Obama Admin used TARP $'s without getting Congressional approval. That is a violation of separation.

It is not good when Congress approves money for one thing and the White House decides to spend it on something else.

Amnorix
06-10-2009, 07:07 AM
One of the scary parts of this Jenson, is that TARP money was used for the Autos. TARP was not approved for the Autos and the Obama Admin used TARP $'s without getting Congressional approval. That is a violation of separation.

It is not good when Congress approves money for one thing and the White House decides to spend it on something else.

You are chronically wrong. Do you ever fact-check the stuff that you read on whatever right wing blogs you review?


As the administration considers whether to use TARP money to bail out the automakers, what does the statute have to say?
The Secretary is authorized to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program (or ‘‘TARP’’) to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary
Since auto companies wouldn't appear to be financial institutions (indeed, GM has sold most of its financing arm to Cerberus), one might think this primary directive would be problematic. However, the good news for the auto companies is that "financial institution" is defined with an out - an out that would seem to mean that the "financial" part of the term could be, for all intents and purposes, dropped:
'The term ‘‘financial institution’’ means any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank.....[and other financial institutions incorporated in the US]
So there appears to be a textual basis that could be used to bring auto companies under the TARP. Is it a good idea to do so? We're just lawyers here at the Glom, so perhaps we will simply point you to some economists. Richard Posner still thinks a bailout would be a good idea (http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2008/12/the_auto_bailou.html) (or the best of a bad set of alternatives, anyway), while Gary Becker would prefer bankruptcy (http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2008/12/why_bankruptcy.html).

http://www.theconglomerate.org/2008/12/can-the-tarp-be.html

petegz28
06-10-2009, 08:01 AM
You are chronically wrong. Do you ever fact-check the stuff that you read on whatever right wing blogs you review?



http://www.theconglomerate.org/2008/12/can-the-tarp-be.html

Ok...well I guess we should start classifying every company as a financial institution since we now call auto makers a "financial institution". In fact, why call any company anything but? And that being the case the government is clearly showing favoritism.

stevieray
06-10-2009, 08:09 AM
"remake America"

not rebuld, remake...

banyon
06-10-2009, 08:16 AM
Obama has nothing to do with this, it was 100% Chrysler's decision.

How? Did you ever figure that out, or is it still just a hunch?

In any event, what did you pure free marketeers want to happen here? If the government hadn't bailed these f***s out months ago, the dealerships would've already been closed and the bankruptcy would probably be done.

Amnorix
06-10-2009, 08:16 AM
Ok...well I guess we should start classifying every company as a financial institution since we now call auto makers a "financial institution". In fact, why call any company anything but? And that being the case the government is clearly showing favoritism.

If you don't like how the statute was written, write your Congressman, but don't act like Obama overstepped his limits. He clearly didn't.

Amnorix
06-10-2009, 08:18 AM
How? Did you ever figure that out, or is it still just a hunch?

In any event, what did you pure free marketeers want to happen here? If the government hadn't bailed these f***s out months ago, the dealerships would've already been closed and the bankruptcy would probably be done.

Even in a liquidation, which is the likely altnernative, I think it would still be going on. Wrapping up the competing claims will take a while.

They're saying 2-3 years for "old GM", which is to be liquidated, though that process may be slowed by the complications of separating New GM from Old GM.

petegz28
06-10-2009, 08:30 AM
If you don't like how the statute was written, write your Congressman, but don't act like Obama overstepped his limits. He clearly didn't.

No...not 1 step.....LMAO

The whole situation with the dealers and bond holders? Ok....well your hero does no wrong.

banyon
06-10-2009, 08:38 AM
No...not 1 step.....LMAO

The whole situation with the dealers and bond holders? Ok....well your hero does no wrong.

What did Obama do with regard to the bond holders and dealers?

Amnorix
06-10-2009, 08:38 AM
No...not 1 step.....LMAO

The whole situation with the dealers and bond holders? Ok....well your hero does no wrong.

That's a separate item that we can discuss.

You're basically saying that Obama breached the separate of powers by overstepping his statutory authority regarding how to dispense with TARP funds.

Now that you've had that line of thought blown up, you've switched to something else. That's fine. Not uncommon in argument, but I"m not going to let it just slide by as if you had it right the first time.

SBK
06-10-2009, 09:13 AM
How? Did you ever figure that out, or is it still just a hunch?

In any event, what did you pure free marketeers want to happen here? If the government hadn't bailed these f***s out months ago, the dealerships would've already been closed and the bankruptcy would probably be done.

Looks like Obama's multi billion dollar rescue plan failed.

With no help they'd be bankrupt, with billions from Lord Barry they are bankrupt.
Posted via Mobile Device

petegz28
06-10-2009, 09:31 AM
That's a separate item that we can discuss.

You're basically saying that Obama breached the separate of powers by overstepping his statutory authority regarding how to dispense with TARP funds.

Now that you've had that line of thought blown up, you've switched to something else. That's fine. Not uncommon in argument, but I"m not going to let it just slide by as if you had it right the first time.

More like I am repeating what several have concerns about. I have had nothing blow up in my face, thank you.

banyon
06-10-2009, 11:45 AM
Looks like Obama's multi billion dollar rescue plan failed.

With no help they'd be bankrupt, with billions from Lord Barry they are bankrupt.
Posted via Mobile Device

So you wanted the same result, the dealerships closed, and the "government forcing them to" issue is pretty much moot?

SBK
06-10-2009, 11:50 AM
So you wanted the same result, the dealerships closed, and the "government forcing them to" issue is pretty much moot?

Had we followed my plan the taxpayers would have saved billions and billions and billions of dollars.

I'm just pointing out another one of Obama's failures. His plan did nothing to prevent the inevitable, even though he sold us that it would, and blew through billions of our dollars.
Posted via Mobile Device

banyon
06-10-2009, 11:55 AM
Had we followed my plan the taxpayers would have saved billions and billions and billions of dollars.

I'm just pointing out another one of Obama's failures. His plan did nothing to prevent the inevitable, even though he sold us that it would, and blew through billions of our dollars.
Posted via Mobile Device

:hmmm:, that was my plan too, I believe.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5220502&postcount=8

I'm just not able to believe that this wasn't what Chrysler wanted all along as well.

BigMeatballDave
06-10-2009, 11:58 AM
I get the feeling Obama fucked Pete's wife...

SBK
06-10-2009, 06:47 PM
:hmmm:, that was my plan too, I believe.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5220502&postcount=8

I'm just not able to believe that this wasn't what Chrysler wanted all along as well.

I'm sure shafting the bond holders to provide a larger stake in the company for the UAW was part of Chryslers plan too?

banyon
06-10-2009, 06:50 PM
I'm sure shafting the bond holders to provide a larger stake in the company for the UAW was part of Chryslers plan too?

Why would chrysler give a f*** about their bond holders while going BK?

That doesn't really make sense to me (in a closing business). If you had a home mortgage in your life, did you lie awake at night worrying if your mortgage company felt you were going to default?

SBK
06-10-2009, 07:04 PM
Why would chrysler give a f*** about their bond holders while going BK?

That doesn't really make sense to me (in a closing business). If you had a home mortgage in your life, did you lie awake at night worrying if your mortgage company felt you were going to default?

You've missed the point again, I apologize.

banyon
06-10-2009, 07:54 PM
You've missed the point again, I apologize.

I tried to address your point directly. If you can point out where I erred, that would be helpful.

SBK
06-10-2009, 07:56 PM
I tried to address your point directly. If you can point out where I erred, that would be helpful.

There's not really any point. Pretty much the way everything works around here.

I'll just say we agree. :)