[RinaseaofDs]

This isn’t a political issue, it’s contract law. Bondholders have secured debt. Why would they accept any deal outside of bankruptcy court, unless it benefitted the bondholders?

Sounds like you advocate the “What’s yours is mine, and what’s mine is mine” position.

[JasonC]

Because the US treasury is promising, *if and only if they do*, to lend the company the $8 billion it would take to pay them back anything at all. If the US treasury does not do so, then said bondholders get jack squat, nothing, nada. They need the US treasury's side of the deal, and won't give them own side of the deal for the agreed by everyone else 29 cents on the dollar. If the US treasury says "fine, get blood from a stone", then won't get 5 cents on the dollar.

It is not like the bondholders own anything at all here. All they have is a claim against a bankrupt deadbeat who can't pay. They want the US treasury to pay them instead, and they want to dictate how much, too. To hell with them.