Thicker slice = some control of Chrysler in exchange for their debt. And they will make a case for it in the bankruptcy court.This is why Obama wants them gone, and why he is yellig, carpining and bullying them to resign heir standing. He only wants a socialist agenda for Chrysler.
And I hope the bond holders win that fight.
They didn't propose "some control". They proposed (1) that the treasury lend a flock more money to the company then (2) that the treasury and only the treasury leave that as debt and not get any equity while (3) they get over 50% of the equity with less than 30% of the debt and (4) the 70% of the other creditors (banks and suppliers) get practically nothing, except the UAW getting about 40%. Then they want to turn around and sell their stake to Fiat as a control stake, while the US treasury funds all of it with just debt and gives away the entire upside.
There is no reason whatever for any other party to the proceeding to agree to any part of it. It offers no one else anything (the UAW gets less, just something so they don't all walk). "Why don't you all give everything to me?" is the "proposal", in substance. To call it a proposal is being charitable. They have no answer as soon as the suppliers, banks, and treasury say "on those conditions, we will not deal with the new entity, nor lend it a dime".
Their underlying problem is simple. They offer *nothing* to the new firm. Not management, not expertise, not capital, not labor, nor funding, not equipment, nothing.
If it were me I'd lower then offer to them 1 cent a day until they took it or it hits zero, and then do the deal without the old company at all.