Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: reaganaut1

I wish Lauria would file a request for an emergency stay/injunction with the SCOTUS on this Chrysler asset sale.


4 posted on 05/08/2009 9:44:13 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: BuckeyeTexan

First they came for the bondholders and no one objected.
They were just a bunch of Jewish bankers..so what?


5 posted on 05/08/2009 9:50:49 AM PDT by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: BuckeyeTexan
I wish Lauria would file a request for an emergency stay/injunction with the SCOTUS on this Chrysler asset sale.

He can only do what his clients permit him to do. Clearly, they are scared.

The only consolation here is that if the worm ever turns, Obama is going to find himself with a lot of angry people piling on. I just don't see it happening any time soon, what with the Dem co-ordination of vote manipulation with ACORN and with immigration, and the Bush-shocked state of the sheeple.

6 posted on 05/08/2009 9:51:13 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine (Is /sarc really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Section 363 of the U.S. bankruptcy code allows for Chapter 11 debtors to sell assets before creditors can challenge the general reorganization plan.

In essence, section 363 gives the bankrupt entity, in this case, Chrysler, the right to sell assets to another organization, in this case Fiat, BEFORE creditors can challenge the Chapter 11 reorganization plan. This significantly reduces the collateral against which secured creditors can make claims in bankruptcy.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/05/guest-post-case-of-dissident-chrysler.html?showComment=1241319540000


14 posted on 05/08/2009 10:24:30 AM PDT by Nascar Dad (Serenity Now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Honestly, many have said it and I don’t know why we aren’t pursuing this. Under what authority is this being done? As best I can tell its TARP. TARP oversite is not being done as required and TARP is clearly unconstitutional. It should be challenged and struck down. That’s the SCOTUS action that is needed.


17 posted on 05/08/2009 11:16:27 AM PDT by dalight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson