Posted on 06/09/2009 4:28:47 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
Edited on 06/09/2009 4:38:36 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
High court won't block Chrysler sale
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has cleared the way for Chrysler's sale to Fiat, turning down a last-ditch bid by opponents of the deal.
The court said late Tuesday it had rejected a plea to block the sale of most of Chrysler's assets to the Italian automaker. Chrysler, Fiat and the Obama administration had warned that the high court's intervention could have scuttled the sale.
A federal appeals court in New York had earlier approved the sale, but gave opponents until Monday afternoon to try to get the Supreme Court to intervene.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ordered a temporary delay just before a 4 p.m. deadline on Monday.
Excerpt.
Will Indiana become solid Republican ?
They just said screw the pensioners
Well said.
Obama to Para-Ord 45: I used to teach constitutional law. Now we don’t need no constitutional law, for I am the Obama, the God of Newsweek, the Messiah of the Masses, the red in the red, white and blue.
Fooled yah. Now I’m in charge so don’t f*ck with me or I’ll send Rahm The Fish Emanuel to pay you a visit.
A bankruptcy judge used to be governed by lien status to determine how any monies would be paid out from the sale of the business or the selling off of the business assets.
I'm not an attorney, so I'm probably missing some of the finer points. However, if a business has a mortgage secured by any property that would be in first position then bonds the business sold, then accounts payables and finally any labor agreements, such as defined benefit pensions.
In the case of Chrysler the bond holders received about half of what was paid out to labor even though the bond holders had 3x's as much due them. The smaller bond holders were never consulted and the larger institutional managers of bond funds didn't say much for fear of being blackballed from further business and also fear of govt retaliation. Watch those same businesses get sued for not fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities.
What kind? International or inflation protected?
Sounds like a full employment bill for attorneys.
I like that.
Who gives a f*ck? The Republicans let all of this happen. They're as useless as the Whigs! After supporting every Republican beginning with Eisenhower, I'm through with the party. They're a bunch of limp, wet dicks who are too happy to go a long. When NO Republican votes for any Obama bill or appointee, then we'll have something to talk about, but not before.
We are now a nation ruled by thieves. Obama and all of his supporters are getting rich while we all sit idle. Everyone is in awe and no one wants to speak up.
Its about time we wake up and see a spade as a spade.
It time to impeach Obama!
Do you think he has all the czars so that he can blame them if a project fails?
The authority without even a Congressional up/down vote is bad.
Then again, this whole “the law is what Obama says” is bad.
It’s not socialism. The word you are looking for is FASCISM. It’s when the government controls/owns private businesses for the purpose of controlling the economy (and people’s lives).
whoever invest in US t-bills are loan sharks and should lose all their money
Sorry. You're veering away the point of my posts. Have a nice evening.
At that time the order of precedence in a bankruptcy was:
1. Postal Service,
2. IRS,
3. Other taxing authorities,
Employee wage claims,
Preferred debt holders, and then every other category of person owed money.
The UAW share is simply the shares authorized to be credited to the health care fund being set up by the federales and UAW to take care of employees and retirees. It is considered to be part of "employee wage claims".
That's the point that will be argued in court down the line by preferred debt holders.
So far no one has one on that point.
HOWEVER, the issue is one I don't think most American or Foreign bond holders will understand well enough to not make them nervous.
I thought you might like that.
The problem is when judges don't enforce the law, but make decisions based on politics mob rule is not far behind.
I can't imagine many investors are going to want to buy bonds in any unionized company from now on. Those that bought Chrysler or GM bonds in the last year were hardly conservative, but till now there was always a belief they were protected by law.
Are there any NYSE companies that aren't unionized in some way or another other than Wal Mart?
Yep. I think so. If the “Fairness” Doctrine is implemented, the fuse will be lit.
Sure.
Fed Ex, Microsoft, Apple, GE (?) to name a few. IIRC, only 10-7% of private business is unionized. The problem is govt at all levels is unionized and now the party of govt (unions) is in power.
Because they are supposed to be secure and the government has just changed the rules and stiffed the secured bond holders. If they can do it to Chrysler, they can do it to any company. I don’t know if there will be a big sell off or not, since many of these people are really slow on the uptake, but you would have to be insane to trust corporate bonds in any company that deals with unions or is in any kind of financial trouble.
______________________________
Exactly. Is this is the straw that broke the camel’s back?
GE actually manufactures things. Don't they also own radio and television stations and networks. Those are all unionized from the top down.
I have a question, and a theory.
First, the question. Did the bondholders actually cite the Constitutionally protected rights of secured bondholders in their filing? I don’t remember seeing that issue raised, only a Constitutional challenge to the government’s authority to use TARP money to assist Chrysler.
My theory here is that one or more members of the constructionist wing (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) had good reason to believe that Kennedy (the ‘swing’ vote) would not come down on their side, so they would rather not involve the Supreme Court at all and codify this into law.
Furthermore, they may have felt that the Indiana Pensioner’s case was not strong enough, quite possibly because they wanted to do the right thing but for the wrong reason, and they knew this case as presented by the plaintiff’s lawyers had no chance of prevailing in the court.
And remember, it is always better for the Court to remain silent on an issue than for it to hand down the wrong ruling. This may have been the very best option of a few very bad options Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito had available.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.