You don’t have to have been harmed already to get a stay - the harm needs to be imminent and irreparable.
I think you could speculate the SC thought that Chrysler would be harmed with the stay ... And the investors not so much so at this point. But there wasn’t enough information in the order.
The fact that the first paragraph said the SC was not ruling on the underlying issues, gives hope that change can come.
Would you buy a Fiat? For what?
“You don’t have to have been harmed already to get a stay - the harm needs to be imminent and irreparable.”
I’m not a legal eagle, but isn’t the opinion simply stating that there were not sufficient grounds for a STAY? They did NOT rule on the merits of the bondholder claims: effectively they are just saying that bondholders still can sue after the takeover by Fiat and there would still be available remedies to make them whole. At some level, the harm to bondholders already has occurred in the prior decision about how to divide up Chrysler. Is there something about the Fiat takeover that would make the damage done irreparable? This is a honest question, not a rhetorical one. I don’t pretend to know the first thing about law or business.