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?
If you check out the blogisphere today, you’ll find that Fiat - I forget whether it’s the company itself, several officials, or both - is under a “deferred prosecution” agreement with the U.S. government because it was involved in the “oil for food” scandal going back to the 90’s. Also many Chrysler officials didn’t want to deal with Fiat, because they regarded it as a shady company which refused to open its books.
But the Obama administration forced this marriage, with Fiat contributing zero cash to the deal.
The fact that the first paragraph said the SC was not ruling on the underlying issues, gives hope that change can come.
The SC has tried to dress up its unlawful ruling as process. As is so often the case, process in this instance is substance. The relevant harm is to the bondholders who are clearly not getting what they are due under the Bankruptcy Code and their Constitutional right to have their contracts enforced is being ignored.
My wife owned a Fiat once. Not much of a car. I hope that people refuse to buy cars from GM and Chrysler. I bought a Ford 2 months ago, and looked carefully at the Hyundai’s and KIA’s. Very good value, although the Ford Escape that I got my wife is better than the Tucson, Sportage, Sorrento, etc. -— for now.