That's a good question and I think the answer is "yes". Under the law, the bond holders were supposed to be in a position where the debt was secured by the assets of the company. My understanding of the Fiat deal is that those assets go away without benefitting the bond holders. Apparently, the rationale was that under TARP, the govt could do whatever the hell it wanted to as TARP trumped all existing laws. I think the refusal to issue a stay finishes any chance of legal remedy for the bond holders.
Let me try again - Chrysler went bankrupt, and their house is being sold at auction by the sheriff.
By law, the sheriff must sell the house to the highest bidder, and use the proceeds, first, to pay off the mortgage.
Instead, he sold the house to the maid in a rigged deal, then paid off the maid’s back wages with the proceeds, and put a big chunk aside for the maid’s retirement fund.
And he told the mortgage company, “I won.”
You see?
The irreperable harm is, the sheriff is immune from being sued, and so is the maid!
As for chrysler? as of the momment of the sale, it no longer exists.