Thanks.
One question:
“the sale was facilitated by an unauthorized use of TARP money”
I don’t understand how the TARP funds are involved. How did the funds facilitate the sale?
TARP cash, I think (someone correct me if I’m wrong), provided debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing to Chrysler. That’s a loan - usually by a private entity, but here it was the government - provided in the context of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy to facilitate the reorganization plan. Except here, I think it’s more like a grant than a loan; there’s no expectation of payback.
To see if I’m right of wrong, find the TARP section of Indiana’s brief; I have not read it yet.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/stay-application-re-chrysler-6-6-09.pdf
Obama “lent” TARP money to New Chrysler to buy all of the assets of Old Chrysler - Only new chrysler is not a “financial institution”, as required by tarp.
In fact, a bill passed in the house to add automakers to TARP - it failed in the senate.