This might be interesting to watch:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Opponents of Chrysler's sale to Fiat are asking the Supreme Court to block the deal.
Three Indiana state pension and construction funds filed emergency papers at the high court early Sunday to put the sale on hold so they can pursue an appeal.The federal appeals court in New York approved the sale Friday, but gave objectors until Monday afternoon to try to get the Supreme Court to intervene. Chrysler wants to sell the bulk of its assets to a group led by Italy's Fiat as part of its plan to emerge from bankruptcy protection. [...]
The Indiana State Police Pension Fund, the Indiana Teacher's Retirement Fund and the state's Major Moves Construction Fund claim the deal unfairly favors the interests of the company's unsecured stakeholders ahead of those of secured debtholders such as themselves.
The funds also challenged the constitutionality of the Treasury Department's use of Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, funds to supply Chrysler's bankruptcy protection financing. They say the Treasury did so without congressional authority.
The government-sponsored reorganization of the U.S. auto industry, including the Chrysler bankruptcy proceedings, "is a matter of incredibly high profile and importance," the funds said in their request to the high court. "The public is watching and needs to see that, particularly when the system is under stress, the rule of law will be honored and an independent judiciary will properly scrutinize the actions of the massively powerful executive branch."
Does the constitutional challenge have any merit? Is there anything to the notion that the Treasury Department's use of TARP funds to finance the Chrysler bankruptcy financing needed congressional authority?
Whatever the case, you've got to love the pragmatic quote from Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs:
Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs of the New York-based appeals court asked Thomas Lauria, the lawyer representing the Indiana funds, why he believed his clients would be better off if the deal with Fiat went away and Chrysler was forced to liquidate.
"You can't wait for a better deal to come in from Studebaker," Jacobs said.
No, indeed, they can't.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Will, in your 3:04 references to two articles, the first was much more useful. The second one was just another tired attempt to blame the UAW for the decisions of the executives who made themselves rich by hiding the costs of deferred benefits to the UAW. The first one discussed the problem in a much more sensible fashion.
Of course, GM would never have been in trouble if it had decided to start to actively support universal health care to bail it out of the promises that it made that it knew it could not keep.
In other words, the issue is not whether "greedy" "speculating" bondholders should have priority over unionized labor but whether one group of unionized labor (UAW) should benefit at the expense of another (Policemen and Teachers).
Just because they're old doesn't mean they can't be speculators. Anybody who bought Chrysler bonds had to have known that they were buying debt in a sick company, if you want safety (for now) buy T-bills, or better yet something valuated in Marks. In the meantime, my sympathy lies with those who actually produce something worthwhile, or attempt to, a group which, on the whole, does not include public school teachers or police officers and certainly doesn't include those who expect money to grow without effort on their part. And it is a sick economy and legal system that allows people to make such large profits with no effort on their part.
Just a post to so my browser will get my name right.
if you want safety (for now) buy T-bills, or better yet something valuated in Marks.
Marks? What country uses the Mark these days? Germany hasn't since, what, 2001?
Re: if you want safety (for now) buy T-bills, or better yet something valuated in Marks.
You'll need a time machine for the latter. The Mark was replaced by the Euro some years ago.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.