Who benefits most in Chrysler-Fiat deal?

[Hank Reardon]

Holdouts wrote:

<quoted text>
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
OMG are you kidding? What actually is the law then silly boy? A collection of 'opinions'! Is Brown v. Board of Education anything but an opinion? How about Gideon v. Wainwright? Opinions there too? Not 'morally right?' What nonsense. The law of the land is law. Your original posts were screaming for the judge to follow the letter of the law. That has been done and now you won't have any of it because the outcome wasn't in keeping with YOUR morals and what YOU feel is right or wrong. Well you can't have your law and eat it too, now can you.
You might not agree with Judge Gonzalez' "opinion" but frankly, a man with decades of jurisprudence sitting on the bench might just have a more credible, accurate 'opinion' than an angry layman with a political axe to grind, sharpened by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.... The court followed the law, and that is all a court can and should do.
As for your payday loan and interest rate nonsense, save that rambling rubbish for a news story to which it might actually apply.

I believe I was the one calling for the judge to follow the law.

You are right that it was within the judges power to abdicate the law. My position lost and I accept that. You did a pretty good job presenting your view by copying an article. Your position won.

It doesn’t make the decision right, just legal. Court decisions are proven wrong all the time.

Answer this for me, why do you take such pleasure in seeing these investors lose money?

[Holdouts]

Hank Reardon wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe I was the one calling for the judge to follow the law.
You are right that it was within the judges power to abdicate the law. My position lost and I accept that. You did a pretty good job presenting your view by copying an article. Your position won.
It doesn’t make the decision right, just legal. Court decisions are proven wrong all the time.
Answer this for me, why do you take such pleasure in seeing these investors lose money?

First, I don't take pleasure in anyone, in any American, investor or worker, butcher, baker or candlestick maker, losing money. Americans need to start making money, and making Things, including cars that are profitable profit. One can only take pleasure in knowing that US law was followed and followed properly. My problem is with laymen screaming in absolutist terms that the law says X, Y and Z and therefore those holdout investors should prevail, when in fact no, the applicable law does not. It is far more complex than the whole 'but they were secured creditors' blah blah.

People spend years in law school and practice or on the bench grappling with these issues.

None of us were in that courtroom and heard the arguments and the evidence that the judge was presented. Obviously it was sufficient.

And yes, court decisions are sometimes overturned, when one can prove the court did not follow the law or in certain other limited circumstances. That does not appear to be the case here.

[pro_who_knows]

Holdouts wrote:

<quoted text>
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
OMG are you kidding? What actually is the law then silly boy? A collection of 'opinions'! Is Brown v. Board of Education anything but an opinion? How about Gideon v. Wainwright? Opinions there too? Not 'morally right?' What nonsense. The law of the land is law. Your original posts were screaming for the judge to follow the letter of the law. That has been done and now you won't have any of it because the outcome wasn't in keeping with YOUR morals and what YOU feel is right or wrong. Well you can't have your law and eat it too, now can you.
You might not agree with Judge Gonzalez' "opinion" but frankly, a man with decades of jurisprudence sitting on the bench might just have a more credible, accurate 'opinion' than an angry layman with a political axe to grind, sharpened by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.... The court followed the law, and that is all a court can and should do.
As for your payday loan and interest rate nonsense, save that rambling rubbish for a news story to which it might actually apply.

Gonzalez, being an Obama sympathizer and advocate, liberally interpreted the law in hopes of future career advancement considerations in Washington.

Plain and simple.

[pro_who_knows]

Holdouts wrote:

<quoted text>
First, I don't take pleasure in anyone, in any American, investor or worker, butcher, baker or candlestick maker, losing money. Americans need to start making money, and making Things, including cars that are profitable profit. One can only take pleasure in knowing that US law was followed and followed properly. My problem is with laymen screaming in absolutist terms that the law says X, Y and Z and therefore those holdout investors should prevail, when in fact no, the applicable law does not. It is far more complex than the whole 'but they were secured creditors' blah blah.
People spend years in law school and practice or on the bench grappling with these issues.
None of us were in that courtroom and heard the arguments and the evidence that the judge was presented. Obviously it was sufficient.
And yes, court decisions are sometimes overturned, when one can prove the court did not follow the law or in certain other limited circumstances. That does not appear to be the case here.

Judicial activism is the leading cause for the growing dysfunction of the American legal system.

Giving subjective, situational judicial powers to low level judges such as you are advocating is absurd. Presuming the appellate process will correct lower court "wrongs" that were politically motivated further clogs the system.

Simply put, your position is that "secured creditor" does not mean secured creditor in this day and age. It means whatever the heck the presiding judge determines it to be. How bogus is that?

Did you get your law credentials over the web, Holdouts?

[ejhickey]

No matter what happens in the BK case , I am not buying a Chrysler or a Chrysler-Fiat. Just based on my personal experience with owning and renting Chrysler products over 4 decades. I have also had the unfortunate opportunity to have ridden in a few Fiats while traveling in Europe. Again based on that experience , Fiat is a no sale with me.

In this proposed merger of the mediocres, I find it interesting that Fiat will not put up any of its own cash, just it's so called small car technology . Th e US government is putting up the money , paying a foreign car company to save a domestic car company. Is Chrysler still an American car company?

Although my tax dollars will be going into C/F , at least I still have the choice not ride in one.

[So predictable]

pro_who_knows wrote:

<quoted text>
Gonzalez, being an Obama sympathizer and advocate, liberally interpreted the law in hopes of future career advancement considerations in Washington.
Plain and simple.

You are so predictable.

When you don't agree with a judge's decision, call him 'biased' or 'corrupt.' Clearly a puppet of someone!

Well crazy paranoid jimbo, what the hell do you even know about this man's biases? Who do you think you are to level such an accusation against a learned man's name just because you disagree with how he ruled on a particular motion! Is this what members of the GOP have devolved into? I'd guess if Judge Ramirez was so hideously corrupt as you allege, maybe someone would have raised this and had him impeached or voted out of office in the +15 years he has been on the bench!

And next there, Joe the Lawyer, if it's found that no, he's not corrupt,(if say, some influential GOP leader were to say that no, he's a good, honest judge,) well then you will start to bellyache that the law itself is wrong and should be abolished....

My Gd there are just some people, from either party, who can never admit that hey, I just may happen to be WRONG about something in this world! Ughhhh I pray you're not married.

[Holdouts]

pro_who_knows wrote:

<quoted text>
Judicial activism is the leading cause for the growing dysfunction of the American legal system.
Giving subjective, situational judicial powers to low level judges such as you are advocating is absurd. Presuming the appellate process will correct lower court "wrongs" that were politically motivated further clogs the system.
Simply put, your position is that "secured creditor" does not mean secured creditor in this day and age. It means whatever the heck the presiding judge determines it to be. How bogus is that?
Did you get your law credentials over the web, Holdouts?

No schmuck, I got them from the Illinois state bar.

Why don't you just switch over to a blog on cancer and pretend you know something about medicine. Pretending you know s-it from Shinola seems to be your calling.

[pro_who_knows]

So predictable wrote:

<quoted text>
You are so predictable.
When you don't agree with a judge's decision, call him 'biased' or 'corrupt.' Clearly a puppet of someone!
Well crazy paranoid jimbo, what the hell do you even know about this man's biases? Who do you think you are to level such an accusation against a learned man's name just because you disagree with how he ruled on a particular motion! Is this what members of the GOP have devolved into? I'd guess if Judge Ramirez was so hideously corrupt as you allege, maybe someone would have raised this and had him impeached or voted out of office in the +15 years he has been on the bench!
And next there, Joe the Lawyer, if it's found that no, he's not corrupt,(if say, some influential GOP leader were to say that no, he's a good, honest judge,) well then you will start to bellyache that the law itself is wrong and should be abolished....
My Gd there are just some people, from either party, who can never admit that hey, I just may happen to be WRONG about something in this world! Ughhhh I pray you're not married.

You make a good Democratic parrot.

As any blind and deaf person knows, the blind see what that CHOOSE to see and the deaf hear what the CHOOSE to hear.

Your whole wild rant here is based on things I never said.(Go ahead. It's a free country, at least for a little while. If you need to make up comments to justify your own position, you're free to do so.)

Just watch what happens to Gonzalez's career from here on out.

I won't even go into the legal definition of "secured debt" because it is certainly miles above your intellectual ability to comprehend. Let us know when you buy a Frysler.

I'm not a Republican, parrot. Sling your parrot solid waste somewhere else.

PS - From and economics and legal standpoint, this is the first time in modern history where The One is a Zero.

[pro_who_knows]

Holdouts wrote:

<quoted text>
No schmuck, I got them from the Illinois state bar.
Why don't you just switch over to a blog on cancer and pretend you know something about medicine. Pretending you know s-it from Shinola seems to be your calling.

Get your money back. What you know about corporate law wouldn't fill a thimble.

You clearly know sh-t and you are welcome to it. I KNOW THE LAW. Why don't you shovel what you know somewhere else, like in Springfield?

If you had any integrity you'd go back to school and get a real law education.

[Peter]

Holdouts wrote:

<quoted text>
No schmuck, I got them from the Illinois state bar.

No way. All you did was copy someone else's work and it was all propoganda.

Prove It. What is your real name and registration number?

[Hank Reardon]

pro_who_knows wrote:

<quoted text>
Judicial activism is the leading cause for the growing dysfunction of the American legal system.
Giving subjective, situational judicial powers to low level judges such as you are advocating is absurd. Presuming the appellate process will correct lower court "wrongs" that were politically motivated further clogs the system.
Simply put, your position is that "secured creditor" does not mean secured creditor in this day and age. It means whatever the heck the presiding judge determines it to be. How bogus is that?
Did you get your law credentials over the web, Holdouts?

Your points are valid, unfortuntely those who know nothing about how the market works think it doesn't matter. Well in todays WSJ the following appeared:

According to the WSJ, today:
“The White House's role in restructuring Chrysler has sent a shudder through the community of lawyers and lenders in the field of bankruptcy and corporate workouts. Critics complain that the administration has violated a bedrock principle of American capitalism and unfairly demonized financial firms that are vital to the functioning of the economy and its eventual recovery.
Administration officials reply that the Chrysler crisis required bold action. While Chrysler's suppliers, dealers and unionized workers are critical to its survival -- and so is Fiat, which will contribute high-efficiency engines and foreign distribution -- the creditors were expendable.
"You don't need banks and bondholders to make cars," said one administration official.”

The administration is right, you don’t need bondholders and banks to make cars. Any unskilled laborer can make a car.

You do however need banks and bondholders to finance the economy. The administration that needs the credit markets to lend to its poor supporters to get the economy going again, may have shot itself in the foot.

Banks are evaluating the impact and will be more reluctant to lend. Investors will be reluctant to buy debt because it won’t be worth the paper it is written on.

But that is ok Obama can blame the evil money men. By the time he wakes up to the fact he needs these investors it will be too late. Like most Obama supporters it is never their fault.

This administration in its need to take bold action is not thinking its actions all the way through. The costs for changing contract law will be big.

[ejhickey]

Hank Reardon wrote:

<quoted text>
Your points are valid, unfortuntely those who know nothing about how the market works think it doesn't matter. Well in todays WSJ the following appeared:

Wealth takes flight when might makes right!

[pro_who_knows]

This carpet-bombing attack of capitalism by the current administration is creating huge second degree and third degree problems for America.

It reminds me of the old atheist query that challenges God's almighty powers: If God is all powerful, can he create a stone so large and heavy that he cannot lift it?

Apparently, Obama and his minions are creating economic problems so large, that even the US government will not be able to solve them. Woe unto the next generation of Americans.

And just where will American lenders invest their money after Frysler spins, crashes, and burns? Where will foreign investors take their money ex post Gonzalez? Apparently, this administration went to school but failed to get an education.

Marchionne will get his hands on billions of tax payer dollars. With apologies to Dire Straits. "money for nothing and the checks are free."

[Hank Reardon]

pro_who_knows wrote:

And just where will American lenders invest their money after Frysler spins, crashes, and burns? Where will foreign investors take their money ex post Gonzalez? Apparently, this administration went to school but failed to get an education.
Marchionne will get his hands on billions of tax payer dollars. With apologies to Dire Straits. "money for nothing and the checks are free."

Whats odd about all this is those who will pay the bill are BO supporters.

Where the administration went to school is a big part of the problem. They didn't go to schools where you learn the realities of life. They went to schools were you talked about your feelings.

Most are academics with NO real world experience. That is why they don't see the long term mistakes in the decisions they make today. These are not leaders, real leaders no the consequences of their decisions.

They are politicians trying to make over the country in their view. Unfortunately their view is morally corrupt from the perspective of those who have to do the work.

[Hank Reardon]

ejhickey wrote:

<quoted text>
Wealth takes flight when might makes right!

Very true. I am already helping my dad replace his fixed income investments. He wants no part of them anymore. Its the big talk in the financial planning world.

Unfortunately nobody in the Obama administration understands everyday Americans who built this country. They only listen to the mooches who got them in office.

[Hank Reardon]

I guess Spector or Holdout or whatever his name was, is a fraud. He didn't answer Peters question.

Probably some union hack.

[pro_who_knows]

Hank Reardon wrote:

I guess Spector or Holdout or whatever his name was, is a fraud. He didn't answer Peters question.
Probably some union hack.

...appreciated all of your points.

My growing concern is that the American Electorate lacks the education and understanding of BHO's policies to the degree that they will turn this administration out of office in '10 & '12.

There is only going to be one, real opportunity to recreate the US Auto industry and I believe that it is being bungled.

[Hank Reardon]

pro_who_knows wrote:

<quoted text>
There is only going to be one, real opportunity to recreate the US Auto industry and I believe that it is being bungled.

There is some capacity coming out of the system. There needs to be further reduction in capacity. But it gives some them breathing room.

But they will blow it by supplying cars people do NOT want to buy and made by people who have a serious PR problem.

Remember the administration used its leverage as the only lender available to Chrysler. In the end the taxpayer will keep it alive.

My view is that if only the government was capable of taking on that kind of risk, then they should have let it go through the normal bankruptcy.

Airlines have done it. Steel companies have done it. It effciently and fairly cuts capacity.

Why was Chrysler special? Does it have something to do with the UAW campaign contribtutions? BTW, because the other guy did it, does not make it right.