naked capitalism

Doc Holiday says:

Someone forgot to tell the Hoosiers that Treasury is now in the business of commerce. Be that as it is, Treasury obviously has no Constitutional authority to usurp control in the way it goes about its new interest in doing business, but no one in Congress understood what was going on (with The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, aka TARP and abuses of power by Treasury) including super-pro politicians like Lugar and Bayh.

Meanwhile, the theft continues and the only hope The Hoosiers have is to burn up cash with a legal firm that will do what … prove that Treasury is corrupt and directly linked to lobby groups that are financed by wall street thugs? These people have to suck it up I'm afraid and realize that it would be easier to bring back slavery to America than honesty!

Re: … "claiming that the company "has ceded control over their business and their restructuring efforts to the United States Treasury Department"

Re: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., welcomed a proposal from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to give the Treasury the authority to unwind large, nonbank financial institutions that have become insolvent.

Pelosi said that the proposal, raised by Geithner in testimony before the House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday, would "help us move forward in a positive way."

> As many will recall, Paulson's version of The New & Improved Treasury with Unlimiyed Powers and No Accountability, was scratched as a few notes on the back of a matchbook. After scribbling utter bullshit, he then threatened everyone he could find, got down on all fours while begging and even then, as green foam bubbled from his nose and ears — and while everyone had a clear line-of-site to see the horns on his head — no one really understood the ramifications of what might be connected to a few trillion bucks. The other theory is, no one cared, including The Hoosiers that were home planting weeds.

Now we have a few people that want accountability after the fact, after they were so comfortable being out of the loop? This is what will kill legal case, i.e, time, these people did not file the claim early enough IMHO and as with most cases of abuse, the longer people wait, the less rights they have. TARP and Treasury are moving too fast and the chaos involved in this mess will prevent justice and they damn well know that!

See: Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who favored assisting the auto industry last year, said the discussion of the president’s power over TARP funds is “ongoing.”

“The debate is continuing to whether that authority is there,” he told CNSNews.com.

“Essentially TARP is meant for troubled assets and banks but, as you pointed out, it has been utilized in the auto industry–not by unanimous consent,” Lugar said.

The Author understands that this is dis-jointed and should care less…

bob says:

Looking at the chrysler bankruptcy is like a doctor looking up a patients’ ass while trying to diagnose a headache. He might find something, but its probably just shit.

Look at the “buyout” for answers.

Doc Holiday says:

Check this feces out on melting assets…>

FYI: So what's the risk for the proponents of the sale? As Chrysler's own counsel at Jones Day wrote in this 2002 publication:

[U]nder certain circumstances a debtor may sell all or substantially all of its assets without making the sale part of a plan of reorganization. Where a chapter 11 debtor proposes to sell its assets or business "outside of a plan of reorganization," creditors are entitled to notice of the sale and an opportunity to voice any objections they may have with the court. However, the sale will not be subject to the same creditor disclosure and voting rights attendant to a sale as part of a plan of reorganization. Moreover, the proposed sale will be subject to the less exacting "business judgment" standard of review. For this reason, some courts refuse to approve a proposed sale outside of a plan of reorganization if it appears that the transaction is really a "sub rosa" or "de facto" plan because the terms of the sale will necessarily dictate the provisions of any future plan.

> That there crud is from here:

Chrysler Files Bankruptcy – Part II: Testing The Limits Of Section 363 Sales

Russell says:

“Obama and Rattner will have a much more difficult time playing the blame game on this occasion”

Nah. Indiana is a red state.

Doc Holiday says:

Deep feces: Business Judgment Rule in Multi –Debtor Cases:

Conflicted directors and officers in multi-debtor cases may lose the presumption that business decisions were made in the directors’ or officers’ business judgment because of
their conflicting interests.

ii. Relevant Cases: As was noted in a presentation at the ABI’s 9th Annual New York City Bankruptcy Conference, in both the Mirant and Calpine reorganization cases, creditors raised claims that management’s decisions were prejudicial to certain debtors and beneficial to others. . . . In Calpine, the
Court held in an unreported bench decision,
that all of the debtors in the Calpine case
comprised an integrated enterprise. The
Court determined that so long as a business
decision of management and the board of
directors was supported by sound business
judgment in furtherance of the interests of
the integrated enterprise, that decision
should not be second guessed because any individual debtor would be prejudiced by the
decision.

Pirated from: Bankruptcy 2007: Views From the Bench

http://www.abiworld.org/committees/newsletters/busreorg/vol6num3/materials/Inter.pdf

SteadyTim says:

I’m suprised that there isn’t more coverage on this story. This court case is of such monumental importance to the meaning of our country; it will show the world whether we are a country of laws, or a country in which the influencial can steal and take anything. If the rights of the Chrysler bondholders aren’t upheld, foreign money will begin to leave the US in earnest. Who would invest in a country that not only does not enforce contract (debt) laws, but is an active party in usurping the rights of the bondholders?

Hugh says:

Chrysler, the hedge funds, and the pension funds are all insolvent. The only difference is that Chrysler is officially bankrupt while the others are playing games to avoid as long as possible their own admissions of insolvency. And too perhaps they hope to wheel and deal and get the government to cover this instance of their reckless speculation or perhaps they hope to drag this out as long as possible in order to keep inflated valuations of these and other assets on their books.

Shorter version: They are all bankrupt but so far only Chrysler has had to admit it.

Septly says:

B. Mull, what freaking planet do you live on? You didn’t read the article. The “civil servants” include teachers and police officers. I’m from California, and I can assure you that if you include all government workers, including teachers and police officers the state has FAR MORE than 200,000. Try reading carefully next time. As for the pension funds, they have a LEGAL duty to the pension holders to zealously represent their interests. I’m sure the concept of legal obligations and fiduciary duties doesn’t mean much to a flip soul such as yourself, but to others take their responsibilities seriously.

LeeAnne says:

Re: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., welcomed a proposal from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to give the Treasury the authority to unwind large, nonbank financial institutions that have become insolvent.Treasury needs this to help them decide who should be insolvent and who should be helped. We can then have too big to fail EVERYTHING. I can’t wait.

Mark from Michigan says:

The pension funds were put at risk by the pension fund manager – read the pleading, they were interested in a “safe” return, so they bought securities that retailed for less than half of face value, in a company that everyone knew was teetering. This “zealous defense of pensioners” could really backfire on them if people bothered to learn the facts. I’d be a little po’ed if it were MY pension dollars they were gambling with