Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Supreme Court Halts Chrysler Sale to Fiat


Oldskool

Which tv character is the best?  

47 members have voted

  1. 1. Which tv character is the best?



Recommended Posts

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/08/breaking-supreme-court-halts-chyrsler-sale-fiat/

The Supreme Court on Monday granted an emergency appeal asking it to halt the impending government-backed sale of Chrysler to Italian automaker Fiat.

The order stops for now Chrysler's sale, which the company claims could scuttle the deal.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg signed the order, but it may be only temporary.

A federal appeals court in New York had earlier approved the sale, but gave opponents until 4 p.m. ET Monday to try to get the Supreme Court to intervene. Ginsburg issued her order just before 4 p.m.

Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock said the ruling was a small victory for Indiana pensioners, who brought the request for an injunction for fear of losing their stake.

"The ... thing I hear is, 'Oh, if this doesn't happen, the sale won't take place.' Let's not forget Fiat is not paying one penny for 20 percent of this deal. If I am going to receive $400 million worth of assets on day one and I don't have to make an investment, I don't care so much if it happen Monday, Tuesday or next week, I am going to be there in the end."

The court needs more time to figure out what it wants to do. In order for the stay to have a more lasting effect, five justices need to sign on it. That has not happened, or at least not yet. The court may yet deny the emergency request or grant it and await arguments about why it should actually hear an appeal.

Ginsburg could decide on her own whether to extend the delay or ask the full court to decide. It is unclear when she or the court will act.

Rep. Gary Peters, D-Mich., whose congressional district is home to Chrysler world headquarters, said the state of Indiana pension funds' attempt to stop the sale is an effort to prevent a swift emergence from bankruptcy in the name of a small sum.

Indiana's pension funds would lose $4.8 million if Chrysler is allowed to emerge from bankruptcy, Peters said, while the state will lose more than $20.7 million in tax revenue if Chrysler is liquidated, as well as incur tens of millions in lost revenue, expenses and new unemployment claims.

"Other stakeholders, including other secured lenders and Chrysler's autoworkers, accepted shared sacrifice because they recognized their interest was better served keeping Chrysler alive rather than forcing liquidation. Why the officials who decided to take their objections all the way to the Supreme Court can't recognize this is beyond me," Peters said.

Greg Signore, a Dodge dealer whose company is closing down as a result of the Chrysler sell-off, told FOX News he'd be in a better position starting from scratch than allowing the sale to go through.

"We're small dealers, we're getting crushed in all this. Why should we have to pay?" Signore asked. "If they liquidate the company, that's fine with me. But then everybody is on the same playing field. Then the big dealers are crushed too. Why should the small dealer have to get hit on this? Why should it cost me a half million dollars? I'd be in better shape."

FOX News' Lee Ross and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it. I mean Fiat? Really?
:rotflmao: It would be awesome if Justice Roberts issued an opinion that said just that: "Fiat? Really?"

In all seriousness though, it's impossible to tell what this really means. All Ginsburg did is buy some time for both the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court to issue some written opinions ... most likely, all this does is delay the sale a few days. Somehow, I don't see a majority of the Supreme Court sticking their neck out on behalf of a few Indiana bondholders when everyone else wants the sale to go through. I could see how they might want to write some kind of opinion though, because they are probably worried about more controversial bankruptcy actions in the pipeline...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see how they might want to write some kind of opinion though, because they are probably worried about more controversial bankruptcy actions in the pipeline...

Yep,it might be a good idea to stay in front of the wave.

Gonna be some ugly fights regardless though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judge Napolitano just said on Fox News that he thinks SCOTUS will take the case and there will be a ruling by the end of June.

If they were just going to bow to the pressure and ram the sale through, why would Ginsburg have delayed it at all?

The Supreme Court, by nature, doesn't stick its neck out. They have no political points to gain by going with the flow on this. They exist to uphold the rule of law, regardless of the whims of the masses.

This is might vs. right. I think it might turn into something bigger than it currently seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ginsburg drives New Yorker. Kinda old. The service engine light came on and she called the dealer. The automated attendent said.

Welcome to Fiat USA

For italian press 1

for spainish press 2

All others, we are closed.

seven

comment borrowed from hotair:hysterical:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my first job was working at the Fiat shop in American service center (Balston). I was a car porter and got to drive lots of X19's, 124 spyders, Lancia scorpians, a couple right hand drive SL's... great job for a 16 year old. Btw Fiat stands for "Fix it again Tony"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:hysterical:

Did someone mention Imperial Presidency?:silly:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/us-says-tarp-issue-out-of-courts-reach/

The Obama Administration argued Monday that no court, including the Supreme Court, has the authority to hear a challenge by Indiana benefit plans to the role the U.S. Treasury played in the Chrysler rescue, including the use of “bailout” (TARP) funds. The Indiana debt holders, U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote, simply have no right to raise that issue, thus putting it out of the reach of the courts.

...

"Rights of individuals may not be simply disregarded because some believe a quick sale of a car company will strengthen the U.S. economy." Sander Esserman of Stutzman, Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka

http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2009/06/standing-upside-down-jihadis-chrysler.html

Standing upside down: Jihadis > Chrysler bondholders

By TigerHawk at 6/08/2009 10:48:00 PM

So let me get this straight: Unlawful enemy combatants captured in foreign countries and never brought into the United States should have standing to bring their cases in our courts, but Chrysler's bondholders should not? Some reporter with brains and spine -- OK, I know I'm asking for a lot -- ought to ask the president to explain this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK so here is what is going on......

(1) If the government did nothing the debt holders would likely get almost nothing. The government has put tens of billions into Chyrsler and that's pretty much all the money Chrysler has so it's not like the government is taking someones property.

(2) 98% of the debt holders are on board with the restructuring deal. The only one who isn't is a retirement fund from a midwest state who has a GOP elected administrator. He's the guy who has brought this suit. About 3% of the retirement fund he runds owns about 1% of Chryslers bonds and he's sueing to stop the deal because he says the Government didn't have the right to use Tarp money to bail out Chrysler.

(3) This is pretty much a political case, and I don't see it going anywhere. Fact is 99% of the folks involved have already signed off on this deal. And this little republican public official is going to get a lot of heat for both he and his party for throwing the monkey wrench into the works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK so here is what is going on......

(1) If the government did nothing the debt holders would likely get almost nothing. The government has put tens of billions into Chyrsler and that's pretty much all the money Chrysler has so it's not like the government is taking someones property.

(2) 98% of the debt holders are on board with the restructuring deal. The only one who isn't is a retirement fund from a midwest state who has a GOP elected administrator. He's the guy who has brought this suit. About 3% of the retirement fund he runds owns about 1% of Chryslers bonds and he's sueing to stop the deal because he says the Government didn't have the right to use Tarp money to bail out Chrysler.

(3) This is pretty much a political case, and I don't see it going anywhere. Fact is 99% of the folks involved have already signed off on this deal. And this little republican public official is going to get a lot of heat for both he and his party for throwing the monkey wrench into the works.

1 If the govt is imposing a deal that reduces compensation ,that party has EVERY right to object in the court.

2 It is more than 2% and it does not matter either way...The law is there to ensure even a minority gets a fair hearing.

3 It is political because the Fed is involved in private business deals....a inevitable result of overstepping their role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree that this is about people recovering their money:

This is about executive power and Congressional oversight. Last night I went through and reviewed the TARP law. It's public law 110-343, under the 110th Congress.

The definition section is very interesting. Do you want to know what I found out? Definition of institutions eligible for TARP money; a "financial institution" defined as "any institution, but not limited to any bank, savings association, credit union, security broker or dealer, or insurance company, established and regulated under the laws of the United States or any State...etc".

What is the definition of a "troubled asset": residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008 (etc).

Under no law of Congress does it establish that the TARP money is for buying up bankrupt companies, or even bailing out the automakers. In December, there was a bill that specifically amended the TARP to include the automakers. That bill was passed by the House, but not by the Senate. Curious, eh? Notwithstanding the fact that they didn't have authorization to use TARP in this manner; Bush still went ahead with the automaker bailout-loans, and so did Obama.

The question I have after reviewing all this is: what section of public law allows our executive to spendtaxpayer money to buy up Chrysler and GM? These new companies were not issued on or before March 14, 2008; correct? In fact I think the SCOTUS *should* render the bailouts of the automakers illegal. It's clear that the TARP only authorizes us to buy "financial instruments"; however if you use the executive definition of a "financial instrument" that can mean *anything the executive wants, as long as the executve says its a threat to financial security*.

I'm quite clear that this is about the law. Additionally; none of the courts in the BK case took up the question, "Can TARP funds cover the automakers". Obama's general solicitor made a weak case that the SCOTUS shouldn't review that question basically by saying: "Supreme Court is typically not the first reviewer of these questions...". It is my hope the SCOTUS asks these questions of the administration. I don't believe it is the intent of Congress to interpret TARP so broadly... however they left gaping open loopholes (and haven't bothered to close them) which means they implicitly agree to bailing out the automakers.

I really do believe the question needs to be answered by the SCOTUS. It's hard for me to understand that this law can be passed; and our money is being spent by TARP on non-financial instruments. Of course its clear one can argue that GMAC financial and Chrysler financial are "financial instruments"; but the automakers as a whole company?

Of course I'm not sure they will rule against the executive, but I think there is a definite gripe that the law os so vague. In fact, is it possible they rule that the loophole in the TARP bill which states: "financial institution is" "any other financial instrument that the Treasury Secretary after consulting with the Chariman of the Fed determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress." Again, specifically it mentions "financial instruments". There has been no review that automobile companies are "financial instruments" and I hope judges were s cratching their heads. I know why the lower courts punted on the question; but SCOTUS needs to pick up the ball and make a determination.

I'm sorry; but reading the law all of these automaker bailouts appear to be illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ginsburg does handle 2nd circuit court appeals / issues, right?

http://baselinescenario.com/2009/05/08/chrysler-and-bankruptcy-law-in-gory-detail/

Chrysler and Bankruptcy Law in Gory Detail

I was talking to an old friend last night about the Chrysler bankruptcy and, in particular, whether Chrysler (and Treasury, and the UAW) will be able to get around the order of priority of creditors in bankruptcy – which ordinarily would favor the senior secured lenders who are trying to block the proposed plan. I thought I would do a little research, but then (again via Calculated Risk) I found Steve Jakubowski’s analysis of precisely this issue, which apparently everyone on the Internet has already been linking to. It’s actually Part 3 of a series; you may want to start with Part 1.

My summary, for those who don’t like reading citations from court opinions: The issue with the “restructuring initiative” agreed-upon by Chrysler, the government, Fiat, and the UAW, is that it only pays the senior secured creditors $2 billion in cash for $6.9 billion in secured debt; since secured creditors’ claims should come first, they argue they would get more from a liquidation. In particular, the VEBA created to fund retiree benefits is owed $8.5 billion; it is getting $4.6 billion debt and 55% of the equity in New Chrysler.

The government’s plan is to get around this by creating a new entity, New Chrysler, and having the existing entity, Old Chrysler, sell its assets to New Chrysler. Technically speaking, Old Chrysler is not being reorganized; it is just selling assets. However, as Jankubowski explains, a bankruptcy court can block such an asset sale if it is effectively a reorganization by another name. The Second Circuit (the appeals court that would hear the appeal of the bankruptcy proceeding) has said that such an asset sale may go ahead if there is a “good business reason” for it – a test that is spelled out, not entirely clearly, in other court opinions.

Behind the legal test, the underlying legal principle at issue, discussed in Part 3, is whether the “absolute priority” rule, which determines the order of claims by creditors in bankruptcy, prevails over the general policy consideration that bankruptcy is intended to enable companies to return to healthy operations. To simplify greatly, Chrysler and the government’’s argument is that without the “asset sale,” the company will simply disintegrate; the creditors’ argument is, or could be, that that doesn’t matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:hysterical:

So let me get this straight: Unlawful enemy combatants captured in foreign countries and never brought into the United States should have standing to bring their cases in our courts, but Chrysler's bondholders should not? Some reporter with brains and spine -- OK, I know I'm asking for a lot -- ought to ask the president to explain this.

Funny how that works, huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but Chrysler is not a "financial institution".

I guess we can buy whatever the Teasury says we need to buy.

You and your high-falootin' legal jargon.

We don't need the you throwing a monkey wrench like "the law" into the works of Obama's plans for the auto industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but nowhere in the public law is there authorization to spend public money on the auto-bailouts! It says "financial institution". Someone proove me wrong! Point out where that lies?

And if the Supreme Court doesn't want to rule on the issue, than what the ****. It's not about who gets paid or not... since when do we tolerate vague-ness? The law is now clearly overly vague... that if the NFL went bankrupt and Geithner said; "we need to purchase the NFL for the wellbeing of America", and sent a letter to Congress... well we could end up owning the NFL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...