Posted on 07/29/2010 1:19:12 AM PDT by STARWISE
The TARP Inspector General’s office, SIGTARP, recently released a report entitled, “Factors Effecting The Decision of General Motors and Chrysler To Reduce Their Dealership Networks“. This report set off a firestorm of shoddy reporting, which, if left unchecked, will confuse those familiar with the Chrysler Dealers’ pending litigation on appeal in federal district court.
This blog posting has been designed to educate the public as to the truth of the SIGTARP Report.
My assertion of shoddy reporting is levelled specifically at The New York Times, the AP, and unfortunately also at Michelle Malkin who has been a staunch supporter of the dealers throughout. Regardless, her recent discussion of the SIGTARP report is fundamentally flawed and damaging to the case we have brought in our federal appeal to the Southern District of New York (where a Court ordered oral argument is scheduled for July 28, 2010, a fact the media doesn’t seem remotely interested in mentioning).
Malkin specifically urged her readers to read the entire SIGTARP Report, but it appears she failed to read the full report herself since she erroneously reported:
“The independent review of how and why the Obama administration forced Chrysler and General Motors to oversee mass closures of car dealerships across the country reveals grisly incompetence, fatal bureaucratic hubris and Big Labor cronyism.”
Nowhere in the SIGTARP Report does it say that the Government “forced” (as Malkin put it) Chrysler to reduce its dealership network.
As to GM, yes the Government did specifically urge dealership reductions, but as to Chrysler the Government did not. The SIGTARP Report is very clear on this point.
The GM Bankruptcy was a vastly different beast than the Chrysler Bankruptcy. And the SIGTARP Report stresses this point in multiple citations throughout the 45 page document.
It is repeated multiple times that the Government did not insist upon dealer reductions for Chrysler. For example, on pg. 5, the SIGTARP Report discusses the pre-bankruptcy viability plans offered by both GM and Chrysler, stating:
“In contrast to GM’s plan, the Chrysler restructuring plan did not contain any specific details about planned dealership closures, such as how many dealerships would close, or what factors would be considered in deciding which dealerships to retain. However, the plan referred to Project Genesis, an ongoing Chrysler effort to reduce the number of Chrysler dealerships…”
The “contrast” between GM and Chrysler was entirely skipped over by Malkin and the rest of the media reports. Chrysler was already reducing its dealership network years before the auto industry crisis hit, years before TARP even existed.
On pg. 7 of the SIGTARP Report, it lists five key factors the Government told GM to focus upon when submitting their updated viability plans. Accelerated dealership restructuring was listed as one of the five factors stressed by the Government for GM to accomplish if it expected future financial assistance. However, in contrast to GM, the five factors the Governme
nt stressed for Chrysler’s viability – listed on pgs. 7-8 of the SIGTARP Report – do not include dealership reduction at all.
In fact, on pg. 13 of the SIGTARP Report, it is unequivocally stated that in contrast to GM’s situation, the Government’s analysis of Chrysler’s viability did not address dealership reductions:
Rest @ link
~~~~~~~~~~
The Court Has Ordered Oral Argument For July 28th In The Chrysler Dealers’ Appeal.
Excerpt:
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein has ordered oral argument in the Southern District of New York for July 28, 2010 at 12:30 PM.
Upon filing the appeal, Steve Pidgeon and I made a decision not to request oral argument and rather to rely on the briefs. We felt that if, after reading the briefs, the Court had serious questions, then the Court would call us in for oral argument and we are pleased this has happened since our clients will now have their day in court.
~~ Ping!
Thanks for the ping! Please post an update!
Color me confused. Then what is Dono’s lawsuit concerning? Who is his client?
“Factors Effecting The Decision of General Motors and Chrysler To Reduce Their Dealership Networks“. This report set off a firestorm of shoddy reporting...
And bad grammar.
it should begin:
Factors affecting...
Which in turn would have some effect....
I don’t care... Michelle is still hot.
Oral Argument Moved to September 8, 2010 In Chrysler Dealers’ Appeal
###
Posted in Uncategorized on July 29, 2010 by naturalborncitizen
The Court, sua sponte, moved the oral argument to September 8, 2010.
Steve and I were ready to argue the case, but now we have five extra weeks to prepare and we intend to put that time to good use. In all things, preparation is the best offense. So it’s back to the books.
Leo Donofrio, Esq. for the law firm of Pidgeon & Donofrio GP
~~~~~~
Delay, delay ..
Oral Argument Moved to September 8, 2010 In Chrysler Dealers’ Appeal
###
Posted in Uncategorized on July 29, 2010 by naturalborncitizen
The Court, sua sponte, moved the oral argument to September 8, 2010.
Steve and I were ready to argue the case, but now we have five extra weeks to prepare and we intend to put that time to good use. In all things, preparation is the best offense. So it’s back to the books.
Leo Donofrio, Esq. for the law firm of Pidgeon & Donofrio GP
~~~~~~
Delay, delay ..
Donofrio and colleague are representing a group of
Chrysler dealers whose businesses were unceremoniously
shuttered via audacious ultimatum of the auto industry shakedown.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.