Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BCrago66

I think there’s 1 action left to secured bondholders, an “inverse condemnation” action. That’s an action based upon the “Just Compensation” part of the Takings Clause, and it means, in effect, “You’ve already taken my property, so now please pay for it.” It’s an after the fact the action that doesn’t block the sale.

Obviously I’m not optimistic about the prospects for success for such an action in the federal courts.

In the Roosevelt era, at least the President had to threaten to pack the courts in order to coerce the Supreme Court. The puss Supreme Court we have today just rolled over and played dead; no such pressure necessary.


55 posted on 06/09/2009 4:47:13 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: BCrago66
I think there’s 1 action left to secured bondholders, an “inverse condemnation” action. That’s an action based upon the “Just Compensation” part of the Takings Clause, and it means, in effect, “You’ve already taken my property, so now please pay for it.” It’s an after the fact the action that doesn’t block the sale.

As a matter of fact, they seem to have structured this deal to prevent just the sort of action you are proposing. What will happen is all of the parts of Chrysler that have value will be placed into a new holding company. All of the debts and the parts that have little value will be left in Chrysler. Any compensation to the secured creditors will come from the part of the company that has had all of the assets drained from it, with no recourse against the "new" company.

I am amazed and saddened by what we are seeing,and increasingly angry. My family will never own another GM or Chrysler vehicle.

85 posted on 06/09/2009 4:54:37 PM PDT by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

To: BCrago66

Against whom would you bring such an action? New Chrysler has no liability.


101 posted on 06/09/2009 4:57:11 PM PDT by patton (Obama has replaced "Res Publica" with "Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

To: BCrago66
"“You’ve already taken my property, so now please pay for it.”"

So who's the "you" directed at in "please pay for it?" Is the US government not the de facto owner of the company? And, if this "last action" is successful, is not the US taxpayer going to be the one paying the bondholders.

In other words, Barry either wins big, or he wins really big.

104 posted on 06/09/2009 4:58:13 PM PDT by Big_Monkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson