Posted on 06/10/2009 5:57:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
After weeks of White House threats and media cover-up, Chrysler’s remaining debt holders got their day before the Supreme Court Tuesday . . . and lost. The decision was no surprise to legal experts who say Chrysler’s restructuring was simply too far down the road to reverse. No doubt, this entire episode would have been different if a Republican administration had sought to rip up bankruptcy laws to benefit political allies. The media watchdog would have barked, fundamentally changing the playing field.
While the White House claimed victory, the plaintiff Indiana pension funds at least scored points that may protect against future abuses of government power. “The public is watching and needs to see that, particularly when the system is under stress, the rule of law will be honored and an independent judiciary will properly scrutinize the actions of a massively powerful executive branch,” lawyers for Indiana public employees wrote the Supreme Court.
The ruling also clarified where America’s self-appointed Democratic civil libertarians really stand when it comes to the rule of law.
“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,” Rep. Gary Peters (R., Mich.) said in a statement, tacitly endorsing the administration’s threats that forced “other stakeholders” to fold their tent, leaving the Indiana pensioners alone in challenging Don Obama and his crew. “Why the officials who decided to take their objections all the way to the Supreme Court can’t recognize this is beyond me.”
Rep. John Dingell (D., Mich.), echoed Peters in attacking Indiana pensioners whose retirement savings were wrapped up in Chrysler bonds: "By refusing to make the relatively small sacrifices that would avert a calamity. The pension funds will instead create a great catastrophe, which is the same kind of short-sighted thinking that got us into the Great Depression."
It should be noted that Chrysler’s unions, unsecured creditors who jumped to the head of the line thanks to White House power play, did not give an inch on their base pay or pension terms. Who would call that shared sacrifice?
The R was a typo.
The problem is that once the sale is completed, the case is moot, and there is no remedy available to make them whole again. All of the valuable assets will have been transferred to “New Chrysler”, and all “old Chrysler” will have is debts and liabilities. There will be no assets left to make the plaintiffs whole. And since the case will be moot, the other points will not even be heard by the court.
You bet. My money is now at work in China, Brazil and Australia.
I wondered about that. Can the new company be sued for the misdeeds of the old company?
Thanks for the correction. I was about to clean my glasses and say "My bad"
So did an "R" from Michigan, sadly. God forbid these idiots should be voted out of office.
I suspect Indiana will make another run at this when the sale closes and the “harm” is quantifiable and irreparable.
I wondered about that. Can the new company be sued for the misdeeds of the old company?”
Possibly- but it would be a hollow victory- all the old Chrysler has is Liabilities.....no Assets.
Let me correct this for you.
The SCOTUS gleefully sidestepped the stay because the plaintiff could not prove irreparable harm.
Cowards. The lot of them.
Anyone else up for buying bonds in a union company?
It’s the HMS Cretins
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.