Posted on 02/02/2012 4:19:37 AM PST by tobyhill
American Airlines filed for bankruptcy in November. The company needs $18.5 billion to cover its pension promises to current and former employees, but it has only set aside $8.3 billion.
Taxpayers could wind up on the hook for billions. Here's why.
American Airlines is asking the bankruptcy court for permission to drop its pension plans. If the court allows that, the plans will be taken over by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp, a government agency that takes over pension plans for failed companies.
The PBGC works like an insurance company. Firms that are backed by the PBGC pay premiums to the agency. Those premiums are supposed to pay for the agency's costs, so taxpayers don't have to pay. But in recent years the premiums haven't been enough — the agency's funding shortfall is currently $26 billion.
President Obama has proposed raising the premiums companies pay to PBGC, to make up the shortfall. But big business groups oppose any increase.
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
If we are going to get all petty about it, Please allow me to rephrase for those unable to determine what direction this is going in without detailed analysis... The CEO, CFO, President, all Vice Presidents and anyone that makes day to day decisions in Upper management that determine whether or not the company is operating in the black or the red... If you want it in simple terms for the simple minded, THOSE THAT DROVE THE COMPANY DOWN THE TUBES PAY THE PRICE...
Is this clear enough for you?
Petty about it? You make a statement to seize all the assets of the owners, I call you on it, it becomes clear you don’t understand the situation, so I’m petty.
All right then.
Sometimes, companies go bankrupt for reasons beyond anyone’s control, what do we do then?
Besides, the directors and officers are already subject to your proposed solution. If they fail to act in the interests of the stockholders, they failed their fiduciary duties, and they are subject to not only civil liability, but criminal, as well. The CEO and CFO of my last company paid millions in fines, and went to federal prison (where they belong). I expect (but don’t know) they be completely broke when they get out. If the fines didn’t break ‘em, I expect the lawyers fees did.
In fact, us ex-employees would like to take up a collection to by Viagra for their cellmates.
You wrote: "any company that does this should have all assets seized and sold at auction", which I interpreted as company assets.
Those assets are effectively owned by the stockholders.
What you propose is no different than screwing the stockholders and secured bond holders and giving the company to the union. And that's exactly what Obama did with GM and Chrysler.
1)... If a company goes bankrupt, the last time I checked, the stock value is pretty much zero.
2) If the stock value is zero, then the stockholders already have zero equity.
3) If it comes down to the stockholders getting burned, or having my taxes raised (even if i have zero stock in said company) then the stockholder took the risk by buying stock, therefore, they will get burned.
4) The reason I said all upper management should be held liable is because most if not all of the time, these officers walk away with millions, while stockholders and taxpayers get burned.
5) Why should I pay more money to make you whole????
If we don't have the money to maintain social security, then we don't have the money to prop up pension plans either. Abolish PBGC and put the union workers on notice that pension shortfalls will not be covered, and will result in reduced pension payouts.
Any future employees get 401Ks like the rest of us.
Oh, I read it through. Did you read it through? ‘Cuz you sure didn’t think it through. You for sure were ignorant of the fact that stockholders were owners. Must have missed class that day.
Here’s your original post.
“Here is a better idea.......... businesses will begin to dump their pension problems on the government en masse... any company that does this should have all assets seized and sold at auction, including the owners and officers personal assets.........unless genuine need is proven”
Nowhere did you differentiate as to why the company went bankrupt. Only some vague concept as to keeping some assets when some “genuine need is proven”. It’s not clear whether you meant corporate or personal assets under that phrase. Just an ill formed, bad idea, based on your emotional reactions. You should go post at Democratic Underground.
Have a nice day, we’ve talked this to death.
It depends on the bankruptcy. Chapter 7 is liquidation. Chapter 11 is reorganization. In a Chapter 11, the stockholders can end up with some equity.
AMR has been delisted and is a pink-sheet stock, but it still has value today.
Even in a Chapter 7 liquidation, the secured bond holders have first claim to the asset(s) that secure the bond: it was a condition of loaning the money. However, that has been turned on its ear by the criminals in the Obama administration.
2) If the stock value is zero, then the stockholders already have zero equity.
See above.
3) If it comes down to the stockholders getting burned, or having my taxes raised (even if i have zero stock in said company) then the stockholder took the risk by buying stock, therefore, they will get burned.
Your taxes won't get raised unless the PBGC can't meet its obligations. If they can't meet their obligations, it's not the fault of the company that has been paying the PBGC premiums. The premiums are set by the PBGC, and the company doesn't have the choice of paying them.
4) The reason I said all upper management should be held liable is because most if not all of the time, these officers walk away with millions, while stockholders and taxpayers get burned.
Under the law, a corporate officer is not personally liable for the failure of a company unless it can be proved he/she willfully or negligently acted against the interests of the company and the stockholders. That's a pretty difficult threshold to achieve.
5) Why should I pay more money to make you whole????
Because the federal government says you have to. Congress passed the law long ago. You don't like it? Complain to them.
go pull your alinsky tactics on someone else.... it just don’t work with me.... however, you are correct... this discussion is over
damn..... an intellegent person whit an intellegent reply... I just do not know where to begin ( this is not sarcasm )
I would agree with you on both one and two... as for number three, the article is about the pbgc not being able to meet it’s obligations currently.. therefore the logical conclusion is that i will either have my taxes raised, or services reduced, in order for the government to meet the obligations of a private pension plan...
I agree with your description of number 4, but I disagree with not being able to persue them if they are doing shady, but legal deals. I also cannot agree with them taking millions after the fact. That cash should go to meet obligations.
As for number 5, i write and keep in contact with all my representatives in government... but if the sheeple keep electing them, we are all toast... might be time to take up operation cheapskate again ( starve the beast )..
Yeah, I should have said: "WHEN the PBGC can't meet their obligations." It sucks, but that's how they set it up -- just like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Sallie Mae, and myriad public employee pension plans that are under-funded.
I agree with your description of number 4, but I disagree with not being able to persue them if they are doing shady, but legal deals. I also cannot agree with them taking millions after the fact. That cash should go to meet obligations.
If it's legal, then it's not shady -- at least according to the law. And, here's the gotcha: when C-level officers get their golden parachutes, it's honoring a contract. The company offered them that guarantee when they hired the employee, and the company is obligated to fulfill it. Depending on the terms, the obligation may come before other obligations.
No one else gets that kind of guarantee, but it has become "normal" to entice executives to jump ship. Do they deserve it? It depends. Steve Jobs deserved his: after being squeezed out of Apple, they offered him a big incentive to return. And it paid off, big time. Of course, there are plenty of examples where the parachute wasn't deserved.
However, the fault or the credit for offering parachutes to C-level executives lies with the Board of Directors. And they are elected by the stockholders. So, the practice will only be curbed if stockholders demand it, and vote out board members that don't listen.
if you're in your 60's...or already retired, I thin the Board pays pretty good....otherwise, its a huge hit...
when somebody realizes that we can't pay retirement to anyone at these ages, then maybe this country will get straight again...
in the meantime, we're on the hook for all of these retirees...
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.