@ marshall
Really you are in the wrong on this.
Those left to toil in the vineyards of corporate restructuring, though,
must contend with the “law” produced by these two historic cases. Although
one might with considerable justification argue that Chrysler and
GM were sui generis—and as a matter of law should be politely and discreetly
ignored as once-in-a-century aberrations having more to do with
political and economic necessity than with legal precedent that anyone
should take seriously—we suspect (indeed, to a virtual certainty) that
such will not be the case. The decisions rendered by the influential and
respected federal courts in New York were framed as being squarely
within the mainstream of current accepted bankruptcy convention3 and
undoubtedly will be happily embraced and submitted as gospel in future
cases by the sophisticated elite of the reorganization bar, who themselves
crafted the very practices approved by the Chrysler and GM courts.4 In
short, we have no choice but to take stock of where we stand in reorganization
law and practice after Chrysler and GM.
http://www.law.uiuc.edu/lrev/publicatio ... ubaker.pdf
Earlier, I wrote about the Indiana pension funds’ challenge to the Obama Administration’s plan to effectively give Chrysler to the UAW Union, while cheating the pension funds that loaned it money (and ripping off taxpayers), and how that violates federal bankruptcy laws.
The government is now arguing that the pension funds don’t have legal standing to challenge the plan, since they supposedly can’t prove they will be worse off than if the Administration had just sat back and let Chrysler go bankrupt naturally. The government says that the pension funds might have received even less in such a bankruptcy than the pennies on the dollar they are slated to receive under the government’s plan, under which it injected billions in taxpayer money into Chrysler, and then engineered a sale of Chrysler’s valuable asserts to a new company mostly owned by the UAW that is part of a planned merger with Italian carmaker Fiat. (The Administration has completely failed to do its homework before pushing for a merger with Fiat, which is alleged to have Enron-like accounting problems, and massive shady dealings that could haunt taxpayers and autoworkers alike in the future).
The government is wrong. The pension funds have standing even if their victory would leave them no better off, but would merely eliminate the unfair preference received by the UAW. For example, in Heckler v. Mathews (1984), the Supreme Court held that male reverse-discrimination plaintiffs had standing to challenge a federal government gender-preference that benefited women, even if the challenge would only result in benefits being taken away from the women, and would not result in men getting any additional benefits.
Moreover, the funds, as secured creditors, will be enormously adversely affected in future bankruptcies by the disturbing precedent set by the Chrysler bankruptcy, in which an unsecured creditor — the UAW — received far more than secured creditors — the Indiana state pension funds that loaned money to Chrysler under the solemn understanding that they would stand first in line in any bankruptcy. Losing this lawsuit will strip them of an enormous bargaining chip in future bankruptcies. The loss of a bargaining chip is sufficient grounds for standing, as the Supreme Court made clear in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), where it allowed farmers to challenge the line-item veto as a violation of the Constitution when it resulted in the President vetoing legislation that would have given a bargaining chip to use in potentially purchasing a potato processing plant. Bankruptcy law experts have noted the precedent set by the Chrysler bankruptcy will have a great impact on General Motors and other bankruptcies in the future. An inability to compete on fair terms in the future is grounds for standing. See Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) (student who alleged he would apply as a transfer student to a college if it would stop considering race in admissions had standing to challenge college’s race-conscious admissions policy).
Moreover, even if the Obama Administration’s unfair plan to give Chrysler to the UAW were blocked, it would just find alternative ways, fairer to the pension funds and less biased towards the UAW, to keep Chrysler going, through taxpayer funds if necessary. Letting Chrysler go out of existence would put UAW members out of work, and the Administration would be loath to let that happen, given that the UAW spent millions electing Obama, and made millions more in donations to the liberal lawmakers who now dominate Capitol Hill.
A federal appeals court has refused to block the Administration’s illegal auto bailout, which rips off taxpayers and pension funds to enrich the UAW union. The pension funds that challenged the bailout then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The bailout violates the federal TARP statute by diverting financial-system bailout funds to a takeover of the auto industry. And the government’s reorganization plan for Chrysler violates federal bankruptcy laws by ripping off lenders to give the company to the UAW union.
http://www.examiner.com/scotus-in-washi ... v-chrysler
The kind of stunt Obama pulled is Chavez-like. Face the facts Marshall, what happened was illegal your 'annointed-one' stole from people to pay off his cronies.
For the first time in American history, we have a man in the White House who consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. That's why I say the greatest threat to our Constitution, our safety and our liberties, is internal. Our president is an enemy of our Constitution, and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms.
Barack Obama is one of the most powerful presidents this nation has seen in generations. He is powerful because he is supported by large majorities in Congress, but, more importantly, because he does not feel constrained by the rule of law. Whether he is putting up the weakest possible defense of the Defense of Marriage Act despite the Justice Department's legal obligation to support existing law; disenfranchising Chrysler and GM bondholders in order to transfer billions of investor dollars to his supporters in the United Auto Workers; or implementing yet a third offshore oil-drilling moratorium even after two federal courts have thrown out two previous moratoriums, President Obama is determined to see things done his way regardless of obstacles. To Mr. Obama, the rule of law is a mere inconvenience to be ignored, overcome or "transcended" through international agreements or "norms."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... peachment/
Sounds like an argument can be made to impeach him too.
Furthermore, there are arguments that GM stock is worth a lot less than it is being sold as, that the price is being kept artificially high. Obama and the Democrats are part of the reason no one is investing or hiring, they are afraid he's going to pull another stunt like that.
21 Nov 2010, 8:44 pm
