callen3615 Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 A few months ago a bankrupcy of the auto business was not an option. But now after we gave a bunch of money to chrysler its our only option??? Does that make any sense?? These politicians cant manage anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 ... These politicians cant manage anything. +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wicked1 Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 They wouldn't have ended up in bankruptcy except the hedge funds refused to take about 30 cents on the dollar that was owed them. The major creditors had agreed to a deal, but the hedge funds wouldn't budge and now they are in court trying to prevent the sale of assets to Fiat. Chrysler wouldn't have had to file after getting the gov't loan but for a couple dozen a$$holes who would rather get *no* money than *some* money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 They wouldn't have ended up in bankruptcy except the hedge funds refused to take about 30 cents on the dollar that was owed them. Rule # 1; Never borrow money. Rule # 2; Never borrow money from someone named "Hedge Fund". I'm thinking someone named "Hedge Fund" is not going to take 30 cents on the dollar. You are a really crappy "Hedger" if you do that. "Hedge" would have been teased by his friends. Sheeze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 They wouldn't have ended up in bankruptcy except the hedge funds refused to take about 30 cents on the dollar that was owed them. The major creditors had agreed to a deal' date=' but the hedge funds wouldn't budge and now they are in court trying to prevent the sale of assets to Fiat. Chrysler wouldn't have had to file after getting the gov't loan but for a couple dozen a$$holes who would rather get *no* money than *some* money.[/quote'] Those a$$holes loaned Chrysler money in return for secure, senior assets...in other words, they loaned the money with Chrysler's capital equipment as the collateral for the loan....By law, they get a better deal if Chrysler goes into bankruptcy court...by law, they get paid first. Why should they take a pennies on the dollar payoff? Those a$$holes are the 401k and other retirement assets for a lot of Americans that don't work for Chrysler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=azVYi8YEXsAc&refer=home Chrysler’s Greedy Hedge Fund Holdouts Get It Right: Ann Woolner May 6 (Bloomberg) -- You can call the plan to merge Chrysler and Fiat good for the economy. You can think it creative. You can say it’s the start of “a vibrant new company,” as Chrysler LLC Chairman Robert Nardelli did last week. But there’s one word that you can’t call the Chrysler bankruptcy package: legal. The plan would overturn basic rules of bankruptcy by setting up a sort-of sale to sidestep pesky legal requirements. It would bulldoze well-established rights of secured creditors, property rights the U.S. Constitution guarantees. So if U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Arthur Gonzalez follows the law, the Chrysler rescue plan dies. If he blinks and approves it, secured creditors everywhere should feel a shiver of unease, and quick sales of insolvent companies to avoid court scrutiny would multiply. The other option is a settlement, and that might well be where this is headed. I hate to say it, but the dissident Chrysler lenders are right, the ones President Barack Obama described as greedy hedge funds selfishly blocking Chrysler’s survival. The president’s fist-waving looks a lot like the posturing lawyers use to scare an adversary into surrender, never mind the law. In fact, several are giving up the cause. At the heart of the plan, and at the heart of the plan’s problem, is the idea that Chrysler would sell itself quickly rather than go through months or years of court-supervised reorganization. Within 60 Days Called a 363 sale for the relevant section of the bankruptcy code, it can close within 60 days and unload all or part of the company. The sale to Barclays of a piece of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. took about a day. A 363 sale is perfectly legal when a sound business reason demands it and when it isn’t reorganization in disguise. But if it’s aimed at resolving creditors’ claims, that is what reorganization is for. Bankruptcy reorganization promises secured creditors at least the same payout they would get if the company liquidated, and Chrysler’s proposed sale looks like a way around that. Figuring what creditors have coming to them requires lots of paperwork and hearings. That’s why it takes so long. Drawn-Out Bankruptcy And that is what Chrysler is trying to avoid. In fact, it must avoid a long, drawn-out bankruptcy if it is to survive. But with a 363 sale, there is no chance to figure the value of Chrysler’s assets if sold piecemeal, much less what each creditor should get. The secured creditors who are complaining about this helped save Chrysler the last time it almost went under, in 2007 after the marriage to Daimler AG soured. How much of a haircut should they be forced to take? The dissidents say the sale is nothing more than what bankruptcy law calls a sub rosa reorganization, a secret reordering dressed up to look like a sale, which the law forbids. Plus, would it even be a true sale? In public statements Chrysler says a United Auto Workers health benefits trust would get 55 percent of the shares of New Chrysler and a $4.6 billion note to satisfy some of the group’s unsecured claims against the company. Paying nothing but offering its fuel-efficiency expertise, Fiat SpA would own 20 percent initially and could increase its stake by another 15 percent. The U.S. and Canadian governments, which are providing billions in interim financing, would own the rest. Phony Sale Chrysler is essentially selling itself to itself, says Lynn LoPucki, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. He teaches secured transactions and maintains a database of major bankruptcies. So, if the “sale” isn’t a true sale, and if it dictates payout to secured creditors, isn’t that a sub rosa reorganization? If it favors junior creditors over senior creditors, doesn’t it violate the very basics of bankruptcy law? Senior creditors can volunteer to give up some of what’s due them but they can’t be forced to by a bankruptcy court. “Those are property rights, and they are protected by the Constitution,” says Daniel Glosband, a partner in Boston’s Goodwin Procter. “You can’t just take them away.” And yet, it could happen. ‘Enormous Momentum’ “There’s an enormous momentum in favor of the government plan,” says Jay Westbrook, who teaches bankruptcy law at the University of Texas. It’s naïve to assume bankruptcy judges feel compelled to follow the law, says LoPucki. He argues that bankruptcy courts across the country compete for the big cases by giving lawyers for major companies what they want. “According to the law, this plan should not be approved,” LoPucki says. Yet he predicts Gonzalez will do it anyway to persuade other companies (General Motors Corp. comes to mind) to pick Manhattan’s bankruptcy court over, say Detroit’s. Already the Chrysler case is one for the books. You have the federal government sending a company into bankruptcy court, financing its reorganization, deciding who will get what, setting a strict timetable and urging a judge to blink at the law. If the argument that Chrysler’s welfare is so critical to the national interest that longstanding laws can be ignored, what’s next? Some future president will find a way to justify blatantly illegal conduct. Such as torture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/05/news/companies/chrysler_loans/?postversion=2009050516 Chrysler won't repay bailout money An administration official confirms that a $4 billion bridge loan and $3.2 billion in bankruptcy financing won't be paid back by Chrysler following bankruptcy. By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer Last Updated: May 6, 2009: 3:44 AM ET NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Chrysler LLC will not repay U.S. taxpayers more than $7 billion in bailout money it received earlier this year and as part of its bankruptcy filing. This revelation was buried within Chrysler's bankruptcy filings last week and confirmed by the Obama administration Tuesday. The filings included a list of business assumptions from one of the company's key financial advisors in the bankruptcy case. Some of the main assumptions listed by Robert Manzo of Capstone Advisory Group were that the Treasury would forgive a $4 billion bridge loan given to Chrysler in the closing days of the Bush administration, a $300 million fee on that loan, and the $3.2 billion in financing approved last week by the Obama administration to fund Chrysler's operations during bankruptcy. An Obama administration official confirmed Tuesday that Chrysler won't be repaying the loans, though a portion of the bridge loan may be recovered by Treasury from the assets of Chrysler Financial, the former credit arm of the automaker which is essentially going out of business as part of the reorganization. "The reality now is that the face value [of the $4 billion bridge loan] will be written off in the bankruptcy process," said the official, who added that the 8% equity stake that Treasury will be receiving as part of the company's reorganization is meant to compensate taxpayers for the lost money. "While we do not expect a recovery of these funds, we are comfortable that in the totality of the arrangement, the Treasury and the American taxpayer are being fairly compensated," said the official. The company filed for bankruptcy Thursday as part of a deal with the federal government, unions, some lenders and Italian automaker Fiat to keep the company from being shut down. The Canadian government also agreed to kick in about $900 million in bankruptcy financing. According to the filings, Chrysler's advisor assumes that this loan will be forgiven as well. The Obama administration official said that other money being made available to Chrysler, such as the $4.7 billion that will go to the company as it exits bankruptcy, will be a loan that the government expects to be paid back. In addition, that loan will be secured by company assets, unlike the previous loans to Chrysler. According to the filing, the company's financial advisor also foresees the need for an additional $1.5 billion loan from the Treasury Department by June 30, 2010. Lori McTavish, a spokeswoman for Chrysler, said some of the assumptions made by the company have changed since its bankruptcy filing on April 30. But she could not say specifically if the company still hoped for the additional federal loan in 2010. "The content of the document needs to speak for itself. We are simply not in a position to comment," she said. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who took the lead among Senate Republicans in challenging the auto bailout last December, said he was disappointed but not surprised that Chrysler would not be paying back the money. "I've known for sometime that with the capital structure of the company and the situation it was in, we would not be paid back," he said. "There were several secured lenders ahead of us, and they're not getting most of their money." Major banks and hedge funds that loaned Chrysler $6.9 billion were offered only $2.25 billion to settle those loans by Treasury. While major banks accepted the offer, hedge funds rejected it, forcing the company into bankruptcy. Typically lenders who loan bankrupt companies funds to operate during reorganization go to the front of the line on getting the money they are owed repaid. But Corker said Chrysler's dire financial situation left it no chance to even pay back the bankruptcy financing. He said the fact that Chrysler isn't paying what is owed should be a warning that the $15.4 billion loaned to General Motors by Treasury since December, as well as any bankruptcy financing it might need, is also at risk. "Certainly there are red flags," he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichCI Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/05/news/companies/chrysler_loans/?postversion=2009050516 [...] "The reality now is that the face value [of the $4 billion bridge loan] will be written off in the bankruptcy process' date='" said the official, who added that the 8% equity stake that Treasury will be receiving as part of the company's reorganization is meant to compensate taxpayers for the lost money. [b']"While we do not expect a recovery of these funds, we are comfortable that in the totality of the arrangement, the Treasury and the American taxpayer are being fairly compensated," said the official.[/b] The company filed for bankruptcy Thursday as part of a deal with the federal government, unions, some lenders and Italian automaker Fiat to keep the company from being shut down. The Canadian government also agreed to kick in about $900 million in bankruptcy financing. According to the filings, Chrysler's advisor assumes that this loan will be forgiven as well. The Obama administration official said that other money being made available to Chrysler, such as the $4.7 billion that will go to the company as it exits bankruptcy, will be a loan that the government expects to be paid back. In addition, that loan will be secured by company assets, unlike the previous loans to Chrysler. According to the filing, the company's financial advisor also foresees the need for an additional $1.5 billion loan from the Treasury Department by June 30, 2010. Lori McTavish, a spokeswoman for Chrysler, said some of the assumptions made by the company have changed since its bankruptcy filing on April 30. But she could not say specifically if the company still hoped for the additional federal loan in 2010. [...] Typically lenders who loan bankrupt companies funds to operate during reorganization go to the front of the line on getting the money they are owed repaid. But Corker said Chrysler's dire financial situation left it no chance to even pay back the bankruptcy financing. The really (not so) funny part is where the loan is going to be secured by company assets. Assets like what? Factories that are tooled up to build cars made by a company that people don't want to buy in the first place, and during a time that the entire industry has cut back on production? Yeah, that's a good idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 It's your big chance. Kill the unions. When they are out on the streets, I'd watch your backs. They are largely gun owners and they will be hungry. Their children will be hungry. They will probably first go after the owners of foreign cars. Just think millions of hungry gun wielding crazies bent on the destruction of all that they see as the cause of their problems. Funny, reminds me of another group of crazies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 It's your big chance. Kill the unions. When they are out on the streets' date=' I'd watch your backs. They are largely gun owners and they will be hungry. Their children will be hungry. They will probably first go after the owners of foreign cars. Just think millions of hungry gun wielding crazies bent on the destruction of all that they see as the cause of their problems. Funny, reminds me of another group of crazies. [/quote'] I'll take my chances... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 I'll take my chances... It would probably be easier to simply keep them working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 It would probably be easier to simply keep them working. I've worked for 2 companies that have gone under...I moved on both times. The companies were not making products that people wanted to buy, our prices were off, our business model was flawed, we lost to our competitors. When we couldn't make the revenue required to pay our expenses...we folded up our tent and quit. The employees did not get anything but a final paycheck a handshake and a thanks for a job well done. The creditors were paid what was owed and we ALL moved on to other productive careers. We didn't threaten people or take tax payer bailouts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 IF the additional costs of which you refer is that of pensions then how is that different from any other industry that offers pensions. There is no additional costs when compared to the transplant auto plants. In fact our actual income was less then 2 dollars per hour more then the Toyota plants in the U.S.. And with the new contract that went into affect two days ago our average income will be less then them. A lot less. The unions are a safety mechanism against the very nature of business. That very basic premise is to exploit the worker. It is being done all over every country in the world. With our without laws that protect the workers. The unions insure the rules are followed. If any of you think that doing away with unions is going to help you in some way then you are making a big mistake. After the unions fall all industries who worked as non-union shops will no longer feel the threat to unionize and will cut wages and will take advantage in what ever ways they can. Yeah, as many of you say you could just get another job. When this wide spread effect takes place there will be no jobs that are not effected. Simply put. Many people in many countries have died for the rights that we now have. They have died to unionize in Poland, all over Europe, and here in the USA. I would gladly fight for those rights. I would literally die for the rights that the unions of the world have stood for. I would lay my life down to protect the American worker, and by extension protect the future of my children. And yes your children. Even though you don't respect that you may some day be thankful there are people like me who would and some day shall. Rejoice in your current state of ignorance. Some day soon you may know what I am talking about. Your rights or your jobs may be next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Matthew Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 It would probably be easier to simply keep them working. That assumes that they actually "worked" in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 That assumes that they actually "worked" in the first place. Before you go jumping to unfounded conclusions. I am in the process of completely rebuilding a 1250 volt @152 amp, 5500 cfm IR CentacII air compressor that weighs about 4.5 tons. This process will take about two weeks. I am working alone because my co-worker is laid off. This common misconception is the work of fiction and if you had any idea of how lean our auto plants are these days you wouldn't make such assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7OiYsdys3Y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Capitalism has triumphed all over the world, but this triumph is only the prelude to the triumph of labour over capital. Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7OiYsdys3Y Well dipsh1t if your going to compare organized labor to the creation of a communist state then I'll be making some comparisons of your political views to the Nazi party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 When feudalism was overthrown and “free” capitalist society appeared in the world, it at once became apparent that this freedom meant a new system of oppression and exploitation of the working people. Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 When feudalism was overthrown and “free” capitalist society appeared in the world' date=' it at once became apparent that this freedom meant a new system of oppression and exploitation of the working people. Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913)[/quote'] U didn't quote your source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 And so in capitalist society we have a democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to communism, will for the first time create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority. Lenin, State and Revolution (1917) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 The masses must be made to see that the Sovietsof Workers’ Deputies are the only possible form of revolutionary government. Lenin, April Theses (1917) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state. Lenin, The State and Revolution (1917) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Matthew Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 They wouldn't have ended up in bankruptcy except the hedge funds refused to take about 30 cents on the dollar that was owed them. The major creditors had agreed to a deal' date=' but the hedge funds wouldn't budge and now they are in court trying to prevent the sale of assets to Fiat. Chrysler wouldn't have had to file after getting the gov't loan but for a couple dozen a$$holes who would rather get *no* money than *some* money.[/quote'] Sorry Wicked1, but that sounds EXACTLY like the UAW guy that would rather have NO job than take a pay cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Sorry Wicked1' date=' but that sounds EXACTLY like the UAW guy that would rather have NO job than take a pay cut.[/quote'] You have been watching to much Fox News. We just took the biggest cut in over 25 years. Contract went into effect two days ago. And BTW over the last 3 years we have been loosing benefits regularly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.