I believe that motion objecting to the Chrysler sale in the deal the government was supporting - where an actual buyer was found, and the union traded much of their future contract commitments from Chrysler for stock in the new company - killed the deal. There is no deal now. No attempt to do something illegal - just a deal that was ok with the majority stock holders and principals - and was not ok with the minority, "senior investors" so they rejected it. Deal off the table.
Incorrect. Even in Ch 11 proceedings, the government is attempting to stuff the deal down these owner's throats using some obscure 363(?) clause by making the claim that the sale has national economic implications (needs of the many outweigh ...) and that the proposed offer is the best that these minority owners are going to get.
The rebuttal to these arguments are in the link I posted.
Chrysler is now in bankruptcy. The senior investors have to hope that they will recover more than $.29 on the dollar this way. And they may, but unless the government bails Chrysler out again, it is unlikely. A calculated risk, taken, and now the result will unfold.
.29c is what one party says it's worth.... oh, that party happens to be affliated to the buyers.
If these guys owned the stock before it tanked, they should have sold it. Bad judgement all around, seems to me, especially counting on Obama to bail them out again.
What confuses me milfun, is, do you think the government should bail out Chrysler to protect the investments of these senior investors? I thought you were opposed to bail outs. Is that only until Obama doesn't agree to bail someone out?
I couldn't care less if Chrysler goes down the tubes or emerge from bankruptcy a renewed company. The government should not bail anyone out.
The private vs public battle , involving the highest office of this country, in a court of law is what's fascinating to watch.