Obama tells Chrysler bankruptcy court to give preference to union debts over lenders
  • EvestayEvestay May 2009
    Dear Senator,

    Can you explain your position on the Obama administration’s decision to tell the bankruptcy court in the Chrysler case to prioritize what Chrysler owes to the Union over what Chrysler owes to its lenders? I would like to encourage you to oppose this position.

    Chrysler owes the Union future money for benefits and owes the lenders repayment on loans. The lenders have secured loans and the Union has loans that are not secured. The usual process in bankruptcy court is to give preference to secured lenders over non-secured lenders.

    Some lenders have not balked on being last in line (those that have received TARP money might feel like they are being pressured to accept the administration’s position OR the govt has ownership interest in the company from TARP so that it simply made the decision for it), but some have balked at the suggestion (like Oppenheimer).

    Allowing the Obama administration to set the precedent that unsecured lenders will get paid before secured lenders turns the lending world on its head. If a company is about to go bankrupt and needs a small loan to help it keep going, then how can it convince a lender to give it money when the lender might be scared that the obligations the company has to the union will come first if the company does go bankrupt? Putting up security (like the place of business) will not make the lender feel safe either. This would tighten the credit market even further and would make more companies lose out on important loans and die off.

    And the banks/lenders that have agreed to this (the TARP ones) will only get like 27 cents on the dollar bank from these loans which means they will suffer more losses and have to ask for more bailouts.

    Please don’t say that helping the Union members is more important than helping the greedy banks. The greedy banks purposely got Chrysler to put up security on its loan as protection. Also, the Union members will need new jobs and a tighter credit market that hurts companies will increase unemployment even more.

    Thanks for your time,
  • I don't like this move. If for nothing more than it sends mixed messages. He supported injecting capital into the banks, but now he is telling a corporation to risk defaulting on a loan.
  • NunesNunes May 2009
    Can't say I really understand the thinking on this one.

    Knowing full well that given the opportunity, the right would LOVE to lambast him over ties to unions next election cycle makes this a potentially bad political move on TOP of being kind of stupid.

    I'm not really concerned about this fucking up lending for regular folks though. Just concerned about the guy in office catching a case of teh stoopid.
  • KPKP May 2009
    Really bad move for the points the OP made.

    It is NOT the presidents place to distrubute assests in a brankruptcy. Why should investors that put there money into a company via contracts that are legally binding...written in a way that both parties agreed met their risk reward requirments, be screwed over?

    laugh and learnin

    http://planetmoron.typepad.com/planet_moro...-end-well-.html
    http://planetmoron.typepad.com/planet_moro...ot-so-much.html
  • ebolaebola May 2009
    Overlenders?

    I heard Ollivanders makes the best wands.
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership