Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
2.7%  Q1 GDP    4.57%  avg. 30-year mortgage     9.5%  Unemployment

Supreme Court Stalls Chrysler-Fiat Deal

The Supreme Court ruled moments ago that Chrysler cannot yet sell most of its assets to Fiat, a move that has been opposed by three Indiana state pension and construction funds.

The ruling grants a stay in the sale as the court gathers more data. The court has not decided whether to schedule a hearing on the matter.

It temporarily blocks the way for Chrysler to complete its merger with the Italian automaker and begin its new, post-bankruptcy life.

The U.S. favors the Chrysler-Fiat merger and wants to remove the Indiana road block.

"I'm delighted it appears we will be getting our day in court," Indiana state treasurer Richard Mourdock said in an interview on CNBC.

Here's the text of the statement from Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

"UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants, and the responses filed thereto,
IT IS ORDERED that the orders of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, case No. 09-50002, dated May 31 and June 1, 2009, are stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court."

-- Frank Ahrens
Sign up to get The Ticker on Twitter

By Frank Ahrens  |  June 8, 2009; 4:15 PM ET
Categories:  The Ticker  | Tags: Chrysler, Fiat  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Credit Card Delinquency Spikes
Next: Live Blogging: Dealers Back In Court

Comments

Good deal -- and even if the merger goes through (as it should) this will provide important airing of the implications of the bailout program to a lot of common people who were suddenly obliged to make a "shared sacrifice" on behalf of the IAW and the President's post-election patronage efforts.

GM will probably be next.

Posted by: DOps | June 8, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

"OBAMA MUST FAIL".....
Neocon justices agree. Work to make it happen.

Posted by: Tomcat3 | June 8, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully the court will uphold contract law in which secured lenders are placed ahead of unsecured lenders and the UAW.

Posted by: ssect8 | June 8, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

The loony-left d-crat socialists haven't yet killed capitalism and the free market.

Posted by: LoonyLeft | June 8, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

For secured creditors to get the short end of the stick to satisfy the UAW debt that the POTUS owes them for more than $33,000,000 in political contributions, is a most egregious act on the part of this administration. One can only hope that the established rule of the bankrupcy laws will not be thrown by the wayside.

Posted by: marine2211 | June 8, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

No surprises here.....this is the same group of people who selected Bush to be POTUS in 2000.

Posted by: August30 | June 8, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Thank goodness. The bond holders were taking a back seat to the UAW on this deal. It's readily apparent that Obama and the Democrats were given the union a "sweetheart deal". Hopefully, the court will protect the bond holders and the Indiana pension funds. The UAW is partially to blame for this mess to begin with.

Posted by: richard36 | June 8, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Imagine that - someone in Gov't actually considering the LAW. I bet Obama hadn't even considered that!

Posted by: pgr88 | June 8, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Let's see how long it takes Professor Moriarty to try to increase the size of SCOTUS. The SCOTUS and the rule of law is the only thing standing between America and the implementation of the evil designs of arch criminal obama.

Posted by: hughglass | June 8, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Of course the congresscritters whining about Chrysler dealers never took a campaign contribution. Funny how saving one auto plant would likely save as many jobs as would be lost by closing the dealers on the list, but not a sound from these bought politicians about factory workers.

Posted by: washpost45 | June 8, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

i guess drama queen ginsburg wants to extend her 15 minutes of fame.

want me 2 cents?

i think all the supreme court justices including sotomayer are as worthless as the proverbial t*ts on a boar.

that's my legal opinion.. and it only took one of me to form it.

Posted by: DriveByPoster | June 8, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

This is the best news since the bailouts started, and hope President Obama and his whiz kids will take notice. The Administration works for the people -- not the other way around. Thanks to the strong citizens from Indiana!! They are heros!! The Obama Clan is very free with other people's EARNED resources. Let us see how they do in 2010!!

Posted by: wheeljc | June 8, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Great... Even Ginsberg recognizes theft when she sees it! Obama/Rattner are caught red-handed!

Posted by: Mainer1776 | June 8, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

It's Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She's not a neo-con. She's a Bill Clinton appointee, and she was on the losing side in Bush v. Gore. Not that facts ever got in the way of any commenter's opinion.

Posted by: gbooksdc | June 8, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

The United State is made up of three branches of Government for a reason, to keep power in check. It is good to see that it works. There is good reason save the jobs provided by Chrysler but not at the expense of our laws and free market.

Posted by: Summit1 | June 8, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Some real mental lightweights posting here. Same Klan members who sport palin 2012 bumper stickers I suppose. What a bunch of haters.

Posted by: dem4life1 | June 8, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

thank god, a court finally upholds the rule of law, anyone who loves the Constitution should be very happy about this.

Posted by: shoey64 | June 8, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Who are these silly people surmising that this development is the work of "neocon Justices" or the majority from the Bush v. Gore case? As the article makes abundantly clear, this order was signed by Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsbug, as Circuit Justice for the Second Circuit. She's obviously no "neocon," and she *dissented* in the 2000 election case (in favor of Gore).

Posted by: jbrumbel | June 8, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

"OBAMA MUST FAIL".....
Neocon justices agree. Work to make it happen.

That infamous neocon judge Ruth Ginsberg is all about working to make sure Obama fails . . . what an idiot.

Posted by: RBCrook | June 8, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

The supreme court...what a joke! What are we paying their salaries? So that the rich can get make more money bending the law? Can't wait for Sotomayer to clean up that place. Hopefully she'll be joined with some competent candidates like herself.

Posted by: August30 | June 8, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

There is no question about the fact that this deal would require U.S. funds outright or at least would implicate the borrowing capacity of the U.S. There is also no doubt that the funding would have to come from EESA to which NO FUNDS were actually ever appropriated (see Section 118) under the requirements of Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution. This makes the whole deal unconstitutional...quite apart from its other infirmaties

Posted by: hfenster1 | June 8, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

YEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

Every time this POSEUR loses, America WINS!

Guess that's why he's so determined to have the Sotomeyer stooge installed there.....

SHE's AWFUL, and HE's WORSE!!!

Rush is right....when obama fails, WE retain a little bit of our freedom....when he fails, AMERICA SUCCEEDS at staying alive a little bit longer!!

Posted by: jammies | June 8, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Without presuming to know the motivations of fellow commentors, a few trivial matters in the interest of accuracy and rational discussion...

This is just a stay, not a SCOTUS decision.

It isn't the same group that annointed Bush in 2000 (one of the Court's lowest and most embarrasing points for any variety of reasons regardless of the decision). Multiple new players since then, though to be fair, IMHO they sing the same tune or worse.

And I don't think anyone with the vaguest idea of the meaning of the word has ever described Justice Ginsberg, author of the stay, as a neocon.

Posted by: chezshaw | June 8, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

I started out to say: I can see both sides of this, but after reading all (well, many) of the posts on this thread I again find it so, so sad how so many issues are reduced to the political level.

We are becoming a very sad country. Bitter divisiveness and extremism on both the Left and the Right are destroying America.

the rest of us see no difference between you - whatever your views. Just a bunch of opinionated, idealist, short-sighted control freaks who want to tell the rest of us how to live - and THINK! with no regard to reality.

Hopefully, the Court will make the right call. Whatever it is. I'm not even going to offer an opinion on this thread. It will be lost in the fire............

Posted by: scoates2482 | June 8, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama, meet FDR.

The Supreme Court was all that stood between the people and complete socialism during the Great Depression. The Court frequently struck down as unconstitutional FDR's massive interventions in the private sector. So this is nothing new. And it's very necessary to have this check on the Executive branch.

FDR even said that private contract rights should give way if the Prez found dire economic situations! That's not nice. - Chrysler and the New New Deal http://tinyurl.com/nsxaq5

Posted by: roosoh | June 8, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

When a house is burning it is best to try to put it out rather than quibble over who gets the best shares of the ashes. In the face of meltdown I have little sympathy for "secured" creditors as opposed to the rest of us. If they feel that they must drive Chrysler onto the rocks in order to get their due, then first take back any and all government funds, and then let them pick over the bones for whatever is left. Such a pity though, and a destructive and wasteful process of reconstruction in the name of "rule of law" that well be felt painfully even in Indiana, although more so by those not so fortunate as to be "secured".

Posted by: notarzt | June 8, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the only Justice to consider the arguements. She issued the order on her own. She voted to allow Florida to continue counting votes in 2000.

Posted by: etronsen | June 8, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Hallelujah! The thieves have been stopped.. at least for a little while.

What's the hurry, anyway? Why are some here so eager to see the life savings of other Americans stolen by the U.S. government and given to the UAW?

Posted by: Mainer1776 | June 8, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

"If they feel that they must drive Chrysler onto the rocks in order to get their due, then first take back any and all government funds"

I AGREE FULLY. But the analogy of a house buning down just doesn't make any sense.

The secured creditors should be afforded their contractural rights, without the heavy-handed Barack Obama or George Bush (because they were in alignment on this) involvement.

This is due rocess at its finest. Hurray for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Posted by: etronsen | June 8, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

People. There is so much hate in those e-mails some of you write... Think with your brain and feel with your heart when it comes to issues that will affect tens of thousands of Americans and keep the hate to yourselves away from Other American eyes. The supreme court decision was good and will give way to further discussion and negotiations. This is what a civilized America is all about. Please, do not show your rotten soul to the rest of the world as they may think that most Americans are like you...

Posted by: romeroc1 | June 8, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

"Hallelujah"? Are you such a fool?

This is about the American mfg base and our ability to design and create our own products.

I'm so sick and tired of those who keep reducing this discussion to the political level. Screw it. I'll take my knowledge and experience and emigrate - you idiots can have it. Not that you'll have anything to work with.

Posted by: scoates2482 | June 8, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

If Chryler is broken up so that the debtors get 30 cents on the dollar and the company goes poof, GM may have a greater chance of surviving. I think it is a very dumb move by the Supremes, a dumb move that will do more damage than good to a great many people, but every cloud has a silver lining.

Posted by: pointpetre | June 8, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

"FDR even said that private contract rights should give way if the Prez found dire economic situations!"

-And you find this ironic of FDR to say?

-The President is not above the law.

-Hurray for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for issuing the Stay!

Posted by: etronsen | June 8, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

That's the way the system is supposed to work...with checks and balances. The issues here are unique and should be reviewed. That's what makes this country great.

Well stated scoates2482. When I went to law school, the professors would develop moot court competitions in which cases had logical arguments on both sides. The fact that you argue a point does not necesssarily mean you are biased or corrupt. But it's not hard to find the writers on this blog who are so hopelessly biased that they lose all credibility. That goes for both sides.

Posted by: amaikovich | June 8, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Surpreme court justices are the greatest bunch of crooks living off taxpayer money. They disregared the votes of millions of Americans and 'selected' Bush in 2009. Scalia has always been in lockstep with Cheney. Now one of these buffoons has set out to destroy Chrysler and put thousands of American taxpayers on the street. BTW, what why was the Indiana comptroller buying bonds in a bankrupt co with taxpayer money???

Posted by: August30 | June 8, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Congress ought to pass a law protecting the rights of the union pension fund. Until then the bankruptcy law is clear. The secured creditors (such as the Indiana state funds) have priority. They must get as much as they would in dissolution before the UAW pension fund gets a dime. This asset sale can only proceed if the secured creditors get a lien against the UAW's shares in the new company (which UAW would not approve).

Posted by: RandallBart | June 8, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"I'm so sick and tired of those who keep reducing this discussion to the political level. "

I agree with you completely. It should not be decided by politics.

IT SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THE LAW !!!

And Justice Ginsburg evidently feels the same way.

Posted by: etronsen | June 8, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

"Surpreme court justices are the greatest bunch of crooks living off taxpayer money."

-Including Justice Ginsburg, who voted in 2000 to allow Florida to continue recounts?

Justice Ginsburg was solely responsible for today;s Order staying the sale to Fiat.

Posted by: etronsen | June 8, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Wow. The Supreme Court actually being used for its intended purpose...how crazy is that?

Posted by: keithrjackson | June 8, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Good. The scary thing about this is the role that the administration played in strong-arming a deal that benefitted a key electoral consituency at the expense of an investor class that would otherwise have take priority in the bankruptcy. Not that everyone should't be free to waive or assert whatever, but this wasn't an exercise of free will and everyone knows it. Frankly, I'm surprised it went this far without being stopped.

Posted by: LHS2 | June 8, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse

The same people that put Bush in office did this?? I think that Ruth Baby Ginsberg ruled against Bush? and the fact there are two different chanracters on the bench as well.

This might be the best bit of Judicial work that we have seen in many years. No need for Obama to own all three branches yet.

I find it interesting how now there are so many dems and leftists out there that want to ignore the rule of law, only when it suits them... and not let the rule of law govern on a continual basis.

Go Figure.

Posted by: alutz08 | June 8, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

It is more than a little interesting to note that some people seem to object to the car company bailout more than the Wall street one even though the Wall street one cost 10 times as much, and the reason that the economy is so bad is because Wall street wrecked it with its "financial engineering".
Yep, the Wall street welfare queens now have their lobbyists out in full force. They want everyone to focus on Chrysler and GM while they slither back to their old ways--creating more jobs in China and creating more wealth--for themselves. Suckers.

Posted by: bokannon | June 8, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

The logic of the looney left is that Bush is a fascist because he intercepts the terrorist's phone calls but here we find that the true Fascist Turd is Obama who craps on the constitution to reward his cronies. This is exactly what Chavez is doing. It is even sweeter that he was slapped down by leftie Ginsberg. This is Obama's Vietnam.

Posted by: IMBILLY | June 8, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

For the people who complain about the UAW getting a large stake in Chrysler, it is my understanding that wages and compensation to workers for work performed takes precedence over any other obligations. Healthcare and pensions were not properly funded by the auto industry along with many other companies.

For those commentators, who object, would you expect that your defined benefit pensions and promises of continuing healthcare coverage, in lieu of higher current wages, would be honored if your company went belly up?

Does anyone know if deferred employee compensation takes precedence over bondholders?

Posted by: bmessina | June 8, 2009 5:15 PM | Report abuse

LOL...I love those who believe this is all Obama's fault and that Obama is turning us into a socialist country.

NEWS FLASH...King George H.W. Bush did that last September...remember George Bush, the guy that gave Paulson a $700BILLION blank check to help his rich, white friends stay rich and white all at the poor taxpayer's expense? How is that not socialism? Is it because a white president was helping out his white friends?

Gimme a break....by the way, you people realize that we already had SOCIAL security, FREE education until the 12th grade, even for illegal alien children who are here to work for poverty wages for their republican farmers in Beverly Hills, the roads you drive on from home to work, those police, fire and rescue and the kicker in all this is your freedom. Your freedom is being paid for by a poor kid from a poor area of the country who had no way out of poverty other than putting his life on the line in a third world country so that you could sit here in American and blame Obama for everything.

Posted by: ag1976 | June 8, 2009 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Everyone needs to stop hyperventilating about this order. This is simply an order routinely entered by a circuit justice in cases involving a request for an emergency stay pending review. It simply provides more time for the circuit justice or the court to decide the stay motion. It is not a decision on the merits of any issue.

Posted by: flwood2341 | June 8, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse

This is neither a Republican nor a Democrat matter; it's a matter of the Constitution. Our country's people have never believed that it is just to seize one person's property and give it to another person. Obama, acting like a king of a kingdom rather than a president of all the people, has decided that the unions should be given property which belongs to Chrysler bondholders. This is in violation of law. Your property might next be chosen to be awarded to someone more deserving than you. When a "king" decides winner and losers, we are all in danger of losing.

By the way, I am not a Chrysler bondholder but I see the implications of actions such as Obama's. They endanger our society.

Posted by: dama1000 | June 8, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

This is a cluster****. Where do these bondholders think their cash is? Maybe it's in the trunk of a Chrysler 300.

Neurotics can never accept reality.
Neurotic: "How much is 2 plus 2?"
Sane person: "Four"
Neurotic: "But I want it to be 5."
Sane Person: "Then you will need another number."
Neurotic: "I don't care. I want it to be five."

Posted by: elzoid | June 8, 2009 5:28 PM | Report abuse

"FDR even said that private contract rights should give way if the Prez found dire economic situations! That's not nice."

And it wasn't nice that FDR, hero of liberals througout America, locked up 100,000 Americans because their ancestry.

Posted by: GRILLADES | June 8, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Only serves to delay the inevitable. So what now Chrysler investors? If your pension plans were stupid enough to invest in this failed enterprise, which sold it's outdated, gas-guzzling products through two morons in its TV "hemi" commercials, you should be suing the pension plan administrators, not hoping for divine intervention. This stay gets you nothing more than an investment that is worth less every day. Guess I'll go drive my ULEV, high-mileage Honda home now. This was almost be funny, if it wasn't so sad.

Posted by: pookiecat | June 8, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Let me get this strait...the republicans are cheering because they don't think these Chrysler dealerships should close...but at the same time they are announcing they will not buy a Chrysler because "Obama" wants to run Chrysler. So if you ain't going to buy an "Obama" vehicle, why the cheering for this temporary decision? If anyone with half a brain would realize, Chrysler went into bankruptcy. Nobody held a gun to there heads. Anyway, this deal will go through. More yada yada about nothing.

Posted by: kubrickstan | June 8, 2009 5:47 PM | Report abuse

A few Republican sickos in Indiana are trying to sabotage America's economic recovery. That's all this is about. They want to derail our auto industry in an attempt to make President Obama look bad. They would love to see the unemployment rate go up to 20 percent!

It wasn't enough that Bush gave trillions of dollars to his friends on Wall Street with no strings attached -- while ignoring, and allowing our auto industry to collapse.

These scumbag traitors are simply attempting to sabotage America. I'm sure Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh are involved.


Posted by: ost123 | June 8, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

It seems some in this forum are anxious to move towards socialism....interesting. I tend to side with Constitutional rights and proper bankruptcy proceedings. Chrysler is no different than any other company. It does not matter how many they employ or used to employ. Holders of secured debt deserve their opportunity at recovery before others. That's why they call it SECURED. Guess we should all lie down and allow Obama and his Czars to supercede checks and balances and rapidly deplete our freedoms.

Posted by: tomleas | June 8, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Maybe the dealers who were shafted can also find a voice in the court.

Posted by: KHMJr | June 8, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

And the Obama stimulus plan worked wonders??? And all along I thought the billions he gave to the banks went towards their purchase of healthy banks and did little to free up credit for the average joe. Bush certainly is not my favorite guy, but he did not do this to the auto industry...they did it to themselves through their business as usual mentality. All the while, Toyota and others passed them by.

Posted by: tomleas | June 8, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Thank God this decision by the Obama Administration to pander to the union, ignoring the lawful rights of the bondholders, will see the light of day.

Posted by: Sail555 | June 8, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

The only option to the Fiat/Chrysler deal is outright liquidation. Since the US has excess auto capacity, the manufacturing facilities are not required, but will be sold as scrap, less than 10cents on the book value dollar (not purchase cost). The Chrysler tech center and headquarters are dedicated single purpose facilities, and not easy to see a buyer at any price for them. Its very easy to see 200,000 employees permanently losing jobs (Chrysler, Tier 1,2, 3 suppliers.) Maybe a lot more if the Chrysler liquidation threatens cash flow to suppliers who also need it for business they do with other automotive assemblers. In all likelihood, less than $2B can be realized from complete liquidation, maybe only $1.5B. an 80% discount to the bond value.

The bankruptcy judge has already ruled against the bondholders. The Supreme Court will likely do the same. IF the Supremes rule that the judge was in error, then the Fiat deal is dead.

The Indiana state Treasurer should never have held any automotive bonds, especially Chrysler bonds which have never risen above junk status since Lee Iacocca ran the place in the early 80s., so I suspect he bought them very recently for arbitrage purposes. A published list of major bondholders did not include the state of Indiana three weeks ago which is why I think the Treasurer bought the bonds for pennies to the dollar, then hedged the position to ensure all upside minimal downside.

The taxpayers are going to get hit again for billions.
The UAW pension fund will likely be absorbed by PBGC. The laid off workers will head for Medicaid relief. All newly laid off workers will collect federal unemployment.

The seniority of debt in bankruptcy is firm but not absolute. The factors at play in the Chrysler bankruptcy are unique in nature and scope.

The Supreme Court can only rule that the bankruptcy judge erred or was correct in his judgment. It can not make another decision but can remand the case back to the judge if it disagrees. By allowing the Indiana appeal to proceed, the Supreme Court has likely killed the FIAT deal.

Posted by: LeftGuy | June 8, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

I am surprised by the ruling. While I agree that more information can be generated, my fear is a prolonged stay for hearings may cause Fiat to get cold feet and withdraw their offer. If this would happen, the Bankruptcy Court of New York may be left with only option-liquidation. This option would lead to more layoffs and negatively effect our economy, something we all do not want.

Mark

Posted by: erickson5630MARK | June 8, 2009 6:11 PM | Report abuse

"Secured lenders" are those who took a smaller return in exchange for less risk. They're not secured because they're privileged, they're secured because they wanted a safer investment (in exchange for a lower return on their investment).

Posted by: buckdharma | June 8, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Thank God the Supreme Court is getting involved in this corrupt administration that does not seem to be constrained by the laws of this country. Contract law is the basis of almost every aspect of American life and Obama thinks that he can ignore it to save the UAW. This is totally wrong. Also there is a separation of the executive branch and the judical branch for obvious reasons, which Obama and his henchman just don't seem to understand. The only reason that this country has succeeded and PROSPERED for so long is our Constitution and the fact that it and only it, is the LAW OF THE LAND. Obama, of all people should understand that as he alledgedly taught constitutional law (as a guest lecturer, not a professor, by the way,) at the University of Chicago. When you think about all of this and compare it with his actions, ignoring the Constitutional limitations, it makes you wonder. One of the reasons that it was suggested that the auto companies file chapter eleven was that it would end the union contracts. So now magically the UAW comes out owning 39% of the company... Did I fall asleep in class again?

Posted by: ROYSTOLL2 | June 8, 2009 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama just got a smack in the face. More to come. The tide is turning.

Posted by: get_it_right | June 8, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

The Supreme's ruling is more likely based on a desire to maintain contract law in the U.S. John Marshall has been turning in his grave, given the abuse of contracts seen during the past six months.

Chrysler is dead anyway. Fiat is and always has been a joke as an auto manufacturer.

Q: What do you get when you combine a Fiat and a Chrysler?
A: A big car that won't start.

Q: How do you get a Fiat to go 60 mph?
A: Push it off a cliff.

Posted by: AMK2 | June 8, 2009 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama and the Dems will need to expand to the court to 11 members to get an easy majority like his idol Roosevelt did .

Posted by: PIA9 | June 8, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

I've said it before and I'll probably say it again...

This is the largest sanctioned theft EVER!

Posted by: JeffBarea | June 8, 2009 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Yeah!!! The UAW and VEBA are TOAST. Swing at that ball, SCOTUS.

Posted by: Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness | June 8, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Actually, in a Bankruptcy situation, the secured bondholders get the company and everybody else can go pound sand!

Posted by: Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness | June 8, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

I know that it will be hard for you but can you liberals please leave race out of this issue? We do not need name calling either. It is a question of law and playing by the rules. If you don't enforce contract law 100% how do you decide which one's to enforce. If your parent's house is paid for, should you enforce their contract rights so they can keep it? Almost everything in this country depends on the enforcement of contract law so please don't take it so lightly when it doesn't fit your political ideology. It doesn't work that way. This is why so many of us are unhappy with this administration. YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RULES! That means following all of the rules, even if they are not convenient.

Posted by: ROYSTOLL2 | June 8, 2009 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Sure Americans' money is going to UAW. So what? I want to know when Californians like myself can expect some bailout money from Uncle Barack.

Posted by: davidclark1 | June 8, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

The whiz kids at the ATF are about to get the mast stuffed up their keesters as the world will now know what many experts now do know--this crew are cocky unseasoned callous thugs and frankly rank amateurs when it comes to the auto industry, deals and judicial fairness.

The unravel of the Chrysler deal will cause the GM rape er, "deal", to crater as well--haste makes waste--and you can't fool Mother Nature==aka Rule of Law.

Posted by: ZippyinAnnapolis | June 8, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Three Words for the Car Companies in Chapter 11.

U.S. CONSTITUTION

Posted by: FlashClements | June 8, 2009 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Thank God for the seperation of powers our country was fouded on. Obama was elected president, not appointed King...and one of the most inexperienced ones in our history at that. Not only was the disregard of legal precedent for due processs under the bankruptcy code ignored in the case of the pension funds by the wimpy Bankruptcy Judge; the legitimacy of the Congressional/Executive collusion on the use of TARP Funds (taxpayer dollars)held open to review, but also the rights of the individual taxpayers who hold existing claims against the "old" (and hopefully to be never again)Chrysler will be given consideration. This was beginning to look like a bigger rrairoad job than anything Bush pulled off.

Posted by: Red4ever | June 8, 2009 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Well, at least it's not a Fiat Accompli (Swiss joke).

Posted by: tmorgan2008 | June 8, 2009 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama is constantly bringing up in speeches how important the "rule of law" is. Ginsberg knows the secured creditors should be compensated above unsecured creditors,that is one reason she issued the stay. We will see how POTUS deals with applying the rule of law against something he wants done.

Posted by: edgar_sousa | June 8, 2009 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Give me a break. The Justice granting the stay is one of the Clinton appointments and a well known liberal.

Posted by: sspp1946 | June 8, 2009 7:56 PM | Report abuse

All of you who are hoping for an end of U.S. auto industry (and the demise of thousands of workers and their jobs who have toiled in this industry for decades) will reap just what you sow - watch for another decline in the stock market as the unemployment numbers soar. And to those of you who are Obama-haters, keep your vitriol in check lest you end up on the other side of an FBI inquiry. All the respected justice was saying is that the Court needs some time to consider the issues. You should take some time doing the same.

Posted by: grm4bho | June 8, 2009 7:58 PM | Report abuse

The computer forensics whatever is wrong about many things, not least of which is that all other creditors "pound sand"; it depends on what assets secure the debt. They are entitled to the "indubitable equivalent" of the value of the assets securing their debt.
Employees, including management get an administrative claim for a specific amout. It used to be $4,000 per IIRC and it may have gone up in the amendment a few years ago.
Chrysler was a multi-company holding company so it matters where the debt resides. For example, it could be the bonds are obligations of the holding company with the operating assets in subsidiary companies. I haven't bothered to look since neither I nor my employer has a claim in the case.
I also seem to recall that each Justice has a sort of administrative responsibility for different circuits. That's why Ginsburg signed and she can take the case up for review.

Posted by: koolhand21 | June 8, 2009 8:09 PM | Report abuse

The best thing that could have happened. Now it is time for Chapter 7 and goodbye Chrysler. GM should be next. Our workers can retrain for other jobs and taxpayers can't afford to keep bailing out manufacturers and banks.

Posted by: mortified469 | June 8, 2009 8:15 PM | Report abuse

I wanted to also note that according to the "socialist mouthpiece" (people are a scream) New York Times, 92% of the bondholders agreed to accept 29 cents on the $. Elections matter.

Posted by: koolhand21 | June 8, 2009 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama has complete control over the legislative and executive branches of government. He also is in firm control of the media.

In order to finalize the destruction of the US Constitution, he needs to seize control of the Judicial branch as well.

Posted by: pkhenry | June 8, 2009 8:30 PM | Report abuse

This stay was not granted by a Bush court, but rather by a Clinton appointee, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is regarded as one of the most liberal members of this court.

Posted by: ericnestor | June 8, 2009 8:37 PM | Report abuse

As long as he keeps that Cheshire cat grin, the press will follow Obama to the ends of the earth.

Newspapers wonder why they are going out of business? Could it have something to do with completely usurping their responsibility? We don't need a US version of Pravda.

Posted by: pkhenry | June 8, 2009 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Uh, pk, you need to go to dictionary.com and look up the word you used. It doesn't mean what you want to say, you want abdicate ot something like that.
And, of course, you have already been brainwashed if you think that the media's abdication of their role is recent or related to Obama. Think Whitewater: brought
to you by the New York Times or Election 2000, look up coverage of Al Gore vs Gorge W Bush. The media is decidedly not liberal.
But you listen to Rush, what do you know?

Posted by: koolhand21 | June 8, 2009 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Interesting sidenote:

Fund managing company Pierella Weinberg, a secured creditor, is the firm that backpeddled from discussing the threats they were getting from the White House to take this deal...or else.

One could conclude that those at Pierella Weinberg were 'persuaded' into their 'backpedal' by their former employee, Rahm Emanuel, who worked for them for about 2-1/2 years and made over $16,000,000 in that relatively short span!


Posted by: silversurfer1 | June 8, 2009 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Well the deal is no longer 'stalled'. Full speed ahead. In 5 years Fiats will be covering the roads of America. Those of you who praised Ruth for her stay are now cursing her, I'm sure. What a difference a day (oe two) makes.

Posted by: smilndog | June 10, 2009 7:37 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company