[dfarc]

Erik Latranyi, on 10 November 2009 - 08:10 PM, said:

Perhaps that they took away the rights of secured debtholders and gave it to the UAW?

As opposed to having "secured" debtholders selling what was left of Chrysler with the end result being no more Chrysler?

[Stratuscaster]

chemtech, on 11 November 2009 - 05:13 AM, said:

I don't don't have a problem with the comments but I feel like I'm in a time warp here. My comment was posted on June 6th Daves reply Nov 9th. Talk about a time delay :lol: .

Welcome to the world of Internet forums. Resurrection of dead threads happens all the time.

chemtech, on 11 November 2009 - 05:13 AM, said:

I also have a warning that was issued well over a year ago that won't go away :blink: .

No one else other than you and the moderator team can even see those warnings. They don't go away on their own, and a simple email or PM to the staff would be sufficient to have us take a look at it and review the situation.

jsb399, on 11 November 2009 - 07:05 AM, said:

Amen.

You may also bring up any issues you have here to the staff via PM or email.

[chemtech]

I've done that to no avail.

[Stratuscaster]

chemtech, on 12 November 2009 - 03:56 PM, said:

I've done that to no avail.

I have no PM or emails from you in any of my inboxes.

This issue is better dealt with outside of this topic.

[LoganSix]

dfarc, on 11 November 2009 - 09:49 AM, said:

As opposed to having "secured" debtholders selling what was left of Chrysler with the end result being no more Chrysler?

You mean, do what the bankruptcy law is meant for?
It's not like the machining and plans would be useless if someone came in a bought them up. Everyone's dreams for an independent Jeep or the return of Plymouth might have happened. We don't know. Normal business process was interfered with by the government.

[DaveAdmin]

Nobody had the money or the desire to buy Chrysler's assets. The government stepped in, according to all reports, ONLY because they realized a sudden failure of Chrysler would reverbrate through the economy and take down GM and Ford, followed by the steelmakers and plastic makers and tool and die makers, followed by just about everything else, leading to a depression worse than 1929. Or did you ever wonder why George W. Bush also stepped in? (Albeit without any demands on the people receiving the money.)

[Erik Latranyi]

dfarc, on 11 November 2009 - 08:49 AM, said:

As opposed to having "secured" debtholders selling what was left of Chrysler with the end result being no more Chrysler?

That depends on the chapter of bankruptcy filed. Typically, companies file Chapter 11, which is reorganization.

Only Chapter 7 is liquidation and that was not going to happen.

Under Chapter 11, you negotiate with your debtholders and they get a stake in the new organization. Chrysler's bankruptcy resulted in no negotiations with the secured debtholders, just ultimatums from the gov't. The secured debtholders got nothing, while Fiat, which invested ZERO, was given a part of the new company.

The secured debtholders tried to make a case, but their pleas fell on deaf ears. After all, who do you complain to when your complaint is against the gov't?

This bankruptcy was a violation of over 100 years of bankruptcy law.

[Mofancanada]

Chapter 7, that's exactky what would happen without government money

Erik Latranyi, on 13 November 2009 - 09:12 AM, said:

That depends on the chapter of bankruptcy filed. Typically, companies file Chapter 11, which is reorganization.

Only Chapter 7 is liquidation and that was not going to happen.

Under Chapter 11, you negotiate with your debtholders and they get a stake in the new organization. Chrysler's bankruptcy resulted in no negotiations with the secured debtholders, just ultimatums from the gov't. The secured debtholders got nothing, while Fiat, which invested ZERO, was given a part of the new company.

The secured debtholders tried to make a case, but their pleas fell on deaf ears. After all, who do you complain to when your complaint is against the gov't?

This bankruptcy was a violation of over 100 years of bankruptcy law.

[st34]

Erik Latranyi, on 10 November 2009 - 08:10 PM, said:

Perhaps that they took away the rights of secured debtholders and gave it to the UAW?

Not trying to provoke anything here... this is just an observation....
It's funny how quickly people forget that the biggest debt holder Chrysler had was the UAW in a prior agreement to replace future health care liabilities on to a VEBA. Yes that debt was to fund a VEBA that was originally supposed to be solvent for the next eighty years. That debt went from 18 billion down to 9 billion and then yet again half of that value. That debt was as legitimate as any other claims as well, whether or not you agree with it or not. It seems that people will cry a river over debt losses inccured from others, yet there is absolutely no acknowledgement of the UAW's losses in all of this. The UAW is not in control of the company at all, they have one person on the executive board and the only stock they have in the company is tied up in a VEBA soley for the use of the health benefits of retirees, and nothing more. That stock for the time being is with Chrysler. Given a choice in the matter, I am sure they would have wanted it placed elsewhere too.

As for "the next owner"... who cares at this point as long as they are still around. Most of us here have a strong desire to see the company do well, flourish and once again rise to the occasion. We would like to see it become the premiere automotive company in the world too.
Lets concentrate on N.A. first and work on gaining back market share while remaining solvent through these tough economic times first though so we can live to see another day. Why not give us a chance before you go writting the next screen play of "Good Company Bad Company" or dredging up more drama.

This post has been edited by st34: 13 November 2009 - 12:33 PM

[Erik Latranyi]

st34, on 13 November 2009 - 12:23 PM, said:

That debt was as legitimate as any other claims as well, whether or not you agree with it or not.

Yes, the VEBA was debt, but not all debt is the same. There is secured and unsecured debt. There is primary lienholders and secondary lienholders.

Does the VEBA have a legitimate claim? Yes!

Does the VEBA's claim go before others? It goes before suppliers, but not before primary lienholders.

Put simply, if I loan you $5 and you go bankrupt, I do not get my money back before the bank that holds your mortgage gets its money back.

[Mofancanada]

Thomas Jefferson :
"If the American people ever allow private banks
to control the issue of their money,
first by inflation and then by deflation,
the banks and corporations that will
grow up around them (around the banks),
will deprive the people of their property
until their children will wake up homeless
on the continent their fathers conquered."

[st34]

Erik Latranyi, on 13 November 2009 - 01:18 PM, said:

Does the VEBA's claim go before others? It goes before suppliers, but not before primary lienholders.

Is that speculation?

They would have been on the hook for those benefits without the VEBA in the first place. Contractual law is what it is. How do you know that some of that some of the secured debt you talk about wasn't originally taken on to fulfill those obligations in the first place?

More speculation... If they had planned ahead for that debt like they were supposed to, there wouldn't have been the unfunded liabilities that there are in the first place. Kinda of like saying it cost 74 dollars an hour for legacy and hourly costs combined.

More speculation....If they had stashed the legacy cost away as they collected it, while those people were working, instead of rewarding shareholders with unearned dividends, and rewarding the industry with unheard of executive compensation, perhaps this could have all been avoided too.

Quite simply there are two sides to everything. Some of what has happened, we may never know the full details of, or how it came to be. There are going to be arguments from both sides of the table. Some instances, I believe there were some down right criminal acts of negligence. That argument can be made for both sides as well.

Quote

Yes, the VEBA was debt, but not all debt is the same.

Debt is Debt just as years of contractual obligations become a huge debt liability if ignored, and regardless of how you say it potato and tomato are always spelled the same way too.
moving on now

This post has been edited by st34: 13 November 2009 - 05:50 PM