Comments on: Chrysler: The view from the White House http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/10/21/chrysler-the-view-from-the-white-house/ A slice of lime in the soda Thu, 23 May 2013 07:30:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Craig http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/10/21/chrysler-the-view-from-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-8205 Craig Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:46:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/10/21/chrysler-the-view-from-the-white-house/#comment-8205 I get so tired of ill-informed commenters who are forever stamping their feet and insisting that "the law" is what they think it ought to be. Perhaps they should spend their time explaining the nuances of bankruptcy law to the judge that oversaw the case. The only thing that ticks me off even more is the fraction of Chrysler and GM bondholders who never really cared about whether reorganization or liquidation was the better deal for _them_--their priority was to make sure that the UAW got screwed worse than they did. The car deals were a masterpiece, although no one really gets praised for limiting the downside of a catastrophe. Chrysler may still fail in five years or ten, and that doesn't take anything away from the achievement of not letting them fail in 2009. I get so tired of ill-informed commenters who are forever stamping their feet and insisting that “the law” is what they think it ought to be. Perhaps they should spend their time explaining the nuances of bankruptcy law to the judge that oversaw the case.

The only thing that ticks me off even more is the fraction of Chrysler and GM bondholders who never really cared about whether reorganization or liquidation was the better deal for _them_–their priority was to make sure that the UAW got screwed worse than they did.

The car deals were a masterpiece, although no one really gets praised for limiting the downside of a catastrophe. Chrysler may still fail in five years or ten, and that doesn’t take anything away from the achievement of not letting them fail in 2009.

]]> By: zach http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/10/21/chrysler-the-view-from-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-8189 zach Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:46:48 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/10/21/chrysler-the-view-from-the-white-house/#comment-8189 To what blatant disregard are you referring? It was a 363 sale. Those may suck, but they are in the law. Quit making up stuff. http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2009/05/chrysler-363-sales-again.html To what blatant disregard are you referring? It was a 363 sale. Those may suck, but they are in the law. Quit making up stuff.

http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2 009/05/chrysler-363-sales-again.html

]]> By: AZ_Cowboy http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/10/21/chrysler-the-view-from-the-white-house/comment-page-1/#comment-8181 AZ_Cowboy Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:52:14 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/10/21/chrysler-the-view-from-the-white-house/#comment-8181 Although Rattner might have done what you consider the "right thing", what about the blatant disregard existing bankruptcy laws? Is it okay not to follow the law if you're doing the right thing? I'd appreciate if you'd elaborate a bit more on how you feel about the selective enforcement of the law. Although Rattner might have done what you consider the “right thing”, what about the blatant disregard existing bankruptcy laws? Is it okay not to follow the law if you’re doing the right thing? I’d appreciate if you’d elaborate a bit more on how you feel about the selective enforcement of the law.

]]>