Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IRWIN JAMES FRANKEL who wrote (28131)	9/25/2008 10:27:35 AM
From: John Metcalf	Respond to of 52153

Yesterday, a draft of changes to the Paulson Plan was circulated: talkingpointsmemo.com I'm pleased to see some movement, particularly away from the non-reviewability provisions. In that particular, courts (and GAO) can now review actions of Treasury, but courts are not permitted to grant injunctive or equitable relief. I understand that injunctions could impede the function of Treasury, but I don't see why after-the-fact equitable relief should be barred in the event of malfeasance or other tortious activity. IJ and Peter, do you get this? In terms of getting Congressional passage, many elected officials have justified the bailout in terms of helping people "keep their homes". I don't see anything in the bailout that will do so, except for some "best effort" weasel words. Consequently, some representatives, like Barney Frank, are making Christmas tree noises. For example, a typical compromise (say $700 B to purchase manure from banks would be "balanced" by $700 B in direct aid to upside down home-"owners") would be a deal-breaker. In short, the one-for-you, one-for-me approach will kill the whole thing, but otherwise, the votes won't be there. Ideas?