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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rich evans who wrote (479366)	5/8/2009 9:33:52 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573430

I think the big banks with 70% of the secured debt concluded that getting 29% of their 6.9bill secured debt was all they would get thru applying bankruptcy laws. The DIP financing of the US government would have priority over secured creditors and the asset sale under 363 b1 would not get enough dollars to repay the US government its dip financing plus all the 6.9 bill owed to the secured creditors. Thus by these legal machinations and maneuvers under Bankruptcy law, that is how it ends up. The secured creditors have no standing or right to decide What the US government does with the new company which bought the assets and stock with us gov money. They can negotiate with Fiat, the Union, dealers as they chose. This is precisely why government had no business getting involved -- as a lender, stockholder, or anything else -- in this private business. This transaction reeks of political corruption from a mile away.

To: rich evans who wrote (479366)	5/15/2009 4:19:26 AM
From: Joe NYC	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1573430

Rich, I think the big banks with 70% of the secured debt concluded that getting 29% of their 6.9bill secured debt was all they would get thru applying bankruptcy laws. The DIP financing of the US government would have priority over secured creditors and the asset sale under 363 b1 would not get enough dollars to repay the US government its dip financing plus all the 6.9 bill owed to the secured creditors. I am not arguing that there is enough to satisfy 100% of secured creditors. I am saying that if there is not enough to pay 100% of secured creditors, there isn't any money to pay unsecured creditors. And, you are making a mistake that the entities dependent on TARP are free agents, free to "conclude". The entities not tainted by TARP concluded otherwise (before the intimidation from the White House). Thus by these legal machinations and maneuvers under Bankruptcy law, that is how it ends up. The secured creditors have no standing or right to decide What the US government does with the new company which bought the assets and stock with us gov money. They can negotiate with Fiat, the Union, dealers as they chose. The secured creditors have rights to refuse the DIP especially if it contained condition stripping them of their assets. They can force liquidation if the offer is less than the value is less than liquidated assets. That's certainly a valid thread if an unsecured creditor is to recover higher percentage from the deal than a secured creditor. It certainly looks like a Kangaroo court that would agree to the deal, as proposed by the government. BTW, the government is getting screwed on this deal too. Or, more precisely, Obama wants the taxpayers to get screwed (get next to nothing out of the deal, certainly compared to money put in), Obama is forcing lenders to get screwed, and all the benefits go to Obama's generous campaign sponsor, UAW. Once