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: TimF who wrote (531863)	12/8/2009 11:48:49 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575399

Why should it be the other way around? Contract law and normal practice. Also because that is what was promised in order to get the loans. The bonds where sold under the terms that they would be senior to many other types of obligations. If they where not sold with those terms then the car companies would have had to pay much higher interest rates. In a BK, all contracts are pretty much null and void. Bondsmen were expecting the judge to honor their senior position but he chose not to. Why are the workers so unimportant to you? Its more for the union itself and the retirees than the current workers. The current workers get some direct benefit, but to the extent that reneging on the terms for the senior debt makes it more difficult to get loans in the future (they will probably get them at some point but higher interest rates are likely) hurts the company, it also hurts current workers (really near future workers, but there is a large overlap, and if we are going to care about the workers we should also care about new hires) They won't have problems getting loans in the future because the bondspeople lost their position while in BK, not when the company was a thriving entity. So the judge wasn't corrupt. He was just doing his job. Is that right? Not corrupt? Yes as far as I can tell he was not. Doing his job? Yes, but perhaps not in an ideal way. Actually, not in the way you would prefer. I'm not complaining about the judge so much as I am complaining about the Obama administrations intervention to help the constituencies it favored over those with more senior claims. Doing so is unjust, and in practical terms it may discourage future lending, esp. to heavily unionized companies, or those with other politically favored junior creditors. The Obama administration interceded before the company went into BK. Once it went into BK, it was the judge who decided how to proceed. You're blaming the wrong guy.