BRKG NEWS 6/9 1924: Chrylser and America dies Supreme Court Rejects Bondholders

[rjwjr]

Re: BRKG NEWS 6/9 1924: Chrylser and America dies Supreme Court Rejects Bondholders

hitting up the supreme court to kill your competition's deal is a big balls move. give 'em metalman's big balls prize for trying!

Without seeing their faces, I can't tell which one is Pelosi.

[Sharky]

Re: BRKG NEWS 6/9 1924: Chrylser and America dies Supreme Court Rejects Bondholders

I thought one of the more interesting machinations in the recent SCOTUS challenge related to Chrysler was this:

The Obama Administration argued Monday that no court, including the Supreme Court, has the authority to hear a challenge by Indiana benefit plans to the role the U.S. Treasury played in the Chrysler rescue, including the use of “bailout” (TARP) funds. The Indiana debt holders, U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote, simply have no right to raise that issue, thus putting it out of the reach of the courts.

From: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/us-says...-courts-reach/

Does the Obama Administration telling the Supreme Court to "stay out of it" strike anyone else as more than a little strange?

[Chris Coles]

Re: BRKG NEWS 6/9 1924: Chrylser and America dies Supreme Court Rejects Bondholders

Whats the phrase? Caveat Emptor -Buyer Beware? So when did any of these GM bond holders, (we have to assume they are full professionals working within a major fund management scheme), give any thought to the fact that General Motors had moved strongly out of vehicle manufacture and into arguably unquantifiable financial schemes involving borrowing short term to lend long term mortgages on equally arguable doubtful asset valuations and income statements?

Furthermore - did any of these bond purchasers give any weight to the distribution between equity and borrowings? If they had, surely they would have seen that there was insufficient equity to underpin the adverse borrowings? That they were purchasing bonds that only made their long term position even more moot if the markets turned against them?

But they did not consider adding to the equity capital........ why?

Was that because they were lulled into thinking that there was never going to be a downside to the profits from financial speculation?

The savings institutions of the Western Anglo Saxon financial community have, consistently, refused to accept any responsibility to invest in new equity to create new industry, making the argument that globalisation precluded the idea of continuing to invest equity into new manufacturing in their own nations rather than investing in another nations industrial capacity.

So instead they bought bonds paying a very high return against what can now be seen as disastrously weak capital structures.

And now you all come out and claim you have been robbed? Give me strength!

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: BRKG NEWS 6/9 1924: Chrylser and America dies Supreme Court Rejects Bondholders

And now you all come out and claim you have been robbed? Give me strength!

You make good arguments as to why bond holders should not complain of losses --appropriate to bond holders--.

But I don't see anything in your comments justifying breaking the long standing priority given to senior bond holders over most other claimants in a bankruptcy proceeding.

Even stupid or high risk investors have a right to lawful treatment.

[Chris Coles]

Re: BRKG NEWS 6/9 1924: Chrylser and America dies Supreme Court Rejects Bondholders

You make good arguments as to why bond holders should not complain of losses --appropriate to bond holders--.

But I don't see anything in your comments justifying breaking the long standing priority given to senior bond holders over most other claimants in a bankruptcy proceeding.

Even stupid or high risk investors have a right to lawful treatment.

Ok then, let us turn the question on its head; where does it say that in these particular circumstances the bond holders should have such priority? Quote me the law. Show me.

[Slimprofits]

Re: BRKG NEWS 6/9 1924: Chrylser and America dies Supreme Court Rejects Bondholders

This will destroy the corporate bond market

This has been repeated ad nauseum for a full four weeks since the news about the White House auto task force and Oppenheimer was first reported.

The market players haven't received the memo?

Full Speed Ahead For Corporate Bond Sellers, Buyers
By Kellie Geressy
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

U.S. dollar-denominated, high-grade supply totaled $113.4 billion in May, according to Dealogic, and given the current market environment, June is on track to top that.

"The buying frenzy continues unabated," according to Tom Murphy, sector leader and portfolio manager at RiverSource Investments. "We have heard June's calendar is going to be huge - and why not? The market is open to anyone and concessions are virtually nil."

High-grade volume totals $3.8 billion so far this month, Dealogic reports.

[Chris Coles]

Re: BRKG NEWS 6/9 1924: Chrylser and America dies Supreme Court Rejects Bondholders

It is important to add another point in that we may be about to see the end of the bond market in such a way that by market forces, not dialogue, the savings institutions are forced to return to the much more prudent investment policies of the Victorian era when the majority of new investment was centred upon the creation of new industry and the ongoing support of the capital base of existing new industry.

Bonds are another form of the present dilemma between a capital based society where equity capital is invested to create the most stable and arguably the most competitive industrial society within each of our nation's borders, and the idea, prevalent today, that you can ignore the capital and simply make lots of money from lending regardless of the long term difficulties caused by running an grossly under capitalised national industrial base.

But lending to a company is not capitalising the company and in that case, if you pretend that all you need to do is lend, you impoverish your own ability to invest through inattention to the fundamentals. Who needs to acknowledge the needs of the nation when you can duck the responsibility, (via convenient rules that preclude such), and lend, lend, lend......

The chicken called Humbug has just come home to roost.

[Slimprofits]

Re: BRKG NEWS 6/9 1924: Chrylser and America dies Supreme Court Rejects Bondholders

This is just another drop in a large bucket.

I gave up on not being blunt and offensive when making that point a long time ago. One thing that changed after 9/11 is that a lot of Americans caved in to the idea of big government. And the falsely revised history pisses me off.

[Chris Coles]

Re: BRKG NEWS 6/9 1924: Chrylser and America dies Supreme Court Rejects Bondholders

Thanks Babbittd, you have brought me down in flames. So the lending continues.

[thunderdownunder]

Re: BRKG NEWS 6/9 1924: Chrylser and America dies Supreme Court Rejects Bondholders

As a now, a disinterested person I have read the entire thread. I will ask you all a few questions -

Quote:
Chrysler and the Obama administration urged the Supreme Court to allow the sale to go forward and said a long delay could kill the deal, resulting in the automaker's liquidation and the loss of more than 38,000 jobs. Unquote:

1/. Three things in life should be separate : Church, State and the Judicial system.
You have a government that URGES your highest court in your land to allow the sale to go forward. Your courts are now subject to your governments whims. Interalia you have lost protection under the law as the law is subject to the direction/whim/urge of your Government.

2/ Bond holders : the word "bond" is a strong word - I urge all to look up a dictionary. Being a "secured bond holder" entitles you in all cases, up until now, to have "first Call" on the assets of any company that falls into liquidation (behind, of course the governments taxation people).

3/ Your Government sells "Bonds" which up until today meant they were the safest investment you could make - as good as cash - some say better than cash because they are secured by your countries government and thus your courts, land and people. Are they any longer?

This is, forgetting your constitution and amendments and your rights under the law, as guaranteed by such, the thin edge of the wedge. You no longer possess any power in a court of law. All that you thought was a check and balance under your "inalienable rights" has been removed from the court to those who URGE the Court as a third party. Courts of law and the good guidance of governments dictate that only TWO parties may present - those for and those against and a sound judgement made from the strength of each arguments. That is now, moved right, to a new era. Your courts may be Urged/ Coerced/ persuaded nay told to do the bidding of a third party.
does this sound about right

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
or this

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.(read TARP FART and BELCH)

or this

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. ( read Gitmo and rendering)

or this

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation

or this

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States (Gitmo/rendering)

or this

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent ( like it or not TARP FART and BURP will come out of your ass)

or this
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies ( well that just happened with this, as it is a standard law throughout the Free world)

or this

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments

or this

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

or this

A Prince(and his cohorts) whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

WAKE UP - your Fore Fathers bleed and died to secure the above -- be very careful that you DO NOT allow a bank /company/ financier/ elected government/ urged or coerced Court of Law, to take away your clear and prescient rights.

If you do you take away your only avenue of justice.

It has been warned of before in another time

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up. (Pastor Martin Niemoller)

or


Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all. (William Burke)

[Slimprofits]

Re: BRKG NEWS 6/9 1924: Chrylser and America dies Supreme Court Rejects Bondholders

I thought one of the more interesting machinations in the recent SCOTUS challenge related to Chrysler was this:

From: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/us-says...-courts-reach/

Does the Obama Administration telling the Supreme Court to "stay out of it" strike anyone else as more than a little strange?

disclaimer: I'm not at attorney and know almost nothing about bankruptcy laws or the bond market, but do think I know a little something about politics in the U.S.A. and how the game works. (feel free to quote that in the future, even cutting it off after "nothing")

That being said, this sounds like a technical argument and not a political argument such as "no court can touch us."

The funds, it added, cannot show that four Justices will vote to hear their challenge on the TARP issue, which involves an issue of how to interpret the federal economic recovery law — an issue that neither the bankruptcy court nor the Second Circuit ruled upon because of the funds’ lack of standing If that is so, Kagan wrote, “no federal court has jurisdiction to decide the merits of the challenge.” Moreover, she said, the law is only eight months old, and has not been interpreted by any federal court, so that, too, would indicate it is not ready for the Supreme Court’s attention.

[Slimprofits]

Re: BRKG NEWS 6/9 1924: Chrylser and America dies Supreme Court Rejects Bondholders

WAKE UP - your Fore Fathers bleed and died to secure the above -- be very careful that you DO NOT allow a bank /company/ financier/ elected government/ urged or coerced Court of Law, to take away your clear and prescient rights.

Most people over here just don't want to hear it yet.

Voting participation actually went up in 2008 over recent years. Alternative to the mainstream sources of information have been readily available for about a decade and we still failed to think outside the box in 2008. The Democrats won by repackaging their combo of "FIRE + leftist special interests" as the vague concept of "change" and their candidate had a much stronger personality.

I supported Ron Paul's efforts throughout the primary and in the end voted for Bob Barr on the Libertarian party. No way was I going to actually vote for McCain or Obama. But I did at the time think there was more of a chance for less further damage with Obama. Specifically, I think McCain would jump at the chance to put troops on the ground literally anywhere, he is too much of a loose cannon. Americans put this out of memory, but "The Maverick" was arguing front and center to insert them in Serbia right up until the very end.

[thunderdownunder]

Re: BRKG NEWS 6/9 1924: Chrylser and America dies Supreme Court Rejects Bondholders

HE is not Obama, HE uses governments, business , money and now courts.
HE is many but all act as one.

Do you think that one little pimpled faced poncy pommy prince pissed you off 250 years ago, No, like Obama he was just a puppet dancing to HE who was and is now. I know it hard but HE has littered history with many corpses in lust for power, corruption, greed, hunger, war, anarchy and empire.
HE is on your $1 greenback staring at you within a pyramid and the Latin speaks His name and HE is winning.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" (William Burke again)

Just a disinterested scholar of history watching, weighing and taking a side ;)

[Munger]

Re: BRKG NEWS 6/9 1924: Chrylser and America dies Supreme Court Rejects Bondholders

Yes, but the way I understand it, the prior Court's ruling holds. Doesn't this create precedent? Not every important decision comes from the SCOTUS. The fact that they won't hear the case, leaves the door wide open.

It creates no precedent (1) because they said so; (2) because they didn't touch the merits; (3) because it was not a ruling - it was a determination not to make a ruling.

It can't create precedent unless they make a ruling on the merits. There were no facts examined, no statements as to what these facts mean in terms of the law, etc etc. SCOTUS declines to hear thousands of cases every year. None can be cited as precedent.

[BadJuju]

Re: BRKG NEWS 6/9 1924: Chrylser and America dies Supreme Court Rejects Bondholders

Are you an attorney? Are you speaking with authority?

I have experience with the US legal system. A precedent can only be established through the ordeal of a case.