Comments on: Delay, Not Denial

By: Taxpayer 834512

Taxpayer 834512 — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 06:44:24 +0000

Professor of Finance at IU's Kelly School of Business, Steven Jones, had a Sunday Star letter that was both illuminating and reaffirming. His contention is that Chrysler's Chapter 11 bankruptcy is not to be “strictly enforced” as in Chapter 7, to make sure “senior creditors be paid in full before jurior creditors receive anything.” Instead, Chapter 11 is, “…to reorganize the debtor (Chrysler) into a new economically viable firm…Thus, the court's recognition of the UAW as a key vendor…”. (Very condensed version).
.
Professor Jones also has concerns in the same ballpark as my original post: “So the Chapter 11 reorganization was defly manuipulated to the benefit of a particular creditor class, in a manner that will make it more expensive to raise secured debt in the future, expecially in heavily unionized industires.”
Professor

By: Taxpayer 834512

Taxpayer 834512 — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 01:44:24 +0000

By: Think Again

Think Again — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:04:24 +0000

And your opinion is well-known Abdul, and mostly appreciated.

Still the comparison was a cheap shot.

By: Abdul Hakim-Shabazz

Abdul Hakim-Shabazz — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:13:21 +0000

TA,

I was a “spokesman” for voter ID to the extent they used my voice in voice-over work and my image with a bunch of other folks.

And if you recall, it wasn’t so much about promoting voter ID, as it was letting people know it was the law and what they needed to do to comply with it. It was the equivalent of doing a seat belt PSA>

Also, I am a talk show host but I have an opinion I express regularly. Everyone knows this so it’s no big secret.

By: Think Again

Think Again — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:07:53 +0000

No outside counsel was hired, to my knowledge, to defend the Voter ID suit. There’s no way the SOS’s “time effort and resources” totaled $2.3 million or more.

Abdul I’m glad to stand corrected on the compensation thing. I could’ve sworn you said you got paid, but it was a small amount. Nonetheless, you were a spokesperson for the Voter ID law, so, as such, your opinion on the issue is slanted. I’m still trying to figure out why a news talk show host would do such a commercial, paid or not.

Someone please answer the central question”: why was Murdock invested in auto bonds at all? Stupid move.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:12:01 +0000

It isn’t everyone’s interest — those with entrenched pockets will lose if there are two viable and competitive companies. One or none would be better.

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:06:05 +0000

This lawsuit had as much to do with GM as it did with Chrysler.

It was a warning shot to insure a more equitable deal at both GM and Chrysler for investors and employees.

Each company is a major employer in Indiana, has huge payrolls, pays health and retirements benefits to thousands of retirees, in addition to state pension funds large investments in this industry for better or worse.

It is in EVERYONES interest to have two very viable and competitive companies emerge from this restructuring or EVERYONE will lose.

By: Mathman

Mathman — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:44:08 +0000

“Think again” is completely correct, any cost benefit analysis would have stopped Murdock dead in his tracks. The pension funds lost approx $6 Million dollars. If he had won his case, here’s what have happened:

1) Chrysler would be liquidated, which means that the Indiana bonds would probably get even less than before, even possibly getting nothing.

2) Legal fees for the process including a Supreme Court hearing would likely be $3-4 Million, which means now the pension funds have lost 9-10 million instead of just 6.

3) The lose of all of those Chrysler jobs would be a huge payroll hit to Indiana. The State would lose the income taxes from that payroll, the sales tax from those people not being able to buy anything, and then the State would have had to pay unemployment to all of those workers. My very conservative estimate the other day was that in the first year alone a Murdock victory would cost the State $125 Million in the above mentioned costs. That doesn’t include collateral damage of parts makers and dealers going out of business either.

Murdock was an absolute fool.

By: Abdul

Abdul — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:32:42 +0000

Anon,

The state had to spend time, effort and resources defending the Voter ID suit.

By: Anon

Anon — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:30:42 +0000

The voter id challenge was not paid for with public dollars. Big difference.