A Vision of our Future

[Vern]

Lets review some of your spin and delusions
“contrary to bankruptcy law...the administration ignored secured creditors in favor of non-secure creditors (unions)”

“In a genuine Chapter 11 bankruptcy, these three groups of creditors would all be similarly situated “

“ I plainly laid out the facts about the GM Bankruptcy and how the government led settlement was contrary to bankruptcy law”

“The governments bail out of GM & Chrysler would be considered an unsecured loan. There was no collateral placed against the bailout money, none what so ever. “

“The Union pension plans, the government bailout and the stockholders bonds are all in the same category - unsecured creditors”

“you can see the government as a secured debtor all you want...the court and the law does not. You can see suppliers as an unsecured debtor all you want..the courts and the law does not. “

“The government the unions and the bond holders are all unsecured debtors with the government being the low man on the totem pole but yet they got the lions share of the ownership of GM, followed by the unions and then the bondholders got shafted. “

“Here are the Bankruptcy filings, the actual paperwork. Please note that the US Government is NOT listed as a secure creditor” (this is actually the funniest one because the govt clearly was listed as a secured creditor and DIP financier. God only knows what you read)

Okay, can we establish that you had no clue when your repeatedly and adamantly insisted that the
Govt was an unsecured creditor
suppliers were secured creditors
The govt was not a debtor in possession financier
That bondholders were screwed (and you never said it but we both know you thought that was illegal)

I proved that
UAW pension benefits get priority as an unsecured creditor

And with your help I proved
that the govt was the debtor in possession financier and hence SUPERPRIORITY and a secured creditor
suppliers were unsecured

There are two separate loans made to GM in the bailout. 1st was in 2008 and was part of TARP - that is the secured loan....which has been paid back in full...remember the commercial that the GM President took so much flack over? The 2nd loan, a much larger one made to them in March 2009, is unsecured and is not listed.

Now for your new and improved but still completely false narrative. Bush’s loan was not DIP financing. They retroactively tried to claim it was “debtor in possession” financing. (I’ll post the link tomorrow). President Obama’s loan was the “debtor in possession” financier. It’s just common sense that the loan in Dec 2008 was not DIP and the loan at the time of the bankruptcy was DIP. But as we see, it exceeds your knowledge level (as did other simple concepts of bankruptcy). But what proves it (and read this slowly so your brain cant trick you) is that in section section EXECUTION OF LOAN FACILITIES – U.S. AND CANADA of your link, Canada is clearly and explicitly listed as DIP financier. And guess what, Canada’s loan is not listed as secured or non secured creditor just like President Obama’s loan.

And this is where I have to tell you that you need help. Even with the facts you fight and struggle to remain ignornant of the truth.

Now I haven’t disproven your “363 sale is illegal”. Bondholders lost their court case claiming it was illegal. Do you have some super secret knowledge that nobody else has? Oh that’s right you don’t need any facts to post.

 

[Vern]

What laws were broken? - a 363 sale to yourself is illegal and has been illegal since the 1978 bankruptcy overhaul. I stated this law but like everything else you either didnt see it or chose to ignore it. .

do you literally make up everything you post. here's section 363. cut and paste the part where its illegal to sale to insiders

11 USC § 363 - Use, sale, or lease of property | Title 11 - Bankruptcy | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

Here's a study of Station Casino's bankruptcy. The 363 sale was to a company formed by insiders. creditors objected. sale approved

"is one of the latest examples of a case that focused attention on the fairness of the §363 sale process that allows insiders to acquire a business as a going concern while creditors are left unsatisfied."

http://www.daypitney.com/news/docs/dp_3445.pdf

And of course you need to make a case that the Treasury was an insider. so do what you do best, make up some facts and cling to them as if your life depended on it.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Lets review some of your spin and delusions

“In a genuine Chapter 11 bankruptcy, these three groups of creditors would all be similarly situated “ - Yes they would have.
The Bond Holders, The Unions Health Fund and the 2009 portion of the Bail Out (if it were included in the bankruptcy). All unsecured, all on equal footing under the law.
The Bond Holders would have been at the top of any repayment because they were owed the most - hence their placement at the top of the list of unsecured creditors followed by the Union Health Fund then the US Government. The $20B of Secured debt - the 2008 TARP bailout was secured but did not equate to the government giving itself 60% of GM.

“ I plainly laid out the facts about the GM Bankruptcy and how the government led settlement was contrary to bankruptcy law” - Yes, I did
Fact - They gave priority treatment to lesser owed unsecured creditors over higher owed unsecured creditors
Fact - The government gave itself 60% of GM for $20B owed to it (secured). The government should have gotten LESS than the other two.
Fact - They held a private 363 sale, in blatant violation of the 1978 bankruptcy reform. 363 Sales must be public. In addition, the 363 law doesnt usually pertain to a Ch 11 bankruptcy, a § 363 sale is permitted in lieu of a Chapter 11 plan where the sale is supported by “good business justification.”
The Second Circuit originally articulated its test in 1983 in In re Lionel Corp., where the court stated:

The rule we adopt requires that a judge determining a § 363(b) application expressly find from the evidence presented before him at the hearing a good business reason to grant such an application. In this case the only reason advanced for granting the request to sell Lionel's 82 percent stock interest in Dale was the Creditors' Committee's insistence on it. Such is insufficient as a matter of fact because it is not a sound business reason and insufficient as a matter of law because it ignores the equity interests required to be weighed and considered under Chapter 11.

So we know the private 363 sale was not for liquidation purposes, it couldnt be. Was it to remove some of the vendors, distributors and suppliers...who money was owed to on these things that were sold from secured creditors to unsecured creditors? If the equipment was sold at sale, there would be no lien on the equipment..no lien no secured creditor.

But why would they have a 363 sale AND a CH11 plan? a § 363 sale is permitted in lieu of a Chapter 11 plan remember?

“The governments bail out of GM & Chrysler would be considered an unsecured loan. There was no collateral placed against the bailout money, none what so ever. “
Fact - thats correct, none of the 2009 bailout money was secured, it is NOT even listed in the Bankruptcy filing I provided you with. Only the TARP money was listed.

“The Union pension plans, the government bailout and the stockholders bonds are all in the same category - unsecured creditors” - See previous response

“you can see the government as a secured debtor all you want...the court and the law does not...... - thats right. You can see the 2009 bailout as a secured loan all you want to, that doesnt make it so. If it was, wouldnt it be listed in the bankruptcy documents?

.... You can see suppliers as an unsecured debtor all you want..the courts and the law does not. “ - I was incorrect on this, I SHOULD have said Priority creditors. I made a mistake on this, I chose the improper wording. It does not change the fact that they didnt receive squat as priority creditors.

“The government the unions and the bond holders are all unsecured debtors with the government being the low man on the totem pole but yet they got the lions share of the ownership of GM, followed by the unions and then the bondholders got shafted. “ - as everyone has been saying all along...this administration turned this bankruptcy on its ear in favor of themselves and the union.

“Here are the Bankruptcy filings, the actual paperwork. Please note that the US Government is NOT listed as a secure creditor” (this is actually the funniest one because the govt clearly was listed as a secured creditor and DIP financier. God only knows what you read) - I guess I didnt make my self clear, maybe its me, when I read what I write I understand what I mean but others may not....let me clerify...the US Government is NOT listed in as a secured creditor or even as an unsecured creditor for the 2009 auto bailout money. This administration gave GM & Chrysler huge bailout money with no strings or security attached like was the case with the TARP bailout money.

Okay, can we establish that you had no clue when your repeatedly and adamantly insisted that the
Govt was an unsecured creditor - as far as the Auto Bailout they are NOT even listed as a creditor
suppliers were secured creditors - I admitted my wrong choice of words, I should have said priority creditors - my fault
The govt was not a debtor in possession financier - Referring to the Auto Bailout no, they werent.
That bondholders were screwed - yes they were
(and you never said it but we both know you thought that was illegal) - and you assume wrong.

I proved that
UAW pension benefits get priority as an unsecured creditor - sorry son, you didnt prove anything

And with your help I proved that the govt was the debtor in possession financier and hence SUPERPRIORITY and a secured creditor - no you didnt. What part dont you understand that the government did not put any security strings on the 2009 Auto Bailout? Hence why it was NOT listed in the bankruptcy filings. At least they did get it right with the TARP bailout and had security strings attached to it, hence why it IS listed in the bankruptcy filings.

No where in those filings will you find the 2009 bailout money. The agreement and rushing through of this bankruptcy has a lot of people scratching their heads wondering ...how? Was it a deal made to help rectify the fact no security was put on a loan worth 10's of billions of dollars and they had to get some justification for all the tax payer dollars used? Was it a - you accept this agreement or we will fight the bankruptcy kind of deal?

How did the government get 60% of GM only being owed $20B and others were owed quite a bit more?
Why were priority creditors listed as unsecured creditors?
Why are the unions in charge of the health care trust for retired old GM employees? They are not investors & market managers ...and when the last retired employee of the old GM goes into SS & Medicare and off the unions HC plan, why does the union get to keep the remaining money and remaining stock in the company....as a reward?
Why were the bondholders given so little when they were owed the most? (out of that group)

Why was the "new" GM allowed to privately purchase everything it wanted from the "old" GM? You cant purchase something from yourself privately during a bankruptcy to avoid it from liquidation, why was GM allowed to do it?

This whole thing stinks of back door deals, paying off and disregard for the laws.

You seem to be the only one saying it doesnt that everything is on the up and up. I can only lead you to the truth, its up to you to think.

Here is a review of the GM bankruptcy from the bankruptcy law review - GM Bankruptcy: At a Minimum Evades the Law . . . Clearly Does Not Support Chapter 11 Goals or Process | Bankruptcy Law Review

 

[Vern]

“In a genuine Chapter 11 bankruptcy, these three groups of creditors would all be similarly situated “ - Yes they would have.
The Bond Holders, The Unions Health Fund and the 2009 portion of the Bail Out (if it were included in the bankruptcy). All unsecured, all on equal footing under the law.
The Bond Holders would have been at the top of any repayment because they were owed the most - hence their placement at the top of the list of unsecured creditors followed by the Union Health Fund then the US Government. The $20B of Secured debt - the 2008 TARP bailout was secured but did not equate to the government giving itself 60% of GM

AMAZEBALLS. You just repeated that the Govt was an unsecured creditor and with your totally delusioinal "bush loan =secured" and "President Obama = unsecured". I'm sorry Imnu, you need professional help. Don't post another delusional word until you can explain why President Obama's loan and Canada's loan does not show up on the Unsecured Debtor list.

 

[Vern]

as I stated, the Bush loan was not DIP or secured. They tried to retroactively make it DIP.

"
It seems like Treasury now realizes that it did a terrible job structuring its loans to GM and Chrysler, as I wrote at the time. (Of course, this assumes that the government was looking to recover the loans, not just make a gift to the auto companies.) The loan agreement gives the government a second or third priority security interest. That's not the safest spot in the world, especially on collateral that is pretty worthless outside of the auto companies as going concerns (who else wants a 200,000 sq. foot plant in Flint, Michigan?), and there's a good chance that the companies would eventually liquidate in bankruptcy.

Now Bloomberg reports that the government hired Cadwalader last month to help establish its place at the front of the line for repayment. They hired a law firm after they lent the money?!!! WTF?!!!
"
Treasury Recognizes GM/Chrysler Loan SNAFU - Credit Slips

now for the people who care about the facts, it was the Bush loan that guaranteed that nobody was going to loan GM 40 billion in bankruptcy if they were going to have to fight with the govt for priority. yet another fact that lying con editorials never mention.

 

[Vern]

er uh Imnu, I don't mean to be a bother but can you please come back and admit you had no idea what you were posting. It would go a long way toward establishing your integrity and that all conservatives are not an ignorant base determined to destroy America and democracy by ridiculously clinging to ideology over the facts.

thanks in advance

 

[iguanaman]

UPDATE 2-Poland reduces public debt through pension funds overhaul | Reuters

Work hard, save, and the govt will come and take it for themselves.

Only if you live in Poland though. No one here would be stupid enough to take anyone's money to pay off Federal debt. There is no reason.

 

[Blue_State]

That won't happen here. Any politician who supported that in the US would be committing political suicide.

How many other things have we said that about? The first one to come to mind is the Patriot Act.

 

[Blue_State]

Only if you live in Poland though. No one here would be stupid enough to take anyone's money to pay off Federal debt. There is no reason.

They take our money every April. Why is this a sacred cow?

 

[iguanaman]

They take our money every April. Why is this a sacred cow?

Your not one of those that think paying taxes is theft are you?
Poland took pension money to pay off some of their debt. I just said we don't need to pay our debt so that will never happen.

 

[Blue_State]

Your not one of those that think paying taxes is theft are you?
Poland took pension money to pay off some of their debt. I just said we don't need to pay our debt so that will never happen.

Then why do I pay taxes?