Supreme Court Blocks Chrysler sale to Fiat

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by drjekyllus, Jun 8, 2009.


    - Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Monday delayed Chrysler's sale of most of its assets to a group led by Italy's Fiat, but didn't say how long the deal will remain on hold.
    Ginsburg said in an order that the sale is "stayed pending further order," indicating that the delay may only be temporary.

    Chrysler LLC has said the sale must close by June 15, or Fiat Group SpA has the option to walk away, leaving the Auburn Hills, Mich., automaker with little option but to liquidate. "

    I thought this whole thing moved way to fast. Obama and his cronies are not going to be able to pressure the Supreme Court the same way they did the lower courts. The whole argument that they have to rush because Fiat can back out after June 15 stinks to high hell. There are serious Constitutional concerns here and they shouldn't be rushed just because.
  2. It is about time someone stood up and thwarted these actions.

    The news mentioned a ruckus between Summers and Bernanke.

    Just watch, this loser won't even be able to control his cabinet soon.
  3. I'm not yet optimistic that the court will really stand up for secured creditors. Although I do doubt that the administation will threaten the justices in the manner they did Perella Winebreg, et all (by threatening to slander their reputations with the full force of their office and the pres corps).

    It's a nice gesture to consider constitutionality of all the Obama horeshit, but I'm not sure that's even what they're doing.

    Aren't they bound to review just the constitutionality of the appealed case (which was based on some lame technicality like "car makers aren't eligible for TARP $ becasue of some relatively unspecific language in the TARP bill, and by some esoterical extension this 363 sale is not in the spirit of the law").

    I wish they would instead be examining the constitutionality of 363 sales. That might actually do some good.
  4. \

    Protectionism at its most paranoid.

    What else would happen to Chrylser. They are BK. Get it?

  5. Of course they are bankrupt. The issue is a pres. hellbent on overstepping his bounds.
  6. The main argument that they are making is that the deal favors the unsecured stakeholders over the the secured debtholders. This flies in the face of contract law. Bigtime.

    One of the arguments, as you noted was the use of TARP funds in the deal. The TARP funds were supposed to be used to help finanical companies deal with all their toxic assets, it was not supposed to be used to bailout a car company. Its a misapproriation of funds.

    Who knows what the the Supreme Court will actually do, but the fact that they delayed the deal is a good sign.