Some people just have gall. Others have stones that would make William Wallace proud.
Creditors object to the way the restructuring benefits the United Auto Workers union, which is an unsecured creditor, for the $10.6bn Chrysler owes to its retiree healthcare fund.
In addition, they say the anonymity request is because they feel they are unfairly becoming the focus for a political backlash.
Unfairly, eh? Hmm.
An interesting perspective. I suspect that legally, these lenders may be technically correct. In fact, having worked for some time in the investment banking industry, and having also processed bankruptcy filings in the credit collection industry, I'm pretty confident they are.
However, I wonder if the bankruptcy courts might consider this precedent-setting approach germane: The debt obligation that Chrysler has incurred with the UAW Healthcare Fund has been 'secured' in advance through the years of prior labor contributions by the employee who is now entitled to those benefits? And perhaps there is no more 'senior' standing than that. Your mileage may vary, but it's certainly food for thought.
Perhaps someone could file an Amicus Curiae ("friend of the court") brief on this point of view...
And I'd be just as concerned about 'political backlash' if I were part of a overt effort to force Chrysler into bankruptcy just because I'm holding prioritized debt instruments from Chrysler as a 'Senior Secured Creditor'. I'm quite sure that, instead of gross grandstanding about the egregious profits they've made over the years, they're now worried that people will find out that in order to collect on their current 'winnings', they'll need to disenfranchise all those workers whose labor has enriched the inherent value of their current holdings.
Oh, and not that I'd be surprised but, if I were the judge on this case, I'd want to see the police reports on those 'death threats' before I gave that claim much traction.
Then again, we do live in interesting times.
No comments:
Post a Comment