• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Mob like intimidation at WH, on Crysler deal

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
So much for the Rule of Law, or morals.

Tom Lauria: "Let me tell you it's no fun standing on this side of the fence opposing the President of the United States. In fact, let me just say, people have asked me who I represent, and that's a moving target.

I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House, and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That's how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence.

http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/lawyer-for-chrysler-lenders-whitehouse.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GPNvjec-DA&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhotairpundit%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F2009%2F05%2Flawyer%2Dfor%2Dchrysler%2Dlenders%2Dwhitehouse%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
" One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House"

Is that the change you liberals wanted? What is the justification for this?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
" One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House"

Is that the change you liberals wanted? What is the justification for this?

Where's the proof of this action?

I don't mean 'hear-say'....I mean FACTS!!!!
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
almost sounds like outing Bank executives, and their bonuses.

«now go back to the Obama press conference and listen to what he said about the deal
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Sandhusker said:
" One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House"

Is that the change you liberals wanted? What is the justification for this?

Where's the proof of this action?

I don't mean 'hear-say'....I mean FACTS!!!!

What would you accept as being fact?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Kola, if you feel comfortable having your government act in this manner, by all means, don`t even look at what is going on.

«if it`s a good thing, then more of it should be better.


«you should move to Venesuela, that`s how they govern there too.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Kola, if you feel comfortable having your government act in this manner, by all means, don`t even look at what is going on.

«if it`s a good thing, then more of it should be better.


«you should move to Venesuela, that`s how they govern there too.



I'm asking for hard actual REAL proof that a threat was made. FACTS....not this crap you cut and past.

You got a problem with FACTS...real ones???


FACT FACTS FACTS....no just some cry baby crap of someone who got cut outta the loop on a deal.


FACTS...no YouTube or bloggers......legal, stand up in court style FACTS


If Sandy's got'em.....show'em
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Sandhusker said:
" One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House"

Is that the change you liberals wanted? What is the justification for this?

Where's the proof of this action?

I don't mean 'hear-say'....I mean FACTS!!!!

This if from the NY Times:

Peter A. Weinberg and Joseph R. Perella are part of a band of Wall Street renegades — “a small group of speculators,” President Obama called them Thursday — who helped bankrupt Chrysler.

In fact, Mr. Weinberg and Mr. Perella, with sparkling Wall Street pedigrees, are the epitome of white-shoe investment bankers. And their boutique investment bank, a latecomer to Chrysler, played only a small role in the slow-motion wreck of the Detroit carmaker.

But now the two men, along with a handful of other financiers, are being blamed for precipitating the bankruptcy of an American icon. As Chrysler’s fate hung in the balance Wednesday night, this group refused to bend to the Obama administration and accept steep losses on their investments while more junior investors, including the United Automobile Workers union, were offered favorable terms.

In a rare flash of anger, the president scolded the group Thursday as Chrysler, its options exhausted, filed for bankruptcy protection. “I don’t stand with those who held out when everyone else is making sacrifices,” Mr. Obama said.

Chastened, and under intense pressure from the White House, the investment firm run by Mr. Weinberg and Mr. Perella, Perella Weinberg Partners, abruptly reversed course. In a terse statement issued shortly before 6 p.m. Thursday, Perella Weinberg Partners announced it would accept the government’s terms.

It was too late.

Whether the other Chrysler holdouts will capitulate as well remained unclear. At least one, OppenheimerFunds, insisted it would not back down.

But whatever the outcome, this bit of brinkmanship — which many characterized as a game of chicken with Washington — has become yet another public relations disaster for Wall Street.

Representatives for Perella Weinberg, which is advising the government on a wide range of banking issues, initially defended the firm’s decision to rebuff the government’s offer. They characterized the move as a principled stance against the administration’s growing intrusion into American business. Many in the financial and in the legal worlds said the investors were within their rights to challenge the proposal.

OppenheimerFunds, in a statement, said: “Our holdings in secured Chrysler debt are entitled to priority in long-established U.S. bankruptcy law, and we are obligated to our fund shareholders to support agreements that respect these laws.”

But now that Chrysler has tipped into bankruptcy, some industry executives worry the administration will try to turn this episode to its political advantage. Washington, these people contend, needed some political cover for the mess in Detroit — and Wall Street provided a handy scapegoat. A move is already afoot to tighten oversight of hedge funds and end certain tax benefits for private investments funds. The Chrysler bankruptcy, and Wall Street’s role in it, will make resisting those efforts more difficult.

What is striking to many in financial circles is how much Chrysler’s reluctant creditors gambled for what is, in the scheme of this bankruptcy, a relatively small amount of money.

After weeks of increasingly rancorous negotiations, Perella Weinberg and 17 other financial firms — including OppenheimerFunds and Stairway Capital, a hedge fund that specializes in troubled companies — rejected the administration’s plan. It was, they argued, simply unfair.

These investors together hold about $1 billion of Chrysler’s secured debt. The Treasury offered to pay all of Chrysler’s senior lenders $2.25 billion in cash if they forgave most of the company’s debts. Perella Weinberg and the others demanded more, arguing they would receive at least that much, and possibly more, under ordinary bankruptcy proceedings.

But this is no ordinary bankruptcy. JPMorgan Chase and other large banks involved in the negotiations are, to greater and lesser degrees, beholden to Washington. Many have received billions of taxpayer dollars, as well as other generous subsidies. For the banks, defying the administration was never a serious option, according to people close to the talks with lenders, who asked not to be identified because they had signed confidentiality agreements.

The other creditors, who sought to distinguish themselves from those who have received bailout money, believed they had a stronger hand. Many of them bought Chrysler debt for about 30 cents on the dollar, long after it became clear that the company was in trouble. Most of this debt is secured by Chrysler assets — factories, equipment, real estate and the like. The thinking was that in the worst case, these assets could be sold at a profit if Chrysler were liquidated.

The dissident creditors said they had a fiduciary responsibility to seek the best possible returns for their own investors — which, the group said, include teachers’ unions, pension funds and endowments.

“The government has risked overturning the rule of law and practices that have governed our world-leading bankruptcy code for decades,” the group said in a statement Thursday. The creditors suggested banks that had received bailout money were being strong-armed by the administration, a view some of the bankers privately said they shared.

Now, however, Perella Weinberg and others will have to see what the bankruptcy court decides the creditors should get. If the other holdouts object to the reorganization plan — and it was unclear whether they would — they stand little chance of prevailing in court, bankruptcy lawyers said. The administration hopes to complete the proceedings within 60 days, and the political pressure to go along is unlikely to let up.

“Saying they have an uphill battle is an understatement,” said John C. LaLiberte, a bankruptcy lawyer with the firm Sherin & Lodgen.

Even those involved in the negotiations see little upside in fighting. “There’s zero chance this group will be able to get anything more in bankruptcy court given that 90 percent of the lenders are lined up against them,” said a hedge fund manager who owns about $10 million of Chrysler’s secured debt and voted for the government’s proposal.

Even before Chrysler filed for bankruptcy, another member of the group, Elliott Management, also accepted the government’s deal. In a six-line statement proclaiming its U-turn, Perella Weinberg said its Xerion Fund would do the same.

“We believe that this is in the best interests of all Chrysler stakeholders, and our own investors and partners,” the firm said Thursday.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Ironic isn't it, using mob like tactics to force Italian ownership to save an American company?

I decided to give Chrysler and Fiat 30 days to reach an agreement. The standard I set was high: I challenged them to design a plan that would protect American jobs, American taxpayers, and the future of a great American car company.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/04/30/Transcript-of-Obamas-remarks-on-Chrysler/UPI-33031241115928/

"You’re not looking at economics; this is what’s confusing about the whole thing. It’s not an economic equation. It’s a political solution they’re looking for."

http://www.chroniclejournal.com/stories_business.php?id=182606
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
New Allegations Of White House Threats Over Chrysler
John Carney|May. 5, 2009, 12:33 PM|comment115


The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say they were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person described the administration as the most shocking "end justifies the means" group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was "the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger." Both were voters for Obama in the last election.

One participant in negotiations said that the administration's tactic was to present what one described as a "madman theory of the presidency" in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm.

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-allegations-of-white-house-threats-over-chysler-2009-5
 

Mike

Well-known member
The Left don't care. :roll:

They are so infatuated and blinded by Zer0, they fail to see what's before them. :lol:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Looks like Obama is going to have to show how well he knows Constitutional Law

III. The Taking of Collateral through a Direct or Indirect Use of TARP Authority is Unconstitutional.

http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2009-05/Lauria-5thamendment.pdf
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Mike said:
The Left don't care. :roll:

They are so infatuated and blinded by Zer0, they fail to see what's before them. :lol:

How can they not care.

They have an administration that threatens a secured creditor with public humilation and ruin, if they don't take 29% on the dollar.

Then the Bankruptcy judge forces them to reveal their names, so they can receive death threats from the government subsidized "brown shirts" and be demonized in the press.

All so the common share holder UAW can take taxpayer's $7Billion dollars and run off with 55% of Chrysler.

And all this to save an American company. Looks more like the organized destruction on an American company.

If they don't speak up about this, then they may just deserve it when it is done to them as private citizens!

They are watching a perfect example of Tyranny, and they won't speak up!
 
Top