Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Oy

    Posted by Jonathan on June 9th, 2009 (All posts by )

    The Supreme Court has allowed the Chrysler takeover — and expropriation of bondholders’ equity — to go through.

     

    9 Responses to “Oy”

    1. Dan from Madison Says:

      Dammit! If you are a bondholder and have zero recourse, this spells doom for a LOT of companies. The interest rates that corporate paper will have to puke out will be astronomical and will cripple future development for many companies. I can only assume the same fate will be coming to the GM paper holders.

    2. Jonathan Says:

      I don’t know that there’s no recourse. But now there’s no recourse via the SC.

    3. Dan from Madison Says:

      I suppose the bondholders could sue but they have been meat so far, I don’t see that changing.

    4. Jose Angel de Monterrey Says:

      It looks like a Banana republic legal system, with an almighty and know-it-all government “saving” crooked, crumbling enterprises and later on nationalizing them, taking the established legal system under assault in the process. Kind of like you know who….Yes! you guessed right! Chavez!

    5. Ginny Says:

      Did any one out there think this much would happen this fast – did we suspect that the threat to nationalize the oil companies that came out, awkwardly, in Congress last year would not seem, well, not that unlikely?

    6. Shannon Love Says:

      The Supreme court didn’t rule on the merits of the case. It merely ruled on the stay. There’s still hope that in the future the Supreme court will strike down this kind of Banana Republic actions.

    7. Lexington Green Says:

      As expected.

    8. tomw Says:

      I read on some site that “It was so important that we do this … that it was morally correct to ignore the rule of law.” Paraphrased…

      Of course, when ballots in Minnesota were counted that should not have been, it was not proper to count the remaining ballots that had not been counted. “It does not make sense to correct a mistake by making more mistakes..” or some such.

      Bleeping convenient, I’d say.

      tom

    9. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      Shannon Love

      The Supreme court didn’t rule on the merits of the case. It merely ruled on the stay. There’s still hope that in the future the Supreme court will strike down this kind of Banana Republic actions.

      I respectfully disagree. In the last year or so there have been a number of issues which, if resolved appropriately by the court system; would have prevented a number of societal problems merely by being resolved. It has become the standard response of the courts to say that the plaintiff lacks standing, or that the request was improperly phrased, or some such. The interests of favored persons/groups are being protected by the courts who give the illusion of a due process safety valve, while avoiding enforcing the law. I fear that we are approaching the point where any semblance of being able to work through problems non-violently becomes impossible.

      Subotai Bahadur