Michelle Malkin » Chrysler and coercion

Chrysler and coercion

By Michelle Malkin • May 4, 2009 09:46 AM

Over the weekend, news broke about the Obama administration’s reported threats against an investment firm that opposed its union-friendly Chrysler bankruptcy plan.

Tom Lauria represents a few of the non-TARP Chrysler creditors. He reported the threats on WJR radio host Frank Beckmann’s radio show in Detroit:

Zero Hedge summarizes and surmises:

In an interview of momentous importance, WJR’s Frank Beckmann interviews Tom Lauria, the Head of Restructuring at top five law firm White & Case, in which the lawyer, who represents Chrysler hold-out hedge funds Stairway Capital and Oppenheimer Funds, discusses on the record the amazing treatment by the White House of Perella Weinberg, which initially had been a transaction hold out but after threats by the White House (not my words) was forced to drop their objection and go with the administration. Says Lauria:

“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 was Perella Weinberg.”

…The full interview with Tom Lauria below is a must hear for everyone as it discloses not only the administration’s strong arming tactics in black and white, but also discloses some other critical facts that the president on his regular TV appearances has failed to mention such as:

- First lien holders were willing to accept a 50% discount on their positions, however the 71% demanded by the administration was seen as too much.
- The cash going to Junior claims (creditors below the first liens) will be between $10 and $20 billion, a number which in practice should satisfy a par recovery for the 1st liens if the Absolute Priority Rule was actually withheld.
- Among the creditors are not just vulturous hedge funds but “pensioners, teachers, credit unions, college endowments, retirement plans, and personal retirement accounts.”

In conclusion, Lauria summarizes the developing Chryslerf#%k best:

“The President is trying to abrogate contractual rights; if he will attack that contractual right, what right will he not attack?”

The only surprise is that anyone is surprised. The coercion cow has been out of the barn for a while now.

Posted in: Barack Obama, Chrysler

Printer Friendly

comments (182)

trackbacks (28)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#694437

On May 5th, 2009 at 10:05 am, DBNinKY said:

On May 4th, 2009 at 8:17 pm, Ragspierre said:

Thank you for correcting me. I was mainly referencing a report WCBS.com posted a while back, that said of seven Gitmo detainees released back to their home countries in 2005, all but one was involved a bombing the resulted in many casualties. It boggles the mind how liberals continue to claim the majority of all detainees are innocent, when we have proof they are not.
#694467

On May 5th, 2009 at 10:29 am, Ragspierre said:

It boggles the mind how liberals continue to claim the majority of all detainees are innocent, when we have proof they are not.

Oh, but ALL of them were, doncha know…?

Darth Chaney turned them to the dark side during their stay at GITMO….!!!!
#694676

On May 5th, 2009 at 1:30 pm, right_on said:

Bill Clinton: “There is no relationship!”

“I will not raise your taxes to pay for these new programs.”

Barack H. Obama: “There is no coercion!”

“Under my proposals, 95% of taxpayers will receive a tax cut.”

Democrat lexicon necessitates the need to parse words.
#694692

On May 5th, 2009 at 1:48 pm, lgm said:

DBNinKY said (#179):

It boggles the mind how liberals continue to claim the majority of all detainees are innocent, when we have proof they are not.

You have proof, suspicion really, that some of the hundreds released were guilty. Without trials we never will know for sure. More to the point, most people who were detained at Gitmo have been released, presumably because someone thought they were innocent. Statistically speaking, it is likely that most of those remaining also are innocent, given that there never have been any trials.