Dealergate continued: More on Chrysler and Clinton cronyism
Zero Hedge covers a court hearing involving terminated Chrysler dealers with some follow-up on its previous analysis of Dealergate and possible Clinton-tied cronyism in Arkansas.
Tyler Durden points to one very interesting declaration from Ethel L. Cook, a Chrysler dealer based in Little Rock. Click on his post for the PDF link to the full testimony, but here’s an excerpt:
Having reviewed the pattern of assumption and rejection of dealers throughout their region, I have detected a pattern: In every market where there is a dealership connected with former Penske Automotive executive Steve Landers, or his new automotive partnership with “Mac” McLarty (former Chief of Staff for President Clinton) and Robert L. Johnson (majority owner of the Charlotte Bobcats), the competitors are rejected.
In the Little Rock, Landers Chrysler Dodge Jeep is located far out of town in Benton, Arkansas. Nevertheless, the two Little Rock dealers, Cook and Crain were rejected.
In the Fayetteville, Arkansas area, Landers-McLarty Dodge Chrysler Jeep is located far out of town in Bentonville, Arkansas. Competitors Springdale Dodge Chrysler, Steve Smith County Jeep and Jones Brothers were all rejected.
In the Shreveport, Louisiana market, Lee’s Summit Dodge Chrysler Jeep (a Landers McLarty dealership) is located in Bossier City, Louisiana. Both competitive dealers, Claude de Beaux in Vivian, Louisiana and Greater Birmingham Dodge Chrysler in Shreveport were rejected.
In the Springfield, Missouri market, Tri-Lakes Motors (a Landers-McLarty dealership) is located in Branson, Missouri. Competitors Heritage Chrysler Jeep in Ozark, Missouri and Ramsay Motor Company in Harrison, Arkansas were rejected. A pattern seems to be emerging. Everywhere there is a Landers-McLarty dealership, Chrysler has rejected the competition.
In the Huntsville, Alabama market, Landers McLarty Dodge Chrysler Jeep, is located in Huntsville. Competitor Cloverleaf Chrysler Dodge Jeep was rejected.
Favoritism and cronyism towards preferred dealer group is not a valid exercise of business judgment.
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
- Which Chrysler dealerships got shut down? Heavy GOP donors! - Big Obama donors keep their dealerships and get competition eliminated! | Clinton Shenanigans? | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- A New Governmental Start-Up Business « Vets On The Watch
- Culture Of Corruption Continues « Vets On The Watch
- Obama states that the Constitution was written 20 centuries ago: why political satire and humor is important « Jim Blazsik
- Thursday, June 4, 2009: Daily Handpicked Headlines :: Daily Uprising :: Join the Conservative Counter-Revolution!
- Is This The Plan For The Auto Industry? « Around The Sphere
- Live Transcripts Of Chrysler Terminated Dealers Hearing | Bear Market Investments
- The Case for Impeaching Obama « Rosita the Prole
- Dealergate Continued: The Clinton Crony Connection | Obama Exposure
- In the Auto Dealer Closures, The Plot Thickens… « Grand Rants
- The Chrysler Car Dealership problem « Smart and silly
- The Last Leg of the Chrysler Bankruptcy « NEOAVATARA
- Obama Ignoring the ‘Flawed’ U.S. Constitution: Confiscating Private Property – Chrysler Dealerships – Without Due Process (Updated) « Quick Daily Hits — Politics and Such
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Chrysler, Dealergate
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
TigerHawk
» Negative equityAmerican Thinker
» Sarah Palin and the low ebb of the cultural leftRedstate
» Morning Briefing for November 24, 2009Doug Ross @ Journal
» ACORN pwnage part II: Breitbart's BigGovt Lowers the BoomBig Government
» BREAKING: San Diego ACORN Document Dump ScandalVillainous Company
» Amateur Hour in the Oval Office Continues....
it’s the chicago business way! al capone built a hell of a business by driving his competitors out of business, and barack has always run his competitors out of business in his illinois campaigns. this time, he convinced his chicago cronys in acorn and the rainbow coalition to “migrate” to indiana, ohio, missouri, etc. as illinois was sewn up.
I do hate to bring this up, but it would be interesting to see the RACIAL makeup of the Chrysler Dealership owners… and which are being kept, and which having their deal broken.
My guess is that this is much more a “multicultural” thing, than a business, or even political patron, type of action.
I hope to goodness this can be proved and the closed dealerships can get legal advice to recover in court. We citizens have to take these thugs to court under oath.
L
“Empathy”…
If Ms. Cook’s comments are verified, and there is not a VERY good reason for this pattern, I’d say you have a smoking gun.
Obama’s vaunted “judgment” isn’t as sound as his slobbering sycophants have advertised. Nor is his intelligence as superior as they claimed.
Who is this man?
1968 – Lyndon Johnson – Vietnam
2009 – Barack Obama – GM/Chrysler Bailout
By the time this is over with, Obama is going to wish he never got involved. But this is what happens when you have to meet the demands of the constituencies that got you elected.
Enjoy trying to sell desireable, competetiove cars, while appeasing your contributors, the UAW, and the Green Movemment.
Might ‘The One’ be the first sitting U.S. President to testify under oath in U.S. Bankruptcy Court?
Could the dealship issue cause tie ups in the bankruptcy proceedings?
Is more like it.
I’d say that it amounts to criminal behavior. Clinton’s influence is crystal clear. It doesn’t matter if there’s an email, phone call, or any other traceable connection. They are keeping the dealerships of a Clinton crony open while shutting down the others.
You want to bet that any dealership with ANY connection to a Democrat is being spared? How about Murtha’s PA district? Does Biden or Pelosi have any pals in the car biz?
Democrats seize these opportunities. I have no doubt that just about every Dem in office is working to get any dealership run by a supporter spared….while seeing to it that the remaining dealerships are left out to dry.
So yeah, you can bet the ranch that this goes WAY beyond Clinton’s pals.
Do we have numbers on if the closed dealerships were generating better numbers, employing more workers… anything that would add more teeth to the favoritism claim? I have no doubt that these guys were protected by O’s crew, but if they have any business reason, however small, to hang their hat on, the mainstream media will play that up and ignore the cronyism.
How are they going to sell cars if they close all the dealerships? What’s the dealerships got to do with restructuring the manufacturer? I would think you would need all the dealerships you could get in order to sell the all the supply that nobody is demanding. Or is that too much common sense?
Good question. Answered, pretty well here, I think.
Now just throw in the eco-equivalents of the Trabant the enlighted new owners are imposing and you have all the information you need to understand how attractive Toyota stock is going to be.
Yes indeed!
Flyoverman said (#7):
Except for the casualties, the atrocities, the surrender, … .
Maybe Watergate is a better analogy?
Yeah, I’m starting to like those Toyota Tundra pickups.
Wait until you see how much money GM loses by pushing cars like the “volt” and shelving or de-emphasizing their SUV and pickup lines.
Ditto.
I thought about a Ford, but the UAW is involved there too, so I’m re-thinking my options.
I am going to miss my Silverado though.
Chap, that analysis is pretty weak if you ask me. The final sales price is really irrelevant to the automaker because any profit over and above what the dealer paid for the car goes to the dealer, not the automaker. And the dealer is responsible for training sales people, not the automaker. Now granted there is some overhead attached to service training and advertising, but that is pretty minimal. Bottom line, dealers are a net profit center for Automakers, not cost centers. Cutting out profit centers is a recipe for failure regardless of your business model.
Further there does not appear to be a clear pattern of profitability among those kept vs those who were cut. So making a case that it was only the poorly performing dealers that were cut is a real stretch. A number of very profitable dealers are being let go and a number of marginal and unprofitable ones are being kept.
As to the questions concerning the racial make-up of the dealers being cut versus the ones being kept, for the minority owned dealerships, it looks like the closures are falling mostly on the backs of hispanic owned dealers far more than black owned dealers.
Doug Ross has been covering this fairly heavily, you should keep an eye on his blog.
Oh, and Nick Silver and Olberloon inadvertently proved the validity of the partisan analysis while trying to wave their hands and disprove it.
Here is one more point that needs to be considered here. The US government will spend something like $100 billion dollars bailing out GM, possibly more. We’ve already spent over $80 billion. but in the entire company’s history it has never been valued at more than $53 billion. So before this is over we will have spent possibly as much if not more than TWICE what the company is worth, and we will still have no reason to believe that it will continue to survive, and the likelihood that we make even the smallest fraction of that money back is ludicrous.
This is the TEXTBOOK definition of throwing good money after bad.
Yes it could, I guess, from a particular perspective. Agreed, if you think of it in terms of similar events, they are VERY disimilar.
I was thinking about was the apparent similarity in Johnson’s and Obama’s single minded obsession to become personally responsible for a huge, complex problem their egos thought they could fix. With Vietnam, the more Johnson, who was a politician not a soldier or diplomat, micro-managed, the worse it got and the more obvious a disaster it became.
I see Obama with his ego and his utter lack of business skills being drawn into the same kind of cycle. This situation is rapidly becoming the personal mokey on his back and given what’s transpired to date, this car is heading over the cliff. It is a thing like this that sneaks up on a President and destroys a presidency.
The other day I had a letter in my local paper stating the conditions that I demand be met before I would ever buy a GM car again. No need to list the all the reasons here. But the first was repayment of bailout money and the last was official investigation of the dealer closure guidelines. Ours is a small paper in a small city, but the comments seem to be nearly 50% agreeing with me. As i said there, If I am buying from a car company that did not take bailout funds I am certainly still helping the local and national economy. A few people have taken me to task and in return I ask if when they need parts for their GM car, or any other car for that matter, do the go with
“Genuine GM” (or Ford, Toyota, Honda)parts or do they just run down to Auto Zone and buy much cheaper and just as good parts? Sometimes you just have to have principles. Just like with financial institutions. I can’t do anything about my mortgage, but I did get out of my bank and join a credit union. I also got rid of my Capital One card, being sure to tell them why. Sorry for being longwinded, but this crappola is really getting to me.
So this guy thinks by having fewer dealerships Chrysler will sell more cars? Hello – it’s perceived quality and value…
I was a fairly devoted Penske racing team fan until I saw this.
Umm, sorry to break it to you, but we manufacturers spend $millions in training development and delivery every year. All the dealers have to do is attend, and this includes sales training.
Have you ever seen an ad budget for either the dealer or manufacturer? The overhead is pretty minimal? And we manufacturers have to support the asd budgets of our dealer body by sharing costs. IT AIN’T CHEAP.
Sorry, man, but this is what I do. Supporting dealers is not cheap, despite them shouldering most of their own costs. When we have unprofitable dealers we are unprofitable in that market. Shedding dead weight is better for us, not worse.
Now I’m not saying Chrysler is shedding the right dealers. They may indeed be making decisions for purely political reasons. But please do not confuse the issue based on incorrect information.
zoom zoom
That’s a good point, assuming that the intent of this administration is to sustain a legitimate business environment. Having said that, it does still come down to people choosing to buy these lemons, and many will refuse. But that will probably mean even more subsidies for the loser car companies. You’ll buy a Cad-O-lack whether you choose to drive it or not.
It makes sense to say that Obama is stupid about business and economic matters, but only if you assume that he isn’t trying to destroy the American economy.
Ha! So you’re on record that your beloved Democrat War-On-Poverty mastermind, LBJ:
- involved us in a non-winnable
quagmire of a “war”
- oversaw the administration of
atrocities committed by U.S soldiers
- set us up for a disgraceful
surrender
…which ruined any chance for a second term.
Thanks for pointing that out. Hahaha!
Barney’s Frank keeps obsolete Massachusetts GM plant open
As expected, GM will be run completely as a political operation, with ‘business decisions’ made based on politics, not economics or return for the US taxpayer who’ll be in about $80 billion keeping the UAW’s contracts safe.
Benito Hussein Obama has to find a way to force the work-force in foreign owned US auto plants, like the Toyota Tundra factory in San Antonio, into the UAW, to make those vehicles as expensive and an unreliable as UAW built vehicles.
The new CAFE standards are one way, I guess, to try to equalize the market, but Toyota has a hybrid version Camry, and seems to have the edge on high MPG vehicles that are comfortable to ride and drive in.
Card Check becomes a huge priority.
Even if the closures had been 100% random, since they certainly do NOT reflect “highest gross sales and best customer service”… the odds of these 6 dealerships remaining open while all of their local competition are closed is less than 1/10000000 of 1%. Let me repeat that figure:
Less than one ten-millionth of one percent.
Production of the Toyota Tacoma I think just went from Fremont, CA to Mexico, but I am willing to be corrected.
Chaps, I think that clearly violates anti-trust/anti-competition law in both federal and state statutes.
Please explain why you think it does not.
I also read the statements of GM and Chrysler execs yesterday, and most of it did not hold water at all…in the least.
Comments?
This is another extremely dubious unsupported assertion. It is demonstrably ANTI-GREEN, as it presupposes people will have to drive more miles for service/repair/car purchases.
If you follow Ms. Cook’s statement in MM’s lead, one thing that strikes you is that the dealerships in population centers were targeted for closing, while those in smaller areas were kept open if they were owned by the right people.
The point about GMAC facing lower risks is also just silly. No matter who, or how many dealerships, the auto-maker floors units of production to, they face identical risks. Moreover, the auto-makers will have the same number of unsold units in inventory, regardless of where they sit. Putting them on the books of their financing companies is mostly a book-keeping entry that allows the parent company to show lower debt loads.
I personally think he will be in a few other courts as well. Not to mention the most important one to him – one where he can dribble in his shorts…the basketball court.
If that were true the dealers would already be closed. Duh.
Dead on, Marco…
PLUS, nobody needs to kill off marginal dealerships. The market will do that very nicely, if it is permitted to work.
Of course, we left that model of economics when we voted in November…
I love Dodge mini vans, but when these die…hello kia
Watergate is only analogous with Meme Roosevelts singing – not much of a crime but still a horrible offense to the ears.
No – for Obama think: Benito Mussolini with a bigger ego and an uglier wife
Jessie Jackson had it right. It takes a “Shakedown Artist” to know one.
Same thought crossed my mind when I skimmed the article.
It gives the impression that these dealership closings might even be good for the manufacturers.
If that’s the case, why didn’t the manufacturers close them a long time ago?
Contracts. It takes an act of Congress to close down an underperforming dealer. When a manufacturer is already strapped for cash, they can’t afford the court costs they would acrue if they started terminating dealers.
Much like they are doing now, the dealers would fight like dogs to stay open. It doesn’t make any sense to me, as I was working for one before I joined the manufacturer. They asked for our franchise back several times, but the owner refused, even though he was losing his butt on that store. It did provide write-offs for his F–d store, however.
What is different now is the official bankruptcy. Now they can get out of underperforming contracts with some degree of protection.
Believe me, most carmakers have dealers they’d love to get rid of. Why the dealers doggedly stay around is beyond me.
zoom zoom
Wait, so dealerships with ties to Penske are getting off easy?
AP is now saying that Roger Penske is going to buy Saturn. How could anyone want to own a car company when the Chrysler/GM black hole is now on the verge of consuming the entire car market? Only someone with the right connections could….oh, never mind.
No, it just takes the election of a truly evil dictator with a silver tounge…
Prompted by a lot of posts that refer to contract abrogation in bankruptcy, I reviewed the code last night.
Please understand that there are LEVELSSSSS of bankruptcy WAY above my level of expertiese, BUT…
there is no provision in the code that allows a court, debtor, or trustee to abrogate anything but an executory contract (which is a contract requiring performance of a future provision, usually associated with an estate in land) or a lease.
The whole “contract abrogation” ambit has rung untrue to me all along. A bankruptcy is fundamentally NOT designed to excuse the obligations a company or person owes under a contract, except as they relate to debt. Performance under a contract by a debtor in Chapt. 11 is not excused under any concept of bankruptcy of which I am aware, and as I noted before, I can’t find any code the authorizes it.
For what it’s worth…
How the hell do we presume to know what these dealership contracts say anyway? Wouldn’t that be useful to know prior to any claim that GM is in breach?
My money would be on there being some favorable termination provisions in there. After limitation of liabilities and indemnification clauses, termination clauses are something I always look for (and fight over) the most. Big corporate lawyers can be tricksy that way.
Chaps, can’t we read the sign on the ground and deduce that something new and strange to these contracts is afoot?
If they were acting within the contract language, how come this all looks unprecedented? Nothing in the fossil record, so to speak…
I can’t argue with that.
Regarding dealer agrrements (contracts), it’s not that there aren’t terminattion provisions, it is that many dealers will fight it anyway, even if they know they will lose in court. The idea is that underperforming car makers don’t always have the resources to fight hundreds of dealers that need to be terminated.
As for the dealer, another reason many fight back is that there are costs to shutting down the franchise. I guess they think if they hold on long enough their losses will turn around, and they feel that is cheaper than closing down entirely.
For a dealer that isn’t reasy to retire, if he shuts down a franchise, it is very difficult and expensive for him to acquire another one in the future.
What exactly looks unprecedented? Being able to terminate a dealer contract at all or just the scale of what GM is proposing now. I would assume that unprecedented events like, just off the top of my head…bankruptcy, would lead to pretty unprecedented actions. That doesn’t mean it is breaching some contract.
Exactly.
Dealerships come and they go. A few months back, two HUGE dealerships in this area closed. I mean IMMENSE dealerships, one of them old by auto standards. The makers did NOT shut them down. They went into bankruptcy.
In my experience, I have known of VERY few dealerships that were closed by an auto maker. Wholesale closings ARE unprecedented, and, as I relate above, I can’t find a provision permitting this kind of thing in the bankruptcy code.
Bankruptcy is not arcane, and you don’t expect to see aberrant results spinning out of one. Unless, perhaps, you politicize the process so it is unrecognizable.
I think SHoward has pointed out that dealerships will fight tooth and nail not to have to close. I am sure in better times, or even in not so good times, many auto makers are loathe to take the step to terminate dealership agreements and simply feel it isn’t worth the hassle.
Uhhh…so is bankruptcy.
You are working under the assumption that the only way these contracts can be terminated is through the bankruptcy court’s power. But if the dealership agreement already contained some sort of applicable termination clause, the bankruptcy court’s power would be moot, wouldn’t it? And come on. Don’t you think all the high paid attorneys over at GM probably were smart enough to insist on termination for convenience (or something similar) clause? Who has the bargaining power when negotiating with a potential new dealer? I would be shocked if GM attorneys allowed any substantial modifications to their form agreement at all.
GM has become AMTRAK on radials instead of steel rails.
It is my sincere hope that these rejected dealers will sue the pants off of Obama and everyone else in charge. Sunshine can be an effective disinfectant. Landers and McLarty are clearly getting some sort of kickback.
This is rank speculation on your part, supported by an anecdote.
NO. Bankruptcy is NOT unprecedented. Just as auto-makers going out of business is NOT unprecedented. Seen a new Packard, Studebaker, or AMC on the street? Jeez, I give you credit for more sense.
Not only no, but HELL NO!!! What kind of idiot would invest MILLIONS of dollars in the face of a “convenience termination clause” in their franchise? Have you EVER seen anything like that in a national franchise agreement? I can’t even imagine the kind of stupidity required to accept that kind of crap.
Really, Chaps. Get your head out.
The dealer agreement in fact contains many ’causes’ for termination, from lack of training attainment to refusal to install proper signage. Some reasons can be easier to enforce than others, of course. None of these provisions have to do with manufacturer’s bankruptcy, so the above statement is absolutely correct. (There are, however, requirements for the dealer to maintain a given level of luquidity.) So are Chap’s other assumptions, in that no manufacturer, especially a big powerful one, is going to overlook protecting itself in the agreement. On the other hand…..
This is also a true statement, in general. Dealers that should be terminated often aren’t due to the reason I stated before, it’s too much hassle and money to get rid of them. BUT, wholesale closing hundreds of franchises is usually only done when a car maker goes out of business itself.
Notice one thing: The franchises are the entities being closed, not necessarily the dealership. Many dealers have multiple lines, and they all sell used cars. Many of the underperforming GM or Chrysler dealers may in fact own a profitable franchise as well, and that would remain open.
zoom zoom
Rags,
Both of us are speculating about what may or may not be in those contracts, but the only person here with any actual knowledge, SHoward, seems to be agreeing with me. You talk about the potential dealer who is investing MILLIONS. Big whoop dee doo that makes to GM, who blows its nose with that amount. Until recently I represented a small to mid sized tech firm that would have MILLIONS invested into a particular contract with Cisco Systems. Do you think that swayed Cisco one bit to amend the terms of their agreement? Nope. Did my client sign the contract anyway? Yep. Cause they had little choice.
And the incentive not to negotiate with something extremely limited, like a franchise agreement, is even more profound. If A refuses your terms, but B accepts, its not like you are losing a sale to A. You sold your quantity.
That term may or may not be a strict “convenience” clause, but you can be damned sure it is pretty favorable to GM. The letter sent out to the affected dealerships said the the contract would not be renewed after the current term. Is it so hard for you to conceive of a contract with a term? What usually happens when one party wants out at the end of a term?
Jeez. You are the one here claiming that there is some sort of breach of contract here, yet have no evidence of such, and are relying on an imagination of a contract that a behemoth like GM would never draft or enter into.
Like I said, Chaps, NO business would invest MILLIONS of dollars to build a store around a franchise with a “convenience termination clause”.
The assertion is…sorry…stupid.
I do a fair amount of work in small and mid-sized businesses, including franchises. There are various terms that protect the interests of the franchise parent. They all make good business sense, and many of them are mutually beneficial.
Your argument is silly.
First off, my argument is not that there is necessarily a convenience termination clause in the contract. My argument is I have zero problem believing there are favorable termination clauses to GM in the contract. And at the very freaking least there are going to be terms (as in length of contract) very probably with mutual renewal clause. As I said, the sample letter I wrote stated that GM chose not to renew the term. Why is this so hard to believe that they have the right to do this?
Your argument that somehow GM must not have a contractual basis for terminating (or not renewing) these contracts based upon, so far as I can tell: 1) the dealers are pissed and want to take them to court (well no crap they are unhappy and we both know you can file a suit with little or no legal basis to stand on) and 2) they did so rarely in the past but are now doing so en masse for some teensy little reason like A FREAKING BANKRUPTCY is what is really silly here.
Time will tell, Chaps.
IF there were a contractual provision for the auto-maker’s action, why do you suppose that NOBODY has referred to it?
Hmmm….????
Rags,
I don’t know quite as much about contract law or franchise law as you, but I can make a guess about your question:
1. Given that the goobermint is involved, I’d say the carmakers are playing a different game once Obamachev fired Rick Wagoner. Frankly, even the underperforming dealers may not be getting a fair shake in my estimation.
2. When the dealers get their day in court GM and Chrysler just might point out the clauses in the dealer agreements that theoretically give them the power to terminate franchises based on several factors. As I pointed out before, there are certain requirements placed on the dealers which they must maintain in order to own and keep the franchise.
I don’t know if performance alone is one of them, and I would think we agree on the fact that the Chrysler dealer closings stink of cronyism in any event, which (I think) is what prompted this thread.
SHoward and Rags,
Please note I was only arguing the issue of contract abrogation, not about any of these claims of cronyism (which I am not yet convinced of, nor does Zero Hedge seem to be either). I do believe that there are franchise laws that would protect franchisees and dealerships from such treatment. I guess it would kinda be like at will employment. You can fire someone for no reason at all, but not because that person is black/Jewish/etc…
Chap,
I’m smelling that foul odor of corruption over this thing. I could be wrong, of course, but I would bet it will get flushed out pretty well in court, just like the extent of protection the dealers may or may not get.
Yeah, I would bet the usual franchise laws would normally protect them, but with the current climate in our goobermint today, I’ve got my doubts. I know you are generally an Obama supporter, but I smell a rat. In my opinion Obamachev’s moves since taking office have been suspect. One example: when seeking to get the stimulus deal passed, he came right out and said we would not recover if we didn’t act quickly and boldly. To me this is the kind of thing a ‘leader’ says when he wants to ram something down someone else’s throat.
I have a manager like that, one that manages with a club. Given that I believe Obama to be similar, it wouldn’t be out of character for him to support the carmakers in shutting down dealers that maybe he (Obama) wants shut down. (Indirectly, meaning more right leaning than left leaning.)
Like I said, though, we’ll hopefully see when everyone gets their day in court.
zoom zoom
SHoward,
Let me amend
That is the bottom line. No matter what crackpot designed vehicle (the new 2010 Obama SUX?) come out of the Congressional milieu, we will have to subsidize it. Not supply and demand, but legislation and whatever the latest “czar” insists on. Has Geithner got a brother or sister for the job?
Chap/Rags/SHoward
Even if the wholesale cancellation of franchise contracts is somehow legal (and I strongly suspect it is not, and at the very least needs a hearing in the SCOTUS) the abrogation of the secured debtors holdings in preference to non-secured debtors IS NOT.
Now THAT I strongly agree with. I think that is probably the big overlooked part of the whole story. The MSM is focusing on the plight of the dealers, probably casting the “little guy” light on them, but the bondholders are actually victims of the Obamachev directive. If anyone deserves a hearing in a high court it’s them.