On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:57 AM, David B. Shemano <[email protected]> wrote: > Not true. Chrysler would have the burden of proof if and when the Judge is > requested to confirm a plan. For that and other reasons, Chrysler has > structured the transaction as a sale and not a plan, which creates a > separate number of issues. As part of the sale, Chrysler has submitted > testimony alleging that the liquidation value is less than $2 billion. The > procedural problem is that Chrysler is also asking that the Court approve > the sale in about three weeks alleging that the sky will fall if the sale is > not quickly approved, which essentially means that the ability of anybody to > challenge the liquidation value will be effectively precluded. There will > be incredible pressure on the Judge to approve the sale and not continue it > or require a plan (which is a lengthy process). My objection is not to the > legal strategy of trying to force a quick sale, which is fair game, but the > involvement of the US government in trying to intimidate parties not to > object.
Thanks for the clarifications. I don't think I disagree with any of your observations here. I just fail to understand your outrage over the recent Chrysler developments. You may not like the involvement of the US government, but that is hardly avoidable for such an important company. As you say, let's see what happens. -raghu. -- "I lost a button hole today" - Steven Wright _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
