Posted by Todd Zywicki:
Securd Creditors in GM v. Chrysler:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_06_14-2009_06_20.shtml#1245202773


   As I understand the situation, as things stand now, secured creditors
   in the GM bankruptcy case are slated to get paid in full on their
   claims. In Chrysler they got about 30 cents on the dollar.

   Does anyone know why secured creditors are getting paid in full in one
   but not the other? Whatever the legal theory in Chrysler (which is not
   exactly clear), it seems like it would be valid in GM. Whatever the
   policy or bankruptcy reason for refusing to pay secured creditors in
   full in Chrysler, it seems the same in GM.

   One possible explanation is that the Obama Administration decided as a
   prudential matter that it went too far in Chrysler and that to do
   Chrysler again would spook investors too much. A second explanation is
   that, as I understand it, a much higher percentage of the debt in
   Chrysler was secured, so it was a bigger liability, so worth pushing
   more. A third possibility is that the Administration simply thought
   they could get away with it easier in Chrysler--that the urgency of
   the case made it less likely that judges would intervene to stop the
   sale. Fourth, it is possible that there is some different in how the
   law would process the two cases, but I have not read any distinction.
   Fifth, perhaps there is some key factual difference that I have
   overlooked or misunderstood.

   Anyway, I'm genuinely asking here--has the Administration provided any
   explanation for the difference in treatment in the two cases or does
   any reader have any explanation? This is a question I've been asked a
   couple of times by reporters now and I haven't really been able to
   figure out a good answer. AT this point my hunch is that it is a
   combination of prudential reasons--even if the Administration could do
   it again it doesn't want to, it isn't as important, and it is less
   likely that they would get away with it without a more difficult
   challenge--rather than that there is some difference in the law or
   economics of the two cases.

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to