It's not clear yet how this will turn out but it is significant that the court wants to take a closer look:
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. Supreme Court blocked the sale of Chrysler's assets after a group of Indiana pension funds appealed the sale. The funds argued that the sale of Chrysler to Italian automaker Fiat is unconstitutional. A court spokesman said that the sale is stayed "pending further order of the court."
From Bloomberg:
June 8 (Bloomberg) -- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ordered a delay in Chrysler LLC's planned asset sale to a group led by Italy's Fiat SpA while the U.S. Supreme Court considers a request for a longer postponement that might scuttle the deal.
SCOTUSBLOG has more. The delay may just be procedural:
Among the likely explanations for her action:* Ginsburg may have decided to share the decision on what to do with her eight colleagues, and they needed more time to think or talk about it.
* Members of the Court may have decided that they wanted to give some explanation, or perhaps some may have decided to dissent and wanted a chance to prepare a statement saying so. In the meantime, it was her task, as the Circuit Justice, to impose a limited stay.
* Ginsburg or the Court may be waiting to see how the Second Circuit explains its decision to uphold the terms of the sale. The Circuit Court issued no opinion on Friday, indicating that such an explanation would come "in due course," although the expectation was that one or more opinions would emerge from those judges on Monday.
The wording of Ginsburg's order -- "stayed pending further order" -- is the conventional way by which a Justice or the Court carries out an action that is expected to be short term in duration, and not controlling -- or even hinting at -- the ultimate outcome. Any speculation that her order meant the Court was leaning toward a further postponement would be unfounded.
Permalink | E-mail This | Technorati Links | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Auto Bailouts
Tags: Chrysler Bankruptcy, Obama, TARP
Comments (25)
It's unclear how how long t... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Paul Hooson | June 8, 2009 4:36 PM | Score: -6 (6 votes cast)
It's unclear how how long this stay order will stand, maybe for an hour, maybe for a week. But it only complicates the survival of Chrysler as Fiat is seen as somewhat unwilling partner here.
1. Posted by Paul Hooson | June 8, 2009 4:36 PM |
Score: -6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on June 8, 2009 16:36
2. Posted by ODA315 | June 8, 2009 4:37 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Thank you Judge Ginsberg.
2. Posted by ODA315 | June 8, 2009 4:37 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on June 8, 2009 16:37
3. Posted by ODA315 | June 8, 2009 4:39 PM | Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
complicates the survival of Chrysler
I guess we disregard contract law to insure Chrysler "survives"? Oooops, I mean that the UAW "survives".
3. Posted by ODA315 | June 8, 2009 4:39 PM |
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Posted on June 8, 2009 16:39
4. Posted by sam | June 8, 2009 4:48 PM | Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Any company that is depending upon Fiat for survival is doomed anyway.
4. Posted by sam | June 8, 2009 4:48 PM |
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Posted on June 8, 2009 16:48
5. Posted by WildWillie | June 8, 2009 5:11 PM | Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
Bond holders contractually come first, unions later. That simple. ww
5. Posted by WildWillie | June 8, 2009 5:11 PM |
Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
Posted on June 8, 2009 17:11
6. Posted by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | June 8, 2009 5:14 PM | Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
I guess Paul does not believe in the rule of law. If Ginsburg was acting at the behest of the rest of the court because they want to be involved in what they see as an overreaching administration bent on ruining and ignoring our system of laws. TARP money should not be spent to bail out the automobile industry. Obama knows how to rule but he knows nothing of governing.
6. Posted by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | June 8, 2009 5:14 PM |
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on June 8, 2009 17:14
7. Posted by retired military | June 8, 2009 5:17 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Ginsberg is probably checking with Obama to ensure he has everything covered on his side before allowing the sale to go through.
7. Posted by retired military | June 8, 2009 5:17 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on June 8, 2009 17:17
8. Posted by SCSIwuzzy | June 8, 2009 5:35 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Hmmm. So will you side with the workers or the investors when your super market goes under, Paul?
8. Posted by SCSIwuzzy | June 8, 2009 5:35 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on June 8, 2009 17:35
9. Posted by Paul Hooson | June 8, 2009 6:29 PM | Score: -3 (7 votes cast)
Zeldorf, I never addressed the rule of law issue here. You presume way too much. The temporary stay on the sale of Chrysler only gives a group of three pensions funds lawyers a little more time to see if the full court will review the full legality of the Chrysler sale, that's all. If the full court decides to review the legality issue, then that's something else to be considered here. But for now this stay is just that, a temporary pause on any further Chrysler sale to Fiat action, that's all. However, FDR's executive branch did run into some legal problems with the Supreme Court with some of his economic recovery actions, but whether the actions of the Obama White House rise to those levels has not been addressed yet by the court. Maybe someone here is a corporate attorney who can speak to these issues?
9. Posted by Paul Hooson | June 8, 2009 6:29 PM |
Score: -3 (7 votes cast)
Posted on June 8, 2009 18:29
10. Posted by iwogisdead | June 8, 2009 6:36 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
The MarketWatch article says that the Pension Funds argued that the sale is unconstitutional, but that's not the whole story (I don't see any Constitutional argument in my first scan of the Application).
The Pension Funds argued that the sale of assets (and the restructuring forced by the gov'mint) would undercut their rights as secured creditors.
Here's the application:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16208738/16204479-Chrysler-Stay-Application
[Sorry if I can't get the fricking link to work]
I'm guessing the Court is going to use a real simple Bankruptcy Law analysis to say that they can't change the rights of secured creditors in this situation.
10. Posted by iwogisdead | June 8, 2009 6:36 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on June 8, 2009 18:36
11. Posted by Codekeyguy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wizbangblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| June 8, 2009 6:52 PM | Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Paul is just a union toadie. (Until, of course, the unions start playing hardball with him)
Maybe like the reporter that was recently gang-raped by the taliban, but said (I kid you not) "They really respected me." Remember, Paul, the unions will respect you, too.
11. Posted by Codekeyguy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wizbangblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| June 8, 2009 6:52 PM |
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Posted on June 8, 2009 18:52
12. Posted by GarandFan | June 8, 2009 7:04 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Talk about your Karma. The most liberal president ever, just screwed by one of the most liberal Supreme Court Justices. Karma, baby. Karma.
12. Posted by GarandFan | June 8, 2009 7:04 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on June 8, 2009 19:04
13. Posted by SCSIwuzzy | June 8, 2009 8:52 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Good question you bring up Codekeyguy... are the workers at Paulmart union workers? After all his father did so well with the unions.
13. Posted by SCSIwuzzy | June 8, 2009 8:52 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on June 8, 2009 20:52
14. Posted by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | June 8, 2009 9:38 PM | Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
All right Paul, please explain which law it is that giver the POTUS the power to take money authorized by Congress (TARP) to bail out financial institutions and use it to literally take over two major players in the U.S. auto industry? What section of Article II of the Consitution gives him the authority to oversee a corporate bankruptcy which is the baliwick of the court system? Where does he (Obama) get the authority to fire the CEO of GM? Answer me Paul.
14. Posted by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | June 8, 2009 9:38 PM |
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Posted on June 8, 2009 21:38
15. Posted by maggie | June 8, 2009 9:41 PM | Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
As I understand it, this petition was filed
under this: ERISA
http://benefitslink.com/erisa/crossreference.html
15. Posted by maggie | June 8, 2009 9:41 PM |
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Posted on June 8, 2009 21:41
16. Posted by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | June 8, 2009 10:54 PM | Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
A typo in a previous post. I typed giver should have been gives. Still waiting for an answer Paul.
16. Posted by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | June 8, 2009 10:54 PM |
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Posted on June 8, 2009 22:54
17. Posted by ODA315 | June 8, 2009 11:00 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Damn Zelsdorf, I believe it's in section 5,.....(Obama's special copy).
17. Posted by ODA315 | June 8, 2009 11:00 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on June 8, 2009 23:00
18. Posted by ODA315 | June 8, 2009 11:03 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Section 6 covers giving federal funds to neighborhood organizing groups (but only when under indictment).
Section 7 deals with using federal funds and authority to payback campaign doners (to include labor unions and car dealers)
18. Posted by ODA315 | June 8, 2009 11:03 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on June 8, 2009 23:03
19. Posted by ODA315 | June 8, 2009 11:04 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
make that "donors"
19. Posted by ODA315 | June 8, 2009 11:04 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 8, 2009 23:04
20. Posted by Paul Hooson | June 9, 2009 1:06 AM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Zelsdorf, so far in neither the 1979 Chrysler bailout, nor this 2009 Chrysler bailout, no court has ruled the actions of the executive branch to have acted illegally so far. Until a judge rules as such, I strongly invite you to reserve your judgment as well.
20. Posted by Paul Hooson | June 9, 2009 1:06 AM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on June 9, 2009 01:06
21. Posted by marc | June 9, 2009 6:16 AM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
hooson - "Zelsdorf, so far in neither the 1979 Chrysler bailout, nor this 2009 Chrysler bailout, no court has ruled the actions of the executive branch to have acted illegally so far."
hooson you're such a friggin' tool!
Was the 79 Chrysler bailout conducted under "obama rules" or was it handled in the long established method that dates back over a 100 years?
To even make that sorry-assed comparison demonstrates how silly you truly are.
21. Posted by marc | June 9, 2009 6:16 AM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on June 9, 2009 06:16
22. Posted by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | June 9, 2009 9:56 AM | Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Gee Paul, I somehow thought in 79, congress authorized the money for the loan to Chrysler. I think that is because Congress is suppose to deal with all things financial (power of the purse strings). Under the Obama dictatorship we have treasury with a slush fund (some would call illegal) dealing with bailout (buyout) of troubled business and industry. If the government takes tax dollars to buy GM, and it takes common stock as a result, shouldn't that stock be distributed to the tax payers who actually own the stock?
22. Posted by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | June 9, 2009 9:56 AM |
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Posted on June 9, 2009 09:56
23. Posted by 914 | June 9, 2009 6:20 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Yes Paul, Are We not at least entitled to dividends 4 times a year? Or is this filed under "FULFILLING ONES PATRIOTIC DUTY"
23. Posted by 914 | June 9, 2009 6:20 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 9, 2009 18:20
24. Posted by 914 | June 9, 2009 6:42 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Thank You judge Ginsburg.. You are now officially wrong only 99.8% of the time.
24. Posted by 914 | June 9, 2009 6:42 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 9, 2009 18:42
25. Posted by Billll | June 11, 2009 9:45 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
SCOTUS folds.
"A switch in time saves nine."
25. Posted by Billll | June 11, 2009 9:45 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 11, 2009 09:45