Obama: Companies need to "step up" and hire workers

[pBills]

No, the government forced the bondholders to forgive their loans, and promted significantly junior interests over theirs, and did so illegally, and by executive fiat.

 

What you're basically saying is that the hell with the rule of law, you're fine with a dictatorship (and that's a completely accurate characterization - the White House's decision to !@#$ over the bond holders was entirely dictatorial), because the ends justifies the means.

 

 

 

And who are those investors? The people the government decided had a right to ownership. Not the people who actually bought into GM...but the people that the government made a completely arbitrary and extra-legal decision to GIVE the company to.

 

 

 

"Any company should act like a corporation." You really are an idiot.

 

 

Tom, most companies that are back in the black are NOT hiring people back. YET, giving the execs huge bonuses for their "tough" decisions. In other words !@#$ over the worker and the big guy gets a raise. I'm sure your happy with that. Probably falls right in line with if the mentality of selling your house and moving your family closer to work to avoid gas prices. DERRRR

 

many of the original investors still have stake in the company.

 

Tom, not sure I follow what you dont like about that statement. There are a number of companies that do need to hire more people, but simply arent, as they got used to functioning on a skeleton crew. If a company got federal bailout money, and if they are doing better, and the need is there, they should be hiring people. But they arent. That's part of the problem. No?

 

 

No Tom is fine with the workers being f'd over as long as the company makes money off of it's taxpayer bailout.

[DrDawkinstein]

If they're functioning with the staff they have, then why do they need to hire?

 

So their current employees arent working 60-80 hour weeks anymore?

 

I'm a perfect example of this. As a small consulting firm, we had to cut down in 2009 from 9 employees to 5. Doesnt sound like much, but when you only have 9 people, each person is basically an entire department.

 

Coming into 2011, I was filling the roles of Director of Business Development, Sales Guy, Project Manager, Implementation Technician, Support Operator, and Support Engineer.

 

Im salaried and a team player so I took this all on and worked through it for over a year. We all did.

 

2011 hits and we have more business rolling in than we can even keep up with. But management doesnt want to bring new people in because they're getting 4-5 different people for the price of 1. So I just stopped doing Support. I stopped answering the Support line, I stopped answering tickets, I stopped fixing things. And now, a month later, we just hired a part-time college kid to at least answer the phone and open a ticket.

 

Luckily, I was in a position to stop without risk of losing my job. A lot of people arent.

 

Business is up, all around. But companies are still squeezing the last few drops of blood out of the over-worked employees they have.

 

As I said before, I can come up with at least 10 customers who are in this situation too. Skeleton crew, working around the clock.

Edited May 16, 2011 by DrDareustein

[3rdnlng]

So their current employees arent working 60-80 hour weeks anymore?

 

I'm a perfect example of this. As a small consulting firm, we had to cut down in 2009 from 9 employees to 5. Doesnt sound like much, but when you only have 9 people, each person is basically an entire department.

 

Coming into 2011, I was filling the roles of Director of Business Development, Sales Guy, Project Manager, Implementation Technician, Support Operator, and Support Engineer.

 

Im salaried and a team player so I took this all on and worked through it for over a year. We all did.

 

2011 hits and we have more business rolling in than we can even keep up with. But management doesnt want to bring new people in because they're getting 4-5 different people for the price of 1. So I just stopped doing Support. I stopped answering the Support line, I stopped answering tickets, I stopped fixing things. And now, a month later, we just hired a part-time college kid to at least answer the phone and open a ticket.

 

Luckily, I was in a position to stop without risk of losing my job. A lot of people arent.

 

Business is up, all around. But companies are still squeezing the last few drops of blood out of the over-worked employees they have.

 

As I said before, I can come up with at least 10 customers who are in this situation too. Skeleton crew, working around the clock.

 

Do you think that many companies might be fearful of the economic situation and are conserving their money, especially since the federal mandate re health insurance? Not everyone thinks things are truly improving. The huge deficits will come back to haunt us. Now when we reduce the deficits there will be the consequences of different sectors of the economy getting hurt.

[DC Tom]

So their current employees arent working 60-80 hour weeks anymore?

 

I'm a perfect example of this. As a small consulting firm, we had to cut down in 2009 from 9 employees to 5. Doesnt sound like much, but when you only have 9 people, each person is basically an entire department.

 

Coming into 2011, I was filling the roles of Director of Business Development, Sales Guy, Project Manager, Implementation Technician, Support Operator, and Support Engineer.

 

Im salaried and a team player so I took this all on and worked through it for over a year. We all did.

 

2011 hits and we have more business rolling in than we can even keep up with. But management doesnt want to bring new people in because they're getting 4-5 different people for the price of 1. So I just stopped doing Support. I stopped answering the Support line, I stopped answering tickets, I stopped fixing things. And now, a month later, we just hired a part-time college kid to at least answer the phone and open a ticket.

 

Luckily, I was in a position to stop without risk of losing my job. A lot of people arent.

 

Business is up, all around. But companies are still squeezing the last few drops of blood out of the over-worked employees they have.

 

As I said before, I can come up with at least 10 customers who are in this situation too. Skeleton crew, working around the clock.

 

You're not going to win any arguments by changing the focus from companies that are functioning to employees that are burned out. As long as the companies are functioning with their employees working 60-80 hour weeks, they have no reason to hire.

 

many of the original investors still have stake in the company.

 

No. GM equity was wiped out in the bankruptcy. The original investors are, for the most part, up **** creek.

 

 

No Tom is fine with the workers being f'd over as long as the company makes money off of it's taxpayer bailout.

 

You REALLY are an idiot. If you've even read anything I said, you've misunderstood all of it.

[IDBillzFan]

So their current employees arent working 60-80 hour weeks anymore?

 

I'm a perfect example of this. As a small consulting firm, we had to cut down in 2009 from 9 employees to 5. Doesnt sound like much, but when you only have 9 people, each person is basically an entire department.

 

Coming into 2011, I was filling the roles of Director of Business Development, Sales Guy, Project Manager, Implementation Technician, Support Operator, and Support Engineer.

 

Im salaried and a team player so I took this all on and worked through it for over a year. We all did.

 

2011 hits and we have more business rolling in than we can even keep up with. But management doesnt want to bring new people in because they're getting 4-5 different people for the price of 1. So I just stopped doing Support. I stopped answering the Support line, I stopped answering tickets, I stopped fixing things. And now, a month later, we just hired a part-time college kid to at least answer the phone and open a ticket.

 

Luckily, I was in a position to stop without risk of losing my job. A lot of people arent.

 

Business is up, all around. But companies are still squeezing the last few drops of blood out of the over-worked employees they have.

 

As I said before, I can come up with at least 10 customers who are in this situation too. Skeleton crew, working around the clock.

I missed the part where you are forced against your will to work for a company that overworks and underpays you.

 

Nobody squeezes the blood out of employees. Employees LET their blood get squeezed out through their own actions. People like you will never learn this because you're that special breed of employee who somehow manages to survive a 50% reduction in staff, and STILL believe that your employer's mission statement is "To foster a corporate community where our only goal is to pay people as little as possible to work as hard as they can while we take a bath in a tub full of c-notes."

[DrDawkinstein]

Do you think that many companies might be fearful of the economic situation and are conserving their money, especially since the federal mandate re health insurance? Not everyone thinks things are truly improving. The huge deficits will come back to haunt us. Now when we reduce the deficits there will be the consequences of different sectors of the economy getting hurt.

 

 

You're not going to win any arguments by changing the focus from companies that are functioning to employees that are burned out. As long as the companies are functioning with their employees working 60-80 hour weeks, they have no reason to hire.

 

I was asked "Why do they need to hire?" and I gave you an answer.

 

Of course I understand why companies still might not hire new people. It doesnt change the fact that they still have a need to hire people.

 

But they are also losing out on a lot of business that those overworked few cant handle. And they are putting their business at risk by these overworked employees providing LOWER QUALITY performance and therefore a lower quality product.

 

Furthermore, these work weeks are most likely in violation of the Employee Agreement the person signed when they started which stated their hours and pay.

 

It almost sounds like youre suggesting we reset the standard American work week from 40hr/wk to 80hrs/wk and everyone should be ok with that because that is what the company wants. Cmon.

[Rob's House]

This topic is a great illustration of how people get away from the fundamentals and get caught up in the web of tangential sway.

 

Businesses hire new work force in anticipation of need. They NEVER hire because they get a warm fuzzy feeling about providing make work jobs for their fellow man.

 

Anyone talking about this in the context of responsibility of businesses needs to stop trying to educate others and first educate themselves. And spare me the vapid wisdom about how companies that were bailed out are now these non-profit civic centers that exist to provide employment. If you don't want a business to operate like a business don't !@#$ing bail it out.

[DrDawkinstein]

I missed the part where you are forced against your will to work for a company that overworks and underpays you.

 

 

You missed the current state of today's job market? You should read a paper or something, no one is hiring. There are no options for other jobs. So yes, those employees can quit, if they dont mind being broke and homeless.

 

 

"People like you", lol, good to see youre still a mess...

[IDBillzFan]

You missed the current state of today's job market? You should read a paper or something, no one is hiring. There are no options for other jobs. So yes, those employees can quit, if they dont mind being broke and homeless.

 

 

"People like you", lol, good to see youre still a mess...

I don't have time to read the news, what with all the effort it takes me to hook my employees up to a device that sucks every ounce of blood out of their body to within a gnat's asshair away from a flatline.

 

But I dig your world; it's all or nothing. You either own the company intent on sucking blood from people, or you MUST work there because the ONLY option is poverty and homelessness.

 

You epitomize the expression "Keep doing what you're doing to keep getting what you're getting."

 

But thanks for wandering over. I think it's important that the oppressed get internet access.

[DC Tom]

I was asked "Why do they need to hire?" and I gave you an answer.

 

No, you didn't. You gave me an example of WORKERS who need their company to hire new people. Not the same thing.

 

It almost sounds like youre suggesting we reset the standard American work week from 40hr/wk to 80hrs/wk and everyone should be ok with that because that is what the company wants. Cmon.

 

No, I'm suggesting that if a corporation is meeting its business needs and goals with its current staffing levels, then there is no need for the corporation to hire. You've said exactly nothing that identifies that need. You have suggested that the employees might need the company to hire - which is different. You've also suggested reasons a company might need to hire - which reasons are only valid if a company recognizes the goals and needs underlying them (e.g. maybe quality of work isn't a corporate issue...stupid idea, but I've known such places). But you haven't contradicted the very basic fact that if a company is meeting its needs and goals with current staff, there is no need for the corporation to hire.

[DrDawkinstein]

I don't have time to read the news, what with all the effort it takes me to hook my employees up to a device that sucks every ounce of blood out of their body to within a gnat's asshair away from a flatline.

 

But I dig your world; it's all or nothing. You either own the company intent on sucking blood from people, or you MUST work there because the ONLY option is poverty and homelessness.

 

You epitomize the expression "Keep doing what you're doing to keep getting what you're getting."

 

But thanks for wandering over. I think it's important that the oppressed get internet access.

 

You dont know anything about me, or my world. And you never will because I have not once seen you take the time to discuss anything with anyone on here. Last time I was on the PPP, I gave you a point of view and said "Im open to opinions and would love to learn more about it" and invited you to educate me on the opposing side... but you wouldnt. You took the B word way out and only called me names and insulted me instead of having an actual discussion. You just attack whatever angle doesnt agree with your political BS. It's all just assumptions you make in order to fit your little black/white, yes/no, left/right world. More so, it's an obvious way of protecting yourself from the fact that you dont really know s#!t.

 

Good luck!

[IDBillzFan]

You dont know anything about me, or my world. And you never will because I have not once seen you take the time to discuss anything with anyone on here. Last time I was on the PPP, I gave you a point of view and said "Im open to opinions and would love to learn more about it" and invited you to educate me on the opposing side... but you wouldnt. You took the B word way out and only called me names and insulted me instead of having an actual discussion. You just attack whatever angle doesnt agree with your political BS. It's all just assumptions you make in order to fit your little black/white, yes/no, left/right world. More so, it's an obvious way of protecting yourself from the fact that you dont really know s#!t.

 

Good luck!

Please refresh my memory by linking to the thread where you specifically asked to learn the opposing side of a subject and the only thing I did was insult you.

[DaveinElma]

You missed the current state of today's job market? You should read a paper or something, no one is hiring. There are no options for other jobs. So yes, those employees can quit, if they dont mind being broke and homeless.

 

 

"People like you", lol, good to see youre still a mess...

 

"Being broke and homeless" otherwise known as collecting Obama-checks.

[/dev/null]

Companies hiring is as patriotic as paying your taxes

[CookieG]

You do understand that he STOLE the senior rights of the creditors and gave those rights to the union, don't you? And in doing so, violated several hundred years of contract law and precedents, causing significant damage to the corporate debt market in making the costs of borrowing higher (because really, who wants to lend money knowing that the government can arbitrarily decide you have no expectation of being paid back?)

 

I don't know if it was to help his contributors or what. Nor do I care. He !@#$ed over GM's creditors by executive fiat without even a hint of a nod to anything resembling due process, and promoted a junior interest (by about eight levels of seniority) over theirs. You have to be completely ignorant of the way business works to think that was even remotely a good idea.

 

So wrong, so many ways.

 

1) accrued wages and employee within 180 days of filing of a petition have a higher priority than unsecured bondholders (the majority of GM bondholders) This obviously isn't the majority of the UAW stake but wages DO have priority.

 

2)How is a contractual obligation to a healthcare trust fund eight levels junior to that of an unsecured bondholder? At most, they are in the same class of secured creditor, at least for past due payments to the trust fund. I don't think Sec. 507 is written that way. Well, I know it isn't.

 

Secured bondholders were/are to be paid in full. That was the plan submitted anyways.

 

3) In terms of due process, a majority of bondholders agreed to the proposal before they filed their Petition. It was then ratified during the Chapter 11. Bondholders not agreeing to the plan had a right to object to the plan. A small minority did in fact object. I think they called themselves the unofficial minority of unsecured bondholders, or something like that. Every creditor has a right to object in a bankruptcy.

 

4) The bondholders could have rejected the proposal, let GM file, convert the case to a 7 and get what they could get from the liquidation. I think WorldCom brought about 30-40%, if I remember, and I think Enron brought back around 12-15%.

 

5) WTF is the "several hundred years of contract law and precedents" hysterical nonsense? The bankruptcy code gets revised continually, with an overhaul every decade or 2, the last being in 2005. What was a right yesterday may not be a right today, or tomorrow.

 

The bankruptcy code changes contractual rights and obligations. Creditors get screwed, debtors get screwed. Cramdowns for secured debt, rejection of leases, priority for recent taxes, super priority for domestic support obligations, reworking of contracts, revision of retirement benefits, discharge of debt, nondischargeability for other types of debt, adequate protection, stays of execution, etc and so on down the line.

 

All of these are violations of most contract law, but are permissible under the code. At least as it exists right now.

[DC Tom]

So wrong, so many ways.

 

1) accrued wages and employee within 180 days of filing of a petition have a higher priority than unsecured bondholders (the majority of GM bondholders) This obviously isn't the majority of the UAW stake but wages DO have priority.

 

Yeah...and that's not what we're talking about. THE UNION got preferential treatment over the creditors, not the employees, by executive fiat. I didn't say **** about wages.

 

2)How is a contractual obligation to a healthcare trust fund eight levels junior to that of an unsecured bondholder? At most, they are in the same class of secured creditor, at least for past due payments to the trust fund. I don't think Sec. 507 is written that way. Well, I know it isn't.

 

Secured bondholders were/are to be paid in full. That was the plan submitted anyways.

 

No, they're not. They weren't in bankruptcy, the debt's since been wiped out, and their share of the new GM's equity doesn't come close to making up for what they were owed.

 

3) In terms of due process, a majority of bondholders agreed to the proposal before they filed their Petition. It was then ratified during the Chapter 11. Bondholders not agreeing to the plan had a right to object to the plan. A small minority did in fact object. I think they called themselves the unofficial minority of unsecured bondholders, or something like that. Every creditor has a right to object in a bankruptcy.

 

4) The bondholders could have rejected the proposal, let GM file, convert the case to a 7 and get what they could get from the liquidation. I think WorldCom brought about 30-40%, if I remember, and I think Enron brought back around 12-15%.

 

5) WTF is the "several hundred years of contract law and precedents" hysterical nonsense? The bankruptcy code gets revised continually, with an overhaul every decade or 2, the last being in 2005. What was a right yesterday may not be a right today, or tomorrow.

 

Exactly the point...they were bullied into accepting it by the White House, who basically took it on themselves to cram a plan down their throats outside any sort of due process and at a decided DISadvantage to what rights they would have had under an actual, legal bankruptcy proceeding. To the benefit of the union, who had a decidedly junior right.

 

But if you can convince me that, yes, the code allows the federal executive to bypass Chapter 11 proceedings and interfere in the bankruptcy process to force everybody to accept their deal, to the point of massively violating shareholder rights and unilaterally firing the CEO of a corporation (as they did with GM), then maybe you'll have a point.

[CookieG]

Yeah...and that's not what we're talking about. THE UNION got preferential treatment over the creditors, not the employees, by executive fiat. I didn't say **** about wages.

 

Oh Jesus, the Union WAS a creditor. The VEBA trust was underfunded by about $20 billion at the time of filing. This was an agreement GM agreed to pay years prior. As such, they are, at minimum, an secured creditor, as is an unsecured bondholder.

 

 

No, they're not. They weren't in bankruptcy,

 

They weren't in bankruptcy? Oh...ic...it was because they had the agreement worked out when they filed. Ah. Believe it or not, that does happen, especially with a business.

 

A company gets in trouble but wants to stay afloat. They approach creditors, potential new creditors, government entities, anywhere they can get financing.

 

To the existing creditors, they say, here's what we got, here's what we owe, here's what can be sold if the company is liquidated. Here's what it would likely bring. Here is what your share would be. They try to obtain a consensus, or at least a majority before they file so they can expedite the process. It isn't done in all cases, but it happens, especially with a large company.

 

 

 

 

the debt's since been wiped out, and their share of the new GM's equity doesn't come close to making up for what they were owed.

 

What they were owed, or what they would have received in a Chapter 7 liquidation? THAT'S the test. It is called the "best interest of the creditors" test or the "liquidation test." It is a requirement in a Chapter 11. An unsecured creditor has to judge their claim on the basis of whether the company was in a Chapter 7, a liquidation was conducted, and what the likely recovery for the unsecured creditor would be.

 

 

I'll just repeat what the judge said in the ruling in this area:

 

In light of GM’s substantial secured indebtedness, approximately $50 billion, the

only entity that has the financial wherewithal and is qualified to purchase the assets—and

the only entity that has stepped forward to make such a purchase—is the U.S. Treasury-

sponsored Purchaser. But the Purchaser is willing to proceed only under an expedited

sale process under the Bankruptcy Code.

 

8. The Liquidation Alternative

 

In connection with its consideration of alternatives, GM secured an analysis (the “Liquidation Analysis”), prepared by AlixPartners LLP, of what GM’s assets would be worth in a liquidation. The Liquidation Analysis concluded that the realizable value of the assets of GM (net of the costs of liquidation) would range between approximately $6 billion and $10 billion. No evidence has been submitted to the contrary. This was in the context of an assumed $116.5 billion in general unsecured claims, though this could increase with lease and contract rejection claims and pension termination claims.

16

While the Liquidation Analysis projected some recoveries for secured debt and

administrative and priority claims, it concluded that there would be no recovery

whatsoever for unsecured creditors. The Court has no basis to doubt those conclusions.

The Court finds that in the event of a liquidation, unsecured creditors would recover

nothing.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17123143/Judges-Ruling-Approving-GMs-Sale-Plan

 

Exactly the point...they were bullied into accepting it by the White House, who basically took it on themselves to cram a plan down their throats outside any sort of due process and at a decided DISadvantage to what rights they would have had under an actual, legal bankruptcy proceeding.

 

If "cram down your throat" means, "here's what you'd get if the company was broken up and sold by a bankruptcy trustee"...yeah, well...then it is legal extortion, because it is a required analysis in a Chapter 11 confirmation proceeding.

 

To the benefit of the union, who had a decidedly junior right.

Or not.

 

 

But if you can convince me that, yes, the code allows the federal executive to bypass Chapter 11 proceedings and interfere in the bankruptcy process to force everybody to accept their deal, to the point of massively violating shareholder rights and unilaterally firing the CEO of a corporation (as they did with GM), then maybe you'll have a point.

 

They bypassed the proceeding? By having an agreement in place before confirmation? Yeah, OK.

 

Forcing a deal down everyone's throats? Pretty much what happens in a reorganization proceeding.

 

Massively violating shareholder rights? Did you mean bondholder or shareholder? Shareholders have rights, but only if there is equity in a company. They're generally the last to be paid, and rarely are, in bankruptcy, especially when a new company is formed through the confirmation plan.

 

Firing the CEO in the process? Believe it or not, it happens. I don't know if its something for a POTUS to be proud of. But it does happen.

 

My wife's company, a medium sized financial company in the midwest, nearly went under in the subprime debacle. They were bought out by a reasonably large equity firm. As a condition of the buyout, the CEO of her company was required to leave. He took his $50 million buyout and "retired". That's how it was announced, anyways. Most at the company knew otherwise. No one was sorry to see him go. They knew better than let him do a farewell speech.

 

As a part of the negotiation process, the company fronting the financing can demand a change in management as a condition. I don't know if it is illegal.

[DC Tom]

Oh Jesus, the Union WAS a creditor. The VEBA trust was underfunded by about $20 billion at the time of filing. This was an agreement GM agreed to pay years prior. As such, they are, at minimum, an secured creditor, as is an unsecured bondholder.

 

An unsecured bondholder is a secured creditor in the same way a trust funded with unsecured equity is? And that's beyond the point that the equity the UAW held was at best fourth in line in equity stakes alone (GM had at least one class of preferred, and at least six of common stock - the UAW held at best class C stock). And that's beyond the point that the bondholders, being owed 50% more than the UAW claimed, received at best 50% less than the UAW.

 

In other words, the junior creditors received a 300% better return than the senior ones. ALL because of unwarranted and illegal federal interference in the bankruptcy process.

 

 

 

Forcing a deal down everyone's throats? Pretty much what happens in a reorganization proceeding.

 

Not by Executive Order it doesn't.

 

Massively violating shareholder rights? Did you mean bondholder or shareholder? Shareholders have rights, but only if there is equity in a company. They're generally the last to be paid, and rarely are, in bankruptcy, especially when a new company is formed through the confirmation plan.

 

Firing the CEO in the process? Believe it or not, it happens. I don't know if its something for a POTUS to be proud of. But it does happen.

 

I meant shareholders. Shareholders elect the board (voting shareholders, specifically), which hires the CEO. Bondholders don't own the company.

 

And yes, CEO's get fired. By the board, representing the owners of the company. Not by the !@#$ing President. Which is entirely the point, you half-baked bonehead. The people who's interests are supposed to be represented in bankruptcy - the creditors and shareholders, weren't, because the executive branch of the federal government was dicatating the reorganization of GM, specifically in contradiction to those interests.

[CookieG]

An unsecured bondholder is a secured creditor in the same way a trust funded with unsecured equity is?

 

I meant unsecured creditor. It was after midnight when I typed it.

 

And yes, it is. An unsecured bondholder has no greater rights under 11 USC 507 than any other unsecured creditor. They aren't listed in the priorities. Unless the bondholder was secured, they have no greater rights than any other unsecured creditor, a supplier (the ones who really got screwed), a guy who fixed the air conditioning and hadn't got paid, a person providing office supplies with an outstanding invoice, or any other unsecured creditor.

 

And that's beyond the point that the equity the UAW held was at best fourth in line in equity stakes alone (GM had at least one class of preferred, and at least six of common stock - the UAW held at best class C stock). And that's beyond the point that the bondholders, being owed 50% more than the UAW claimed, received at best 50% less than the UAW.In other words, the junior creditors received a 300% better return than the senior ones. ALL because of unwarranted and illegal federal interference in the bankruptcy process.

 

And the claim of the UAW had nothing to do with whatever stock, bonds or other corporate paper they owned or may have owned.

 

The basis of their claim was the $20 billion GM owed to the VEBA trust. The actual creditor was the trustee of the VEBA trust. The claim, approximately $20 billion, was the largest single unsecured creditor of GM.

 

 

Not by Executive Order it doesn't.

 

 

I meant shareholders. Shareholders elect the board (voting shareholders, specifically), which hires the CEO. Bondholders don't own the company.

 

And yes, CEO's get fired. By the board, representing the owners of the company. Not by the !@#$ing President. Which is entirely the point, you half-baked bonehead. The people who's interests are supposed to be represented in bankruptcy - the creditors and shareholders, weren't, because the executive branch of the federal government was dicatating the reorganization of GM, specifically in contradiction to those interests.

 

LOL. The government was acting like a financier or a potential purchaser.

 

"We'll give you the money if you do A,B,C and D. If you don't, the company will cease doing business, and you'll get what you can get." Happens all the time to companies in trouble.

 

The shareholders were in trouble years ago, and their bond position wasn't much better. Their position was tenuous in 2005, when their bonds were downgraded to little more than junk bond status. It was over when Wall St. went under, credit disappeared and people stopped buying cars.

 

 

People act as if GM could have cashed out, the bondholders would be paid in full and then the shareholders would get 50 cents on the dollar.

 

If GM was liquidated, the bondholders stood a very good chance of getting...nothing. The shareholders had a nearly 100% chance of getting nothing.

 

That's why, despite some public complaining, there were few serious objections filed in the case.

[pBills]

"Being broke and homeless" otherwise known as collecting Obama-checks.

 

 

 

HAHAHAHA Obama-checks. HAHAHA so funny.