In the span of 2 days, Fiat has downgraded its commitment to Chrysler from 'married for life' to 'get yourself together in 6 days or you're toast'. Evidently the Justice Department's delay in dealing with the pesky Indiana pension funds is starting to test Fiat patience.
On Monday Fiat's CEO Sergio Marchionne's response to whether or not they would walk away from a deal with Chrysler it it wasn't completed by June 15th was emphatic
We would never walk away. Never. We should just be patient and let the system work.
This morning a Fiat spokesman commented
Fiat will not walk away from the deal if it isn't completed by the June 15 deadline
And now
If the sale transaction is not completed soon, there can be no assurance that a replacement transaction could be structured and agreed that would preserve any aspect of Chrysler as a going concern
Fiat, Chrysler Urge High Court to Act Quickly on Sale [CNBC]
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 4:25PM
So make 'em an offer they can't refuse. Bust some kneecaps, crack some skulls, jeez these guys call themselves Italians?
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 4:27PM
I still hate you Mr Michaels. Infact now i hate all Michaels.
Posted by american bandersnatch , Jun 09, 2009 4:30PM
I bet El Duce would have got the deals to close on time.
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 4:30PM
Could it be that all the ideas come into Bess and she cherry picks the good ones for herself and jettisons the boring and terrible ones to young Mr. Michaels? Could be,,, hmmm? could be!
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 4:31PM
Grego man, this has nothing to do with the Justice Department. Get a clue.
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 4:31PM
Show them anyway!
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 4:32PM
4 This a surprise to you? Man, thats how the whole world works.
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 4:34PM
3 The President is doing all he can.
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 4:35PM
I don't think Bess would confuse the Supreme Court with the Justice Department.
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 4:37PM
Don't buy a fiat if your in a hurry.
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 4:39PM
if Fiat doesn't complete the sale, that would be epic.
State Pension Funds FTW!
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 4:52PM
Greg,
I couldn't get the stains out of your underpants, so we'll have to go shopping for new ones when you get home.
Love,
Mom
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 4:57PM
Is Greg Michaels a re-incarnation of EP, but just keeps the word count to less than 4K?
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 5:00PM
MOM!!!
Don't embarrass me in front of the guys! I told you that I wasn't able to hold it because I was running late to make an irrelevant post on DB!
-Greg
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 5:06PM
What do you think Sugardaddy is doing right now?
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 5:08PM
What do you think Sugardaddy is doing right now?
Posted by HAM05 , Jun 09, 2009 5:10PM
@15 honestly the only thing getting me through the day is that someone somewhere is banging his secretary in the ass
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 5:11PM
Greg - you should post under a girly pseudonym. If you do that, these tards will fall all over themselves trying to praise you.
Posted by InfiniteGuest , Jun 09, 2009 5:15PM
@18 Marla? Is that you? Are you coming back?
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 5:26PM
Dan Quayle is running the lobbying effort for those Indiana Pension funds. True story.
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 5:28PM
Greg: I agree totally with 18.
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 5:36PM
@19
She will come back to randomly insult the commentators here. But not frequently. Good riddance!
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 6:02PM
I wish my girlfriend had a pretty name, like Gregoria.
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 6:45PM
Hey, @5 and @9:
Actually, Greg is correct. The US is represented before the Supreme Court by the Solicitor General, which is part of the Dept. of Justice. So it is the Justice Dept. that is tasked with getting rid of the challenge posed to the deal by the pesky IN funds.
Dicks.
-- Not Greg Michaels
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 7:01PM
@20
You are kidding. Tomatoe head works for Cerberus.
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 7:06PM
@24
Nice try. The delay is because Justice Ginsburg wants to hear more about the pension funds case and perhaps give the other justices a chance to decide on this matter. At this moment the Solicitor General is not delaying anything because is not in the interest of getting the deal done to delay anything.
Greg should go back to school and learn about the 3 branches of government.
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 7:12PM
@24
No again.
The issue is not the current delay. The fact is that had the Justice Dept. been better at its job, they never would have let it get this far. The Justice Dept failed to both (a) defeat the IN funds efforts to get a stay at the 2d Circuit; and (b) convince the Supreme Court not to issue a stay in the first place.
Now, get back to that pitchbook I asked you to make.
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 7:24PM
@27
Enough of you idiot.
Losing a case, like your a and b above, is not the same as delaying a case. The ones who want the delay are Lauria's clients because they can win by delaying (if Fiat walks) and not by the merits of the case.
In fact, as I'm writing this I just saw this:
Court clears Chrysler sale
Tuesday, June 9th, 2009 7:20 pm | Lyle Denniston | Print This Post
Ending four days of intense, round-the-clock and high-stakes legal maneuvering in the Supreme Court, the Justices on Tuesday evening removed a legal obstacle to sale of Chrysler.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-clears-chrysler-sale/
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 7:35PM
@28
Scotusblog added 2 paragraphs:
Insisting that it was denying a postponement “in this case alone,” the two-page order said the challengers had not met their burden of showing that a delay was justified. The order allows a closing of the deal as of next Monday, because it lifts a temporary stay that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had issued on Monday, apparently to give the Court time to ponder the issue.
The Court said nothing about the biggest issue lurking in the case: the legality of using federal “bailout” money to pay for the rescue of an auto manufacturer. In fact, the order stressed that “a denial of a stay is not a ddecision on the merits of the underlying legal issues.”
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 7:45PM
@28
Still wrong. What Greg said is that "Evidently the Justice Department's delay in dealing with the pesky Indiana pension funds is starting to test Fiat patience." And it is an obvious fact that the Justice Dept, by failing to win at the 2d Circuit, and in defeating the S.Ct stay motion, caused this delay.
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 7:54PM
@30
Didn't you hear? The Supreme Court just cleared the sale. And that was almost a week earlier than the Fiat supposed deadline. Yes, quite a delay. The "lazy" folks at the Justice Department are not going to get any credit from you for their victory because it shouldn't have ended in the Supreme Court anyway. Right? Is that how you are going to spin this now?
Be careful that when you succumb to one side of the story, you may look dumb when that side loses. Eat spin and vanish.
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 8:02PM
@30
So your argument is that because the delay has now ceased, it never existed? Not very convincing.
My story has never changed, and there is no spin. The statement -- that the Justice Dept. caused the delay -- is absolutely correct. The fact that the stay was lifted before the closing deadline does not change the fact that there was a delay, and that the delay was opposed by Chrysler and the Gov't. In fact, in their opposition to the stay, Chrysler and the Gov't made the argument that they were prejudiced by the delay, because each additional day without closing cost them about $100MM.
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 8:32PM
@32
There are some fundamentals of the US Law system that you don't seem to understand. If you are a party to a court case and are unhappy with the results, and specifically in cases like this, you have the right to appeal. In this system there is no right to win a case, there is due process.
Chrysler et al won in the bankruptcy court. The other side appealed. Are you saying that Chrysler should have won in bankruptcy court earlier? I'm not sure how anyone can make that statement considering the little time it took for this issue to go thru that court.
The appellate court essentially expedited the case to the Supreme Court with a deadline. The Supreme Court extended the deadline but it just took an extra day and decided in favor of Chrysler. How's that for a fast decision?
This case was going to end in the Supreme Court, that was clear to expert observers. That's because neither side was going to let it go. The Supreme Court is where all the appeals end. And in this case it just did, and ahead of Chrysler's schedule.
Chrysler moves ahead with their plans, the Indiana funds and others will scramble to pay perhaps thousands of billable hours that they owe. That's money that the original secured creditors that raised this challenge decided was not worth spending. But somehow Lauria found or retained a few clients that were motivated to lose more money.
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 8:41PM
@33
No, no, no. All I am saying, and all I ever said, was that the Justice Dept. is responsible for this whole stay/delay. They never should have let it get this far.
Yes, of course everyone has the right to appeal. But NOT everyone has a right to a stay pending appeal. Getting a stay pending appeal, which IN did here, even if only briefly, is very, very rare.
Had the Justice Dept. done a better job, they would have defeated IN's efforts to get a stay, both at the 2d circuit and the Supreme Court. Of course IN was going to appeal to the Supreme Court. But without a stay, such an appeal is essentially meaningless, because they could close the transaction before the S.Ct even addressed the case, which it may never have done
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 8:43PM
30: You are a re-tard. Fiat of course wanted the GOV to pop a few more million or bilion into the system to make the bondholders go away muy pronto. They wouldn't and instead pursued the judicial option. The SC did the right thing as most anticipated they would (the SC being lately pretty spineless in any real proceeding as opposed to pro-life, prayer in schools etc fringe cases). So give it a rest, all's well that ends well.
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 8:53PM
35
Me being a "re-tard" has dire implications for you, my friend. Everything you just wrote (after the "re-tard" bit, of course)is true. But nothing you just wrote supports your initial allegation, which was that poor little Greg Michaels was wrong when he wrote that that the Justice Dept. is responsible for the delay.
So, back to the copy machine for you!
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 9:19PM
@36
If Chrysler had lost in the bankruptcy court and then forced to appeal, then you may have a point about it causing a delay. The appeals court favored Chrysler but it anticipated that there would be an appeal to the SC, so it stayed the order until Monday at 4:00 PM. That decision was not under the control of the Justice Department, it was the court's decision. The reason for the stay was to give the SC more time to review the case in appeal.
If you didn't see that coming, then you are a novice because actions like this are not unprecedented, though they are rare. So blaming the Justice Department for any delay is just Lauria spinning and have nothing to do with the reality of this case.
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 9:41PM
37
I'll use small words, so you'll understand: you are a moron.
Posted by guest , Jun 09, 2009 9:49PM
12- funny
14 - NOT!!!!!