I dont get two things-first, how can you file a motion against a public proceeding and expect privacy?

Second, I dont get the big deal about the investors objecting to the bankruptcy. The hedge-funders may not be the most ethical of people, but a debt is a debt. Why shouldnt they exercise their full right to collect?

So the judge isn't Taking It Seriously?

When people don't cooperate with this administration, then the Obama administration simply resorts to extortion.

It is these investor's rights to demand a better deal.

Although, I don't honestly know if these investors could have expected a better deal than this with the state GM has been in for so long...

@Silversmok3: Courts do have sealed records in cases where it's warranted, and death threats are on that list of cases. Expecting privacy isn't what it's about so much as it's expecting not to get killed. I'd agree that apparently the threats were nonserious rants, but the court has mechanisms to, you know, not get people dead.

People like to point fingers at these lenders and cry about how evil they are to not play ball with the government, but these lenders have obligations to their investors that should be respected.

And before you go off and say "screw the investors", you need to realize that the majority of them are working people that have invested their hard-earned money with these lenders to fund their retirements.

@Nathanael Dale Ries: Remember, Dear Leader says we all must sacrifice until we are all equally poor.

@HiPwr: Exactly. Even if these people didn't want to hold up the proceedings, they're pretty much legally bound to do it - Otherwise, they'll end up like Ken Lewis at the next board meeting.

@Nathanael Dale Ries: Judge Gonzalez was appointed in 1995.

Now as far as I know... that was before Obama was elected.

I could be wrong.

@HiPwr: I'm going to hold my judgement that these investors are "working people" looking to "fund their retirement" until AFTER their names are released.

Somehow, I don't think working people that are only worried about their retirements would have a problem with their names being released, nor have the time to surf the Internet to find "threats" made on comments threads.

@veg-o-matic: Stop using common sense and facts to muck the waters...

@veg-o-matic:
You don't honestly think the judge did this after any pressure whatsoever from the attorney's representing the UAW, Chase, and the US Government do you?

They are understandably upset. They are looking at getting paid pennies on the dollar. I'd do everything I could to avoid that as well. Greed has nothing to do with it at this point.

@rellog321: Except your missing one important fact... Judges don't do anything without first being compelled to do so.

Also, I am curios what his political party affiliation is since you seem to be the only ones with all the facts...

Those "investors" have a collective $300 million dollars. Excuse me while I don't lose any sleep over their cries.

@Sean Masters: at 27 cents on the dollar, they are losing around 800 million, and I think I would definitely lose sleep over that amount if I were them...

@smonkey: If they work at it hard enough, they can get that down to zero cents on the dollar.

@Nathanael Dale Ries: There are those that refuse to believe that the Obama administration is threatening companies as well as financial institutions to take TARP. They just don't understand it's all about Power and Control. Let them drink their Kool-Aide, they will only realize their mistakes when the cyanide starts to kick in. Unfortunately it will be too late.

@Ixnayer:

Exactly, will it be too late when they finally learn what Ronald Reagan Meant when he said "Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem," ?

@RStui: Ok, hold your judgement until all of the investor's names are released and after someone goes over their finances and working history to determine if they actually deserve to make a profit from their investments.

Good. I am a hedge fund investor, and I am very clearly aware that it's all about risk / reward. To even get in, your liquid net worth needs to be over $1m (sometimes a lot more) and you have to sign an agreement that very clearly slaps you upside the head with multiple cautions that you could lose it all.

Some you win, some you lose. Coming crying back to the government if you made the wrong bet and expecting a bailout, or taking a dog-in-the-manger attitude, is like going to Vegas and gambling - except if you lose money you expect the casino to make good on your losses.

Do the ordinary workers get a break? No. And if these investors get their way Chrysler won't get it's quick bankruptcy and recovery, it will be tied up in the courts for over a year with a substantial risk of enormous job loss.

I would wholeheartedly urge you to have zero sympathy. What the hedge funds are doing right now with Chrysler is deplorable and the investors need to be named and shamed. Anyone that was burned by their own choice of risky investment needs to grow a set of balls and take responsibility for their own decisions. Simple as that.

@Sean Masters: Those "investors" have a collective $300 million dollars. Excuse me while I don't lose any sleep over their cries.

Better hope none of those "investors" are included in your 401k portfolio.

@RStui:

Mutual funds and hedge funds get their $ from people's 401(k)s, from pension funds, etc.

@Sean Masters: I'm sure some of the funds I'm in with my 401k are worth $300 million or more as a whole, but I make a fraction of what a senator makes.

Why should I shoulder the burden of Chrysler's failure if I can put up a fight and mitigate my losses.

@woot:

If you're actually a hedge fund investor, you should know that (a) your liquid net worth does NOT need to be over $1MM (it's either over $2.5MM, or having earned $250k/year for the past 2 years), and (b) many hedge fund investors are foundations, university endowments, and pension funds.

@woot:

Then why didn't you support them declaring bankruptcy back in november instead of taking TARP funds!?

@NeverLetMeDown: Nope, the SEC rule is either a million in net worth, or verifiable income of $200K in each of the 2 years prior to investment ($300K for a couple). Some hedge funds have higher requirements, which is where I think you might have got the requirements a little confused.

Well, it's a good thing we gave billions of dollars to extend this restructuring/pseudo bankruptcy to these auto companies a few months ago. Clearly it has completely solved everything.

@NeverLetMeDown:The rules are here: [www.sec.gov]

@woot:

You're absolutely right, my apologies.

@Nathanael Dale Ries: Blah, blah, Reagan is dead. The party of Reagan needs a new leader.

What did Palin say? Something like "Government is not always the answer. In fact, government is often the problem." Now that's some timeless rhetoric. Cast my vote for Palin-Jindal 2012.

@Nathanael Dale Ries: Well that's a fair comment. My answer would be that bankruptcy would disrupt the entire relationship all along the supply chain, so your talking about suppliers to the entire industry being put in jeopardy. That doesn't hit just Chrysler, it hits Ford, GM, Toyota, et al. It's a lot better if we can avoid that. TARP essentially is giving these companies breathing room to restructure (it's not a blank check) but Chrysler's Hedge Fund investors are blocking it as are GM's bond holders.

The whole thing sucks. I just happen to believe that TARP sucks less than the alternatives. If your view differs, I can completely understand and respect that. It's not an "easy problem" with one right answer.

What kind of president would take advantage of a national crisis in order to expand the power of his own administration?

So you see, somehow the "facts" end up depending solely on what party you relate to.

heck most of you pussies cry about a 10 dollar over draft fee. try losing 70-90% of your investment where you were the first one in line to collect on a debt owed.

contracts and laws appear to mean nothing as long as the ends justify the means for this administration.

for all the harping on the "fascist" Bush administration, here we are seeing Statist intervention on an unprecedented scale and the vast majority of the press corps is either helping or ignoring the issue. I guarantee you if Bush pulled some shit like this it would be 24/7 news cycle.

You have the government of the United States threatening investors who were first in line to collect on a debt owed because it might muck up some bullshit power grab by the UAW, and there is almost no substantive coverage being done.

@nytmare: Every president.

@woot:
That doesn't hit just Chrysler, it hits Ford, GM, Toyota, et al

Um, why? If Chrysler and GM can't sell enough cars to keep from going bankrupt, how is extending the pain going to make it any easier on anyone else? This makes zero sense.

This whole bailout is for the Unions plain and simple. And to flip your argument on its head, once the UAW owns 55% of GM, how do you think this will affect their relationship with Ford, who will become a direct competitor?

Doesn't this just scream conflict of interest disaster to you?

Sigh

Its simple. If someone owes you money, and that someone files bankruptcy, you have a right to argue in court that they should pay you back. Regardless of whether the amount is $.01 or a million dollars.

IMO, if you believed the government's word that bankruptcy of a company as large as Chrysler was gonna be quick -then the idiot is the man in the mirror, not the hedge fund managers who are exercising their legal right to be paid what they are owed.

@Nathanael Dale Ries:

It's their right to demand a better deal, but not necessarily to get it.

@MrDo:

The shit had not yet completely hit the fan while Bush was in office.

@IamNotToddDavis: The reason why is that a lot of the components in a modern car come from a variety or companies that supply most of the manufacturers. So, if one manufacturer goes into bankruptcy and stops payment on past-due bills, it puts pressure on those suppliers that might well result in business failure. There's a very real risk of a domino effect. If you ask Ford if they'd like to see GM go into bankruptcy, they'll tell you "no" and that's the reason why.

Its the derivatives. This is not about anything but the creditors who have more riding on the derivatives than on GM existence. If GM fails then they make bank. More than if GM succeeds.

@Michael Belisle:

Yeah..not like we aren't in this financial mess to begin with because of Republicans holding sway over 2 branches of government over the past 6-8 years, amirite? They had plenty of time to reign in the housing market and subprime loans and risky investing, but chose not to.

@MrDo:

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. You assume it is Obama's fault these FAILED corporations can't pay back their debts? Yeah, Obama is playing hardball to get his legislation passed, but these companies made their own beds with their crappy products. Honestly, who the hell invests in Chrysler? They have been selling pieces of shit for the past 10-15 years. Anyone expecting to get their investment back out of Chrysler deserves a 0% return.

According to contract law, the investors in bankrupt Chrysler debt have priority against all other claims. But, the messiah, Obama, has thrown contract law into the dumpster and given the auto union, which is 3rd in line, 1st position. Therefore, in the future, why should any investor put money at risk when they know the federal government will break the law? Investors provide the liquidity for the financial markets. No investors. No money. But, then again, Obama will probably just use taxpayer funded welfare in place of private investment. Um, smells like Obama read Hugo Chavez' book.

@woot: I know some people who work for these suppliers, and they are getting screwed in these deals just as bad as the other creditors are. Sure, they would like to see more orders, but they want to get PAID for them.

As far as your conversation with Ford's GM is concerned, ask him that same question again now that the UAW will be the majority owner of the company. I bet you get a different answer.

A bunch of Wall Street sharpies make a speculative bet by buying Chrysler bonds - the weakest of the Big Three with a horrible prognosis even before the recent oil shocks - then when their bet goes south, the drive Chrysler into bankruptcy by demanding 100% ROI in a world where ALL the other investors are getting a haircut and even mighty Toyota is troubled.
Now they're whining to a judge that, after behaving so stupidly, they're afraid their identities will get out?

Jeezus, is there no accountability?

@nytmare:

The one who appoints Rahm Emanuel, Mr. "Never let a crisis go to waste," that's who

@Nathanael Dale Ries: I did.

Yeah, it looks like AIG insured the Hedge Funds when they bought the bonds at 30 cents on the dollar. Bought credit swaps from AIG. They are gonna get every penny. On the taxpayer's back.

The truth is known:

[www.huffingtonpost.com]

@IamNotToddDavis: If you take politics out of it for a second, you have to acknowledge that the UAW is a major stakeholder in the survival of these companies, and they've been a lot more constructive in helping in the current crisis than the Hedge Funds and bond holders have been. They deserve a seat at the boardroom table and be able to look over the books - I think we'll see a lot more rational decisions as a result. It's tough to make unreasonable pay and condition demands when you're nose-to-nose with the reality that it might cause the company to go under and everyone loses their jobs. I don't think the UAW would act that irrationally.

What is very evident is that current management are not able to get it right. The UAW knows a thing or two about making cars. I'd like to see them get a chance at having a go at running a car company and then we'll see how they do. They can't possibly screw things up worse than they are now, so let them stand up and show us what they're made of.