Is this a problem because we don't know for a fact that a threat was made, or does it just not make any difference to you if a threat _was_ made?

and it’s the government’s job to protect that investment against greedy graspers like Whineberg.

grinder | May 3, 2009 | Reply

Wanting 50 cents back for every dollar he loaned makes you think he's greedy?

See, the thing about using the media as your own personal attack dogs is that at some point, they turn on you.

The issue here is Perella Whineberg's desire to be paid 50 cents on the dollar for its bonds, rather than 29 cents on the dollar offered by the Treasury. The reason Treasury is involved is because Chrysler can't obtain private "debtor in possession" financing for its bankruptcy. Treasury is playing that role, and he who provides DIP financing always has a big role in bankruptcy proceedings.

Virtually every bankruptcy features some fighting among creditors over pieces of a pie that, by definition, isn't big enough to give everyone a full slice. The biggest fights are often between different classes of creditors, and in those fights you will often see "senior" creditors howling over not being paid as much as they think they deserve relative to "junior" creditors.

That was the case here. In addition to Perella Whineberg, two other senior creditors (Oppenheimer and Stairstep) were so-called "holdouts" from a settlement agreed to be scores of other creditors. In bankruptcies, holdouts usually don't do very well. The judge sometimes tosses them an extra crust of bread, but not always.

As the DIP financing provider, the Treasury wants Chrysler to remain an ongoing entity. Its interest is to produce agreement among the creditors so there won't be a prolonged court fight that might endanger the entity's ability to repay the DIP financing. So, it wants to corral the holdouts.

Perella Whineberg was corralled last Friday; it issued a press release to that effect. But it also trotted out its lawyer to claim that the White House had forced it into agreement by threatening to ruin the firm's reputation. The White House categorically denied that version, something that the blog you quoted never mentioned before abruptly closing its comment section on Sunday morning.

We don't know what was said by the White House to Perella Whineberg. It's unlikely that anyone threatened Whineberg with the White House press corps, but it's not beyond imagining that the White House pointed to President Obama's statements and told Whineberg that they were only the beginning of what they'd face if the holdouts continued to hold out and jeopardized the ongoing operations of Chrysler. After all, the taxpayers are now on the hook for $4 billion in DIP financing, and it's the government's job to protect that investment against greedy graspers like Whineberg.

In any case, the idea that "the rule of law" was ignored is outrageous. The Chrysler bankruptcy, and the recent machinations, is par for the course. Perella Whineberg was trying to get a better deal, and failed. What really sticks out here is Perella Whineberg's utter lack of class and professionalism. They are the personification of the kind of sore losers and manipulative squirrels that the Republican Party has become.