A Couple of Quick Chrysler Points
On the eve of the big sale here, there have be a few new developments.
First, the district court denied the Indiana pension funds' motion to withdraw the reference. I suspect the pension funds are working on those "stay pending appeal" papers tonight.
And the law firms representing the "Committee of Affected Dealers" have finally filed their 2019 statements (perhaps they took the hint or hints). Somewhat oddly, the two law firms report representing a very different number of dealerships (here and here), albeit with some overlap. I'm confused.
Also, some of the dealers have taken to titling their filings as "Objection to Motion of Debtors and Debtors in Possession for Orders in Furtherance of Sub Rosa Plan of Reorganization . . ." (here and here, for example). No comment.
Finally, while I've generally been critical of the objections filed in the case, there are many examples of well written objections that make for compelling reading, and well illustrate the difficult task the judge faces tomorrow. For example, see here and here.
And then there's the odd Madoff "angle" to the case.
Five'll get you ten that somebody from the closed dealership in Albuquerque has an oral understanding--worth the paper it's written on--to become THE new Chrysler dealership in Albuquerque, after the remaining, presently viable, dealership in Albuquerque is closed through the rejection process. The new dealership would operate on terms more favorable to the new Chrysler than the present dealership. How the hopeful principal(s) from the defunct one think that they can stay in business hereafter, on terms probably worse than the defunct dealership had before, is beyond me. Hope springs eternal.
Posted by: Greg Jones | June 03, 2009 at 09:39 AM