Abrogating Contracts Q & A

  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #3
It seems there has be some misinformation regarding § 1113 and § 1114

§ 1113 allows a Debtor to secure the bankruptcy court’s approval for the interim and/or permanent rejection of collective bargaining agreements

§ 1114 provides the bankruptcy code’s mandatory mechanism for seeking to modify or terminate the medical, disability, death and other non-pension benefits of the bankrupt’s retired employees, their spouses and dependents

This part is interesting:

The absence of a “snap-backâ€￾ may bear upon the question whether a proposal is fair and equitable: if the Debtor should do better than projected, creditors and shareholders would receive the benefit of the excess cash, but employees would be stuck with their concessions. Wheeling-Pittsburgh, 791 F.2d at 1091-93 (rejection not allowed, largely because no snap-back); but see In re Walway Co., 69 B.R. 967, 974 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1987); In re Appletree Markets, Inc., 155 B.R. 431 (S.D. Tex. 1993) (rejection permitted, even though proposed modifications did not contain reduction in management compensation or a “snap-back,â€￾ because Debtor’s proposal brought both management and nonmanagement employees in line with competition); UAW v. Gatke Corporation, 151 B.R. 211 (N.D. Ind. 1991) (absence of snap back did not prevent rejection because of Debtor’s poor economic circumstances); Bowen Enterprises, Inc. v. United Food and Commercial Workers, 196 B.R. 734 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1996) (absence of snap back not fatal; union should have included it in counter proposals, if union deemed it essential).
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #5
700UW

Since you question me regarding my information lets put it on the table. Here is my argument and with link to US code. Now prove me wrong with facts as you like to say.
================================================

§ 1113 allows a Debtor to secure the bankruptcy court’s approval for the interim and/or permanent rejection of collective bargaining agreements

REF: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl...ter_first_match

================================================

§ 1114 provides the bankruptcy code’s mandatory mechanism for seeking to modify or terminate the medical, disability, death and other non-pension benefits of the bankrupt’s retired employees, their spouses and dependents

REF: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl...ter_first_match

=================================================

Throw this in as additional ref:

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:Mh-xP...+abrogate&hl=en
 
Thanks for posting the references to Chapter 11.

As I read them and intereperate them in my own crude way I find that the company is going to have the upper hand. Remember that Uncle Sam in the form of the ATSB will be one of the biggest creditors and they are a tough bunch.

In order to keep the ATSB loan guarantee they are going to require ASM cost targets that are really extreme. They will be able to cite costs at other carriers that are less than U and all the U employee unions will have to have a plan that meets the target costs ready or acept the courts ruling.

A ruling agains any collective bargining agreement doesn't remove the option of self help by that group.

What is your opnion of the IAM mood in this regard?
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #7
PineyBob said:
This is why I've always preached negotiation as opposed to litigation. When you get to court you just never know.

Lawyers are about billable hours, not always your interests.

We all take time to read the information here and we'll probaly have as many opinions as we have people who post.

C'mon did anyone here think that OJ would be aquitted? Not into the guilt or innocence argument here or elsewhere but did you think he would get aquitted? If your answer is no then you've figured out why companies almost always settle suits.

Court is a crap shoot and despite some very liberal judges the courts have IMO not been kind to Labor.

Why do you think the Jerry Glass's of the world prosper while your ranks shrink?
Click to expand...
OJ is a perfect example Pineybob. Just as no one believes IAM or any union has a chance in court. Bring on da Rocky. Life is a crap shoot. The more risk the more reward.

Pineybob since you have a opinion regarding the courts and labor can you cite a handful of examples that helped you form your opinion.
 
Dear BOB


blah blah blah orthopterous insects and wasted money on union dues....bobby you really need to take a walk around the block to get some fresh air because your posts are all sounding the same.


Maybe find a good women and go play Tarzan in some remote jungle and give us all a break.



LOV CAV
 
Bob,

I agree with your sentiment that going before the judge is a crapshoot. One need to look no further than the termination of the pilot DB pension in bankruptcy 1. The PBGC representitive testified that the standard for termination wasn't that a specific reorganization plan depended on termination, but rather that no plan could be successful without termination. Of course, the company argued that their POR could not be successful without terminating the pilots pension plan, and we know how the judge ruled. (It probably didn't help the outcome that ALPA didn't do much fighting over the issue.)

One thing that struck my non-lawyer brain in the material usairways-vote-no linked was the "fairness" issue. It seemed to suggest that one group of stakeholders couldn't be singled out for cuts, but some of the cases cited seemed to suggest that stakeholders already having competitive "costs" could be excluded from further harm.

All in all, too much for my country boy brain to decipher and clearly see an outcome.

Jim
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #10
PineyBob said:
I read what you posted and that's about all. No specific citations to point to. I find the law fascinating but the research mind numbing, typical salesman I guess.

But just from this perspective. Unions collect say $50/Mo. from thousands of members hire staff attorneys and outside counsel and go up against a multi-billion dollar company and it's legal team, the full weight of the federal court system appointed by Congress and the president and by proxy all the corporations who donated to every congressional campaign. It's a very large and well stacked deck.

That's why you try to stay out of the courts. The court of public opinion is where any citizens group stands the greatest chance of success. Despite tpoliticians and companies best efforts to manage news they haven't got it mastered and everyday folks can win.

And OJ is a prime example of a black murder suspect who had the money to match the Government dollar for dollar and he got the very best justice money could buy. He was one of few murder suspects who was on a level playing field with the government. No surprise to me he won.

can you win? Of course and no one says you shouldn't try. I'm saying you pick your battles very very carefully.
Click to expand...
Well I have read on this board before that Labor doesn't have much luck in court with companies. So when you said it I stupidly assumed it was you who had posted it before. Now I think you are saying you just formed your opinion from the links I provided.


I don't know how much money OJ or the IAM have but I would think IAM has some. I also do not think OJ's attorneys were bought by OJ's money they were bought by the Fame and the anticipation of the aftermath of trial. I also find interesting your reference to OJ as a black murder suspect but that was another thread. I find it hard to believe anyone wasn't at least surprised OJ won.

I find your reference to USAirways as a multi-billion dollar company totally hilarious and thank you for the laugh you had me in stitches.

Stacked maybe who knows for sure but underdogs win everyday.

There are guidelines that have to be followed and I wouldn't think the IAM or its members would be in any worse shape by taking a chance in court then taking what the company wants to give them. The argument that the IAM would bring USAirways to Chap 7 all on its own is just poppycock. Like you say there is too much at stake to lose for all the creditors.
 
What do you think Lakefield is doing?? He knows the company is going BK again and probably liquidate as well. He's trying to give the appearance of a good faith effort and make the unions look intrasigent to bolster management's case for complete abrogation. What has management to lose? They refused to change anything during the last year, so what makes anyone think this time they're "sincere." Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me, Fool me three times . . . . Well, I guess I'm just a chump.
 
PineyBob said:
C'mon did anyone here think that OJ would be aquitted? Not into the guilt or innocence argument here or elsewhere but did you think he would get aquitted? If your answer is no then you've figured out why companies almost always settle suits.

Court is a crap shoot and despite some very liberal judges the courts have IMO not been kind to Labor.
Click to expand...
Couldn't resist responding to this one.

Yes I thought that OJ was going to be acquitted.

Five words did it - "Try on the gloves, OJ."

Attorneys NEVER go into a trial not knowing the answer to a question. The actions of Marcia Clark before and during the trial was textbook on how NOT to conduct a trial. They put on a clinic - but in reverse.

Once the glove incident came to life, coupled with the Fuhrman testimony, the prosecution had sealed its fate with at least a few jurors - enough certainly to guarantee a mistrial, and possibly enough to reach an eventual acquittal.

<back to lurking>
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #13
BillLumbergh said:
Couldn't resist responding to this one.

Yes I thought that OJ was going to be acquitted.

Five words did it - "Try on the gloves, OJ."

Attorneys NEVER go into a trial not knowing the answer to a question. The actions of Marcia Clark before and during the trial was textbook on how NOT to conduct a trial. They put on a clinic - but in reverse.

Once the glove incident came to life, coupled with the Fuhrman testimony, the prosecution had sealed its fate with at least a few jurors - enough certainly to guarantee a mistrial, and possibly enough to reach an eventual acquittal.

<back to lurking>
Click to expand...
Nice to see the even Bill can stray off topic every once in a blue moon. I hate to even respond again to this, hung hury maybe but acquittal truly psychic. I did like that you threw in "possibly" at the end of the post. Shows reasonable doubt.
 
BillLumbergh said:
Couldn't resist responding to this one.

Yes I thought that OJ was going to be acquitted.

Five words did it - "Try on the gloves, OJ."

Attorneys NEVER go into a trial not knowing the answer to a question. The actions of Marcia Clark before and during the trial was textbook on how NOT to conduct a trial. They put on a clinic - but in reverse.

Once the glove incident came to life, coupled with the Fuhrman testimony, the prosecution had sealed its fate with at least a few jurors - enough certainly to guarantee a mistrial, and possibly enough to reach an eventual acquittal.

<back to lurking>
Click to expand...
Ok Billy Boy...do agree though!! :up:
 
PineyBob said:
Why do you think the Jerry Glass's of the world prosper while your ranks shrink?
Click to expand...
Here is the reason you will HATE but nevertheless the real reason.


Because the prince of the air rules this planet right now and will until the LORD returns, that is the reason!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BoeingBoy
Bookings Decline At Us Airways
Replies
12
Views
2K
diogenes
D
BoeingBoy
Retirement Benefits Key
Replies
5
Views
993
PITbull
PITbull
Dont call me Shirley
Tooth Powder
Replies
4
Views
1K
highflyer123
H
C
And some more light reading about Palin and her Church
4 5 6
Replies
85
Views
7K
tech2101
tech2101
PA16
Anchorage
Replies
0
Views
9K
PA16
PA16

Latest posts

Back
Top