JPMorgan Chase to settle with government over Madoff claims

[Dog Wonder]

What is yours and others basis for concluding that liquidating GM would "NOT" have benefited the U.S. and created jobs elsewhere!

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

 

[700UW]

Still waiting for a reply that GM did in fact file Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.

 

[700UW]

Guess crime does pay:
 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/24/jp-morgan-s-jamie-dimon-gets-big-raise/4825311/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=206567
 

Financial services giant JP Morgan, hit with $20 billion in legal fines, settlements and related costs in 2013, provided CEO Jamie Dimon $20 million in compensation last year, a 74% jump from 2012.
 
Dimon, who earned $11.5 million in 2012, received $18.5 million in restricted shares and $1.5 million in salary last year, according to Securities & Exchange Commission filing Friday. It was Dimon's highest compensation package since 2011, when he received $23 million from the nation's largest bank.
 

 

[700UW]

 

[delldude]

Still waiting for a reply that GM did in fact file Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.

 
They did...and Obama violated existing BK law doing it.

 

[700UW]

And how did he violate that law?
 
Congress passed the stimulus to help distressed companies.
 
Its amazing how people really dont know who authorizes how the money is spent in the government, that would be the House and Senate, not the President.
 
I love it how you all think the President runs the US government and no one else is involved.
 
Time for you all to take Government 101.

 

[delldude]

How about when he denied the secured creditors their place in the food chain?
 

 
To make matters worse, both bankruptcies were orchestrated as so-called "section 363" sales. This meant that essentially all the assets of "old Chrysler" were sold to "new Chrysler" (and "old GM" to "new GM"), and were pushed through in a rush. These sales violated the longstanding bankruptcy principle that an asset sale should not be functionally equivalent to a plan of re-organization for an entire company — what bankruptcy lawyers call a "sub rosa plan." The reason is that the re-organization process offers all creditors the right to vote on the proposed plan as well as a chance to offer competing re-organization plans, while an asset sale can be carried out without such a vote.
In the cases of GM and Chrysler, however, the government essentially pushed through a re-organization disguised as a sale, and so denied the creditors their rights. As the University of Pennsylvania's David Skeel observed last year, "selling" an entire company of GM or Chrysler's size and complexity in this manner was unprecedented. Even on a smaller scale, it would have been highly irregular: While rush bankruptcy sales of much smaller companies were once common, the bankruptcy laws were overhauled in 1978 precisely to eliminate this practice.
 
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-auto-bailout-and-the-rule-of-law

 

 
At the Daily Caller, constitutional lawyer Ilya Shapiro runs down President Obama's top-10 constitutional violations. Of the 10, many are violations that could be based on a misunderstanding or legitimate disagreement on the Obama team's part about what is constitutional. But this one is inexcusable:

4. The Chrysler bailout
Building on the Bush administration's illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration bullied Chrysler's secured creditors -- who were entitled to "absolute priority" -- into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law but also the Constitution's Takings and Due Process Clauses. This blatant crony capitalism -- government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders -- discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law.

The Chrysler bailout was more a violation of the rule of law than the Constitution, which makes it the worst offense, in my book, of ones Shapiro lists.
http://spectator.org/blog/28166/obamas-number-one-violation-constitution

 

[700UW]

Still doesnt say Obama was behind it and calling the shots.
 
And where in COTUS is there Bankruptcy?

 

[delldude]

Still doesnt say Obama was behind it and calling the shots.
 
And where in COTUS is there Bankruptcy?
 
This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law but also the Constitution's Takings and Due Process Clauses.

 
But nonetheless if was Bush it would be his baby.....cut me a break.
 
As CIC he is sworn to uphold the COTUS and the law......which he has big time issues with doing.
 
 

 
Are you following the disembowelment of Chrysler’s secured creditors with an eye not just toward what it means for the moribund car company but for what it could do to the very concept of secured debt? Has it dawned on you what the consequences will be if the President gets his way and consideration is given to creditors not according to contracts, rules, and established legal precedents but according to which group is most politically favored? And do you believe the President advanced the cause of economic recovery by publicly excoriating “speculators” who once hoped to profit by lending money against hard assets to an ailing company?
 
According to U.S. bankruptcy code, secured creditors - that is lenders who have a contractual security interest or claim to specific collateral - have to be paid before unsecured creditors. Unsecured creditors' claims are prioritized according to explicit rules defined by law. With the exception of short-term payments approved by a bankruptcy judge to keep a company running during the reorganization process, each priority level has a right to be paid in full before creditors with the next lowest priority get a dime. That is why secured debt can be had at a lower interest rate than unsecured debt. In fact, that is why troubled companies have any ability at all to raise money. Credit flows because everyone knows the rules of the game, even in bankruptcy.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/05/obama_to_secured_creditors_dro.html

 
 

 

[cltrat]

And how did he violate that law?
 
Congress passed the stimulus to help distressed companies.
 
Its amazing how people really dont know who authorizes how the money is spent in the government, that would be the House and Senate, not the President.
 
I love it how you all think the President runs the US government and no one else is involved.
 
Time for you all to take Government 101.

well if that's the case then perhaps you'll join us in class.
seeing that you're a card carrying member of the blame Bush crowd. You can't pin everything on him.
sorry you can't have it both ways.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

 
How does your foot taste?
 
You are truly uneducated.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/01/news/companies/gm_bankruptcy/
 

 
For Christ sake,..You friggin' guys ('Dog/700/Glenn/Tree)... have a lot of NERVE...expecting ol' southwind to..T H I N K , .......When the Dopey...Red-Necked........MORON......doesn't have a F'n ..CLUE  if he's ....' ALIVE and BREATHING '  !!
 
Sheeeesh !