which will it be? the ta or term sheet?

[CMH_GSE]

You may think they overstepped their wants, reality is , the judge will reject the contracts, they always have.

 

[FWAAA]

While it's possible that the judge might reject the company's motion to abrogate, the odds are against that outcome.

It's not a criminal matter where the company has to convince the judge beyond a reasonable doubt - the civil standard of preponderance of the evidence - more likely than not - is all that is necessary.

It may be AA management's (and Horton's) first 1113 attempt, but the high-priced suits that AA hired have been down this road before. Predicting the outcome based on some courtroom tweets by some twit (who probably isn't a bankruptcy law expert) sounds a little like handicapping the outcome of a Supreme Court opinion based on the questions asked by some Justices during oral argument.

 

[Buck]

From what I read the TWU made the most progress with AA.

What does that mean?

Better contract or saving more jobs? Under this scenario you are not going to be allowed to choose. After all the TWU is the only union that has a consensual agreement.

 

[Frank Szabo]

Frank, the only problem is, if the judge refuses to reject our contracts , it will be the FIRST time in 34 court cases that has happened.

Don't forget that this IS the first bk filing of a major airline after the law chanced somewhat in OCT2005. I'm not implying the presence of pixie dust and unicorn farts, but - this entire proceeding is a first in that regard.

The 34 cases you've referenced were pre-2005.

I'm not pegging anything on the "maybe" aspect of this, though, only stating that much has changed and that it's the job of the judge to place the bankrupt company on an even footing so it can have a chance of survival. Allowing the creation of an entity that can't keep people from running away after they've cut their teeth doesn't accomplish this.

 

[Frank Szabo]

While it's possible that the judge might reject the company's motion to abrogate, the odds are against that outcome.

It's not a criminal matter where the company has to convince the judge beyond a reasonable doubt - the civil standard of preponderance of the evidence - more likely than not - is all that is necessary.

It may be AA management's (and Horton's) first 1113 attempt, but the high-priced suits that AA hired have been down this road before. Predicting the outcome based on some courtroom tweets by some twit (who probably isn't a bankruptcy law expert) sounds a little like handicapping the outcome of a Supreme Court opinion based on the questions asked by some Justices during oral argument.

Don't forget that Horton was CFO at AT&T during their Chapter 11 filing - truth be known, that may well be why he was reemployed at AMR - to do the same job.

 

[Rogallo]

It's all been very well orchestrated...!!

 

[eolesen]

The "last and best" offer will be imposed if this is voted down. Everyone needs to block out a few hours and read a legal interpretation of the Chapter 11 USC (not from the TWU) and quit listening to company/company-union shills.

Frank, I think you may have the terminology and sequencing wrong... Maybe one of the accredited lawyers here could confirm...

As I understand it, the company's last and best offer could only be implemented with a yes vote.

Further, the LBO would only be offered up for vote if there is not a Revised TA to vote on.

If the LBO or RTA is approved by the membership, the judge affirms the vote.

If the LBO or RTA is rejected by the membership, the judge decides on whether or not to abrogate.

If abrogation takes place, the company is free to impose (at will) the terms of the term sheet.

 

[FWAAA]

Don't forget that Horton was CFO at AT&T during their Chapter 11 filing - truth be known, that may well be why he was reemployed at AMR - to do the same job.

Did AT&T go thru Ch 11? I can't remember. Anyway, here's an article that agrees with you:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-06/amr-insider-horton-brings-at-t-deal-making-history-to-ceo-role.html

On the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code - as far as I can tell, 1113 wasn't amended, so it looks like more of the same on contract abrogation. I've read all the filings by the company and the unions on the abrogation issue and I didn't see any mention of amendments having changed anything about 1113.

 

[Frank Szabo]

Did AT&T go thru Ch 11? I can't remember. Anyway, here's an article that agrees with you:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-06/amr-insider-horton-brings-at-t-deal-making-history-to-ceo-role.html

On the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code - as far as I can tell, 1113 wasn't amended, so it looks like more of the same on contract abrogation. I've read all the filings by the company and the unions on the abrogation issue and I didn't see any mention of amendments having changed anything about 1113.

18 month MAX in C 11 protection and the requirement to present a valid job offer before granting an executive a failure bonus are among many of the 2005 changes/amendments.

 

[Frank Szabo]

Frank, I think you may have the terminology and sequencing wrong... Maybe one of the accredited lawyers here could confirm...

As I understand it, the company's last and best offer could only be implemented with a yes vote.

Further, the LBO would only be offered up for vote if there is not a Revised TA to vote on.

If the LBO or RTA is approved by the membership, the judge affirms the vote.

If the LBO or RTA is rejected by the membership, the judge decides on whether or not to abrogate.

If abrogation takes place, the company is free to impose (at will) the terms of the term sheet.

Perhaps I do have it wrong but - that's what I recall being told by our lovely representation. I am getting old and senile, however and anything is possible.

Regardless - the company imposes the term sheet at their own peril - ie, limiting what will seek employment with AMR to kids looking for their first job,to say nothing about alienating those already there, more so than they've already done, if that's possible.

 

[FWAAA]

18 month MAX in C 11 protection and the requirement to present a valid job offer before granting an executive a failure bonus are among many of the 2005 changes/amendments.

Yes, and the third change was the reduced time frame to reject or re-affirm certain leases.

That's it for the 2005 changes to the Ch 11 framework affecting companies like AMR. The rest of the many changes in 2005 affected Ch 13 and 7, affecting individuals.

So far, the three changes to Ch 11 do not appear to have impeded AA's progress. They appeared to be feel-good emotionally-driven provisions in response to UA's several-year bankruptcy odyssey.

 

[mwa]

Horton was the key player in the ATT and Cingular merger. THAT is his expertise

 

[TWU informer]

Funny, nobody wants to challenge the postings that spell out the truth about the TWU plan and why it makes matters worse not better? Why not?

 

[Birdman]

Funny, nobody wants to challenge the postings that spell out the truth about the TWU plan and why it makes matters worse not better? Why not?

I think the TWU minions that would normally rebut an attack on the TWU are tied up in LBO sales training. So the TWU owns the LBO, just as they did the 2003 concessions?

 

[enough already]

I think the TWU minions that would normally rebut an attack on the TWU are tied up in LBO sales training. So the TWU owns the LBO, just as they did the 2003 concessions?

When will we see it?