The Chrysler Bankruptcy and the Rule of Law

“Did these transactions comply with the rule of law?  Were the property rights of the secured creditors fully protected in the expedited proceedings?  Will the process bring confidence to the credit markets?  No, no and no again.”

Richard A. Epstein, “Political Bankruptcies: How Chrysler and GM Have Changed the Rules of the Game”, The Freeman December 2009.

Richard Epstein (University of Chicago), in my judgment, is the foremost legal scholar in the United States, with a deep understanding of law and economics as well as constitutional law.  In a better world, he would be serving as  Chief Justice of the United States  Supreme Court.  I draw upon his insights in this column.

By March 2009, Chrysler was bankrupt. Its liabilities, including commitments to its pension and healthcare plans vastly exceeded the value of its assets.  There was no hope for a market recovery in the absence of bankruptcy proceedings. The Treasury had already thrown the Corporation a  TARP lifeline of $4 billion to keep it afloat. This had proved to be  taxpayer money casually  flushed down the UAW  toilet.

So the Obama administration determined that political bankruptcy was the solution.  The President had relied heavily on union support in his election campaign. A priority goal, therefore, was to preserve the UAW retiree benefits while cutting down on the dealership contracts and haircutting the secured bondholder creditors. This could not be achieved under normal bankruptcy rules.  So the rules would have to go.

There are three basic bankruptcy options: liquidation, reorganization, and sale.  A government expert witness testified that Chrysler was worth $800 million if liquidated, but could be worth as much as $2 billion if sold off intact to another firm.  Under bankruptcy law, the proceeds of that sale would be distributed according to a strict priority by claim type.  Secured creditors, including the bondholders, come ahead of unsecured creditors, including union health and retirement funds.  In the absence of a breach of the rule of law, $2 billion would leave the secured creditors a little under 30 cents on the dollar for their $6.5 billion in aggregate claims, and would wipe out all future contributions to the union retiree funds.  That was just not going to happen on President Obama’s watch.

To boost the UAW coffers,  Chrysler clearly had to be sold under very special conditions engineered by the government.  The UAW, but not the bondholders, was given a seat at the table to determine the conditions of sale.  One condition was to assume the liabilities needed to fund union health funds at sums in excess of the stated asset values of the corporation. The parties to the deal created Chrysler VEBA – the UAW Voluntary Employment Benefit Association – which received a 55 per cent equity in the New Chrysler Corporation, plus a $4.587 billion unsecured note from that company. New Chrysler was not asked to assume any liabilities for the dealers , nor would it assume liability for unsecured tort creditors (persons injured by Chrysler products).

With this reorganization in hand, the Treasury advanced a bid in the sum of $2 billion, a bid that it proudly announced to be the only bid for the company. Of course, the bid was rigged. The government was bidding $2 billion for a company that had a net worth of minus $4.2 billion.  Once the government paid off $2 billion to the secured creditors, it immediately “invested” in an “unrelated transaction” an additional $6.2 billion to keep New Chrysler afloat.  In so doing, it effectively moved the UAW into preferred creditor status over the bondholders who legally stood before it in the queue.

The crucial issue was whether the US courts would uphold such an illegal maneuver, or whether they would confront a new and popular administration,  and uphold the rule of law.  The bankruptcy court, under intense political pressure, buckled, refused to set the sale aside and to order a new sale of assets absent any prior deals.  A large majority of the secured bondholders – some 99 per cent – approved a transaction that subordinated their financial interests to unsecured creditors.  Prominent among these secured creditors, who sacrificed their bondholder interests,  were JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley.  Hello! Were these not major recipients of TARP funding,  errant financial institutions now completely in the pocket of the US  Treasury.

One brave creditor withstood political pressure and appealed the judgment of the bankruptcy court.  The Indiana Police Pension Fund, with a 1 per cent interest in Chrysler’s secured debt, challenged the decision. Ultimately, two district courts and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied its appeal, on the ground that no taxpayer ever has standing to challenge a transaction that affects all taxpayers.

So President Obama was able to pay off,  through the taxpayer,  a significant political debt to Big Labor, while signaling to all secured bondholders in the United States that they had better watch their wallets whenever Big Government assumes a stake in a distressed company.

In the event, the US  government assigned to an Italian automobile company, Fiat, a significant stock share in New Chrysler – between 20 and 35 per cent depending on achieving specified market milestones – in exchange not for cash, but for access to small-car technology and some international markets.  Fiat is no market-leader  as an automobile company, and those milestones are unlikely to be achieved. 

So much for the rule of law, when  the  US government becomes  involved. The rule of law, remember, requires that all individuals in society, including those who govern, are subject to the same laws.  Alas!  We live under the rule of men, not under  the rule of law, despite lip-service to that latter principle.

Tags: , , , ,

8 Responses to “The Chrysler Bankruptcy and the Rule of Law”

  1. Travis Says:

    “For the support [of the people] rests in the willingness of the majority (not, to repeat, of every individual) to go along with the system: to pay the taxes, to go without much complaint to fight the State’s wars, to obey the State’s rules and decrees. This support need not be active enthusiasm to be effective; it can just as well be passive resignation. But support there must be. For if the bulk of the public were really convinced of the illegitimacy of the State, if it were convinced that the State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large, then the State would soon collapse to take on no more status or breadth of existence than another Mafia gang. Hence the necessity of the State’s employment of ideologists; and hence the necessity of the State’s age-old alliance with the Court Intellectuals who weave the apologia for State rule.”

  2. Maggie Says:

    This case did not go to the Supreme Court which means that the State has not been challenged to the highest degree over what took place.

    There is another case pending that I believe, if it goes to the Supreme Court will have wider ramifications if the plaintiffs win. This is the dealers case.

    As you are aware there was a decision to close down Chrysler and GM dealerships. I am not sure what happened with the GM dealers but am familiar with the Chrysler ones. The method used for determining which ones were closed down seems to be associated with who gave funding to the DNC and who gave funding to the RNC. The dealers in the DNC districts remain open. Successful dealers in the RNC districts were given notice that they were being closed. This included a member of the Congress who has been told his very successful dealership is being closed.

    There are obvious grounds to contest the decision-making. If it goes as far as the Supreme Court, and if the justices supply the correct reasoning then I would hope that they have the opportunity to examine all of the deals involved and strike out at the unconstitutional behaviour of the Obama Administration in those deals.

    Otherwise I was not aware of the involvement of Goldman Sachs etc in the Chrysler sell out of the bondholders.

    The time has come for stopping the political appointments to the Supreme Court. No more Sonia Sotomeyor types. The criteria for appointment should be a lot higher than finding someone with an ethinic background. Another better person had already been passed up prior to her appointment.

  3. Chrysler salta en carro de la banda de música, ofrece incentivos a los clientes de Toyota | .:: MrCoi Blog ::. Says:

    [...] The Chrysler Bankruptcy and the Rule of Law « physicist Rowley's Blog [...]

  4. Birdman Says:

    Government is evil and will never change. The courts are part of government. Government makes the rules and interprets the rules. We are sliding into tyranny and there may be no way to stop it. An economic collapse will occur sooner or later and that may end big government once and for all. I only hope that I can survive the collapse and see liberty and freedom again.

  5. William Witman Says:

    I’m not surprised to see favoritism with the Chrysler bankruptcy… Clearly, for the sake of the employees and other stakeholders, the best thing is to allow a restructure. But I agree, rules shouldn’t be changed.

  6. The Medical Contrarian Says:

    It is unfortunate that the most profound consequences of the erosion of the rule of law will occur after anyone actually recalls these events. Such madness always recurs because the immediate upside is always apparent and the delayed and often catastrophic downside happens far enough down the road for any causal linkage to be missed.

    I agree that Richard Epstein is one of the nation’s most brilliant legal scholars. His book “Simple rules for a complex world” opened my eyes as to how rule of law creates the underpinnings for the modern wealth generating state by creating conditions for expanding the available resources and limiting scarcity. Unfortunately for mankind, the timelines for seeing and understanding the profound effects of these rules are beyond the appreciation and attention span of people.

  7. Links « Rhymes With Cars & Girls Says:

    [...] Charles Rowley on the Chrysler bankruptcy and the rule of law. [...]

  8. Myesha Offield Says:

    Morning- I was exploring the net and bumped into your website. Overall, this site is pretty good, I, for 1, am very fond of the layout. If you get a second can you shoot me an email at and let me know who designed it or where you found it? Thanks in advance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 77 other followers

%d bloggers like this: