bankruptcy

American Apparel Almost Bankrupt; Supply and Demand Alive and Well

by Kathryn Ciano on February 3, 2011 · 7 comments

in Culture, Economy, International, Odds & Ends, Trade, Zeitgeist

American Apparel has started dumping shares, so stock up on your leggings and Ts now.

Explanations are below, if you’ll try for a moment to ignore that arched seductress hawking thigh-highs perched atop your screen. Or the ad below, launched this week, that makes every website Not Safe For Work:

It’s just this kind of presumptive marketing that makes the company seem tawdry and cliched. American Apparel opened its doors in 2003 as an earnest appeal to progressives who believed themselves weary of sweatshop wares.

Those of us who embrace mass production shudder at the money-making alternatives left to women and children in developing nations when “sweatshops” close their doors.

Los Angeles-based, “100% sweatshop-free” atelier American Apparel has been flailing for awhile. Bankruptcy rumors circulated when the clothing company missed SEC and auditors’ deadlines. The company’s financials have been in sharp decline since early 2010:

Explanations for the company’s slide vary.

Many blame Canadian CEO Dov Charney, the hipster’s hipster. Here’s a photo of Charney:

Wouldn’t you like to be clothed by this man? I certainly wouldn’t want to be not clothed by him.

Charney famously fills the AA website and ads with half-naked young men and women in a text and position context that is…suggestive, at best. News stories ask whether the marketing is advertisement at all, or if it’s straight sexual harassment. Employees could ask the same question — isn’t this sexual harassment? — about Charney’s controversial employment practices. Charney rose to fame in part for his focus on brand consistency, hiring and firing employees based on full-length photos alone.

In response to an employee suit in 2005 for sexual harassment when Charney regularly walked around American Apparel offices in his underwear, Charney said at his deposition: “I frequently drop my pants to show people my new product.”

But enough about the controversial chocies a private company makes to garner attention in a competitive market. Mores and morals aside, and all of that. This all-American flagship has been losing upwards of $40 million per quarter for the past year.

American Apparel is marketed as the urban brand, angling for a new American mentality. Perhaps fittingly, the company has been taking hits as dramatic as the House’s turnover to the Republicans last election. This week billionaire major investor Ron Burkle dumped his AA shares, possibly in response to fast-fashion competitor H&M’s announcement that they will move into a major AA demographic, online ordering, by the end of this year. The dump puts Burkle’s interest below 5 percent, which means he no longer has to report his holdings at all.

You know things are bad when even the guy who owns a jet dubbed “Air F*** One” sells out.

What sank American Apparel wasn’t its racy ads or irresponsible employment practices. American Apparel misunderstood what American branding is all about.

Americans are not generous because it’s ironic or funny; we’re generous because we all understand the American Dream. Sure, the American Dream includes being elevated out of sweatshops. But putting in sweat and underpaid time is all part of this. Our nation’s capital runs on unpaid interns’ striving, dreaming, sweat, and time.

AA has been paying employees $20/hour plus vacation time and benefits. Clothing prices reflect that. If all of the economies of the world operated as isolated actors, perhaps those prices would fly.

Happily, we are living in international times and enjoy a global economy. Much of the world benefits enormously from Americans’ “greed” and urge to acquisition. Clothing commodities may trade hands numerous times during their long second life, but more importantly, the market for clothing produced en masse in developing nations is a job boon to their economies and a part of what fuels such an acquisitive market.

American Apparel has not declared bankruptcy, even after repeated quarterly failures to file number on time, and even after laying off $1,500 illegal workers (all paid well above minimum wage) under threat of a federal raid. Yet even as AA skirts the law in so many sex and harassment arenas, it’s clear that people simply won’t reward unclever ads and prices designed to force the square peg of fast garment making into the round hole of a living wage.

What is most certainly bankrupt is the idea that a company (much less a government!) can somehow negate the law of supply and demand.

General Motors Repays Tiny Portion of Taxpayers’ $50 Billion Bailout; Obama Backers Bash Critics of Bailout

by Hans Bader on April 22, 2010 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment, Energy, Labor, Legal, Mobility, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

President Obama’s tax-cheat treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, is trumpeting the fact that General Motors has paid back a small fraction of what taxpayers gave the company, noting that “GM had repaid in full the $4.7 billion balance it owed under the government’s Trouble Asset Relief Program.” But this so-called “repayment” was just an accounting trick.  GM used government bailout money to make the “repayment,” as the New York Times has noted.

More importantly, this “repayment” is a drop in the bucket compared to what GM has received from taxpayers.  The federal government has yet to recover the lion’s share of the more than $50 billion it loaned the company.  Why?  Because that $50 billion was mostly “converted into stock held by the Treasury Department.”  That’s billions of dollars for stock in a company that, for all intents and purposes, was bankrupt. (GM just lost another $4.3 billion.)

The only reason GM had enough money left to pay back any of what it owes taxpayers is because of Toyota’s recent safety issues and recalls, which drove car buyers away from Toyota to GM and Ford.  Only that kept GM from burning through most of the taxpayers’ money.

Even though GM still hasn’t paid back the $50 billion, and received billions in additional handouts through programs like the incredibly wasteful Cash for Clunkers (which cost taxpayers and used-car and car-parts businesses billions), Obama backers now claim that critics of the bailout owe Obama, GM, and the UAW “an apology.”

Ironically, GM would never have needed a bailout if it had just received relief from costly regulations such as CAFE rules (which wiped out at least 50,000 jobs) and dealer-franchise laws.  That’s so despite GM’s massive burdens from excessive union wages and benefits (worth up to $70 an hour), and rigid union work rules.

The Obama Administration left those wasteful work rules and excessive benefits largely intact, and gave the United Auto Workers Union (UAW) a big chunk of General Motors‘ stock, even though the UAW helped bankrupt the company, and the company has value today only because the federal government pumped billions of taxpayer dollars into the company (and engineered the wiping out of General Motors’ bondholders, some of whom were non-union employees who had invested their life savings in the company).

Veteran political commentator Michael Barone called the Obama administration’s treatment of Chrysler and GM bondholders “gangster government.” Law professor and bankruptcy expert Todd Zywicki called it an attack on “the rule of law.”

Back in 2008, Zywicki prophetically warned that a bailout would prove worse for the auto industry than for automakers to just quickly file for bankruptcy.   Zywicki noted that by enabling automakers to get rid of expensive union contracts and red tape, a “Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing will likely result in a stronger domestic industry.”   It would provide  “a mechanism for forcing UAW workers to take further pay cuts, reduce their gold-plated health and retirement benefits, and overcome their cumbersome union work rules.”  It would also help automakers get rid of redundant auto dealerships that should be terminated but aren’t because of state dealer franchise laws.  Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker also argued that bankruptcy would have been better than a bailout in achieving “needed reforms.”

But the federal government ignored their wise advice, and chose to embark an incredibly costly bailout instead.   The bailout of GM and Chrysler is similar in many ways to the British government’s unsuccessful auto bailout in the 1970s, which ultimately failed despite a cost in the billions.

The federal government used money from the $700 billion bank bailout for the auto industry bailout. Legal scholars at the Heritage Foundation, Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich and many other commentators have argued that using the bank-bailout money for auto bailouts was illegal.

Student Loan Socialism

by Richard Morrison on September 29, 2009

in Video, Zeitgeist

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJReAunlOw0 285 234]

LibertyWeek 46: The Great Porn Wall of China

by Richard Morrison on June 9, 2009

in CEI Projects, Podcast

Your faithful host Richard Morrison welcomes back special guest co-hosts William Yeatman and Michelle Minton for Episode 46 (listen HERE!). We start with the investors that are getting worked over by the politically-distorted bankruptcy of Chrysler, the ascension of the Swedish Pirate Party to the European Parliament and the Great Porn Wall of China. We then move on to proof that beer is better for you than water, a sign that airline travel may get more expensive, and an example of how voters deal with corrupt politicians. Finally, we wind things up with some very educational Olympic News.

Illegal Takeover of Chrysler: Pension Funds Have Standing in Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler, LLC

by Hans Bader on June 8, 2009 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Employment, Labor, Legal, Mobility, Politics as Usual, Regulation

Earlier, I wrote about the Indiana pension funds’ challenge to the Obama Administration’s plan to effectively give Chrysler to the UAW Union, while cheating the pension funds that loaned it money (and ripping off taxpayers), and how that violates federal bankruptcy laws.

The government is now arguing that the pension funds don’t have legal standing to challenge the plan, since they can’t prove they will be worse off than if the Administration had just sat back and let Chrysler go bankrupt naturally. The government says that the pension funds might have received even less in such a bankruptcy than the pennies on the dollar they are slated to receive under the government’s plan, under which it intervened and injected billions in taxpayer money into Chrysler, and then engineered a sale of Chrysler’s valuable asserts to a new company mostly owned by the UAW that is part of planned merger with Italian carmaker Fiat. (The Administration has completely failed to do its homework before pushing for a merger with Fiat, which is alleged to have Enron-like accounting problems, and massive shady dealings that could haunt taxpayers and autoworkers alike in the future).

The government is wrong. The pension funds have standing even if their victory would leave them no better off, but would eliminate the unfair preference received by the UAW. For example, in Heckler v. Mathews (1984), the Supreme Court held that male reverse-discrimination plaintiffs had standing to challenge a federal government gender-preference that benefited women, even if the challenge would only result in benefits being taken away from the women, and would not result in men getting any additional benefits.

Moreover, the funds, as secured creditors, will be enormously adversely affected in future bankruptcies by the disturbing precedent set by the Chrysler bankruptcy, in which an unsecured creditor — the UAW — received far more than secured creditors — the Indiana state pension funds that loaned money to Chrysler under the solemn understanding that they would stand first in line in any bankruptcy. Losing this lawsuit will strip them of an enormous bargaining chip in future bankruptcies. The loss of a bargaining chip is sufficient grounds for standing, as the Supreme Court made clear in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), where it allowed farmers to challenge the line-item veto as a violation of the Constitution when it resulted in the President vetoing legislation that would have given a bargaining chip to use in potentially purchasing a potato processing plant. Bankruptcy law experts have noted the precedent set by the Chrysler bankruptcy will have a great impact on General Motors and other bankruptcies in the future. An inability to compete on fair terms in the future is grounds for standing. See Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) (student who alleged he would apply as a transfer student to a college if it would stop considering race in admissions had standing to challenge college’s race-conscious admissions policy). That is precisely what the pension funds allege.

Moreover, even if the Obama Administration’s unfair plan to give Chrysler to the UAW were blocked, it would just find alternative ways, fairer to the pension funds and less biased towards the UAW, to keep Chrysler going, through taxpayer funds if necessary. Letting Chrysler go out of existence would put UAW members out of work, and the Administration would be loath to let that happen, given that the UAW spent millions electing Obama, and made millions more in donations to the liberal lawmakers who now dominate Capitol Hill.

A federal appeals court has refused to block the Administration’s illegal auto bailout, which rips off taxpayers and pension funds to enrich the UAW union. The pension funds that challenged the bailout then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The bailout violates the federal TARP statute by diverting financial-system bailout funds to a takeover of the auto industry. And the government’s reorganization plan for Chrysler violates federal bankruptcy laws by ripping off lenders to give the company to the UAW union.

(The bailouts have been counterproductive. General Motors and Chrysler would actually have been better off if they had filed for bankruptcy last year, rather than taking federal money, since the bailouts have come with costly political strings attached, such as dropping opposition to costly CAFE regulations and other federal mandates, and bowing to political meddling in fundamental corporate decisionmaking, and have left the automakers with higher labor costs than if they had just ripped up their collective bargaining agreements in a standard bankruptcy. That endangers their long-run competitiveness. Indeed, the politicized auto bailouts resemble the failed British auto bailouts of the 1970s. If the automakers had ripped up their collective bargaining agreements in a regular bankruptcy, they would now be in a position to recover without taxpayer funds, since it was rising gas prices last year that pummeled their ability to sell the big cars that are their profit center, and gas prices have fallen enormously since their peak last year.)

The Obama and Bush Administrations used money from the $700 billion financial system bailout for an auto industry bailout. To do that, they have seized on the fact that the bailout statute contains a broad definition of “financial institution,” which the Administration claims includes virtually any institution, financial or not. The bailout statute defines “financial institutions” eligible for the bailout as “including, but not limited to, any bank, savings association, credit union, security broker or dealer, or insurance company.” Never mind that Congress listed as examples of “financial institutions” only entities that were banks, insurance companies, or financial institutions, not automakers. (Congress rejected auto bailout legislation last year precisely because it lacked safeguards against the use of bailout money to prop up uncompetitively high UAW wages — exactly what the Obama Administration is using the money for now. During the debate over the auto bailout legislation, the Treasury Department admitted that automakers are not financial institutions covered by the bank bailout statute).

Legal scholars at the Heritage Foundation, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and many other commentators have argued that using the money for auto bailouts violates the financial bailout statute under the principle of statutory construction known as ejusdem generis, which says that when a term’s definition includes examples that are all of a similar kind, it limits the meaning of the term to things similar in kind to such examples.

But if that’s not so, and the bailout was just a big slush fund for the Administration to dispense with as it chooses, then the bailout law itself was unconstitutional, since it conferred unbridled discretion in the hands of the President to do whatever he wanted with it. The Supreme Court ruled in the Schechter Poultry case that giving the executive uncabined discretion violates the constitutional separation of powers between different branches of government, by giving the president essentially legislative powers. (An earlier version of the bailout law was even more clearly a violation of separation of powers, since it failed to provide for judicial review of the vast discretion it gave the president, unlike past delegations of power upheld in cases like the Amalgamated Meat Cutters case). The government’s incredibly broad reading of the bank bailout statute should be rejected, since it violates the canon of constitutional doubt.

Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock was right to raise these important legal questions in court. Mourdock correctly notes that the unfair plan for Chrysler pushed by the Administration violates the bankruptcy laws and rips off Indiana residents by leaving state employee pension funds and construction funds with a tiny fraction of what they are owed by Chrysler, far less than the UAW is getting, even though the pension funds are secured lenders and the UAW is not. By cheating Chrysler’s lenders, the government’s plan discourages lending, and sets a dangerous precedent that makes it harder for companies like Chrysler to raise money to create jobs in the future, as newspapers like USA Today have noted.

The federal government’s poorly-conceived bailouts will also endanger Indiana jobs in the long run by leaving Chrysler and General Motors with uncompetitive work rules and compensation.

As a lawyer who has handled both constitutional cases, and bankruptcy-related cases, I think that Indiana’s position has merit, and that the Supreme Circuit should rule in favor of its appeal. The Supreme Court should grant review, since the issues are of overriding national importance, and since the Second Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling refusing to block the government’s plan has created a circuit split by countenancing circumvention of the bankruptcy laws as long applied in circuits across the country.

Court Rebuffs Challenge to Illegal Chrysler Bailout and Takeover; Pension Funds Will Appeal to Supreme Court

by Hans Bader on June 5, 2009

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment, Labor, Legal, Mobility, Politics as Usual, Regulation

A federal appeals court has refused to block the Administration’s illegal auto bailout, which rips off taxpayers and pension funds to enrich the UAW union. The pension funds that challenged the bailout will now appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The bailout violates the federal TARP statute by diverting financial-system bailout funds to a takeover of the auto industry. And the government’s reorganization plan for Chrysler violates federal bankruptcy laws by ripping off lenders to give the company to the UAW union.

As I noted earlier, the Indiana State Teachers’ Retirement Fund is challenging the diversion of tens of billions of dollars of federal TARP bank bailout money to pay for auto bailouts in the Chrysler bankruptcy case. That diversion violates the law. It is part of the government’s unfair reorganization plan for Chrysler, which rips off pension funds to provide short-sighted, unsustainable preferential treatment for the UAW.

(The bailouts have been counterproductive. General Motors and Chrysler would actually have been better off if they had filed for bankruptcy last year, rather than taking federal money, since the bailouts have come with costly political strings attached, such as dropping opposition to costly CAFE regulations and other federal mandates, and bowing to political meddling in fundamental corporate decisionmaking, and have left the automakers with higher labor costs than if they had just ripped up their collective bargaining agreements in a standard bankruptcy. That endangers their long-run competitiveness. Indeed, the politicized auto bailouts resemble the failed British auto bailouts of the 1970s).

The Obama and Bush Administrations used money from the $700 billion financial system bailout for an auto industry bailout. To do that, they have seized on the fact that the bailout statute contains a broad definition of “financial institution,” which the Administration claims includes virtually any institution, financial or not. The bailout statute defines “financial institutions” eligible for the bailout as “including, but not limited to, any bank, savings association, credit union, security broker or dealer, or insurance company.” Never mind that Congress listed as examples of “financial institutions” only entities that were banks, insurance companies, or financial institutions, not automakers. (Congress rejected auto bailout legislation last year precisely because it lacked safeguards against the use of bailout money to prop up uncompetitively high UAW wages — exactly what the Obama Administration is using the money for now. During the debate over the auto bailout legislation, the Treasury Department admitted that automakers are not financial institutions covered by the bank bailout statute).

Legal scholars at the Heritage Foundation, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and many other commentators have argued that using the money for auto bailouts violates the financial bailout statute under the principle of statutory construction known as ejusdem generis, which says that when a term’s definition includes examples that are all of a similar kind, it limits the meaning of the term to things similar in kind to such examples.

But if that’s not so, and the bailout was just a big slush fund for the Administration to dispense with as it chooses, then the bailout law itself was unconstitutional, since it conferred unbridled discretion in the hands of the President to do whatever he wanted with it. The Supreme Court ruled in the Schechter Poultry case that giving the executive uncabined discretion violates the constitutional separation of powers between different branches of government, by giving the president essentially legislative powers. (An earlier version of the bailout law was even more clearly a violation of separation of powers, since it failed to provide for judicial review of the vast discretion it gave the president, unlike past delegations of power upheld in cases like the Amalgamated Meat Cutters case). The government’s incredibly broad reading of the bank bailout statute should be rejected, since it violates the canon of constitutional doubt.

Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock was right to raise these important legal questions in court. Mourdock correctly notes that the unfair plan for Chrysler pushed by the Administration violates the bankruptcy laws and rips off Indiana residents by leaving state employee pension funds and construction funds with a tiny fraction of what they are owed by Chrysler, far less than the UAW is getting, even though the pension funds are secured lenders and the UAW is not. By cheating Chrysler’s lenders, the government’s plan discourages lending, and sets a dangerous precedent that makes it harder for companies like Chrysler to raise money to create jobs in the future, as newspapers like USA Today have noted.

The federal government’s poorly-conceived bailouts will also endanger Indiana jobs in the long run by leaving Chrysler and General Motors with uncompetitive work rules and compensation.

On June 2, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals entered a temporary stay of the bankruptcy judge’s ruling rubberstamping the government’s plans for Chrysler, in an appeal brought by the Indiana State Teachers’ Retirement Fund. On June 5, however, it refused to block the government’s plan for Chrysler. The case is In re Chrysler, LLC, Docket # 09-2311-mb.

As a lawyer who has handled both constitutional cases, and bankruptcy-related cases, I think that Indiana’s position has merit, and that the Supreme Circuit should rule in favor of its appeal. The Supreme Court should grant review, since the issues are of overriding national importance, and the Second Circuit has created a circuit split by countenancing circumvention of the bankruptcy laws as long applied in circuits across the country.

Obama Panders to the UAW: $30 Billion More for Wasteful Auto Bailout

by Hans Bader on June 2, 2009

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Employment, Energy, Global Warming, International, Politics as Usual, Stimulus to Nowhere, Trade

The federal government is giving another $30 billion in taxpayer money to General Motors to allow it to operate without having to cut excessive union wages. The Obama Administration is “gambling” on its ability to turn around the company under government control.

The Obama Administration has said it will now interfere not just with the “selection of the company’s board of directors,” but also in “fundamental corporate decisions,” and “major corporate events and transactions.” For example, Obama recently pressured GM to keep its headquarters in crime-ridden, economically-collapsing Detroit.

The $30 billion is excessive even if the Administration’s wildest hopes come true. Even if federal money were the only way to keep GM afloat (which it isn’t — GM could be made competitive simply by cutting its excessively high employee wages to lower levels that still exceed average American wages), and even if the bailout saved not only GM jobs but also the jobs of “related suppliers and dealers,” “the price of the U.S. government bailout comes to about $125,000 per employee, including those working for related suppliers and dealers,” according to the Washington Post.

If GM had rejected a federal bailout and takeover, and simply filed for bankruptcy in December, it would be recovering on its own right now, since it could have used bankruptcy proceedings to tear up the collective bargaining agreements with the United Auto Workers that saddle it with excessive wage and benefits and rigid work rules, and it would also be benefiting from the recent collapse of oil prices. It was record-high gas prices that forced consumers to buy smaller cars last year, battering GM’s finances, which were based around selling big cars. But gas prices have fallen from over $4 a gallon last year to $2.50 now. So the bailout is saving no jobs, it’s just allowing GM to keep union wages high at taxpayer expense, while keeping it from becoming competitive in the long run. (The recent drop in gas prices will also mask the effects of incompetent management of GM by the Obama Administration. On the other hand, the Administration’s CAFE and global warming regulations, which GM opposed before it was taken over by the Administration, will destroy tens of thousands of autoworker jobs).

The bailout is neither necessary nor likely to be successful in the long run. In its failed auto bailout in the 1970s, Britain did the same things that Obama is doing, like propping up high union wages and promoting the production of little “green” cars consumers may not want. Its bailout failed miserably, destroying the British auto industry’s chance of survival.

“‘Countries . . . protect ailing auto companies on the theory that they need to protect jobs,’ said Maryann N. Keller, an independent auto analyst. ‘But it’s not clear that protecting companies leads to the revival of those companies.’ As for the jobs, Keller said ‘a lot of that is bunk’ because Americans would buy the same number of cars no matter who the maker is. ‘Somebody would still make the parts,’ she said. ‘They would just be made for a different customer.’”

Why is the Obama Administration doing something so wasteful? Politics. The UAW is one of the biggest sources of money and manpower for the Democratic Party and Obama, and the UAW is now calling the shots. (The UAW spent millions electing Obama).

While taxpayers have spent tens of billions of dollars bailing out the Detroit automakers, the UAW has made little in the way of sacrifices, refusing to accept cuts in pay that could keep the automakers able to compete with lower-cost competitors. As even the liberal Washington Post lamented, “the union can boast that it has been promised no loss in ‘base hourly pay, no reduction in . . . health care, and no reduction in pensions,’” even though excessive union wages and benefits helped sink the company. Meanwhile, the government has ripped off pension funds and bondholders who loaned the car companies money.

The bailouts aren’t the only outrageous waste of taxpayer money taking place right now. Even bigger is the wasteful $800 billion stimulus package, which is harming the economy, both by triggering foolish trade wars that have backfired and cost at least 40,000 jobs, and by driving up interest rates for businesses that need to borrow money to expand or create jobs. (The government is keeping down interest rates on its own debt by printing vast sums of money to buy its own bonds, in order to finance the exploding national debt, which will result in massively higher taxes).

Ivan Osorio on the United Auto Workers and the Recession

by Richard Morrison on May 21, 2009

in Video, Zeitgeist

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8a0Il12824 285 234]

Chrysler bankruptcy an opportunity to reject Obama nationalization

by John Berlau on April 30, 2009 · 2 comments

in Bailout Watch, Culture, Features, Politics as Usual

In the next 48 hours, Chrysler is expected to file for bankruptcy because, according to press reports, a significant minority of its creditors object to the Obama administration’s planned takeover in which the government and unions would own a majority stake. The Obama administration hopes to persuade the court to ratify and rubber-stamp its plan.  But the bankruptcy courts should exercise independent judgment instead, as they do in any typical bankruptcy case.

The expected Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing of Chrysler LLC is an action that probably should have happened months ago. It could have spared all involved the chaos of the ”political bankruptcy” we have seen unfold. The process of a judicial bankruptcy will bring a needed check to the Obama administration reorganization plan that heavily favors unions, at the expense of bond and debt holders.

The hedge funds that refused to be strong-armed into the Obama plan should not be blamed for asserting the interests of the investors they represent; investors that could include pension funds that serve middle-class families. The bankruptcy court should be allowed to be impartial and not be pressured to automatically take the plan offered by the Obama team. It should weigh the interests of all involved, using Chapter 11 precedent, and decide accordingly what each party is entitled to, as bankruptcy courts normally do.

The merger of Chrysler and Fiat the government has pushed is pure “industrial policy” of the type that led to stagnation in Japan and other nations where it has been practice. It may not be the most viable choice for Chrysler to specialize in smaller cars. Rather, a merger combination between Chrysler and General Motors with a concentration on larger vehicles such as SUVs may be the best option. This alliance had been discussed for years but was shelved because of concerns it might run afoul of antitrust laws.

The Obama administration should lift any antitrust barriers to effective reorganization — and suspend planned increases in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards that would be detrimental to Chrysler and other carmakers – but otherwise stay neutral as to the form the reorganization takes.

The relatively smooth process of recent large Chapter 11 bankruptcies, such as that of mall owner General Growth Properties, shows that far from being “disorderly,” judicial bankruptcies are far more orderly than taxpayer bailouts in unwinding and reorganizing insolvent companies. The judicial bankruptcy process should be given a chance to work in the case of Chrysler and any other companies that follow suit.

See also, my article in the American Spectator comparing the bankruptcy of General Growth Properties to that of the automakers.

Interview with Sam Kazman on the Auto Bailout

by Richard Morrison on April 7, 2009

in Video, Zeitgeist

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c31kKtLECbQ 285 234]

← Previous Entries