In the great tradition of East Coast journalism, the Washington Post reports on continued 'sweetening' of the deal offered GM bondholders, in order to smooth the way for a takeover by the Federal Government and the UAW. (It's like we live in ***!!!*** FRANCE these days...)
The real news begins in paragraph eight, long after most casual readers have zoned out, and begun thinking about baseball scores or American Idol gossip. Italics are mine.
'Administration officials were confident many of the bondholders would accept the sweetened deal, especially after the informal committee of lenders had agreed to it. "This new offer we believe has a greater chance of success," an administration official said.
Small individual bondholders, who represent a fifth of the $27.2 billion in unsecured debt, were shut out from voting on the offer.
The "Main Street Bondholders," representing some of those individuals, said the deal unfairly gave the United Auto Workers' retiree health-care trust fund 66 cents on the dollar, while offering bondholders 13 cents on the dollar, assuming the new GM is worth $25 billion. This group of bondholders vowed to fight back using a section of the bankruptcy code, which could give them their own standing.
Excuse me, but don't the bonds held by individuals bear the same language and covenants as the bonds bought by institutions--assuming of course, they bought the same issues and maturities?
Do words have meaning? Does the law apply for the little people as well as the powerful? Do you only have legal standing if you are politically connected? Does the party that in the 2000 election screamed 'Count every vote!' now think it's ok to toss out every fifth vote, because they might not like how that 20% might vote?
Do we understand how utterly devastating this is to our society?
Do we wish to become France, or Argentina?
No comments:
Post a Comment