Yet another confirmation of S-Rat's persuasive tactics.
Must watch interview with Indiana Pensioners' Richard Mourdock.
Interestingly, James Kwak of The Baseline Scenario seems to disagree with the Indiana Pensioners Fund argument for a variety of personal reasons. However, one question Kwak does not touch upon, which is at the heart of any "objective" argument, is how valid is this liquidation valuation in the absence of an adversarial analysis? Maybe James is aware that Greenhill put together their Fairness Opinion based exclusively on Capstone's liquidation report, which for all intents and purposes, was a biased, conflicted and unchallenged representation of reality.
If one is trying to be objective about this issue, it does necessitate an evaluation of all sides of the argument.
Zero Hedge has written and linked extensively to many much more detailed legal opinions (than that of the TBS) which consider that not only is TARP usage improper in this case, but also the Absolute Priority is, in fact, abrogated. But that is what a court is a venue for - to objectively voice various opinions with a fair chance of getting heard after the opportunity to prepare their case. One can argue that, aside everything else, these two critical aspects of the judicial system were soundly trampled upon in the Chrysler 363 sale.
Sphere: Related Content
Bookmark this post with:
