The latest casualty of the economic crises is the Rule of Law.
Consider the sad case of Chrysler. Its troubles became manifest in 2007,
when it was owned by the German auto giant, Daimler, and it was unable to come to terms with the United Auto Workers labor union (UAW). Rather than suffer more losses from an unfavorable union contract, Daimler decided to rid itself of Chrysler by handing over 80 percent of its ownership to Cerberus Capital Management, a private equity fund named after the mythical creature guarding the doors of hell. After Cerberus agreed to keep the car company going, Chrysler celebrated with a huge fireworks display and acrobats swinging on ropes from its roof at its headquarters in Auburn Hills, Michigan. Chrysler then borrowed $10 billion from a banking syndicate, led by J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs, to fund its operations. The loan was secured by mortgages on Chrysler's real estate,manufacturing plants, patents, and highly profitable brand licensing rights (Jeep alone earned $250 million a year licensing its name to toys, clothes,and other products.)
The lenders assumed (incorrectly, as it turned out) that their secured loan which was senior to any other Chrysler debt, would be protected even if Chrysler went bankrupt, since the iron rule of bankruptcy held that secured loans get fully paid before unsecured loans. Without this rule, financiers would be reluctant to lend money to corporations on their assets. What these lenders had not reckoned on was the political power of the UAW, especially after the 2008 Democratic landslide.
Consider the sad case of Chrysler. Its troubles became manifest in 2007,
when it was owned by the German auto giant, Daimler, and it was unable to come to terms with the United Auto Workers labor union (UAW). Rather than suffer more losses from an unfavorable union contract, Daimler decided to rid itself of Chrysler by handing over 80 percent of its ownership to Cerberus Capital Management, a private equity fund named after the mythical creature guarding the doors of hell. After Cerberus agreed to keep the car company going, Chrysler celebrated with a huge fireworks display and acrobats swinging on ropes from its roof at its headquarters in Auburn Hills, Michigan. Chrysler then borrowed $10 billion from a banking syndicate, led by J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs, to fund its operations. The loan was secured by mortgages on Chrysler's real estate,manufacturing plants, patents, and highly profitable brand licensing rights (Jeep alone earned $250 million a year licensing its name to toys, clothes,and other products.)
The lenders assumed (incorrectly, as it turned out) that their secured loan which was senior to any other Chrysler debt, would be protected even if Chrysler went bankrupt, since the iron rule of bankruptcy held that secured loans get fully paid before unsecured loans. Without this rule, financiers would be reluctant to lend money to corporations on their assets. What these lenders had not reckoned on was the political power of the UAW, especially after the 2008 Democratic landslide.
With automobile manufacturing shifting from the unionized factories of the Big Three– Chrysler, General Motors, and Ford– to the non-unionized factories owned by foreign manufacturers, including those of Toyota, the UAW was rightly concerned that it would lose its grip on the automotive industry. Already, in 2008, these non-union factories‹located mainly in traditionally Red, or Republican, states whose "right-to-work" laws prevented employees from being forced to join a union‹were selling almost as many passenger cars in America as the Big Three. So if Chrysler was allowed to collapse, the UAW stood to lose heavily. As
did the Blue states in the Midwest where its factories are located. So the
UAW had little difficulty in rallying massive support for a rescue among the Democratic leadership of both the House and Senate. By February. President Obama had appointed investment banker Steven Rattner to head his auto task force and come up with a plan.
The solution that Rattner (aka the car czar) endorsed involved dividing Chrysler into two companies‹an old Chrysler, which would be saddled with the debts, and disappear, and a new Chrysler, to which all the valuable assets would be assigned, including those that had been mortgaged to the senior secured creditors.
did the Blue states in the Midwest where its factories are located. So the
UAW had little difficulty in rallying massive support for a rescue among the Democratic leadership of both the House and Senate. By February. President Obama had appointed investment banker Steven Rattner to head his auto task force and come up with a plan.
The solution that Rattner (aka the car czar) endorsed involved dividing Chrysler into two companies‹an old Chrysler, which would be saddled with the debts, and disappear, and a new Chrysler, to which all the valuable assets would be assigned, including those that had been mortgaged to the senior secured creditors.
The new Chrysler would be owned by the UAW, which would get 55 percent of the shares; Fiat, the Italian manufacturer, which would be get 20 percent, with the option of increasing its ownership to 35 percent if it conformed to the targets imposed by the U.S. government; and the U.S. government, which would get most of the remaining shares. Fiat would essentially run the company, supplying its small-car technology and its management (even though, on previous occasions, its managerial efforts in America proved unsuccessful.) The new deal is a win-win for Fiat, since it is not investing any money in the new Chrysler, and can walk away without a penalty.
But what of the people who lent the old Chrysler money secured by its
assets? According to the rules of bankruptcy, they were entitled to be paid
the full $6.9 billion they'd lent the old Chrysler before those assets could be shifted to the new Chrysler‹and before the unsecured creditors, including the UAW's pension fund and auto-part suppliers could be paid a cent. That was not in the car czar's game plan, however, Instead, the creditors were confronted with a take-it-or-else offer of 29 cents on the dollar,
substantially less than the unsecured creditors would receive. (The UAW's
fund, for example, would receive an implied 55 cents on the dollar.) The "else" turned out to be what President Obama described as a "surgical bankruptcy" for Chrysler in a pre-selected U.S. bankruptcy court. Here the administration was able to play its ace in the hole. The four bank that held 70 percent of these loans, namely Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JP Morgan Chase, all had received government bailout money, making them vulnerable to government reprisals. So while denouncing hold-outs as "speculators" and "obstructionists" or, as one Congressman from Michigan termed them, "vultures", it was not difficult for officials to strong-arm these banks into accepting the deal.
Using these tactics, Chrysler was able to secure the support of more than two-thirds of its creditors. Once that threshold had been crossed, U.S. bankruptcy judge Arthur Gonzales was within his rights to force the remaining creditors to approve the plan.
Whether or not this extraordinary intervention saves Chrysler, which lost a
staggering $16.8 billion in 2008, remains an open question. After all, even
Fiast's organizational skills may not be enough to persuade
American consumers to buy cars from a company emerging from bankruptcy, especially since its much-heralded small-car technology, meanwhile, will not appear until 2012.
But the consequences of upending the rule of law, even if it was done with
the best of intentions, may prove far more serious than whatever befalls
Chrysler in the Rustbelt. For one thing, it will undoubtedly become far more difficult for an American corporation to borrow money on its assets, since even a senior secured lender can no longer be sure his claim will take priority over those of labor unions and other unsecured creditors.
As one savvy investment banker told me, "Now that we live in a banana
republic, secured lending is anything but secure."
But what of the people who lent the old Chrysler money secured by its
assets? According to the rules of bankruptcy, they were entitled to be paid
the full $6.9 billion they'd lent the old Chrysler before those assets could be shifted to the new Chrysler‹and before the unsecured creditors, including the UAW's pension fund and auto-part suppliers could be paid a cent. That was not in the car czar's game plan, however, Instead, the creditors were confronted with a take-it-or-else offer of 29 cents on the dollar,
substantially less than the unsecured creditors would receive. (The UAW's
fund, for example, would receive an implied 55 cents on the dollar.) The "else" turned out to be what President Obama described as a "surgical bankruptcy" for Chrysler in a pre-selected U.S. bankruptcy court. Here the administration was able to play its ace in the hole. The four bank that held 70 percent of these loans, namely Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JP Morgan Chase, all had received government bailout money, making them vulnerable to government reprisals. So while denouncing hold-outs as "speculators" and "obstructionists" or, as one Congressman from Michigan termed them, "vultures", it was not difficult for officials to strong-arm these banks into accepting the deal.
Using these tactics, Chrysler was able to secure the support of more than two-thirds of its creditors. Once that threshold had been crossed, U.S. bankruptcy judge Arthur Gonzales was within his rights to force the remaining creditors to approve the plan.
Whether or not this extraordinary intervention saves Chrysler, which lost a
staggering $16.8 billion in 2008, remains an open question. After all, even
Fiast's organizational skills may not be enough to persuade
American consumers to buy cars from a company emerging from bankruptcy, especially since its much-heralded small-car technology, meanwhile, will not appear until 2012.
But the consequences of upending the rule of law, even if it was done with
the best of intentions, may prove far more serious than whatever befalls
Chrysler in the Rustbelt. For one thing, it will undoubtedly become far more difficult for an American corporation to borrow money on its assets, since even a senior secured lender can no longer be sure his claim will take priority over those of labor unions and other unsecured creditors.
As one savvy investment banker told me, "Now that we live in a banana
republic, secured lending is anything but secure."
