Looks like the fight is over folks......

Friday, June 12, 2009

GM 363 Sale - Objections Due June 19 5:00 PM EST

Some excerpts:
B. THE SALE HEARING The Sale Hearing will be held before the Honorable Robert E. Gerber, United States Bankruptcy Judge, in Courtroom 621 of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, One Bowling Green, New York, New York 10004-1408, on June 30, 2009, at 9:45 a.m. (Eastern Time). The Sale Hearing may be adjourned without notice by an announcement of the adjourned date at the Sale Hearing.

RESPONSES OR OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE MOTION SHALL BE FILED with the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court and served upon:
(a) Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, attorneys for the Debtors, 767 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10153 (Attn: Harvey R. Miller, Esq., Stephen Karotkin, Esq., and Joseph H. Smolinsky, Esq.); (b) Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, attorneys for the Purchaser, One World Financial Center, New York, New York 10281 (Attn: John J. Rapisardi, Esq.); (c) the attorneys for the Creditors Committee; (d) Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, the attorneys for the UAW, One Liberty Plaza, New York, New York 10006 (Attn: James L. Bromley, Esq.); (e) Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP, the attorneys for the UAW, 330 W. 42nd Street, New York, New York 10036 (Attn: Babette Ceccotti, Esq.); (f) Vedder Price, P.C., attorneys for Export Development Canada, 1633 Broadway, 47th Floor, New York, New York 10019 (Attn: Michael J. Edelman, Esq. and Michael L. Schein, Esq.); (g) the Office of the United States Trustee for the Southern District of New York (Attn: Diana G. Adams, Esq.), 33 Whitehall Street, 21st Floor, New York, New York 10004; and (h) the U.S. Attorney’s Office, S.D.N.Y., 86 Chambers Street, Third Floor, New York, New York 10007 (Attn: David S. Jones, Esq. and Matthew L. Schwartz, Esq.), SO AS TO BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN JUNE 19, 2009, AT 5:00 P.M. (EASTERN TIME) (the “Objection Deadline”).
The failure of any person or entity to file a response or objection on or before the Objection Deadline shall be deemed a consent to the 363 Transaction and the other relief requested in the Motion, and shall bar the assertion, at the Sale Hearing or thereafter, of any objection to the Sale Procedures, the Motion, the 363 Transaction, the approval of the UAW Retiree Settlement Agreement, and the Debtors’ consummation of the 363 Transaction.

See the link for full document:

So next week we should be a huge fully of objections to the sale being filed from various parties.


  1. I think we will see all of the objection pour in later in the week and law firms compile their objections. It will be very interesting to see if Tom Lauria and his team represent some of the institutional bondholders what refused to be bullied into accepting the GM offer. He has a much stronger case with GM than he had with Chrysler. In addition he has a much larger group of dissatisfied bondholders. This may be his chance to actually get a hearing at the Supreme Court.

  2. The Patton Boggs LLP law firm has a pending motion to represent the "Unofficial committee of Family & Dissident Bondholders" and the hearing appointing them is scheduled for June 23rd. How does this effect the ability of small bondholders to "Object" to the 363 Sale?

  3. That's a great question. Not being a lawyer, I don't know the technical legal proceedures. Since the motion clearly states that objections not filed by the 19th will not be considered, I'd say that everyone has the right to file an objection with the Court.

    Anyone out there know if as individuals we can file a letter of objection with the court by the 19th concerning the GM 363 Sale Plan? Will it be considered by the Court?

    See comment #3 Under June 23 hearing post. The Court has said Patton and Boggs may "file papers as they see fit whether or not they have been a designated as an official committee."

    Going through the Court Documents filed thus far I have run accross letters from individual GM Bondholders objecting to the unfair, biased GM restructuring and its impact on them as individual bondholders. The letter are included in the court filings, so someone reads them.

  4. Does the legal strategy of the Patton Boggs law firm include objecting to GM's 363 sale by June 19th? If not, how are small bondholders being protected?

  5. Hello, I think that is a good question. I don't have a good answer I'm afraid. After reading the article concerning Michael Richman's approach to fighting the unjust division of assets of GM, I also had the same question. One explanation may be that the way he was quoted in the article may not be totally actuate as to his thoughts. The way I read the 363 Sale agreement, Doc #92 on the GM Doc site, the division of assets is spelled out, so I would think an objection is in order. I'll see if I can find out a better answer for you.