While GM's institutional bondholders are supporting the asset sale, Richman worries that many of the automaker's individuals bondholders are getting left in the lurch.
"Our position is they can spin the assets off--that's done all the time in bankruptcy cases, there's nothing remarkable about it--but determining who owns it and in what proportions should be done in accordance with the law," he says. "The bankruptcy code has very specific protections and requirements for how you confirm a plan."
It's hiding the reorganization plan under the guise of a bankruptcy sale that angers Richman, who feels his clients are being dictated to by larger parties with a vested equity interest in a new GM free from liabilities.
See the entire article at:
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2009/06/patton-boggs-michael-richman-gm.html
GM Dissident Bondholders Pick Patton Boggs over White & Case
See Also:
http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/digestTAL.jsp?id=1202431485864&GM_Dissident_Bondholders_Pick_Patton_Boggs_over_White__Case
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am confused...are the small bondholders giving up their objection to the 363 sale? Why?
ReplyDeleteHello, 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.
ReplyDelete