« Liability of Government Director Nominees | Main | The CFTC Wants Limits on Oil Price "Speculators" »
July 7, 2009
GM is Sold for Too Much??
The bankruptcy judge, Judge Robert E. Gerber, approved the sale of GM on Sunday. Under Section 363, GM sold its "healthy" assets to a new company owned 60 percent by the federal government and 17 percent owned by a health care trust for the benefit of UAW workers. Our government has put $50 billion into the company and billions more into suppliers, lenders and GM's former credit company GMAC. It took the Judge 95 pages to justify short-circuiting a Chapter 11 process that usually involves the votes of creditor and claimaint committees on a specific plan. Section 363, usually reserved for selling unwanted assets or closed plants, has become a loophole for reorganizaing an entire company outside the full Chapter 11 process. The dangers of a 363 sale are obvious. The company can be sold for too little (benefitting the new owners and hurting the residual creditors) or, in a bizarre twist, for too much (hurting the new owners and benefiting the residual creditors). The The former situation is more likely: The company could have been sold for a higher price (to other purchases or the same pruchaser) given an open bidding process and more time or the company was worth more sold in smaller pieces, liquidated, over time. The Judge is the gatekeeper. In the later situation in which the company is sold for too much is rare and bizarre: Why would new owners agree to pay to much??? Yet we may have such a case bizarre case in both the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies. The company is sold for too much because the government is the buyer and it is spending taxpayer dollars, not based on finanical returns but based on political returns. In other words, Section 363 is particularly useful if the government wants to buy a company fast in bankrutpcy to satisfy political constituencies. Here is Judge is not a gatekeeper; he could care less. A good deal is a good deal for the creditors. The only complaint that some creditors can have is that they were not included in that part of the purchasing group that received a bargain equity price thus recieving a larger piece of the largess of the government payout than the creditors in the residual shell corporation did (ie the UAW gets more of a windfall than they do). The Judge's answer was, "Shut up and be happy, you are still better off than you would have been had the government not stepped in with cash." Coupled with the price is the government's power to force the quick sale; the government threatened to pull the plug on any additional funds necessary to keep the company operating if the Judge did not act within 40 days of the bankruptcy filing. "Sell to us for a premium price within 40 days or we walk." The Judge had no rational choice but to approve. His decision should have taken a paragraph to write, not 95 pages.
The policy question is whether we want the federal government to do this, use Section 363 to nationalize private companies in bankrutpcy.
July 7, 2009 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef011570df664d970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GM is Sold for Too Much??:
Comments
IT amazes me how the "realm" of review(ers) have failed to accept the premise of reality.
Our Court(s) are mechanisms to enforce civility and maintain the status quo of established power/political/money centers.
We - America - are forced to accept the strong arm rule of the powerful Pen!
Bankruptcy Judges are not nominated - as District Court/Circuit Court judges are.
They are hand picked by the Circuit power centers.
Therefore they tend to do what the elite command.
Which is also why you rarely see a Circuit overturn a BK Court within.
One really has little recourse - but to accept the way things are - unless one chooses to Buck the system.
An uphill battle at best.
But you are right Professor - the decision should have been one page - one sentence -
"So let it be written - So let it be Done"!
For that is the way it is - until WE - the People - decide en mass to make it different!
Posted by: Laser Haas | Jul 8, 2009 12:06:50 PM
I think an important related question is how would we feel if a private financing source did something similar?
What if a debtor went into a 363 sale with a stalking horse willing to provide DIP (and exit financing), but the terms were a lot different from liquidation priority? What if there clearly were no others interested in providing the BK financing, such that otherwise the company was certainly going to go into liquidation?
What is a judge do to? What do we want him/her to do?
Of course you can say that no private financing source is likely (economicly incented) to have such strange conditions, but that is not the point.
Isn't a 363 sale, if you can find any buyer interested in putting money in that gets equal or greater value to (at least the secured) creditors, a good thing?
In more robust times, when DIP and exit financing were actually available, the 363 process required (and still generaly does) an auction. But today, auctions will go no where and you are lucky to have a stalking horse with financing. Should more money be wasted to extend a hopeless process when the debtor have carry on with its business?
I think we can agree that 363 is useful for more than just unwanted assets. In these tough times, it is interesting to think about whether 363 is more prone to abuse now, or whether, if used properly (admittedly ambiguous but conceding there may be abuses), it is not a little more valuable now.
Separately, isn't this kinda what we expect of judges: look at the facts presented (incl. arguments about the relative values/equities/fairness etc. of liquidation and the proposed 363) and make a decision about whether the proposed sale fits what the law intended or was written for?
Indeed, the professor's last question, which is entirely different from what I write above, is a very interesting public policy question that, like many other important issues these days, won't get the proper attention from those making the decisions. At this point, it is arguably moot, though.
Posted by: Steve | Jul 8, 2009 12:23:46 PM