60 replies to this topic

[Tim the Beek]

Well, if I were the judge, I'd say you're on your own. Figure it out boys. You (The VCs and the Banks) aren't getting a tax break to figure out how to sell off twinkie factories. If you need to employ former Hostess execs to execute the liquidation, that's on your dime; not the taxpayers.

unfortunately, current bankruptcy law would make me a very bad federal judge

But a good dude.

[PeaceFrog]

how did I know that the employees and taxpayers would get screwed by this?

[PeaceFrog]

and that would be the reason they need the court's approval.

That way, a judge can get a cut of the looting as well.

[deadheadskier]

But a good dude.

I'm cool with that.

love "bail outs" from my friends is what keeps me going

[Tim the Beek]

[Julius]

I actually read this whole thread (for a change!) so A+ for that. TtB FTW.

[TakeAStepBack]

at me or at the info in your quote?

The info. I have to read more about it, but .gov and "not taxpayer funded" leaves me skeptical.

[TakeAStepBack]

Regardless of this particular case, the taxpayer is on the hook for the administration fees of this "govt. corporation" (PBGC) for around 1.4 million people. Including congressional, pensions. So while I agree, I completely disagree with such a program or "corporation" as their website puts it. YOu can read their appropriations language at the website.

http://www.pbgc.gov/...-2013-V2-02.pdf

[deadheadskier]

The info. I have to read more about it, but .gov and "not taxpayer funded" leaves me skeptical.

absolutely

kind of like how the USPS is "completely self funded" and their billions of dollar operating losses are "not tax payer funded"

[TakeAStepBack]

It seems to me that the court should force the pension shortfall payout from the liquidation. I see absolutely no reason why it is our problem that this company can not meet its operational and pension obligations. If that means that banks and VCs that entered the arena, being that it IS venture, lose out on any shortfalls such as the pension. But this is by designand not from a corporate standpoint. Total corporatism and crony socialism on this one.

Ridiculous.

[PeaceFrog]

I don't have to label it as corporatism, or capitalism, or "crony socialism" (which is a new one on me) to know that it's unfair.

When the end result of some procedure turns out to be unfair, the clever accounting or whatever other means used as a vehicle to achieve that end seems irrelevant.

The means justifies the end? I don't think so.