Originally Posted By: thedoctor
According to bankruptcy court precedence, they are entitled to better treatment. They invested money into the company. The unions didn't, which were simply taking money from the company and getting a better shake than the hedge funds. And they weren't just holding out for more bailout as Obama and the Dems are describing it. They would have taken a stake in the reformed company, which is what the unions are getting, but were being tossed to the sidelines. Did you not even read the article that you posted a link to?


You'll have to point out where they said they would have taken a stake in the company because it looks to me that other than wanting more money their issue wasn't that they were not getting a stake in the company but that others were and they feel they should be paid in full before anyone else gets anything.
 Quote:
“Junior creditors are ordinarily not entitled to anything until senior secured creditors like our investors are repaid in full,” the dissidents said in the statement.


Their not automatically entitled to better treatment though...

 Quote:
In bankruptcy court, the absolute priority rule is regularly modified, lawyers said. Two-thirds of the lenders can force the holdouts to go along with them in a procedure called a cramdown.


And I hope that happens. Everyone was expected to make concessions, especially the union for this to work. If the government hadn't gotten involved with this, the dissidents probably would have been sitting on even bigger losses so I can't feel too sorry for them.

Fair play!