Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh
But if, as you claim, 2/3 of the investors can get together and essentially strip the secured creditors of their rights, there is no validity to the Democrat talking point that the secured creditors are "holding up" anything, is there?


We're talking about the same rules G-man. The rules provide for a 2/3rds majority to be able to modify the secured creditors preferential treatment. And because the process is through the courts and that takes time, yes they can hold things up.

 Quote:
It further contradicts your claim that the secured creditors are "not automatically entitled to better treatment." It demonstrates that they are, in fact, entitled to better treatment unless and until certain events occur.


It's all contingent on if 2/3rds go their way, so saying it's automatic isn't really accurate is it?

Fair play!