Originally Posted By: thedoctor
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
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.


Reading is fundamental.

 Originally Posted By: thedoctor
 Quote:
What riled the group that put out the statement today was the fact that junior creditors, consisting of a workers healthcare trust, would get equity in a new Chrysler entity while they would not.

In the deal Chrysler was trying to conclude out of court, Fiat would have become a 20 percent owner of Chrysler, and a union retiree health-care trust fund would hold 55 percent, with the rest of the company staying in the government’s hands initially, according to people familiar with the matter. The government intends to replicate this, using bankruptcy to set up a new company, people familiar with the plan said.


Maybe it's being nitpicky but saying one group got equity while the other didn't isn't the same thing as asking for equity and not getting it. On the other hand the article was clear that they turned down several offers for more bailout money and asked for a higher amount. Were they asking to get money and also equity?

Fair play!