Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
But the first report is a newspaper account of what was in their bankruptcy filing, in the filing they said they would not be bound by the caps. The second report is Chrysler telling the press(which btw you can lie to legally unlike the bankruptcy court) that they wouldn't do that.


The main thing would be if they use it or not though correct?


Now that Fiat/Chrysler have been "caught," they would be highly unlikely to exploit the loophole.

As such, their failure to "use it" means very little at this juncture.


Maybe but either way the loophole isn't then being used.


No, it's not "either way."

A loophole was created. It was going to be used and only wasn't because the people planning to do so were "caught."

That in no way justifies the creation of the loophole in the first place. In fact, if the loophole was completely benign, one could argue that an article about it shouldn't have caused the executives to drop the plan.


I wasn't ignoring the loophole, just pointing out that the chrysler guy was saying they were going to not dodge the caps.

Fair play!