Chrysler Bankruptcy: Motion Denied, To Be Appealed; Fraud Complaints To Be Made
.jpg&w=150&h=150&zc=1&q=100)
After the Defendants made a footnoted accusation that the Plaintiffs in a Chrysler Bankruptcy case are so-called “birthers” (an accusation that is completely immaterial to the point of this case), one of the attorneys for the Plaintiffs, Leo Donofrio, of the firm Pidgeon and Donofrio, blasted Judge Arthur Gonzalez’ opinion on his denial order as being “a fraud on the Court, on the nation and on truth (Dianna Cotter also reporting):”
The entire case against the rejected Chrysler dealers revolved on one simple answer given by Fiat Executive, Alfredo Altavilla, when he was cross-examined by Dealer Counsel during the hearing to decide the fate of Chrysler. Every other witness testified that neither the US Government nor Fiat requested that Old Chrysler reject the 789 Dealer franchise contracts.
Without a request by the lender (the US Government) or the purchaser (Fiat), there was no sound business judgment in Old Chrysler killing off 789 franchises. This is because when a contract is rejected in bankruptcy, Section 365(g) of the Bankruptcy Code kicks in and gives those rejected dealers an unsecured creditor claim against the estate. In this case, it was undisputed that the claim would potentially reach one billion dollars.
Old Chrysler had a fiduciary duty to its other creditors not to burden the estate with this mammoth claim. However, had a key party sought rejection of those franchise agreements as a condition precedent to the deal closing then the Court might have been justified to approve the rejections. But no party ever testified that the dealer restructuring was a necessary condition precedent to the sale closing.
The New Chrysler management were free to trim the dealership network once they took over. After they owned the company, they could deal with the dealers as they liked and as would have been governed by State franchise laws which protected the dealers. And all of the evidence shows that Fiat was happy to take on the entire dealership network in the sale. The decision to kill off 789 dealerships was entirely the brain collapse of Old Chrysler’s management. Therefore, the issue to be decided by the Court was whether this decision was made in sound business judgment.
The entire dealer rejection issue then turned on whether the rejections were a condition precedent to the sale closing. If it was not a material issue to Fiat, and if Fiat’s executive testified that they were happy to trim the dealership network after the sale closed, then Old Chrysler should not have been allowed to reject the dealer contracts. The Bankruptcy Court – under Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code – must approve the rejections for them to become effective.
Here is the exact testimony by Alfredo Altavilla of Fiat which the case turned on:
Q. If this transaction closes without an absolute requirement of a particular number of dealers that are being terminated, would Chrysler still go through with this deal — I mean, rather, would Fiat still go through with this deal?
A. The answer is that a restructure needs to occur. Whether it occurs before or after the closing of the deal is not a material difference.
(See May 27, 2009 Hearing Transcript at 352.)
It’s a very straightforward answer. Altavilla clearly testified that whether the dealer restructuring took place after the sale closed made no material difference to Fiat. Clearly, this man and his foreign company were not going to walk away from a deal where the American people paid the ENTIRE 20 plus billion dollar purchase costs just to hand it over to Fiat for free. Zippo nada zilch was paid by Fiat who were therefore in no position to demand 40,000 American jobs be lost and 789 dealerships be gutted. Fiat didn’t make that insane demand and the testimony above clearly shows this to be true.
But Judge Gonzalez decided he was going to usher in a new era ofjudicial ventriloquism by taking on a new role for his soiled robe. Gonzalez understood that the testimony needed for him to approve the rejection of 789 dealers (and loss of some 40,000 jobs) was nowhere to be found in the record of the case. So Judge Gonzalez – through the use of creative footnoting – made up his own testimonyand stuffed it into the mouth of Altavilla alla Edger Bergen and his dummy Charlie McCarthy. Seriously folks – the metaphor is so very appropriate.
Please compare and contrast Alatvilla’s testimony with Judge Gonzalez at Footnote 21 of the Gonzalez Rejection Opinion:
ALTAVILLA’S TESTIMONY
Q. If this transaction closes without an absolute requirement of a particular number of dealers that are being terminated, would Chrysler still go through with this deal — I mean, rather, would Fiat still go through with this deal?
A. The answer is that a restructure needs to occur. Whether it occurs before or after the closing of the deal is not a material difference.
THE JUDGE GONZALEZ OPINION AT FOOTNOTE 21
21 …Altavilla also responded affirmatively to a question regarding whether a dealership network needed to be restructured for the Fiat Transaction to close, stating that a “restructuring needs to occur.”
Altavilla never responded to any such question in the affirmative.Never, damn it. This is a fraud on the Court, on the nation and on truth. Any grammar school child can easily grasp that the witness clearly indicated restructuring was not a material difference to Fiat. And if it was not a material difference to Fiat, 789 dealers and 40,000 jobs could have been saved while your Government gifted this American auto institution to a foreign national conglomerate with your own taxes. That’s it in a nutshell, people.
Post continues below
Advertise on this siteIn our original Motion memorandum we gave Judge Gonzalez the benefit of the doubt and refrained from calling this fraud intentional – opting instead to allege only that the Court’s judicial ventriloquism exhibited a reckless disregard for the truth. But on Friday Feb. 5, 2010 Judge Gonzalez denied our Motion by issuing a 25 page Opinion(docket no. 6341 – public docket appears down today) which condoned intentional fraud on the part of Chrysler’s attorneys – Jones Day – who repeated multiple falsehoods in their Response Brief which we thoroughly dismantled in our Reply.
Furthermore, in not correcting the error of Footnote 21, Judge Gonzalez is now also guilty of intentional fraud as well. He’s chosen to defend Footnote 21 and in doing so he is simply lying to the American People which is obvious to any impartial observer of the facts. Footnote 21 is simply a lie by a partial Judge. It’s fraud plain and simple.
The Law Office of Pidgeon & Donofrio (site will soon be updated to include Leo Donofrio’s info) will be appealing to the Southern District of New York and we will be making multiple complaints to the New York Bar asking for sanctions against Jones Day and Judge Gonzalez.
Our lead client, James Anderer has been on Fox Business News about 40 times now and we are hoping to increase public awareness through the media of this fraud. The Chrysler story is only now truly being understood for the fraud against the American way that it is. Please stand with us as this battle is sure to intensify. The disease we are fighting is at the core of the intended destruction of this nation’s natural sovereignty.
Understand that this battle is as important a fight as this nation will ever see. It will define whether we are going to allow the judicial branch to openly lie to our faces. If no court will overturn Gonzalez here, it’s the end of truth, justice and the American way forever. This judicial fraud will become the template for a new tomorrow where your children will have no protection of law.
Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon represent 76 former Chrysler dealers.
See my highlighted coverage in my Chrysler Bankruptcy category.
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com
Photo courtesy Examiner.com
“THE JUDGE GONZALEZ OPINION AT FOOTNOTE 21
21 …Altavilla also responded affirmatively to a question regarding whether a dealership network needed to be restructured for the Fiat Transaction to close, stating that a “restructuring needs to occur.””
Altavilla never responded to any such question in the affirmative.Never, damn it.”
Sorry, Leo, yes, he did. He responded that a restructuring did need to occur, but whether it was before or after the sale was not material.
“from the May 27, 2009 Sale Hearing Transcript at
pg. 352:
Q. If this transaction closes without an absolute requirement of a particular number of dealers that are being terminated, would Chrysler still go through with this deal — I mean, rather, would Fiat still go through with this deal?
A. The answer is that a restructure needs to occur. Whether it occurs before or after the closing of the deal is not a material difference.”
It appears to me that Donofrio is not factual regarding his allegations of fraud?
Sue – Thanks for clearing that up. It’s confusing and hard to keep straight.
elspeth
“elspeth says:
February 17, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Sue says:
February 16, 2010 at 3:18 am
slcraig,
“We’ll see what happens at Appeal or whatever other Venue is approached.”
It appears that you or the birther lawyers do not understand the purpose of an appeal.
http://politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=3344
Why is Sue posting this when she posts on the #TeaParty thread questioning what an appeal is for?”
Because they are two different lawsuits/appeals.
Why is Sue posting this when she posts on the #TeaParty thread questioning what an appeal is for?
slcraig,
“We’ll see what happens at Appeal or whatever other Venue is approached.”
It appears that you or the birther lawyers do not understand the purpose of an appeal.
http://politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=3344
Sue says:
February 14, 2010 at 10:52 am
c. scott,
Here is a website regarding legal briefs. Compare what this website states regarding legal briefs compared to what Orly, Apuzzo, Pidgeon, Donofrio, Berg, etc. file. I think you will see what I am referring to regarding their legal briefs. There is alot of good information at this site.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2057850_write-legal-brief.html
How to Write a Legal Brief
And I suppose you were impressed by the Brief in Opposition filed by Jones Day?
It seems to me that Jones Day failed to take heed of ‘Step #3.
Tell me, in your reading of the transcript of testimony, did the Fiat exec say that the rejection of the leases was necessary for the ‘purchase’ to go through or did he say it would not effect the purchase one way or the other?
And, pertinent to the Appeal going forward, did the Judge truncate the Fiat exec’s testimony in such a manner that it made it appear to say something that it did not say?
And did both the Jones Day Brief and the Courts recent Denial fail to acknowledge that FACT and rely on the ‘tolling limitation’ of 325 and ignore Rule 60?
Civil and Civil Bankruptcy Courts are Courts of ‘equity’, being in the legal sense and not the profits of an investment.
In the history of Jurisprudence it has always been held that ‘equity’ is defined not only on the language of contracts but the moral premise that one party does not have the right to extraordinary privileges not available to the other.
We’ll see what happens at Appeal or whatever other Venue is approached.
c. scott,
Here is a website regarding legal briefs. Compare what this website states regarding legal briefs compared to what Orly, Apuzzo, Pidgeon, Donofrio, Berg, etc. file. I think you will see what I am referring to regarding their legal briefs. There is alot of good information at this site.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2057850_write-legal-brief.html
How to Write a Legal Brief
c. scott,
No, I’m not a lawyer and have never claimed to be. However, I do have some friends who are very good, competent lawyers and they have been my mentors regarding these eligibility lawsuits. When these motions are filed by the birther lawyers, these lawyers have been kind enough to go through the motion with those of us at PJ that do not have a legal background. Same way with judges orders/decisions. It has been very helpful.
[These birther lawyers are not exactly the sharpest crayons in the box.]
@Sue
Graduated law school did you? You are pathetic.
It is not at all surprising that the Judge Denied the Motion in that had he Granted it he would be ADMITTING the Fraud that he perpetrated on the Court, (record).
That he relied on the rejection of the Rule 60 allowances for ‘timely appeal’ is the PROOF of that assertion.
But then, it’s the LAWS that are on trial NOW.
You decide.
Statute of Limitations
Rule 60(b)(1) allows movants to file motions to reconsider within one year of an Order being entered. The Rejection Order was entered on June 9, 2009 and so this motion is well within the one year limitation. Additionally, the statute does not limit the time within which motions made under 60(d)(3) can be made.
Requirements For Reconsideration
In, Hoffenberg v. Hoffman & Pollok, 296 F. Supp. 2d 504, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), the Court discussed the necessary requirements for reconsideration:
“A motion for reconsideration ‘is appropriate where a court overlooks controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion . . . and which, had they been considered, might have reasonably altered the result before the court.’ Banco de Seguros del Estado v. Mut. Marine Offices, Inc., 230 F. Supp. 2d 427, 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (quoting Range Rd. Music, Inc. v. Music Sales Corp., 90 F. Supp. 2d 390, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)). ‘The standard for granting . . . a motion [for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked — matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.’ Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). “[A] motion for reconsideration may be granted to ‘correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.’” Banco, 230 F. Supp. 2d at 428 (quoting Griffin Indus., Inc. v. Petrojam, Ltd., 72 F. Supp. 2d 365, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)).
Movants respectfully submit that this Court’s June 9th Rejection Order and June 19th Rejection Opinion (In Re Old Car Co., 406 B.R. 180 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) overlooked important factual matters entered into the record and that such matters could reasonably be expected to alter the Court’s original conclusions. Furthermore, we also respectfully submit that the Court overlooked controlling decisions and statutes which could also be reasonably expected to alter the Court’s original holding. Moreover, some of the controlling decisions overlooked by the court were cited in the Court’s Rejection Opinion for other grounds. While we recognize that Rule 60(b) motions must be “narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the Court,” Hoffenberg at 505, citing DelleFave v. Access Temporaries, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3165, No. 99 Civ. 6098, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3165 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2001)), the Rejection Opinion failed to consider other separate and distinct controlling points of authority flowing from those cases which we rely upon below. We respectfully submit that in overlooking the facts and authorities presented herein, the Court misapplied the law, committed clear error and has caused a manifest injustice by approving the rejection of 789 dealership agreements.
Rule 60. Relief From Judgment or Order
(a) Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected before the appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court.
(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, Etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59 (b);
(3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or
(6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and
(3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to grant relief to a defendant not actually personally notified as provided in Title 28, U.S.C., § 1655, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court. Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.
RULE 60(d)(3); FRAUD ON THE COURT
Statement of Facts.
In Footnote 21 of The Rejection Opinion, Judge Gonzalez’s assertion regarding the testimony of Fiat executive, Alfredo Altavilla (“Altavilla”), exhibits such a reckless disregard for the truth that it constitutes a fraud on the court. The second sentence of Footnote 21 states:
“Altavilla also responded affirmatively to a question regarding whether a dealership network needed to be restructured for the Fiat Transaction to close, stating that a “restructuring needs to occur.”
The record indicates by clear and convincing evidence that this assertion by Judge Gonzalez is unequivocally false. It gives the appearance of judicial ventriloquism concerning the most important issue related to the Rejection Motion. Without this alleged affirmative response, the record of the case lacks any evidence whatsoever suggesting rejection of the dealership agreements was ever requested by Fiat, the US Government or the United Auto Workers as a condition precedent to the deal closing. Footnote 21 parses, “restructuring needs to occur” by ignoring
the very next sentence of the very same answer given by Altavilla. And the complete answer made it perfectly clear that restructuring did not need to occur before the sale closed. Altavilla was being cross-examined by dealer counsel, Russel McRory, Esq. Here is the exact testimony Judge Gonzalez makes reference to in Footnote 21 from the May 27, 2009 Sale Hearing Transcript at pg. 352:
Q. If this transaction closes without an absolute requirement of a particular number of dealers that are being terminated, would Chrysler still go through with this deal — I mean, rather, would Fiat still go through with this deal?
A. The answer is that a restructure needs to occur. Whether it occurs before or after the closing of the deal is not a material difference.
There’s no excuse for Judge Gonzalez having parsed “restructuring needs to occur” from that straightforward answer. Having done so, Judge Gonzalez made it appear as if Altavilla’s testimony stood for the exact opposite of what the witness actually said.
Judge Gonzalez’s creative constuction therefore invalidated the true testimony.
Cavalier construction as this would never be tolerated by the Court if undertaken by Counsel. Furthermore, even the answer as parsed by Judge Gonzalez doesn’t equal an “affirmative” response to the question as posed by the Court in Footnote 21. The question Judge Gonzalez made reference to required a time sensitive answer. The purposeful inquisition by Counsellor McCrory was whether restructuring needed to occur as a condition precedent for the deal to close. Yet, the answer as parsed by Judge Gonzalez – “restructuring needs to occur” – is not time sensitive. The parsed response doesn’t indicate whether “restructuring needs to occur” before or after the sale closed. The answer as parsed by Judge Gonzalez is technically non-responsive, but certainly misleading. And there is no justification for the Court having spliced an unintended response into the record.
Donofrio and Pidgeon file their notice of appeal.
I think Donofrio and Pidgeon got involved too late to do anything realistic.
Exactly. And competent counsel would have realized that, and not wasted anyone’s time with what Donofrio and Pidgeon did file. (The court’s Rule 60 decision isn’t exactly groundbreaking stuff.)
Some of the dealers had previously decided not to press on, and at that time they had competent counsel.
So dealers, who were at the critical time represented by competent counsel, didn’t raise this “fraud” claim. Were they in on the fraud as well?
Bob wrote:
I think Donofrio and Pidgeon got involved too late to do anything realistic. Some of the dealers had previously decided not to press on, and at that time they had competent counsel.
“I didn’t spend a lot of time on this, but I assume your telling me that Judge G. can do anything he wants and there is not a d*** thing Leo,Steve or the wronged party can do about it.
Amazing…”
Actually, what is amazing is how you jump to false conclusions without having all the facts.
These birther lawyers are not exactly the sharpest crayons in the box.
In the reconsideration motion, the court said:
“While the Movants argue that their Rule 60(b)(1) motion is timely because Rule 60(c)(1) allows such motions to be brought within one year, the Movants ignore both the qualifying language of Rule 60(c)(1), which requires that the motion be brought within a ‘reasonable’ time, and Second Circuit case law, which has determined that a reasonable time for bringing a motion under Rule 60(b)(1) that alleges a substantive mistake by the Court is the time frame for filing an appeal.”
The time to file an appeal has past. Donofrio and Pidgeon were attempting to argue they were entitled to the larger time frame (one year) because they were alleging fraud. But their only “evidence” of fraud was testimony that the court already had heard. That’s not “fraud” because it was something that the courts and parties were already aware of. To be entitled to the larger time frame, they would have to present new evidence (like, for example, someone bribed a witness).
If Donofrio and Pidgeon thought that the court got it wrong, the proper recourse was to promptly file a motion for reconsideration, or file an appeal. They did neither; instead, they waited until the time to do so had past, and then filed their motion.
c.scott says:
Yeah, your call for Congress to investigate seemed a bit premature.
He could grow up. Remember Leo also threw tantrums when he lost his eligibility cases and appeals. The the judges tried to railroad him, the NJ Appellate Division case file is fraudulent, various clerks didn’t do their jobs right, etc. He even said he filed charges with the New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct.
Exactly which part was 6 months late?
Donofrio’s reconsideration motion.
(especially if one of the main reasons he ruled against you is for filing your motion six months late.)
Exactly which part was 6 months late?
Not that amazing. For the better part of a century judges in bankruptcy court have had very broad, sweeping powers, particularly when a firm is reorganizing under Chapter 11.
11 USC 105(a)
The standard of review on appeal is whether or not the judge abused his or her discretion, which is a very high standard to meet. This feature of bankruptcy law is designed to get a financially distressed firm back on its feet as quickly as possible.
And accusing a judge of corruption is really never a good idea, especially if one of the main reasons he ruled against you is for filing your motion six months late.
“Yeah, how’s that going?”
Not good,
I didn’t spend a lot of time on this, but I assume your telling me that Judge G. can do anything he wants and there is not a d*** thing Leo,Steve or the wronged party can do about it.
Amazing…
c.scott says:
Yeah, how’s that going?
In case you are interested, Congress passed the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 to provide for complaints against federal judges, including bankruptcy judges. The complaint here is directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling, so see 28 USC 352(b)(1)(A)(ii).
Phil,
“And for the record, I blame the Democrats for doing the stonewalling for at least a year in ever attempting to get anything done. I think it’s safe to say that they are at the zenith of their legislative power at this point in time, and the dam shoring up their majorities is quickly becoming laden with cracks.
-Phil”
I blame both parties equally. However, this is rather telling, don’t you think?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/05/cbsnews_investigates/main6178817.shtml
Senator’s Projects Stall Obama Appointees
Sue,
Now, now — don’t get your knickers in a twist. Just because I give wide latitude regarding the types of comments for a given posting doesn’t mean I can’t go off on a sidebar point.
And for the record, I blame the Democrats for doing the stonewalling for at least a year in ever attempting to get anything done. I think it’s safe to say that they are at the zenith of their legislative power at this point in time, and the dam shoring up their majorities is quickly becoming laden with cracks.
-Phil
Phil,
” Phil says:
February 9, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Sue,
““Time for congress to investigate.”
“No, it is time for Congress to do something constructive like pass the jobs bill, immigration reform, finance reform, health care reform to name a few things that are more important.”
“Then perhaps you should blame the Democrats. Even without a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, they still hold overwhelming governing majorities in Congress to do whatever they like.”
-Phil”
My above comment did not place blame on either party, now did it?
Sue,
Then perhaps you should blame the Democrats. Even without a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, they still hold overwhelming governing majorities in Congress to do whatever they like.
-Phil
slcraig,
Read GeorgetownJD’s comment. A real lawyers opinion.
GeorgetownJD says:
February 8, 2010 at 9:57 pm
I find it very odd that Leo fails to address this basis for the Court’s denial of the motion:
“Here, the motion was filed more than six months after the entry of the Rejection Order and the Court’s supporting Opinion. Certainly, all of the Movants’ allegations concerning the Court’s interpretation of the law, (e.g., the business judgment test, including analysis of benefit to the estate), are substantive issues that could have been the subject of an appeal or a motion for re-argument under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9023, both of which have a time limitation. In addition, all of the ’separate and distinct controlling points of authority flowing from those cases’ upon which the Movants assert they rely were also available to the Movants during the appeal period. The Movants received notice of the proceedings and had an opportunity to be heard and assert their arguments. Indeed, many of the Movants and the nonmoving dealers participated in the proceedings. In addition, certain dealers filed a timely appeal, which was subsequently dismissed upon the appellant dealers’ motion.”
Didya catch that? Some of Leo and Steve’s clients actually filed a timely appeal, then abandoned their appeal. They had their chance last year, and cannot now be heard to complain.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26478019/IN-RE-OLD-CARCO-LLC-DONOFRIO-PIDGEON-6341-Opinion-signed-on-2-5-2010-denying-Rejected-Dealers-motion-nysb-mega-12607848846-6341
Don’t expect the Second Circuit to grant relief. And the Supreme Court will decline certiorari.
keokuk says:
February 9, 2010 at 9:46 am
Another win for Team Obama and the Italians.
Another loss for 40k Chrysler employees robbed of their lively hood.
Change we can beleive in.
Hey Sue, to celebrate maybe you can drive your Prius down to the unemployment office or the food pantry and make fun of those Ex-Chrysler employees who got their jobs redistributed. After all they are probably just a bunch of birthers.
I’m rather confused by your logic here. The bankruptcy case in question permitted Chrysler to merge with another company and thus save SOME of its dealerships. Without the merger approved in this case, ALL of them would be out of jobs. That’s the thing I don’t really understand about Donofrio’s case. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would not provide any real relief for his clients but would instead just force the court to undo the merger and thus take away even more jobs than were already lost. How does that make sense?
That you all consider yourselves ‘legal beagles’ I find it interesting that you all avoid the legal points of the case.
The ‘Rejections’ were contested prior to Pidgeon/Donofrio’s involvement. The Court ‘misrepresented testimony’ of the Buyer as cause for allowing the Rejection of Leases and now, in his current order, misrepresents his previous order.
“While the Movants argue that the Court overlooked certain facts and case law, they then cite to the Court’s reference to the same facts and cases in the Court’s Opinion. In other words, for the basis of what they allege the Court overlooked, the Movants cite to the Opinion itself.”
Sue asks; “So what was the Judge’s motive for closing dealerships not required by Fiat for the sale?”
And that is the prescient question.
How were the Dealers whose Leases were Rejected ’selected’ for rejection.?
Was it following one or other of the ‘Plans’ considered prior to and in hopes of avoiding Bankruptcy, which, by law, would be null and inoperative with the filing of Bankruptcy, or was there a NEW STANDARD established by persons or groups as yet unidentified?
Where in any of the testimony or record do you see that ANY ONE REQUIRED that these particular Dealers Leases be Rejected other than OLD CARCO, which was formed as a direct result of the ‘0s’ administrations involvement?
“Time for congress to investigate.”
No, it is time for Congress to do something constructive like pass the jobs bill, immigration reform, finance reform, health care reform to name a few things that are more important.
“So what was the Judge’s motive for closing dealerships not required by Fiat for the sale?”
Why is everything some sort of big conspiracy with you guys? Chrysler submitted their plan for and the bankruptcy judge approved the plan.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/09/news/companies/Chrysler_dealer_cuts/index.htm
[I’m rather confused by your logic here. The bankruptcy case in question permitted Chrysler to merge with another company and thus save SOME of its dealerships. Without the merger approved in this case, ALL of them would be out of jobs. That’s the thing I don’t really understand about Donofrio’s case. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would not provide any real relief for his clients but would instead just force the court to undo the merger and thus take away even more jobs than were already lost. How does that make sense?]
——————————————————————–
All I can say is read the testimony. Fiat did not require the dealers to close for this deal to go through. That is myth.
Would some of the dealers that went to New Chrysler have been closed anyway? Probably.
So what was the Judge’s motive for closing dealerships not required by Fiat for the sale?
Time for congress to investigate.
c.scott,
You might want to educate yourself on the actual facts regarding the Chrysler bankruptcy details. You also need to educate yourself on bankruptcy laws. The information provided by Black Lion and keokuk is factual. It is my understanding once Chrysler filed for bankruptcy, the car dealerships contracts/agreements with Chrysler became null and void. However, I could be wrong regarding this.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKIndia-39364820090501
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Chapter_11_reorganization
http://www.uscourts.gov/bankruptcycourts/bankruptcybasics/process.html
I believe this is called Capitalism?
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/pros-and-cons-of-capitalism.html
Cons of Capitalism
excerpt
“Capitalism makes an economy money-oriented. Business corporations look at the economy with a materialistic point of view. Profitability remains their only primary business goal. Business giants take over smaller companies. Employment rights are compensated with the sole aim of higher productivity.”
I’m rather confused by your logic here. The bankruptcy case in question permitted Chrysler to merge with another company and thus save SOME of its dealerships. Without the merger approved in this case, ALL of them would be out of jobs. That’s the thing I don’t really understand about Donofrio’s case. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would not provide any real relief for his clients but would instead just force the court to undo the merger and thus take away even more jobs than were already lost. How does that make sense?
An interesting quote from Leo’s blog regarding this issue, repeated for delicious emphasis:
“If no court will overturn Gonzalez here, it’s the end of truth, justice and the American way forever. This judicial fraud will become the template for a new tomorrow where your children will have no protection of law.”
It makes one wonder…isn’t it considered inappropriate for a lawyer to declare a judge guilty of fraud because of his decision? I mean is that a good way to win your case? Or has our buddy Leo, aka “Jet Schizo” just your regular everyday delusional egotistical narcissist.
I mean when you examine the case more closely, one notes that some dealers already appealed and withdrew, some have moved on to carry other brands, and most of all Leo himself made a mistake by not scheduling a hearing how could this have ended any other way?
Sue says:
February 8, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Donofrio and Pidgeon are wasting their clients money, taxpayer’s money and the court’s time.
Typical birther lawyers. When they lose, they claim the judge and court is corrupt.
——————————————————————–
Another win for Team Obama and the Italians.
Another loss for 40k Chrysler employees robbed of their lively hood.
Change we can beleive in.
Hey Sue, to celebrate maybe you can drive your Prius down to the unemployment office or the food pantry and make fun of those Ex-Chrysler employees who got their jobs redistributed. After all they are probably just a bunch of birthers.
keokuk,
Yes, because Mr. Donofrio already referenced it in his posting (“Gonzalez Rejection Opinion”).
Perhaps sometime tomorrow I’ll get both the Order and the Opinion uploaded to Scribd and get the things embedded.
-Phil
Here is the part of the opinion (footnote) that I like best:
“The case management order entered in these cases sets forth the mechanism for scheduling a hearing. The Movants neither scheduled a hearing for this matter in accordance with the case management order nor made any other effort to schedule a hearing.”
Duh!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26478019/IN-RE-OLD-CARCO-LLC-DONOFRIO-PIDGEON-6341-Opinion-signed-on-2-5-2010-denying-Rejected-Dealers-motion-nysb-mega-12607848846-6341
I find it very odd that Leo fails to address this basis for the Court’s denial of the motion:
“Here, the motion was filed more than six months after the entry of the Rejection Order and the Court’s supporting Opinion. Certainly, all of the Movants’ allegations concerning the Court’s interpretation of the law, (e.g., the business judgment test, including analysis of benefit to the estate), are substantive issues that could have been the subject of an appeal or a motion for re-argument under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9023, both of which have a time limitation. In addition, all of the ’separate and distinct controlling points of authority flowing from those cases’ upon which the Movants assert they rely were also available to the Movants during the appeal period. The Movants received notice of the proceedings and had an opportunity to be heard and assert their arguments. Indeed, many of the Movants and the nonmoving dealers participated in the proceedings. In addition, certain dealers filed a timely appeal, which was subsequently dismissed upon the appellant dealers’ motion.”
Didya catch that? Some of Leo and Steve’s clients actually filed a timely appeal, then abandoned their appeal. They had their chance last year, and cannot now be heard to complain.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26478019/IN-RE-OLD-CARCO-LLC-DONOFRIO-PIDGEON-6341-Opinion-signed-on-2-5-2010-denying-Rejected-Dealers-motion-nysb-mega-12607848846-6341
Don’t expect the Second Circuit to grant relief. And the Supreme Court will decline certiorari.
“While the Movants argue that the Court overlooked certain facts and case law, they then cite to the Court’s reference to the same facts and cases in the Court’s Opinion. In other words, for the basis of what they allege the Court overlooked, the Movants cite to the Opinion itself.”
Donofrio and Pidgeon are wasting their clients money, taxpayer’s money and the court’s time.
Typical birther lawyers. When they lose, they claim the judge and court is corrupt.
Does Donofrio actually intend to address the substance of Gonzalez’s dismissal, which is that the motion was done in improper format and outside of the permitted time period? It seems that he is just regurgitating the same arguments that he made earlier without addressing the procedural deficiencies of his pleading.
Phil, is there any particular reason that you chose not to post the actual opinion of the court here? It seems that such a document would contain valuable information in allowing your readers to assess the judge’s reasoning for his decision to deny the motion, given that none of the links you posted actually discuss what the judge said.