In another thread here, I asked about the "fairness" of the Chrysler "settlement" between the stakeholders. It was clear that whatever "agreement" was reached was actually forced by the Treasury Department, applying the full weight of the government to influence the outcome.

Bankruptcy has a purpose and a well-established set of laws and precedents on the respective rights of creditors, employees and owners. In Chrysler's case the legal rights of various classes of creditors were completely trampled by the government. While the result wasn't an actual legal precedent, a business precedent was established that will take a long, long time to overcome. When our government talks about the value that our founders placed on the separation of powers and the value we supposedly place on the Rule of Law, someone ought to remind them of what was done to trample the rule of law in the Chrysler case.

Read the article in The Economist, a pretty balanced publication from London...

http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...ry_id=13610871