• Jun 9, 2009
In spite of pleas from the White House and the Justice Department, the Supreme Court yesterday put a hold on Chrysler's sale to Fiat. On one side are Indiana pension funds who want to protect their investment. On the other side are Chrysler and Fiat, who want to protect Chrysler's very existence, and the government which wants to protect the economy and jobs. In between all of that is the law.

Chrysler was given until June 15 to arrange its affairs or Fiat had the right to walk away from the deal, which would mean almost certain liquidation for the Pentastar. A Fiat spokesman, however, has come out today and said "Fiat won't walk away from Chrysler."

No reason was given for Fiat's new commitment, but in addition to the fact that Fiat intimately knows how long it takes to get a stumbling business through necessary hurdles, this is probably the company's best near-term chance to get into the U.S. market with a whole lot of helping hands. For the time being, everyone now waits to see what the Supreme Court will do with the case. Thanks for the tip, Dave!

[Source: Yahoo!]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 16 Comments
      • 5 Years Ago
      The story is here in Autoblog. It was a "customer satisfaction" survey for Britain which is more about the dealer experience than the cars themselves. FIAT's are highly regarded in Europe as a whole. FIAT and Chrysler do not have a large presence in Britain. That doesn't help their ratings. Even Hyundai scored low on that survey.
        • 5 Years Ago
        That was a reply to xtasi.
      • 5 Years Ago
      This is Fiat's fatal mistake...
      They should be grateful for this chance to walk/run away from the deal while they can.
      The US market is overpopulated on the supply side. No newcomers will succeed, let alone Fiat.
        • 5 Years Ago
        ah, so I guess polo that you are one of "dem o' the crap"; a party 1/2 made of those on welfare, government workers, or those wishing they were on welfare or had a mind numbing government job; therefore sponging off of the capitalists making all the goods, services, and money that is being taxed.

        the other 1/2 obviously being the unions.


        "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with their own money"



        Alexis de Tocqueville 1805 - 1859



        • 5 Years Ago
        So you're saying that this deal with the three Indiana pensions intervening should be the opportune time for Fiat to say, "Screw it!" and leave? I must partially agree with you.
      • 5 Years Ago
      All this drama over what is almost certainly going to dethrone DaimlerChrysler as the worst pairing in automotive history...
      • 5 Years Ago
      I've mostly liked Chrysler's exterior designs, interiors and the way they drive not so much. Fiat has some nice cars.. anyone across the pond that can tell us how they drive?
      Didn't AB just yesterday post an article stating that in the UK, a survey puts Fiat and Chrysler as 1 and 2 of the worst cars? not very comforting.
      • 5 Years Ago

      I think the court should tell the share holders to buzz off.

      As tax payers we have a vested intrest to see Chrysler succeed.
      Now if Chrysler were to liquidate I would want the Government to get paid back first.
      What residual value would Chryser`s assets have after paying back the government? I think none!
      The deal these share holders made were with the old Chrysler.
      • 5 Years Ago
      I'm betting Justice Ginsburg will lift her hold by End of June. Otherwise it's End-Of-Days for Chrysler. Fiat may not walk away, they will just retain their option to run away without notice once the full cost of the various state pension fund investments and other institutional/read government equity investments are laid out.

      FWIW, it would be less expensive to pay the State investment funds their basis out of TARP funding than let Chrysler go Chapter 7 (or 11) and all those voting employees and union members go south. And all their homes get foreclosed on.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Well what a nice guy
      • 5 Years Ago
      I hate how the Supreme Court was dragged into this. Their entire purpose is to judge the constitutionality of a matter, nothing else.

      What part of laissez faire do we fail to understand?
        • 5 Years Ago
        Yes, because 'laissez faire' worked so well the first time around. A whole society at the mercy of rampant and non-regulated financial institutions and greed.

        Bring it back!
        • 5 Years Ago
        "A whole society at the mercy of rampant and non-regulated financial institutions"

        Thank-you Bill Clinton.
        • 5 Years Ago
        @ EU_Reader: There are tons of regulations already in existence - we do not live in a free market..and that is why we have the problems we have. Greed is only a true "problem" when the consumer cannot make a choice, as is often the case in oligopolistic industries that are heavily regulated (like the auto industry) where safety costs alone are prohibitive, not to mention EPA regs.

        As for the financial industry, their "greed" stemmed from a need to find new ways to increase profits amidst continued regulatory practices aimed at forcing them to extends loans to low-income families that could not afford to pay the loans back. In addition, modification of the national interest rate by the Fed forced lenders to match them, decreasing profitability and forcing the creating or variable rate mortgages and the like.

        Not to mention, if we had lower taxes (due to less gov't interventionism), individuals would have more money and would be able to spend more, thereby increasing GDP and the relative prosperity of the US.

        Lets not forget that what the have nots refer to as greed one day is what they refer to as "their due" the day they have it. Mutual self-interest is the only thing we are talking about here, not true greed. And having the power-hungry brokers of government trying to manipulate markets to make them "fair" doesn't change a thing, it just makes the problems worse.
      • 5 Years Ago
      I bet he`s hoping for Chapter 7. He could get his pasta loving fingers on factories for even cheaper!
        • 5 Years Ago
        No. If he wanted C7 he would walk away NOW, not say he is not walking out on Chrysler.
    • Load More Comments