Author Topic: Goldman Sachs to be paid $1bn if CIT fails. Taxpayers will lose $2.3 billion.  (Read 2443 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39653
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Goldman to be paid $1bn if CIT fails
By Henny Sender and Saskia Scholtes in New York

Published: October 4 2009 22:30 | Last updated: October 4 2009 22:30


Goldman Sachs stands to receive a payment of $1bn – while US taxpayers would lose $2.3bn – if embattled commercial lender CIT files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, people familiar with the matter said.

The payment stems from the structure of a $3bn rescue finance package that Goldman extended to CIT on June 6 2008, about five months before the Treasury bought $2.3bn in CIT preferred shares to prop it up at the height of the crisis. The potential loss for taxpayers would be the biggest to crystalise so far from the government’s capital injection plan for banks.

EDITOR’S CHOICE

Goldman purchase puts CDS in focus - Oct-04.CIT’s future may hinge on CDS levels - Oct-01.CIT finalises debt exchange plan - Sep-30.In depth: US banks - Dec-12..The agreement with Goldman states that if CIT defaults or goes bankrupt, it “would be required to pay a make-whole amount” that totals $1bn, the people familiar with the matter said.

While Goldman is entitled to demand the full amount, it is likely to agree to postpone payment on a part of that sum, these people added. A CIT filing last week said that it was in negotiations with Goldman “ concerning an amendment to this facility”.

Goldman said: “This would not be a windfall payment. The make-whole payment is simply the present value of the spread to be earned over the life of the facility.”

CIT declined to comment. In an effort to prevent bankruptcy, it is working on a debt exchange offer that would virtually wipe out equity holders. In the event of bankruptcy, Goldman would reap more than $1bn because it also holds credit insurance that would be paid off.

Goldman said: “The credit default swaps Goldman Sachs purchased to prudently manage the risk associated with the CIT financing are not a directional ‘bet’ on CIT, but were bought to protect against the possibility of a precipitous decline in the value of the collateral.”
.Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

________________________ ________________________ ________

Unreal.  Goldman Sachs is a vampire sucking the taxoayer dry. 

2ND COMING

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6307
  • Might is right.
how much tax dollars did we give to haliburton  ???

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39653
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
how much tax dollars did we give to haliburton  ???

What does that have to do with anything? 


2ND COMING

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6307
  • Might is right.
What does that have to do with anything? 



youre so fucking obsessed with goldman making billions if capntrade passes

goldman was in obamas pockets heavy during the campaign, just like haliburton contributed to bush's admin.

haliburton was rewarded a no bid contract in iraq. Where you complaining then?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39653
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
youre so fucking obsessed with goldman making billions if capntrade passes

goldman was in obamas pockets heavy during the campaign, just like haliburton contributed to bush's admin.

haliburton was rewarded a no bid contract in iraq. Where you complaining then?

For the millionth time, I was thrown off of FR in 2005 because I based Bush a ton.  i have listed my arguments with him millions of times and will do so again for you if you want.  he was a disaster his second term, an unmitigated disaster.  Is that clear enough for you? 

BTW - just because Bush got away with bad stuff does not make it ok for obama to impose an energy tax of $1800 a year on you or I and give away billions to Goldman Sachs.  If you are ok with that, than just say so on the merits or lack thereof. 

Like I tell 240 - if the best you can do is simply say "Bush did it too", it just shows that you could care less about issues and policies and only about defending "your guy", right or wrong. 

Two wrongs dont make a right. 
   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39653
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
how much tax dollars did we give to haliburton  ???

NOW THAT YOU BROUGHT IT UP.
________________________ ________________

September 18, 2009
www.americanthinker.com
General Electric: Obama's Halliburton?
Lauri Regan


The hypocrisy permeating the policy decisions emanating from the Obama White House continues. General Electric will directly benefit from Obama’s decision to renege on a deal to provide Eastern Europe with missile defense systems (the obvious implications of which go well beyond the topic in this blog). As reported in the Washington Examiner:

“General Electric may be the company with the closest ties to the Obama administration (if not, GE is second only to Goldman Sachs), and here we see the company benefiting from an abrupt foreign policy change made by President Obama…

GE CEO Jeff Immelt sits on Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and GE owns MSNBC, the network famously friendly to Obama.”

Where is the outrage from the left that was apoplectic over Cheney’s ties to Halliburton? Where are the people screaming “Missile defense Obama will ditch, but General Electric he’ll enrich?”  Or “No need to be loyal so long as GE receives the spoils?”

I won’t be holding my breath on this one – like the lack of attention to the ACORN story, the media will ignore this little tidbit and the left will rationalize that Obama is helping the economy. History books will tell a different tale but until then, I’m hoping that this is the only result to come from his horrific decision to screw yet another ally and retreat from the strong foreign policy of his predecessor.

General Electric (GE), which is in contention as the engine supplier for the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) contract of the IAF with three of its engines, is keen on sourcing components from Indian industry.
 
GE said, it will manufacture, assemble and test the engine, if any of its partner wins the contract, at the Hindusthan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). The global engine manufacturing behemoth said it will get many of its engine components manufactured by local firms. GE's F110-GE-132 turbofan engine powers the F-16 IN, which Lockheed Martin is seeking to sell to India. [emphasis added]

This amounts to local sourcing for an overseas contract. Nevertheless, it develops a much lower wage production base for these components overseas. One way or another, advanced aircraft manufacturing is migrating overseas, and GE, recipient of so much federal largesse now and into the future, is cashing in exporting tech jobs.

"GE: We bring overseas competition to life"
________________________ ________________________ _________________

BTW - GE also stands to make billions under cap & trade under the regs forcing airplane companies to retrofit their engines or buy new ones.  I posted an article about that too.


So do me a favor 2nd - dont bring a knife to a gun fight. 


2ND COMING

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6307
  • Might is right.
cry me a fucking river with your righteous bullshit

when a guy gets in office, the people who paid for him will get the deals.

if you want to whine about whos getting the deals, whine about the system first. E.g. campaing funding.






Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39653
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
cry me a fucking river with your righteous bullshit

when a guy gets in office, the people who paid for him will get the deals.

if you want to whine about whos getting the deals, whine about the system first. E.g. campaing funding.

I do, its really screwed up and we both are paying out the ass for this. 

I'm sorry, but the WH admitting cap & trade will tax you and me $1,800 a year is really fucked up if you ask me and for what? 

Did you see this clip yet? 

 

Butterbean

  • Special Guests
  • Getbig V
  • ******
  • Posts: 19326
CIT Files Bankruptcy; U.S. Unlikely to Recoup Money

By Tiffany Kary, Dawn McCarty and Lester Pimentel

Nov. 1 (Bloomberg) -- CIT Group Inc., a 101-year-old commercial lender, filed for bankruptcy to cut $10 billion in debt after the credit crunch dried up its funding and a U.S. bailout and debt exchange offer failed.

CIT listed $71 billion in assets and $64.9 billion in debt in a Chapter 11 filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan. The U.S. Treasury Department said the government probably won’t recover much, if any, of the $2.3 billion in taxpayer money that went to CIT.

The bankruptcy “will allow CIT to continue to provide funding to our small business and middle-market customers,” said Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Peek in a statement.

CIT, which filed the fifth-largest bankruptcy by assets, said it plans to exit quickly due to support from bondholders, who voted in favor of a so-called prepackaged plan. None of CIT’s operating subsidiaries, including Utah-based CIT Bank, were included in the filing, and operations will proceed as normal, CIT said in a statement.

CIT has $1 billion from investor Carl Icahn to fund operations while it reorganizes. The credit line, to be drawn on until Dec. 31, will be a so-called debtor-in-possession loan. It also expanded its $3 billion credit facility by another $4.5 billion on Oct. 28.

Debt Holders Say No

The company had asked bondholders to exchange $30 billion in debt for new securities and equity. Icahn made a competing offer. After CIT’s offer expired at midnight on Oct. 29, the company said it was tallying 150,000 ballots.

Debt holders rejected the exchange offer, with 90 percent of holders who voted opting for the company’s prepackaged bankruptcy plan.

The failure of CIT’s bank-holding company is the biggest measured by assets since regulators seized Washington Mutual banking unit in September 2008. Washington Mutual and IndyMac Bancorp Inc. are other banks with unmanageable debt that sought court protection to wind down their holding companies. Both put their retail banking units in the hands of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. CIT became a bank-holding company in December to qualify for a Treasury bailout.

“Disruptions in the credit markets coupled with the global economic deterioration that began in 2007, and downgrades in the company’s credit ratings” hindered CIT’s ability to obtain financing, according to an Oct. 2 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Bank of America

According to the petition, CIT’s largest unsecured claim holders were Bank of America Corp., as collateral agent for a $7.5 billion claim, and Bank of New York Mellon Corp., as a trustee for retail bonds with a claim of $3.2 billion. Canadian senior unsecured notes have a claim for $2.1 billion, and Citigroup Inc. also has a $2.1 billion claim as an administrative agent to bank debt due 2010.

CIT had said in its Oct. 2 outline of a prepackaged plan that it would give most noteholders new notes at 70 cents on the dollar plus new common stock, compared with the range of 70 cents to 90 cents and new preferred stock proposed in the exchange offer.

CIT also said it would try to emerge from bankruptcy two months from the date of its filing.

‘Free-Fall Bankruptcy’

CIT, which reported $3 billion of losses in the past eight quarters, received $2.3 billion from the U.S. Treasury on Dec. 31 when it purchased preferred stock and warrants. The company wasn’t given access to the FDIC’s debt-guarantee program.

“We will be following developments very closely with an eye towards protecting taxpayers during the bankruptcy proceeding,” Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said today in an e-mailed statement. “But as the company’s disclosure on the prepackaged bankruptcy makes clear, with debt holders receiving less than face value of their instruments, recovery to preferred and common equity holders will be minimal.”

CIT said the debt exchange would have given it a quicker reorganization without the cost of defaulting on loans, unwinding derivatives or fees for bankruptcy lawyers.

Icahn, who said he’s the largest bondholder with $2 billion of debt, had initially sought to block CIT’s prepackaged plan, saying bondholders would get a better deal if the company went into a “free-fall bankruptcy.” He offered to buy bonds for 60 cents on the dollar.

Dunkin’ Brands

The company tried to stave off bankruptcy with a $3 billion rescue loan from bondholders in July to see it through a cash crunch. Bondholders stepped in after CIT failed to get another U.S. government bailout or enough loans to permit an out-of- court restructuring.

CIT’s $3 billion facility, arranged by Barclays Plc, included investors led by Newport Beach, California-based Pacific Investment Management Co. and Centerbridge Partners LP in New York. Also providing financing were Oaktree Capital Management LLC and Capital Research & Management Co., both in Los Angeles, and Boston-based hedge fund Baupost Group LLC and Silver Point Capital LP in Greenwich, Connecticut.

“CIT’s liens against its customers’ assets will make it very difficult for them to procure replacement financing without paying off everything owed to CIT,” said Martin J. Bienenstock, a bankruptcy lawyer with Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP in New York. “This could give new meaning to headache and chaos.”

The lender funds about 1 million businesses such as Dunkin’ Brands Inc. in Canton, Massachusetts, and Eddie Bauer Holdings Inc., the bankrupt clothing chain in Bellevue, Washington.

Smaller Borrowers

CIT has said it’s the third-largest U.S. railcar-leasing firm and the world’s third-biggest aircraft financier. It also finances trade in Canada, Europe and Asia by lending to small manufacturers that sell to retailers.

CIT accounts for about 70 percent of all short-term U.S. financing known as factoring, worth about $40 billion a year, according to Ray Ecke, president of Credit Management Resource in Oakland, New Jersey.

In factoring, suppliers and manufacturers sell payments owed for goods and services to companies such as CIT because they need immediate cash. The process gives vendors money to produce goods retailers have ordered. Retailers typically make payments within 90 days. After they do, a factor keeps a fee based on a percentage of the total order.

Subprime Mortgages

“Short term, it’s going to cause some difficulties for startups and smaller borrowers,” said Jean Everett, a partner at Hiscock & Barclay focusing on financial institutions and lending. “CIT lent across so many sectors it’s sort of difficult to predict how it’ll affect each sector.”

CIT fell 23 cents to 72 cents in New York Stock Exchange composite trading on Oct. 30. The stock is down 84 percent year to date.

Peek, 62, who joined CIT in 2003 after failing to land the top job at Merrill Lynch & Co., pushed the lender into subprime mortgages and student loans to pump up growth.

Assets at CIT jumped 77 percent from 2004 to the end of 2007 as it acquired companies that focused on vendor finance, education lending and medical, construction and industrial equipment loans. Net income surpassed $1 billion in 2006, a 39 percent increase over two years.

CIT’s $500 million of notes due Nov. 3 fell to 68 cents on the dollar as of Oct. 29 from 80 cents at the beginning of the month, according to Trace, the bond-price reporting system of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

CIT’s bankruptcy filing was made by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, which the company said on July 11 it had hired as a legal adviser.

The case is In re CIT Group Inc., 09-16565; U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan.)

R

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39653
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Didn't CIT just fail?

Yes, we basically burned 2.3 billion for nothing thanks to Obama/Geithner.


Butterbean

  • Special Guests
  • Getbig V
  • ******
  • Posts: 19326
Yes, we basically burned 2.3 billion for nothing thanks to Obama/Geithner.



Just found an article..posted above
R

kcballer

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4598
  • In you I feel so pretty, In you I taste God
From what i understand Goldman Sachs made this deal before the bailouts.  If they were smart enough to include some sort of claw back should the company default then so be it.  Smart business on their part.  
Abandon every hope...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39653
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
From what i understand Goldman Sachs made this deal before the bailouts.  If they were smart enough to include some sort of claw back should the company default then so be it.  Smart business on their part.  

This is why we should never bail out these companies.  GS needs a RICO action, not bailouts! 

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
This is why we should never bail out these companies.  GS needs a RICO action, not bailouts! 

They need RICO action for good business years ago?  ::)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39653
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
They need RICO action for good business years ago?  ::)

If CIT were allowed to go bankrupt in the first place, GS would probably not get put ahead of the taxpayer in the liquidation of their claims in the bankrupcty court. 

Do you really think GS deserves to have priority status in the proceedings than the taxpayers? 

shootfighter1

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5681
  • Competitor- NABBA Nationals Overall Champ
2nd coming, anytime taxpayers get burned it's bad.  Don't bring up something that Bush did (connection with Halliburton) as a justification of wasted taxpayer $ in a current situation.  That's blind partisan politics bullshit.  We must criticize anyone who wastes our tax dollars and this situation stinks rotten.