Indiana

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

09-2311-bk

IN THE

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

I

N

R

E

C

HRYSLER

, LLC,

Debtor

.C

HRYSLER

LLC, aka Chrysler Aspen, aka Chrysler Town & Country, aka Chrysler 300,aka Chrysler Sebring, aka Chrysler PTCruiser, aka Dodge, aka Dodge Avenger,aka Dodge Caliber, aka Dodge Challenger, aka Dodge Dakota, aka Dodge Durango,aka Dodge Grand Caravan, aka Dodge Journey, aka Dodge Nitro, aka Dodge Ram,aka Dodge Sprinter, aka Dodge Viper, aka Jeep, aka Jeep Commander, aka JeepCompass, aka Jeep Grand Cherokee, aka Jeep Liberty, aka Jeep Patriot, aka JeepWrangler, aka Moper, aka Plymouth, aka Dodge Charger; I

NTERNATIONAL

U

NION

,U

NITED

A

UTOMOBILE

, A

EROSPACE

, and A

GRICULTURAL

I

MPLEMENT

W

ORKERSOF

A

MERICA

, AFL-CIO (“UAW”),

Appellees

,I

NDIANA

P

ENSIONERS

, I

NDIANA

S

TATE

T

EACHERS

R

ETIREMENT

F

UND

,

Appellants

.

ON APPEALFROM THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCYCOURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICTOF NEWYORK

BRIEFFOR APPELLANTSINDIANASTATE POLICE PENSION TRUST,

ET AL.

d

Attorneys for Appellants Indiana State Police Pension Trust, et al.

W

HITE

& C

ASE

LLPWachovia Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard49th Floor Miami, Florida 33131(305) 371-2700W

HITE

& C

ASE

LLPGlenn M. KurtzThomas E LauriaOwen C. PellKaren M. Asner 1155 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036-2787(212) 819-8200

NEWYORK 7185323 (2K)

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1(b), each of theIndiana State Police Pension Trust, the Indiana State Teachers Retirement Fund,and the Indiana Major Moves Construction Fund hereby certifies that it (i) has nocorporate parent and (ii) no publicly-owned corporation owns 10% or more of itsequity stock.

NEWYORK 7185323 (2K)

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PagePRELIMINARY STATEMENT.....................................................................................................1JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT................................................................................................3STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED......................................................................................3STATEMENT OF THE CASE........................................................................................................5STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................................................................10SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.....................................................................................................20STANDARD OF REVIEW...........................................................................................................20ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................21

I.

THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT’S ACTIONS VIOLATE EESA...........................21

A.

Treasury Is Misusing TARP Funds To Effect A Release Of TheCollateral Securing The Secured Loans.....................................................22

B.

Treasury Violated EESA By Compelling Chrysler’s ReorganizationThrough The Guise Of A Section 363 Sale...............................................28

C.

The Sale Orders Work An Unconstitutional Taking..................................31

D.

The Indiana Pensioners Have Standing To Raise The EESA Violations.32

1.

The Bankruptcy Court Disregarded the Law of the Case.............33

2.

The Indiana Pensioners Have Constitutional Standing..................35

3.

The Indiana Pensioners Have Standing Under TARP...................39

E.

The Judiciary Has Jurisdiction To Consider TARP Violations.................41

F.

The Treasury Department Cannot Create New Law Or AuthorityThrough Alleged Congressional Inaction..................................................41

G.

The Agent Bank Cannot “Consent” To TARP Violations.........................42

of 00

Leave a Comment