Home » Let’s hear it for the Indiana Teacher’s State Retirement Fund

Comments

Let’s hear it for the Indiana Teacher’s State Retirement Fund — 7 Comments

  1. It’s things like this that make me think liberals are morons and/or hopelessly duplicitous.

    Sure, they excoriated the hedge fund managers using appropriate populist rhetoric, but apparently either didn’t know, didn’t want to know, or chose to ignore where hedge funds get much of the money they invest. Even when it was pointed out to them that hedge funds typically are investing pension funds, liberals persisted in demonizing the hedge funds.

  2. And, since this is a union pension fund, and not just an investment company representing ordinary people whose retirement is at stake, Obama can’t beat on them for being greedy.

  3. I am glad that the pension fund is suing, and I hope more follow. But I worry that many people will ultimately be fighting over much less money than they hoped…
    …on account of these government managed businesses not thriving.

  4. Lets hope liberal groups begin consuming each other. This looks like a good start.

  5. Very interesting. One consequence of this may be to publicize the inconvenient fact that some of those bad greedy giant secured creditors whom we are being encouraged to hate are . . . pension funds for retired teachers from Indiana. Not quite so evil, after all, perhaps?

  6. The underlying legal principles of the validity of contracts and the prohibition against ex post facto law-making are the real issues at stake here. Commercial law has long recognized the priority of creditors who possess perfected security interests in property under the laws of contracts and the Uniform Commercial Code, and, absent a waiver of those interests, or if the creditor does not agree to a novation of the underlying contract, then the government has no legal right to negate them. Moreover, the element of “good faith,” both a contractual and commercial law term, comes into play here. The security interests were entered into in good faith on the part of both the creditors and debtor, Chrysler, premised upon the then-existing laws of contracts and commercial law, and it is ex post facto manuvering to now attempt, as the government is doing, to obviate that good faith premise. The need for “grandfather clauses” in some statutes attests to this fact. But, like the fellows who didn’t “need no stinkin’ badges,” the Obama Administration doesn’t seem to “need no stinkin’ laws.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>