Maybe someone can clarify another point for me.

Chrysler is now in bankruptcy, which is the way this would have probably played out had the White House not been involved at all. So the system is working as it normally would.

The White House tried to avoid bankruptcy with an extraordinary (in the strictest meaning of the word) plan that would have required the participation of all the stakeholders. Some of the debtholders balked at that plan, so Chrysler is now going the bankruptcy route.

Do I have all this right? And if I do, doesn't that mean that what Perella Weinberg and others objected to was not the 'socialistic' implications of the White House plan, but the fact that the 'socialistic' implications didn't benefit them to a greater degree and other stakeholders to a lesser degree?

Have I missed a point here?