Friday, December 19, 2008
Picker on the Auto Bailout II
Mike Rappaport
Randy Picker has a new post on the legality of the auto
bailout under TARP. I continue to
disagree with his argument.
The statute says that the recipient of funds must be a financial
institution, which is defined as an institution, including but not limited to,
a list of classic financial institutions such as banks and insurance companies.
Randy’s argument comes down to this: we must understand the statute simply by focusing on the word “institution.” If that includes an auto company, then they are covered. I just think this is mistaken. One must read a statute as a whole, and all the more so, one must read a provision as a whole. A provision that limits funds to financial institutions, defined as institutions including but not limited to a list of classic financial institution should not be read the same as a statute that merely said funds are limited to institutions.
For my other posts on this subject, see here and here.
https://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2008/12/picker-on-the-auto-bailout-iimike-rappaport-.html
Professor-
I agree with your Chevron analysis and that the key langauge is "Financial institution" vice institution.
Would you think the other recipients of the original $700B bailout would have standing to sue as they would be harmed directly by a diversion of funds, as opposed to 'taxpayer' type standing which would not see any litigation? There would be imminancy since any loss of funds could be harmful in the current economic situation. There would be a remedy since the courts could prevent the funds from being sent to the auto industry.
Posted by: Gregory Saybolt | Dec 19, 2008 7:44:23 PM