How Much Can Be Accomplished in One Month?
On the transactional side, the Obama Administration seems to believe that quite a bit can be accomplished in as little as thirty days. The administration released a report yesterday about the crisis in the auto industry, which states, among other things, that Chrysler has until April 30 to finalize an agreement with Fiat as well as reduce health care and other debt in order for the company to receive more aid according to The New York Times. In other words, the struggling automaker has about thirty days to put a massive agreement together that a variety of interested parties find satisfactory.
Normally, joint ventures, however categorized, take at least a few months to materialize, and joint ventures of international scale can take years. However, I think the Obama Administration has at least one good reason to impose such a harsh deadline on the agreement--if Chrysler does finalize an agreement with Fiat by April 30, it will show that, at least when necessary, both government and private business (or whatever amalgamation we have now) can act fast, and perhaps even efficiently.
Of course, in this case, there are unusual and extraordinary circumstances involved given the government-imposed ultimatum that Chrysler faces. The question is whether such circumstances are necessary in order for large business transactions to move at a fast pace.
Similarly, on the litigation side of the fence, disputes that have reached litigation may still be resolved in a relatively short timeframe, depending on the willingness of the parties to settle.
For example, Ars Technica reports that Microsoft and TomTom have settled their patent dispute. I discussed Microsoft's suit against TomTom in a previous post. In short, Microsoft sued TomTom alleging patent infringement. In the time since that post, TomTom filed a counter-claim for patent infringement against Microsoft.
As far as I know, the exact details of the settlement have not been released, but, according to Ars Technica, TomTom essentially agreed to pay Microsoft for its patents and remove support for the FAT filesystem from its products over the next two years.
While the few details released seem to imply that the agreement is a little one-sided, Microsoft and TomTom still managed to resolve their patent dispute in about a month. Thus, despite the size of the businesses and the scope of the claims involved, it was apparently possible to reach an agreement rather quickly.
Do you think that the size of the entities is the most important variable in determining the complexity legal contracts? While it is true that large companies can resolve legal disputes quickly, they can also take eons.
I think that issue at hand will be if the stakeholders, ie bond holders, the UAW and suppliers, are willing to take the hit and not hold out for an additional bailout. Chrysler is likely not a solvent company as Obama indicated. The question is will they die alone, or with they be eaten? I think it would be best if the car makers brought in completely new innovative thinking. If Fiat can do that, then great. If Fiat can give Chrysler technology and materials that will allow them to produce cars that Americans want and can afford faster, then great. If Fiat will take a decade to make a new car in America, then not so great. Then I would rather see Chrysler fail.
Regardless of the legal and contractual issues in a multinational agreement, if they can't convince the gov't that they have a plan to put cars on the street with those contractual issues (bonds and healthcare) resolved nothing else matters. That is what the month is for.