It seems to me that future plaintiffs are no worse off than someone who is injured in a Studebaker. Studebaker is no longer around to be sued.

Ah, but McGraw-Edison is around. Courts have accepted McGraw-Edison as the holder of successor liability for Studebaker. So someone is around to be sued for Studebaker.

Discovery production from GM and Treasury starts in earnest tomorrow, then into the hearing on Tuesday, so thanks for your well wishes… We need it! I may think we should win, but I’d say our odds are pretty low.

Why can’t plaintiffs at least get worhtless stock?

I am not accusing you of being an ambulance chaser. I am accusing you of writing an article that makes you sound like one.

You would be better served with this audience to leave out to specific stories and focus on the faulty product attributes.

Good luck in your efforts regardless.

Sure, I understood that. My point here was that these technical arguments favoring successor liability would seem to go against you in light of existing case law, so I question your ability to prevail.

The use of anecdotes also suggests that you may attempting to argue based upon the sympathy that might be created by the facts, instead of based upon the law, as the law doesn’t necessarily work in your favor.

why are the workers somehow more deserving of special status than plaintiffs?

They aren’t, and if you would get past your anti-union biases, you would see that they aren’t.

It comes down this: the VEBA is a creditor, so it has to be dealt with somewhere on the priority list. The NewCo will need workers to make stuff. In order to make this move quickly, they want to throw a bone to the workers, so that they’ll come back to work.

That’s all it is. NewCo doesn’t care whether some injured person is cared for, because it doesn’t help NewCo to operate the business. Workers are needed for operations, though, hence the desire to cut a deal with them.

In both the GM and Chrysler deals, secured creditors are getting all of the available cash. For both sets of secured creditors, that is the best deal available, and they have nothing to complain about.

If the Chrysler lenders don’t like it, tough. They’ll know next time around not to make loans to companies that sell products that people don’t like at a loss.

I have to ask, why are the workers somehow more deserving of special status than plaintiffs? The GM case is supposedly so special because of the size, but doesn’t that mean that there are bound to be valid claims? Make a million cars, someone will get hurt.

You’re entitled to your views and your clients deserve to have their own advocate, of course. But in my opinion, you should admit to the audience here (the majority of whom are not knowledgable of the law) that you are arguing the creditor’s side of the story, and that there is a debtor’s argument or two that you are not presenting.

It seems to me that you would have to debunk the legitimacy of the 363 sale for this position to hold. Since there are already cases in which courts have determined that asset buyers need not be subject to successor liability, you appear to have an uphill battle with your argument.

If you think that there is not a true sale of assets here and that this is a sham sale meant to prevent creditors from collecting as much as they would under 7, then you might have a point. But that the severity of the victims’ injuries doesn’t prove or disprove that the sale is a sham, so the anecdotes appear to be a distraction.

The merits of these cases are hard to know with information presented, at first blush they seem tragic but the culpability of GM is unclear to me. However, to wriggle out of all responsibility for all possible claims seems, frankly, to be outrageous and I think that’s the larger point.

Especially if you remember that the last couple years before filing Chapter 11 could be classified as ‘desperate times’ where “desperate measures” such as reducing the effectiveness of safety systems could have occurred.

I have knowledge that Chrysler did engage in some risky behavior in this respect and will not allow anyone I care about to ride in a 2005+ Chrysler product as a result in case their sins went deeper than what I was made aware.

While the editorial is rather ‘ambulance chaser” in it’s delivery and the involvement of Mr. Jakewbowski may be more self-serving for future judgments ($$$) than that of seeking justice, allowing the NEW companies comprised of mostly OLD employees and officers to side step liability would be a serious affront to justice.

And if you still disagree, consider that a corporation is considered very similar to a ‘person’ in the eyes of the law.

I am also a person, and if I commit vehicular manslaughter and file for bankruptcy, the New Me has no hope of avoiding any potential prosecution or civil suit liability…why should GM?

This is an adversarial system we live in. If arguments aren’t made to the Court, then the Court is not likely–particularly under the supersonic speed the case progressed in Chrysler–to do the independent research to find contrary arguments. I got involved in GM because I felt that additional arguments, critical arguments, needed to be brought to the Court’s attention or else the result in Chrysler would be repeated. Read the brief filed by us and compare it with the objections lodged in Chrysler. There’s much more meat on the bones here, particularly in terms of (A) applying the many tools of statutory construction to reach the right determination of what 363(f) permits, and (B) the arguments challenging the Court’s jurisdiction to make the requested findings and ruling. Also, it’s a different judge and he’s not bound by what another bankruptcy judge did. He’ll probably reach the same result on all the other issues; I’m hoping the issue I filed an objection to is the exception to the rule. Time will tell, but I’m not giving up until the “fat lady sings.”

I believe the classy ones are those who screw everyone over yet still have the gall to make accusations.

Classier still is then preaching about how GM never learns.

You have to love the Obama-Bots, keeping the Internet classy one rude, tendentious and ultimately pointless post at a time…

The last day for competing bids on old GM’s assets is today:

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4Ly7v8rUexg

Get in while you can so we get less bitching after the fact about what a great deal you missed out on.

The whole point of S363 was to both maximize return for creditors through the auction process due to the “free and clear” nature of the asset sale.

As mentioned above, there are conflicting legal goals including those to protect the consumer, which is fine; that’s why we have the legal system.

Most likely, the feds will pay out reasonably for the substantive claims out of the kindness of taxpayer hearts rather than fight to the bitter end and probably win, not unlike the warranty deal.

That “authority” in this case is tendered by likes of you and me such that we are reasonably protected from either the negligence or otherwise of those who get to benefit from public roads and receive legal protection through incorporation and whatnot.

In any case, what you’re describing is not exactly how system works. Perhaps you should’ve voted in more competent people (instead of pretend drinking buddies or morality police) who would likewise delegate these duties to more competent public servants.

You raise a number of excellent questions.

I’m a bit busy with work (egad!) so I can’t address them right now, but if nobody else does by the end of the day, I will do my best to do so tonight.

Unlike Mr. Jakubowski, I do not practice in or have lengthy experience in bankruptcy law, but I am an attorney nonetheless and ostensibly that means I’m qualified to talk about everything (and say nothing).

If I understand 363 correctly, the idea is to create a new legal entity – “New GM”. The old GM was an entity created by the laws governing incorporation. In both cases it takes the govt. to define the entity.

It seems to me that future plaintiffs are no worse off than someone who is injured in a Studebaker. Studebaker is no longer around to be sued. Likewise, original GM isn’t around, or rather, it is, but it won’t be worth anything – and won’t be around for long. New GM is a separate entity and therefore should not be liable for original GM’s product liabilities. Perhaps it would be fair to make new GM liable for any claims already filed – assuming the plaintiff wins. I don’t see why New GM should be liable for a claim arising from a product defect in an ‘87 Silverado, which may cause an accident a year from now. The whole idea is to get a fresh start, and get out from under contracts, liabilities, debt, and other obligations.

By extension, Chrysler was a reorganization of the old Maxwell Co., so if Jack Benny ever gets into an accident…. But of course, these matters have already been settled with respect to Chrysler.

What hasn’t been answered yet is why these objections -both the bondholders and plaintiffs in liability cases- should have any more success here than in Chrysler.

Sure, but with respect I think you’re still missing the issue. These people have legal standing to bring lawsuits against GM.

It doesn’t matter whether their lawsuits are ultimately losers or if it will cost GM money to defeat them in the early stages on summary judgment.

If we think the law should apply to GM’s bankruptcy and to the government in dealing with GM, then we must believe the law should apply here as well.

We need to streamline the lawsuit process so that both sides get their day in court without 6 figure legal bills. Note the lawyers tend to win no matter what. Even the contingency based lawyers use high profile cases to woo more business in.

I agree with you. Keep in mind both sides are in the wrong here. Large companies routinely use their access to Amlaw100 law firms to prevent legitimate lawsuits against them from seeing the light of day.

Take for example Donald Trump, who is well known to refuse to pay the amount he agrees to in his contracts, and tells the people he owes money “Go ahead an sue me. I’ll make sure your legal fees exceed your winnings.”

But this is neither here nor there. Bottom line as I see it: we have to follow the law in all cases. Even when we disagree with it.

So if Jack Baruth gets wrapped up can he count on this attorney to wrestle a few million from the maker of the car he totals?

The airbag deployment is fascinating and in the end he is only entitled to a new air bag free of charge. The other injuries would have “possibly” occurred if he were in an accident. If he lost his hearing from an airbag deployment that saved his life would he be suing over it? This one reeks of gold digging and rainbow chasing.

How about we garnish the wages and property of the driver of the SUV that paralyzed that young girl? He can spend the next 50 years taking care of her as penance for his actions. Run TV commercials with that byline and people will take it easier on the roads. Instead, we want a multimillion dollar payout from GM. No wonder these companies haven’t made money in years, or are afraid to design cars that are bold and different. They spend millions testing them just to be told a 50 dollar part was missing.

Maybe the lawyers should run the car companies instead. Oh wait.

We need to streamline the lawsuit process so that both sides get their day in court without 6 figure legal bills. Note the lawyers tend to win no matter what. Even the contingency based lawyers use high profile cases to woo more business in.

In these limited examples we see at the root of the accident the actions of a driver. The car didn’t flip over in the driveway by itself.

If this keeps up choices are going to be limited or eliminated in the marketplace and we’ll wake up and ask “what happened?”.

A number of people have said “you take on the responsibility by getting into a car. Manufacturer shouldn’t be liable.”

In legal terms (and I do speak as a lawyer) this is called “assumption of risk.” It says in essence what a lot of people are saying — that in cases where a person takes on a very dangerous activity, they bear most of the responsibility for what happens.

but

“Assumption of risk” under the law doesn’t mean (and hasn’t meant for 100 years) that nobody else could have any iota of responsibility.

It doesn’t mean you can never sue anyone else for playing a part in your injuries, even if you were primarily at fault.

Assume arguendo that no, GM bears no responsibility for these accidents. In fact, perhaps you believe what paris-dakar does and you “oppose most product liability law suits on general principle.”

That’s not the issue here. The issue is: does the law allow these people a chance to make their case to a judge, then a jury?

Applying the law is not a philosophical issue; it’s meant to be highly technical. Philosophical debates about what product liability “should” be are meant for Congress, or possibly the White House, and definitely the internet.

I am shocked to hear many people now saying that we should in this case ignore bankruptcy and product liability rules because these folks took on their own risk by getting into a car. That’s not the status of the law.

We’ve seen gigabytes of complaints about the government disregarding the laws on the books when it comes to GM’s bankruptcy and reorganization.

So the hypocrisy sword cuts two ways. It’s criminal for the government to ignore laws (possibly) but not so bad for GM to escape exposure to liability that is also established by law? Wrong. Everybody should be held to account to the laws on the books. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Whose fault is it when I am injured?

In the case cited, the tragedy occurred while the young lady was riding in a low-end, high center of gravity vehicle produced for a low price point. Should we be surprised that GM did not design this vehicle with the idea that it would roll over and “protect” its occupants? If anyone happened to look at the NHTSA stats for this series vehicle, it is apparent that it does not represent even the state of the art for vehicles produced that year. Let’s say that the Mercedes GL was much more safe. Does tort law suggest that GM had to meet the same standard of care?

Where does the responsibility of the consumer come into play? Are we consumers to be considered entirely ignorant of the consequences of decisions we make in the vehicles that we buy or in which we are passengers?

I’d guess that the current vehicles produced by GM in this same class will perform far better in the same circumstances, yet there are no doubt conditions under which the occupants are not “protected” by the vehicle. If we all have access to this information, and thus the ability to understand relative safety in vehicles, on what premise is the manufacturer liable?

Kurt is quite correct. Each time I drive or am a passenger in a vehicle, I am making a choice to risk my life in that vehicle whether it is a 400 lb superbike or a 3 ton Suburban. There are conditions where the superbike can, when properly piloted, avoid an accident which will leave the Suburban tumbling off a cliff, just as there are conditions in which the superbike rider is severely injured and the Suburban driver suffers no injuries at all. Who’s responsible?