New GM Running From 3400 Old GM Safety Claims Per Year

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

I’m busy chasing the story about Comcast’s decision to pull the ad from the Ad Hoc Committee of Consumer Victims of GM and Chrysler re: the automakers’ attempts to walk away from safety-related claims against their “old” incarnations. I’ve got calls into the left coast lawyers who have first-hand knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the self-imposed censorship. Meanwhile, Sean Kane, the president of advocacy group Safety Research and Strategies (SRS), says the ad was pulled after a call from GM’s lawyers to Comcast. He also shared this pdf: Public Safety at Risk. “If GM is allowed to assign liability for its pre-New GM vehicles to old GM, it will remove the incentive for claimants to file,” Kane contends. “It would remove an important surveillance device for the NHTSA.”

“If this stands, Chrysler and now GM are trying to create two tiers of safety; one for consumers who bought a car before they exited Chapter 11, one for consumers who bought one afterwards.” In fact, Kane recommends that car buyers hold off on buying any GM product until this issue is resolved. “How can you buy a product from a company that’s not going to stand behind its products fully?”

As regular readers know, TTAC contributor and bankruptcy lawyer Steve Jakubowsky is hard at work, representing claimants who want New GM to be liable for products manufactured by Old GM. “Chrysler won the first battle,” Jakubowsky told me this morning. “But this time we’re better organized and more articulate.”

Look for this issue to gain traction. Stiffed GM bondholders will not—can not—gain public sympathy. As sad as this sounds, victims of defective automobiles are honey to the media bee. The story writes itself.

In fact, you have to wonder why New GM doesn’t just take the hit—remembering that this is NOT about admitting liability, only the victims’ right to potential restitution from New GM. Also keeping in mind the fact that GM will soon be owned by the federal government.

“What could it cost them?” Jakubowsky asks. “A billion?” So is New GM just Old GM redux? Roger that. “It just shows that the same old spreadsheet mentality is alive and well at the top of GM.”

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 6 comments
  • JeremyR JeremyR on Jun 26, 2009

    Bunter: Those owners who financed purchases of GM cars are making payments to the institutions underwriting the loans, not to GM.

  • Campisi Campisi on Jun 27, 2009

    It was my understanding that old liabilities are one of the things a company in chapter eleven bankruptcy was able to shed. If such is the case, then your beef is with bankruptcy law, not GM itself.

  • Lorenzo They won't be sold just in Beverly Hills - there's a Nieman-Marcus in nearly every big city. When they're finally junked, the transfer case will be first to be salvaged, since it'll be unused.
  • Ltcmgm78 Just what we need to do: add more EVs that require a charging station! We own a Volt. We charge at home. We bought the Volt off-lease. We're retired and can do all our daily errands without burning any gasoline. For us this works, but we no longer have a work commute.
  • Michael S6 Given the choice between the Hornet R/T and the Alfa, I'd pick an Uber.
  • Michael S6 Nissan seems to be doing well at the low end of the market with their small cars and cuv. Competitiveness evaporates as you move up to larger size cars and suvs.
  • Cprescott As long as they infest their products with CVT's, there is no reason to buy their products. Nissan's execution of CVT's is lackluster on a good day - not dependable and bad in experience of use. The brand has become like Mitsubishi - will sell to anyone with a pulse to get financed.
Next