By on April 16, 2015

Recalled GM ignition switch

Per a bankruptcy court ruling Wednesday, General Motors won’t be on the hook for pre-bankruptcy claims linked to the February 2014 ignition recall.

Reuters reports U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert Gerber ruled that plaintiffs seeking damages from GM involving claims made prior to the automaker’s 2009 exit from bankruptcy would have to sue “Old GM” for said damages. Though the claims come to $32 billion, Old GM’s assets in October 2014 totaled around $9.25 billion, a recovery of 29 cents on the dollar.

Gerber added that economic-loss plaintiffs could bring their claims against “New GM” based on the automaker’s behavior since leaving bankruptcy, and would certify the case for direct review by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He also said there were due process failures involved in GM’s exit, but that those failures weren’t enough to become violation-level issues due to lack of evidence by plaintiffs demonstrating that they were denied their day in court because they did not receive notice in time.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

60 Comments on “General Motors Saved From Pre-Bankruptcy Ignition Lawsuits...”


  • avatar
    Toad

    Since the GM bankruptcy basically threw prior bankruptcy law out the window there is no reason that the judge should have to consider the law or precedent. Just make it up on the fly.

  • avatar
    Vetteman

    Send GM and the Government a message Boycott all GM products If you don’t like what our government and GM have done in this travesty of a Bankruptcy hit them where it hurts . Our protests and votes don’t seem to make a difference anymore If you want some history on GM read a great book , Chrome Colossus.

    • 0 avatar
      Erikstrawn

      Falling sales have only encouraged GM’s stupidity. Hence the bankruptcy. That said, you are correct, boycott their products.

      • 0 avatar
        ClientNo9

        Actually, the stupidity came from the big money guys. They are the ones who decided to chop rural dealers and to get rid of Pontiac. GM lost, what?, 3 or 4 percent of market share because the Wall Street guys told them to get rid of Pontiac? (GM management wanted to keep Pontiac and the small town dealers.)

        The Wall Street guys also thought Chrysler had no value to anybody so they gave it away to Fiat. Five years later it’s making billions. Shows you how smart the Wall Street guys are.

        Yeah, we all know that all GM cars are basically the same thing. But people have different tastes. My favorite GM brand was Oldsmobile. You couldn’t get me into a Chevrolet if you paid me–I just don’t like the way they look. And even though GMC is 95% the same, there’s just something I like better about how they look over a Chevy.

        Bottom line, GM had to give away 9 or 10% of market share because they no longer have Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Saturn and because they had to chop a lot of loyal dealers who moved a lot of product.

        I laugh in my city because one dealer owned two Chevy stores. GM tried to cancel both stores out but one store was reinstated. A few years later they opened a new store right down the street from the store they took away from the local GM dealer. They gave the franchise to a Texas dealer. The Texas dealer was gone a year later and they gave it to someone else. That’s GM for you.

  • avatar
    mfgreen40

    As a former GM diehard, I voted 6 mo. ago to the tune of $36000. It feels so good. The management and union will have to change big time before I come back.

    • 0 avatar
      Vetteman

      A lot of GM’s former customers feel the same as you and I I worked my entire career at a GM dealership and we fought the company almost daily on behalf of our customers . Voteing with our dollars for any product seems to have the most impact in this bizarre world we live in. I would not buy any GM car or truck today even without the bankruptcy issue. They are way behind in product features and quality and don’t seem to be catching up. The only thing supporting sales now is Subprime lending thru Ally , formerly GMAC and GM’s newly created in house financing arm. . Gm went into subprime big back in the late nineties when they couldn’t compete with their inferior products .

  • avatar
    cognoscenti

    The constant GM-bashing prevalent on this site is sure getting tedious.

    • 0 avatar
      TheyBeRollin

      It’s everywhere on the internet, don’t think it is just here.

    • 0 avatar
      ellomdian

      Eh, it really only comes from the same commentators over and over. The actual editorial tone is pretty balanced when it comes to GM now.

      And if history has taught us anything, it’s that the biggest losers cry the loudest. Given GM’s actual sales numbers in the real world (and not internet ‘enthusiast’ land) the General Public has pretty much forgiven GM.

      • 0 avatar
        Dave M.

        Please share long-term data that supports your confidence.

        • 0 avatar
          ellomdian

          Since the divestment of the US Govt. interest in GM in the end of ’13, the stock is up ~$10 (~35%.)

          In the 3Q of ’14, GM Doubled their profits over 3Q13.

          The cash flow is strong enough that they are increasing the Dividend (and many analysts expect a stock buy-back by the end of the year.)

          But no, tell me about how much ‘normal’ people hate GM.

          • 0 avatar
            mkirk

            Wow…I can honestly say that in all of my vehicle purchases over the years not once has the company’s stock performance entered the equation. Funny thing is every time someone posts sales numbers GM looks more and more like 2007ish GM. The cars may be better but the vast majority are hardly class leading. Even with the trucks it is Ford and Ram driving the market. Love it or hate it Ford is innovating with Aluminum and turbos. Ram is making trucks more civilized with the coil springs and best in class interiors. GM gives us more of the same and a promise to copy Ford in a few years. We also get a midsizer that had already been on the market a few years.

          • 0 avatar
            ellomdian

            Your purchasing decision shouldn’t be based on the stock performance – but the stock performance is very much influenced by your purchasing decision.

            And no one is happier that Ford is pushing a paradigm shift with Aluminum and Turbo engines in the Full-size market – but GM is making a lot of hay while they do drawing long-time Ford buyers in with a truck that is more like what they are used to. You can downplay ‘more of the same’ all you want, but they are delivering what the market is buying. Not to mention that the Colorado is SLAUGHTERING the segment right now.

            Please don’t make me sound like a GM Fanboi anymore – I don’t like it. I consider myself pretty neutral when it comes to brands (although I have shown a distinct preference to Ford’s new cars in other discussions.) Just stating facts.

    • 0 avatar
      Aqua225

      It’s funny to me that the bankruptcy laws were ignored, and the primary creditors screwed over during the bankruptcy, but the judges are sticking to a strict interpretation when it comes to shielding GM from lawsuits against problems from their pre-bankruptcy days.

      NAGMFM – Not Another GM for Me

      There seems to be a large contingent on TTAC that just loves GM (opposite of the old days when I supported GM, and most here hated GM). Hey, the LSX engine is a marvel of modern engineering, but that is about all they have going for them.

      The only reason they are making it now is the gasoline prices nationwide, letting them sell trucks. It won’t last.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        And your knowledge of bankruptcy law came from where exactly?

        • 0 avatar
          Charliej

          He pulled it out of his ass too.

        • 0 avatar
          mkirk

          Forgive me, as I am not a bankruptcy lawyer, but when debtor in possession financing can’t be secured, isn’t the company typically liquidated? The fact that this didn’t happen would seem to make this an abnormal bankruptcy.

          • 0 avatar
            ClientNo9

            And what happens when those assets are liquidated in bankruptcy? They are sold to another party.

            What are the assets of GM? Brand names, buildings, equipment, etc.

            What happened to GM? The government set up a new company also called GM and gave it money to purchase assets from the old company which is also called GM. There is no law against that. A company name is like people names. Otherwise, only one person could be named John Smith.

            Old GM (the seller) later changed its name to Motors Liquidating Co.

            So, Old GM the seller, sold its assets. In other words, it was liquidated. New GM was the government owned entity that purchased those assets.

            This also has to do with “the Golden Rule,” as in “he who has the gold, rules.” The government was the only party willing to lend money to GM. The people with the money get to dictate how their money is going to be spent.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    Judge Gerber’s collusion with “new GM” to shaft the American people in favor of the UAW is getting tedious.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      Wait, I thought it wasn’t a “normal” bankruptcy? In a normal bankruptcy, the liability is goes to the old company.

      Are you telling me that they should break bankruptcy law? Really?

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        My efforts to explain the concept of successor liability were in vain. He’ll never get it.

        • 0 avatar
          Aqua225

          Most of us get the fact that GM is too big to fail, because it has a lot of union member voters. So when GM was circling the drain, the government and the courts made sure the union voters were taken care of, and the law had little bearing on that.

          But GM getting into hot water over killing people, and the courts are back to a strict interpretation of the law.

          Only if you are employing a lot of Union Voters can you have your cake and eat it too!

          GM should have been stripped and sold, period. It’s a fact that everyone who should have learned a lesson in 2008, was shielded by the government from all serious negative impacts.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            In other words, you don’t really get what happened.

            Big hint: Even without a union, GM would have been bailed out.

          • 0 avatar
            Aqua225

            Pch101: I know what has happened as mentioned in the press. If you have read the court excerpts, more power to you. I generally don’t read court documentation for something so clearly rigged as the GM bankruptcy.

            GM, had it not been a major holder of Union Money & Votes, would have been allowed to circle the drain like so many other businesses during the 2008 credit crunch.

            Big companies, if they control enough of the economy, can be blithering idiots at business, because the soft hearts in government (who also get a nice voting block or honorable mention in a history book) will always bail them out. Wow. Nice. Guarantees GM will want to be competitive in the future, since Big Daddy Government will always have their backs.

            Not only that, but it makes other businesses want to aspire to the same level, TOO BIG TO FAIL.

            No one has ever tried the collapse road, too afraid of political consequences in the immediate, rather choosing instead the sociological damage that is inflicted on the collective conscience.

            But who knows what would have happened if GM brands and intellectual property had been turned over, in fire sales, to other aspiring business men & engineers? Sure, the Union Voting Block would have hated that, but they, in fact, could be working better jobs at better non-union plants at this point, providing cars that perhaps sale as good or better than their trucks.

            But the world will never know, because in our desire to be closet socialists (for political gain), we overly soften economic consequences to bad decisions. Which guarantees this will happen again and again, until GM shrinks to Not Big Enough to NOT FAIL. I wonder how many times that will take? I will bet if I live long enough, I’ll find out.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “I generally don’t read court documentation for something so clearly rigged as the GM bankruptcy.”

            So you’re ignorant and proud of it.

            What union did AIG have?

          • 0 avatar
            ClientNo9

            “GM should have been stripped and sold, period.”

            GM was stripped and sold. The government created a new company, owned by the government, and gave it money to purchase the assets of GM that had value. The new company is also called GM.

            “It’s a fact that everyone who should have learned a lesson in 2008, was shielded by the government from all serious negative impacts.”

            Wrong again. There is a big difference between throwing money at a company that is viable and one that isn’t. For example, the government saving a company that made buggy whips and washboards makes no sense since there isn’t much of a need for these items. However a company like GM that is salvageable AND is necessary to keep around because we need heavy production capacity in case we have to go to war again is worth throwing money at.

            Besides, this was a GOVERNMENT CAUSED financial crisis. If the GOVERNMENT’s policy of telling banks to throw money at people to buy houses hadn’t caused an economic crash, GM probably would have kept limping along like Ford did.

            P.S. Although the government lost money on GM and Chrysler, overall it made money on TARP and saved the economy in the process. TARP was a huge success.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      The sheer hilarity of you two lecturing me on the mechanisms of capitalism is manifest, but that doesn’t change that GM had to disclose known liabilities to attach them to the old company. They chose not to. There should be repercussions for the new company. Denying this fact reveals that all you were doing the entire time with your relentless misinformation campaign during the bankruptcy was serving an agenda, one for which the truth is the enemy.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        “The sheer hilarity of you two lecturing me on the mechanisms of capitalism is manifest, but that doesn’t change that GM had to disclose known liabilities to attach them to the old company.”

        At the time, it wasn’t a liability in the accounting sense of the word.

        Now that it’s come out in a lawsuit, well, yes, it’s appropriate that it’s attached to the old company.

        I’m not personally in favour of this; I’d like to see New GM made responsible because, frankly, I’m a big-S Socialist. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of claiming that it wasn’t a normal bankruptcy—when just about everyone agrees that it was—then wanting GM to break bankruptcy law when it suits you.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          “I’d like to see New GM made responsible because, frankly, I’m a big-S Socialist.”

          Without successor liability protection, assets purchased out of bankruptcy would fetch lower values because of all of the possible unknown risks.

          This would be bad for creditors because they would get even less money. More bankruptcies would end up in liquidation because there would not be enough sales proceeds to fund reorganization. A bad idea all the way around.

          • 0 avatar
            APaGttH

            As I’ve learned your posting style you do get a ton of stuff right, and my respect for you as a contributor to the B&B has grown.

            I admire your attempts at being a voice of reason on this topic, in a sea of unreasonable people.

            The GM and Chrysler (funny how no one mentions Chrysler) were fast tracked managed bankruptcies. The finer details were different, the big picture was the same.

            There was no one lined up to provide DIP financing for either company. Credit markets were frozen. As history has now shown companies like Caterpillar, McDonalds, and even Toyota needed TARP loans to keep credit flowing to keep their businesses moving. In the fall of 2008 you couldn’t get a loan if you knew Dimon personally and played racketball with Jesus on Wednesdays.

            So the Bush Administration weighed the options, and GWB is on the record stating he didn’t want to be the President remembered for 25% unemployment and a Depression. He is also on the record as saying he would do it again. His advisers, people smarter than any of the B&B, told the Administration no bailout would equal economic ruin for the country. So the Bush Administration outlined a prepackaged, managed bankruptcy, with the government being the primary DIP finance provider in cooperation with the Canada government.

            Chrysler’s bankrupt assets went to FCA.

            GM reorganized under US bankruptcy law as new GM. Historians will debate the merits decades from now.

            As you have pointed out, over and over and over again, to the Don Quioxtie’s tilting windmills on this issue, the ignition switch issue is part of a liability issue for the old GM. Old GM exists, and claims have to be filed against them, where you would get nothing.

            New GM hasn’t weaseled out of anything, despite the wails posted here. They created a compensation fund, which be every report has been fair and fast, and are paying compensation, sometimes in the millions to over 240 parties as of April 10th. There are 1,700 claims still open lacking proper documentation.

            New GM is actually shielded from doing this – but they are. So it’s pretty hard for anyone to say they got away with anything.

            As you have pointed out, if the liabilities of the old company carried into the new, no one would buy bankrupt assets, they would liquidate, and that is bad for everyone.

            This also is some brand new legal territory – this is bankruptcy law.

            Tell the workers coughing up their lungs from asbestos, or coal dust, or those impacted by working in the nuclear industry, or the coal industry, where the parent companies went bankrupt – in some cases simply to avoid the liability, how they feel.

            Is it – right – no. It sucks.

            It is the law. Yes, it is. The law isn’t always right – but it is the law.

          • 0 avatar

            Yep, Pch gets a lot right. Especially in this case. This issue is like so clear cut it hurts people don’t see. As you said, money was not there. Had GM and the banks been allowed to fail consequences would’ve been tremendous. Historians won’t dispute this fact years from now, everyone with half a brain applauds what was done. What historians dispute is why Garfield (i think it was he the president at the time) didn’t do anything. Bush son will probably get nailed about a lot, a lot, of other stuff. But not this.

            As to the law being wrong. No, it is not wrong, it actually is conductive to the continuity of economic life. Nothing much to dispute there either.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Marcelo, I think you may be a bit confused. James A. Garfield was the twentieth US President for 200 days in 1881 before being assassinated the same year. Garfield the Cat I hear is slated to be Hillary’s running mate although this is not yet confirmed.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Garfield

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I believe that you are thinking of Hoover, not Garfield.

          • 0 avatar
            psarhjinian

            “Without successor liability protection, assets purchased out of bankruptcy would fetch lower values because of all of the possible unknown risks”

            I’m aware of that, and that it’s how the law is structured. I’m just not a fan of the human costs, but I’ll admit we don’t have the social safety net to compensate.

          • 0 avatar
            ClientNo9

            When it comes to handling money, all of legal system works in essentially the same fashion. The way bankruptcy court works isn’t all that much different than probate court, divorce court, receiverships or handling the finances of someone in a guardianship.

            I can also take issue with certain things the government did favoring the UAW, but at the end of the day it was good for America.

        • 0 avatar

          @28, that is why i asked, ;0. Was it Cleavland then? Anyway it was the do-nothing President who presided over the NY Crash and consequences. Kind of hard to imagine nowadays, that it would take such a long time to elect somebody who finally did something. And that is why presidents like Garfield, Cleavland, or whoever was in charge at the time are forgotten and others are remembered.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Yes, it was President Hoover you are referring too. While I wouldn’t pick on Garfield due to his short tenure, many of the other Victorian Era US Presidents are forgotten due to the lack of major national and international events of the time.

          • 0 avatar

            Thanks 28. I would assume of Dam fame?
            Yeah, like the saying goes, “woe be you who live in interesting times”. From my perspective, of early 20th century American Presidents, we remember Teddy and then it’s all a blur until the next Roosevelt.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        I’m not lecturing you, I’m mocking you. You wouldn’t know the truth if it kicked you in the head.

  • avatar
    Dave M.

    And well deserved. GM is a company that has screwed it’s customers over and over again, releasing half-baked goods on the public in a petri dish.

    It wasn’t always that way. But from dipping their toe in the “We won’t do what the right thing to do is…” puddle with the Corvair, to the Vega, fast forward to the ignition issue…GM chose to screw it’s customers.

    Good luck with that.

    • 0 avatar
      ClientNo9

      The Germans made a good point about this market when they owned Chrysler. They don’t understand all the bashing here of the home brands. In Europe, people demonstrate a lot of loyalty for their national vehicles. In fact, Daimler thought very highly of GM for their technology.

      Granted, GM may not have the reliability of Honda or Toyota, but who does? Nissan? Mazda? Hyundai? Suzuki? Fiat?

      GM’s products are the best they’ve ever been. They are good enough that we can support the home team once again.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    If the new owners had changed the company names and logos, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But they’re clearly profiting tremendously off of the Chevy, Cadillac, Buick, GMC, GM legacy, history, repeat customers, fanboys, etc, etc.

    They need to take the good with the bad.

    If I buy the bones of Rick’s Heating & AC, it’s now Mike’s Heating & AC. I’d be temping to take over Rick’s fame and name recognition, but if houses start burning down because of Rick’s work, I don’t want to be named in lawsuits.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    GM ducking accountability? Say it ain’t so.

  • avatar
    an innocent man

    Why the bankruptcy? Why didn’t they just loan GM the 50 billion they needed to stay afloat? I’m sure there’s a reason, I just am curious what it is.

  • avatar
    mkirk

    I won’t say I’d never buy a GM product, but why would I? They don’t have any products that are so much better than competing products to where I’d look over all this nonsense. Too many known quantities out there to take a chance on a GM product that they may not stand behind in a decade. So I won’t be buying one unless I can look at a product and say “wow…that really blows the competition out of the water.” Don’t see that anytime soon and keep your Corvette comments to yourself. Like most people that isn’t what I’m looking for. Pity they can’t apply that level of excellence to the rest of Chevrolet.

  • avatar
    VenomV12

    If you despised GM because they were bailed out before, this sure won’t go a long way towards helping change that opinion of them. You can argue the legality of this and whether you think it was right or wrong, but what is important is public perception and how that will affect sales.

  • avatar
    Whittaker

    For those who are claiming the bankruptcy was “normal” please explain how it is normal for new GM to be allowed to lessen their taxes by claiming the losses of old GM as their own. Aren’t they different companies? Since when can one company avoid taxes by writing off the losses of a different company.
    The fact is, the judge is allowing new GM to claim the assets(tax write-offs) that strictly belong to old GM. These assets weren’t purchased. They were awarded to new GM by the court and it came out of all of our pockets through taxes not paid by new GM.
    Whether or not you agree with the logic behind the judge’s decisions, they were anything but normal. It was political contortion masquerading as law.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      You need to do your homework. The tax carryforward decision has nothing to do with the bankruptcy.

      It reduced the cost of the bailout. It came at the behest the US Treasury.

      • 0 avatar
        Whittaker

        Whether the judge or the IRS decided to give new GM the enormous tax break it was still a political decision by an arm of the federal government.
        It wasn’t normal bankruptcy conduct or normal IRS conduct.
        So people should stop citing the law and “normal” procedure. It was the exact opposite of normal.
        Admit it. It won’t hurt as badly as you fear.

        “General Motors Co. will drive away from its U.S.-government-financed restructuring with a final gift in its trunk: a tax break that could be worth as much as $45 billion.”
        “The tax benefit stems from so-called tax-loss carry-forwards and other provisions, which allow companies to use losses in prior years and costs related to pensions and other expenses to shield profits from U.S. taxes for up to 20 years. In GM’s case, the losses stem from years prior to when GM entered bankruptcy.”
        “The losses were incurred by “Old GM,” the company that remained in bankruptcy after the current “New GM” resulted from the reorganization last June.”

        http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704462704575590642149103202

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          Your response makes it clear that you don’t get it. No one is disputing that GM took tax carryforwards, so posting an article that reiterates that point proves nothing.

          The bankruptcy process was a Chapter 11 with a 363 sale. All perfectly normal.

          Contrary to your belief, it is possible for companies to carryforward losses from prior to the 11 filing. However, it would not have ordinarily been possible in GM’s case because a party took more than half of GM’s stock (in this case, the UST) that it was intending to liquidate. So the UST decided to carve out an exception for deals involving the federal government.

          Had the Treasury not done that, GM’s stock would have been worth less money. Since selling GM’s stock was the key to minimizing the loss to the taxpayer, it behooved the UST to do what it could to make the stock more valuable.

          Hence, the carryforwards put more money back in our pockets, at least over the short- to medium term.

          The carryforwards were not a result of GM filing BK, but of the government putting up a bunch of money in the form of stock and the government endeavoring to get more of it back. This was done for our benefit.

          • 0 avatar
            Whittaker

            It is a fact that GM got special treatment in the bankruptcy and the bailout. That is not in dispute by anyone that knows what they are talking about.
            You can argue that the special treatment was needed for the good of the country but that would be an opinion. We can’t know what would have happened if GM had been treated as a normal failed business because that is a hypothetical.
            You are entitled to your opinion.
            You are not entitled to keep claiming as fact that the GM failure was handled just like any other business failure by the US Government which includes the judge, the Congress, the President and the IRS.
            The US Government decided that GM had to continue mostly intact and the various branches of the Govt twisted law and policy to make it happen.

  • avatar
    CoastieLenn

    I always associated the term “bankruptcy” as a huge black smudge with long lasting side effects for any individual that claims it. How exactly has this “bankruptcy” had any long-term ill effects on GM? I know that these proceedings were undertaken so that the company could be bailed out (on surface value a terrible idea), but what’s punitive side of this? Sure, GM had to pay back the Government a percentage of what it actually cost us taxpayers, but what’s the downfall here? What actions or penalties have been put in place that ensure that GM learns from it’s mistakes, so to speak? Clearly the company wouldn’t have needed a bailout or filed for bankruptcy if it were not being mismanaged. What’s to stop us (being the taxpayer that may or may-not want to even be supporting this company) from future gross negligence leading to yet another bail out? Obviously our leaders feel that if GM fails, the country won’t manage to pick up the peices so it seems that this could easily happen yet again. Then what?

    • 0 avatar
      ClientNo9

      You guys are getting confused. Put yourself in the shoes of old GM. You own a house, a car, maybe some rental property, etc. Better yet, let’s say you own a McDonald’s franchise. You go bankrupt and everything has to be sold to pay creditors.

      Does the guy who buys your car have to debrand it? Does the guy who buys your restaurant have to take down the McDonald’s sign and call it “Joe’s”? Should the guy who buys your house have to tear it down?

      Of course not. That McDonald’s name and that Toyota emblem have value. Without the McDonald’s name, that restaurant might be worth $50,000, with the name it’s worth a million. You actually screw creditors more if you aren’t allowed to purchase the brands because they would recover far far less.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Bankruptcy was created to provide an alternative to debtors prisons. It isn’t intended to be punitive.

      • 0 avatar
        CoastieLenn

        Right- but what I’m specifically wondering in a muddy sort of way is this: Now that GM essentially owes it’s “life” to the American government and to us tax payers, what (if anything) has been put in place to ensure that the efforts and dollars of those who worked to support it, despite it’s best efforts- have a *lasting* value beyond the arguable effects of it’s permitted colapse. I understand that there are laws and protections built into big business that many of us don’t understand, but there’s also inherent value in the viewpoints and mindsets of those of us outside the financial/political realm that are not clouded or otherwise blinded by the company itself and the politics behind it.

        SIMPLE MINDS WANT TO KNOW. If I claim bankruptcy, I (afaik) lose anything that I still owe money on and will lose nearly everything that I don’t. What’s the downside for GM on this, especially since beyond the writing on the legal documents, “Old GM” is no different than “New GM”.

        @ClientNo9- I know what you’re saying but in the case of GM, it seems that all they did was change… well… nothing. General Motors is General Motors- name, staff, building, logo, colors, cubicles, products- everything. I could see your point a whole lot clearer if the business end of “Old GM” weren’t the same as the “New GM”, but they aren’t. It’s exactly the same company in *real life*. There’s seemingly nothing to stop this from happening again and that’s should be a significant worry.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          Aside from your desire to complain, I have no idea what you want.

          We bailed out GM as part of a larger effort to avoid a depression that would have made the 1930s look like a picnic. GM was not bailed out because we love the Ren Cen or Malibus or due to nostalgia.

          If GM failed this afternoon, it would have still been worth it. The world was on the verge of collapse in 2009, and keeping GM afloat was one of many things that were done in order to keep things from imploding completely. I have no love for GM cars personally, and I wouldn’t care less if it liquidated just so long as the timing wasn’t as bad as it would have been six years ago.

  • avatar
    ClientNo9

    The untold story of the bankruptcy is that people in the defense department were also lobbying for a bailout. If we should have another world war, they were afraid of losing GM’s production capacity.

    So don’t complain too much. Keeping GM alive also supports our national defense.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • EBFlex: Scotty I get it. But that’s a very specific case. Plus a gas powered generator is a much better option...
  • el scotto: Flexy, on a farm almost nothing breaks in close vicinity to a wired power outlet. F-150’s, which you...
  • el scotto: @deanst Sir, we also sent oil back to our polite neighbors to the north.
  • el scotto: @DenverMike Sir, perhaps GM or Ford might -gasp- give away a few fleet vehicles. Have companies run them...
  • el scotto: Yes, we were the world’s largest oil producing country in 2020. That’s a fact. However Russia...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber