Skip to comments.WSJ: GM Claims Immunity For Its Old Cars
Posted on 05/17/2012 6:56:11 AM PDT by KeyLargo
AUTOS Updated May 16, 2012, 7:50 p.m. ET
GM Claims Immunity For Its Old Cars
By Mike Spector
GM pushed a lawyer to drop a potential punitive-damages claim involving a prebankruptcy vehicle involved in a fatal accident, asserting a level of immunity in that some lawyers claim is a stretch.
A General Motors Co. (GM) lawyer demanded the widow of a car-crash victim drop a plan to seek punitive damages from the auto maker, even though the company's government-brokered overhaul doesn't bar plaintiffs from going after such legal penalties.
The GM lawyer in a March 3 email told a lawyer representing the widow of a man killed in a GM-made U-Haul truck that GM couldn't be sued for punitive damages in the case. Other lawyers say that assertion stretches beyond what they believe is GM's legal exposure in product-liability cases. Even so, after receiving the email, the widow's lawyer abandoned ...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
"A bankruptcy judge allowed Chrysler to immunize itself from new punitive-damage claims arising from alleged manufacturing defects in vehicles sold before its restructuring. Chrysler's immunity was the subject of a Page One article in The Wall Street.." 2009 government rescues that exceeded $70 billion. A bankruptcy judge allowed Chrysler to immunize itself from new punitive-damage claims arising from alleged manufacturing defects in vehicles sold before its restructuring."
GM has been a sleezy company for years (which was what drove me to Japanese cars).
However, when associated with the Obamaloon and his West Wing Clown Show of Felon/Cretins, the sleeziness grew to such an extent that it now takes scientific notation to adequately express it.
GM is slime.
I know when I sue someone I'm going to trust that entities lawyers advise that they can't be sued for that. She should sue her own lawyer for being so stupid to believe his response.
more than 50% of its workers out of the country
Pays no taxes
Obama takes credit for that?
>>GM has been a sleezy company for years (which was what drove me to Japanese cars).
When I was in high school, a good friend’s father went whole hog on GM’s new small car offering at the time - the Chevy Vega. After watching that debacle and GM’s non-response to his letters on all the problems, it soured me on GM too.
That said, before the bailout, I was really thinking about a Caddy CTS. They’re slick cars, and the performance versions are pretty incredible.
So,,,, does this mean they also no longer need to do recalls on those pre-bankruptcy vehicles?
Buy from GM at your own risk
“A government watchdog says U.S. taxpayers are still owed $132.9 billion that companies haven’t repaid from the financial bailout — General Motors and financial firms — and some of that will never be recovered.
The bailout, launched at the height of the financial crisis in September 2008, will continue to exist for years, says a report from Christy Romero, the acting special inspector general for the $700 billion bailout, according to wire reports in the Detroit Free Press.”
Treasury ups the ante in government losses at GM and Chrysler
Posted by Dimsdale on January 31, 2012 at 6:05 pm | Share via e-mail
According to the Detroit News yesterday, the Treasury Department increased its estimate of government losses in the $85 billion auto bailout by another $170 million.
In the governments latest report to Congress this month, the Treasury upped its estimate to $23.77 billion, up from $23.6 billion.
Last fall, the government dramatically boosted its forecast of losses on the rescues of General Motors Co., Chrysler Group LLC and their finance units from $14 billion to $23.6 billion.
And not just GM:
The government booked a $1.3 billion loss on its $12.5 billion bailout of Chrysler.
Why is this? Well the government basically gambled on GM and Chrysler stock:
The Treasury, which initially held a 61 percent majority stake in GM, now holds a 26.5 percent share, or 500 million shares in GM. To break even, the government would need to average $53 per share for its remaining stake.
Well, that may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but GM is currently trading at under $25. What is that old adage about buying low and selling high? I might have worked for the UAW, whose jobs (and votes) Øbama sought to preserve, but the taxpayer is taking it on the chin once again.
Our Fearless Leader, Øbama said in the State of the Union address last week:
On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the worlds number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.
Øbama skims at the real reason he did this Chavez like takeover with the statement about a million jobs at stake, i.e. he was out to save union jobs (read it: likely Democrat voters), but the rest of it was pure fertilizer. He has a lot of gall bringing up Ford, whose success has nothing to do with him, despite the not so subtle insinuation....
The Vega was a good idea destroyed by the unions and GM. And in the process soured Americans to the idea that a small car could be a well built car.
Now why would anyone pay out tens of thousands of dollars for a car that GM could repudiate any responsibility for by fiat.
A person may as well take the word of a seller in the Auto Trader, in fact I would over GM, etc.
Sorry. I’ve been through this a couple of years ago. Got lucky, but it is true.
“Old” GM still exists as a shell, but doesn’t have any assets. Sue all you want, there is nothing there to collect.
The “New” GM is not liable for any vehicles built by “Old” GM.