Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Detroit Free Press)   GM's asking a key question: does the 2009 bankruptcy exempt it from liability for the ignition-switch issue?   (freep.com) divider line 79
    More: Interesting, product liability, Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code, Chevrolet Cobalt, United States bankruptcy court, Kenneth Feinberg, Saturn Ion  
•       •       •

1577 clicks; posted to Business » on 15 Apr 2014 at 7:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



79 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-15 05:51:51 PM  
Has the "Obvious" tag been killed in a rollover?
 
2014-04-15 06:16:19 PM  
Oh, this is going to be great for PR.  "We killed people, but we saved jobs!  Using your money!  Neener Neener!"
 
2014-04-15 06:48:45 PM  
Bankruptcy comes in many forms.
 
2014-04-15 06:58:12 PM  
Since the company is a person, it really shouldn't be held responsible for the negligence of other people.

Thanks Supreme Court!
 
2014-04-15 07:30:17 PM  
Easy Solution:
A) Yes, GM is not responsible.  The bankruptcy removed all liabilities.
B) Those executives who decided against a recall should be criminally liable.
 
2014-04-15 07:31:03 PM  
Most GMs have a rule lawyer in their party to help them sort stuff like this...
 
2014-04-15 07:41:43 PM  
2009... that was about the time we had a GM is almost bankrupt thread and I said "that's probably 'cuz their cars are shiat and I, like most thinking people, will never buy one" and five or six farkers gang-piled on the "Fark you they're fine you're thinking of the quality problems of the 70s" bandwagon.

Still not buying one.
 
2014-04-15 07:44:28 PM  
yeah, the solution is obvious, no one ever buys another GM car again, that way they won't be liable for anything in the future either.. win win..
 
2014-04-15 08:20:32 PM  
Well it never hurts to ASK.  Rather it doesn't hurt GM to ask.
 
2014-04-15 08:26:05 PM  

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Easy Solution:
A) Yes, GM is not responsible.  The bankruptcy removed all liabilities.
B) Those executives who decided against a recall should be criminally liable.


I vote for plan B.
 
2014-04-15 08:33:56 PM  
The union owns GM now.

We should prosecute them.
 
2014-04-15 08:38:14 PM  
I'm am Jack's lack of surprise.
 
2014-04-15 08:41:11 PM  

unlikely: 2009... that was about the time we had a GM is almost bankrupt thread and I said "that's probably 'cuz their cars are shiat and I, like most thinking people, will never buy one" and five or six farkers gang-piled on the "Fark you they're fine you're thinking of the quality problems of the 70s" bandwagon.

Still not buying one.


Yeah, I've got a 2000 Chevy for sale soon.  The farking vacuum lines for the heating system and 4wd activation are leaking.  You have to take the seats out, lower the steering column and to replace those.

/fark that
 
2014-04-15 08:41:51 PM  

unlikely: 2009... that was about the time we had a GM is almost bankrupt thread and I said "that's probably 'cuz their cars are shiat and I, like most thinking people, will never buy one" and five or six farkers gang-piled on the "Fark you they're fine you're thinking of the quality problems of the 70s" bandwagon.

Still not buying one.


Yeah, I've got a 2000 Chevy for sale soon.  The farking vacuum lines for the heating system and 4wd activation are leaking.  You have to take the seats out, lower the steering column and lower the whole dash to replace those.

/fark that
 
2014-04-15 08:42:11 PM  
Do they still provide warranty coverage on their vehicle? Yes? Then there's a clear link of responsibility between the old and new GM. Liable.
 
2014-04-15 08:44:07 PM  
Well, my car is getting a bit long in the tooth.  Gueess what my next car ISN'T going to be?

Corporate assholes.
 
2014-04-15 08:46:03 PM  

Mad_Radhu: I'm am Jack's lack of surprise.


yeah. if i kill someone, then run out out of money due to incompetence, i get off for the murder, right?
 
2014-04-15 08:49:28 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-04-15 09:11:51 PM  

some_beer_drinker: Mad_Radhu: I'm am Jack's lack of surprise.

yeah. if i kill someone, then run out out of money due to incompetence, i get off for the murder, right?


only if you incorporated yourself and claim you don't read your emails
 
2014-04-15 09:14:42 PM  
As a GM car owner with now two recalls on my car, they are going to have to give me some good shiat to even think about buying another car of theirs ever again
 
2014-04-15 09:36:03 PM  
The ONLY GM car I would consider buying again would be one that is no longer made, in fact that whole division was shut down, and that was the Pontiac Trans-Am..  I had a 1975 one and hands down it was my favorite car... still regret selling it.
 
2014-04-15 10:17:47 PM  
 

enry: Do they still provide warranty coverage on their vehicle? Yes? Then there's a clear link of responsibility between the old and new GM. Liable.


And we have a bingo.
 
2014-04-15 10:30:19 PM  

mrlewish: enry: Do they still provide warranty coverage on their vehicle? Yes? Then there's a clear link of responsibility between the old and new GM. Liable.

And we have a bingo.


That's exactly what they're arguing - that the warranties they cover for "old GM" expired in 2012.
 
2014-04-15 10:39:40 PM  

Lsherm: mrlewish: enry: Do they still provide warranty coverage on their vehicle? Yes? Then there's a clear link of responsibility between the old and new GM. Liable.

And we have a bingo.

That's exactly what they're arguing - that the warranties they cover for "old GM" expired in 2012.


If they get out from under this without paying, I'm never buying another GM again.
 
2014-04-15 10:52:05 PM  
So if the bankruptcy judge sides with GM and absolves the company of liability, I wonder if other car makers' marketing departments will use it in their advertising?  Or will their execs simply note "Nicely played.  Might be a useful strategy down the road." and move on?
 
2014-04-15 11:06:54 PM  

arcas: So if the bankruptcy judge sides with GM and absolves the company of liability, I wonder if other car makers' marketing departments will use it in their advertising?  Or will their execs simply note "Nicely played.  Might be a useful strategy down the road." and move on?


both
 
2014-04-15 11:14:35 PM  
Ive been really happy with my 12' v6 convertible Camaro. No issues so far. She'll hit 25k miles by the end of this year.
 
2014-04-15 11:19:49 PM  
If I recall correctly, the original bailout was structured so that, if GM still managed to go bankrupt at the time, the U.S. government would've been responsible for warranty coverage. I think the same deal was struck in Canada.

Which makes me think the U.S. government could be on the hook for this.

/drunken speculation, why do you ask?
 
2014-04-15 11:21:59 PM  
Like most legal questions the answer is "Maybe..... depends"
 
2014-04-15 11:39:41 PM  

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Easy Solution:
A) Yes, GM is not responsible.  The bankruptcy removed all liabilities.
B) Those executives who decided against a recall should be criminally liable.


A) I'm not sure if GM didn't specify defective product liabilities in the bankruptcy, that they can go back and have it added in years later.  Now I understand that there are different chapters in bankruptcy and I don't pretend to know them all, but I do know that you can file only certain debts so as to lets say 'don't lose the house by including it in the bankruptcy' type situation.  In which, if you don't list all the debts that you wish to sue for removal, they will still be there.  The case will only deal with those you state you want removed.

B) Very much this.

GoodHomer: If I recall correctly, the original bailout was structured so that, if GM still managed to go bankrupt at the time, the U.S. government would've been responsible for warranty coverage. I think the same deal was struck in Canada.

Which makes me think the U.S. government could be on the hook for this.

/drunken speculation, why do you ask?


I very deeply hope not.  I am in the "if GM was too big to fail, it didn't need a bailout" camp.  If it wasn't too big to fail, then let if fail.  My main concern, if the US government is on the hook, then that will be another chunk taken out social security.
 
2014-04-16 12:02:05 AM  
GM did this with the Saturn Vue. Transmissions were failing in those vehicles at a high rate in a very short time (<75,00 miles), with a $4K-5K price tag to fix. Class action lawsuit was filed, and GM settled and agreed to extend the warranty and provide additional coverage for transmission repairs. A few month later they file for bankruptcy, and since then have claimed they are no longer bound to the settlement, since that was the "old" GM.h
 
2014-04-16 12:12:54 AM  

wombatsrus: GM did this with the Saturn Vue. Transmissions were failing in those vehicles at a high rate in a very short time (<75,00 miles), with a $4K-5K price tag to fix. Class action lawsuit was filed, and GM settled and agreed to extend the warranty and provide additional coverage for transmission repairs. A few month later they file for bankruptcy, and since then have claimed they are no longer bound to the settlement, since that was the "old" GM.h


My understanding is that the current GM is actually a new company. The "old" GM was raided for anything useful (cash, plants they planned to keep, etc.) and they created a new corporation (partially owned by the US Treasury) for it. All liabilities and other things they didn't want they left in the "old" GM. So basically, if you had any claim on the old GM, be it a vehicle problem or a bond they owed, you had to hope the "old" GM could make good.

This bit of ledger magic wasn't done for Chrysler (which enjoyed a shotgun marriage to Fiat), but the government outright ignored laws regarding the order in which bondholders and stockholders are made good (and a few other things) in order to keep some form of GM afloat.

Yes, it worked (for a given value of "worked") in that the reborn General Motors became profitable again and most workers kept their jobs. The cost was a screwing with the way things are done to the point where it's hard to trust the resulting company.
 
2014-04-16 12:32:12 AM  
This whole ordeal is making me rethink buying a (slightly used) Cruze. What are good alternatives? Want something 6-speed, fuel efficient (don't care for power) and comfortable around 12k$cad, 2011+
 
2014-04-16 01:33:31 AM  
Time to revoke GM's charter to do business...all divisions and subsidiaries.  Get farked for even thinking about it.
 
2014-04-16 01:52:14 AM  

TDBoedy: Time to revoke GM's charter to do business...all divisions and subsidiaries.  Get farked for even thinking about it.


Hah!   This is by design. Blame the Obama Administration.  It was the only way to keep GM afloat pay off the unions for the next election.
 
2014-04-16 02:30:21 AM  

Eps05: This whole ordeal is making me rethink buying a (slightly used) Cruze. What are good alternatives? Want something 6-speed, fuel efficient (don't care for power) and comfortable around 12k$cad, 2011+


Dude, you can nearly buy a brand new Mitsu Mirage for that. I have one, and it was well worth the money. The trick with a Mitsubishi is to trade it off before the 5 year warranty expires, much like a
Kia or a Dodge. Or, apparently, a Cruze.
 
2014-04-16 02:35:26 AM  
I run a small business. If I cut corners and it led to a person's death, can I then just bet all of my liquid business assets on red until I lose, then declare bankruptcy and not have to pay for my negligence? I'm just wondering why is okay for some businesses to continually put lives at risk in order to save a nickel, but if I ran my business that way, I'd be arrested and imprisoned. Is is because my business isn't big enough for me to buy my own congressman yet?
 
2014-04-16 03:03:20 AM  
Ever notice the people who scream about personal responsibility never call for execs to take responsibility and admit fault?
 
2014-04-16 04:34:38 AM  

TopoGigo: Eps05: This whole ordeal is making me rethink buying a (slightly used) Cruze. What are good alternatives? Want something 6-speed, fuel efficient (don't care for power) and comfortable around 12k$cad, 2011+

Dude, you can nearly buy a brand new Mitsu Mirage for that. I have one, and it was well worth the money. The trick with a Mitsubishi is to trade it off before the 5 year warranty expires, much like a
Kia or a Dodge. Or, apparently, a Cruze.


1) It's a subcompact. Too small.
2) It's 13k base model with a manual transmission.
3) Cruise control only comes as an option on the premium trim, raising the price to 18.5k with automatic according to the Mitsubishi Canada builder.
4) It has terrible reviews everywhere. My goal is to keep a car 10+ years (my current is on its 12th year)

So yeah, this is exactly what I do not want.
 
2014-04-16 05:03:19 AM  
Hopefully it does.  It seems that everyone and their neighbor wants blood if it's a GM recall, but will defend Toyota for their "Go places, even if you don't want to" accelerator issue.
 
2014-04-16 05:03:49 AM  

Eps05: TopoGigo: Eps05: This whole ordeal is making me rethink buying a (slightly used) Cruze. What are good alternatives? Want something 6-speed, fuel efficient (don't care for power) and comfortable around 12k$cad, 2011+

Dude, you can nearly buy a brand new Mitsu Mirage for that. I have one, and it was well worth the money. The trick with a Mitsubishi is to trade it off before the 5 year warranty expires, much like a
Kia or a Dodge. Or, apparently, a Cruze.

1) It's a subcompact. Too small.
2) It's 13k base model with a manual transmission.
3) Cruise control only comes as an option on the premium trim, raising the price to 18.5k with automatic according to the Mitsubishi Canada builder.
4) It has terrible reviews everywhere. My goal is to keep a car 10+ years (my current is on its 12th year)

So yeah, this is exactly what I do not want.


1) It is a subcompact. I'm 6'1" and 250 lbs, and it's big enough for me. It's not big enough to haul anything, but then, neither is any small car. It isn't big enough to regularly carry passengers, but the back seat is more spacious than plenty of bigger cars I've been in.

2) I did say nearly, did I not?

3) The base trim isn't as stripped as some other cars, but I can see how you might not want one. I personally prefer getting a brand new car with no options to getting even a slightly used one with all the trimmings. That said, I waited until both the dealer and the manufacturer were offering incentives, and picked up the premium trim for under $15k. USD, of course, but Canadian is about the same these days, right?

3a) I misinterpreted your "6-speed" requirement. The automatic trans certainly adds to the price.

4) The only bad reviews I saw when shopping for it had to do with the size, and the power. Frankly, I was looking for a tiny car, and would have bought a Chevy Spark except that it felt cheap and had a sh*t transmission. As far as the power complaint goes, that's from a bunch of whiny b*tches. It doesn't have the power to deal well with rush-hour traffic on major highways in major cities, but it has plenty of power for city driving.

The only real problems I have with the car are that the heater is woefully underpowered--that's what you get with a 3-cyl engine--and road noise is a bit loud. On the positive side, it corners better than most cars under $20k, it has a nicer clutch and better transmission than any car under $30k I've driven, with the notable exception of the Fiesta, and it gets shockingly high gas mileage. I bought the car for pizza delivery, and I get 30mpg delivering. For comparison, I got 19mpg delivering in a 2010 Hyundai Accent hatchback. The Fiesta was a nicer car in every way, especially performance-wise, and wins hands-down in the under $20k in my opinion, but it was a few thousand more, a little wider (bad for delivery in a college town with 200 year-old brick streets) and significantly worse mileage. If I had a regular job with a 30-mile commute or less, I'd have a Fiesta. I'd also have a lot more speeding tickets, though, as the Fiesta had far too much power.

If you're looking to buy a car to keep long-term, though, it definitely isn't the car for you. I love this car, but I won't have it a day past warranty.
 
2014-04-16 06:17:51 AM  
...If I were GM I would think very long and carefully before hiding behind the bankruptcy shield.  Though they may be technically correct - the best kind of correct - the sheer level of fury this will cause will lead people to pursue some interesting new avenues of personal liability on the part of the execs, engineers, and beancounters - not to mention the inevitable boycotts.   There won't be a second bailout; not a politician on the planet will want to be anywhere near GM when this sorts out.
 
2014-04-16 06:26:25 AM  

sethstorm: It seems that everyone and their neighbor wants blood if it's a GM recall,


In this case it's because GM knew they had a faulty part and instead of fixing it, decided to just deal with the consequences.
 
2014-04-16 06:30:35 AM  

WhyteRaven74: In this case it's because GM knew they had a faulty part and instead of fixing it, decided to just deal with the consequences.


As opposed to Toyota, who did everything to make it go away by blaming the driver?


AtlanticCoast63: ...If I were GM I would think very long and carefully before hiding behind the bankruptcy shield. Though they may be technically correct - the best kind of correct - the sheer level of fury this will cause will lead people to pursue some interesting new avenues of personal liability on the part of the execs, engineers, and beancounters - not to mention the inevitable boycotts. There won't be a second bailout; not a politician on the planet will want to be anywhere near GM when this sorts out.


Except that there will be people that will make that boycott fail, like myself, who have no problems with the non-globalized parts of their lineup.
 
2014-04-16 08:07:48 AM  
They all belong in jail.
 
2014-04-16 08:25:07 AM  

arcas: So if the bankruptcy judge sides with GM and absolves the company of liability, I wonder if other car makers' marketing departments will use it in their advertising?  Or will their execs simply note "Nicely played.  Might be a useful strategy down the road." and move on?


Probably both. American consumer short term memories, and all....
 
2014-04-16 08:42:37 AM  
Not if they filed their claims in time.
 
2014-04-16 09:08:09 AM  

WhyteRaven74: sethstorm: It seems that everyone and their neighbor wants blood if it's a GM recall,

In this case it's because GM knew they had a faulty part and instead of fixing it, decided to just deal with the consequences.


Plus how quickly WhyteRaven seems to have forgotten the Toyota sticking gas pedals and the pounds of flesh consumers were trying to extract there...
 
2014-04-16 09:09:53 AM  
Corporations are people my friend.

Specifically, they're murderous sociopaths with access to massive legal resources, legislators and without the need for pesky things like "being held accountable for their actions".

BTK wasn't really a murderer, he just didn't have the right documents.

/ 'murica
// Fark yeayou!
 
2014-04-16 09:13:31 AM  

Eps05: This whole ordeal is making me rethink buying a (slightly used) Cruze. What are good alternatives? Want something 6-speed, fuel efficient (don't care for power) and comfortable around 12k$cad, 2011+


How about buying it and immediately replacing the ignition switch?
 
Displayed 50 of 79 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report