New GM will take on future product liability claims, but not the current ones, against Old GM
A consumer group representing people who currently have product liability claims against GM and Chrysler looks like it won't be getting much, if any, restitution. When GM went into bankruptcy, it still planned to deny any liability claims -- ones that came up today, for instance -- when the new GM was formed. In a reversal meant to quell resistance from that consumer groups and state officials, New GM has agreed to assume liability for future claims on products made by Old GM.
The consumer group said, "The fact that 'New GM' will protect consumers injured by defective 'Old GM' cars is a positive development for public safety." The key word in this is "future;" new GM won't be responsible for any of the currently pending claims -- those that the consumer group is really fighting over, and that will still be addressed by old GM. Also, no date was given for when the "future" begins, so there is still a fair bit of clarity left to get on this issue.
[Source: Yahoo!]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Saxxon 2:16PM (6/28/2009)
Just another communist company, run by the Government, s******g on the common people.
"Change you can believe in."
Reply
compy386 2:37PM (6/28/2009)
What are you talking about? This is the capitalism at it's purest form. Caveat Emptor. You buy a product, you live with the consequences of your decision. Won't say whether I agree with that or not, but it's capitalism not communism.
Saxxon 12:09AM (6/29/2009)
GM became a communist company when the Government took a controlling stake in it with the bailouts.
Now, after accepting tax payer money, they turn around and tell the same tax payers who own their product that they wont accept any liability for faulty products that may cause the consumer harm. With this, they have gone from communist to criminal.
All the time knowing that they can do what they want because they have Obama on their side, with this Obama has gone from communist to dictator.
Capitalism at it's purest form is allowing a company to go into bankruptcy with out propping them up with tax payer money, and meddling of private business by the Government.
That, compy386, is what I am talking about.
"Change you can believe in." or put simply " Change from Democracy to Communism that you will believe in, or else".
rygar 9:25AM (6/29/2009)
Because 8 years of unchecked corporate greed did what for the country?
Oh and BTW, GM didn't go under the day Obama took office. This was years in the making. This was years of bad decision making at the top levels WITHIN the corporation. GM did this to themselves. Anyone who blames the government or foreign companies with the fall of GM is just fooling themselves. GM is especially guilty of self cannibalization with dozens of badge-engineered clones, low MPG vehicles and no forward vision.
So you want GM to go under and take hundreds of thousands of jobs with them?
And, "Change from Democracy to Communism that you will believe in, or else" is probably one of the most ignorant things I've read in a long time. You do realize you are comparing apples to oranges? Democracy is a form of government. Communism is a socioeconomic structure. See in reality we've gone from dictatorship to democracy.
Justin 2:19PM (6/28/2009)
LOL
Reply
carlbolt 2:52PM (6/28/2009)
what a shame! There is no New GM, no Old GM, there is only one GM.
Reply
Ugli 2:58PM (6/28/2009)
The most remarkable part of this is that people will continue to buy GM cars, despite the fact that this company is into cartoonish supervillain territory.
It's turning into a game -- how many different ways can they disrespect and generally punish the public and yet still retain some of them as clients?
Reply
jpm100 3:20PM (6/28/2009)
GM didn't want bankruptcy. The public and the Government did.
jcar302 3:23PM (6/28/2009)
I was really starting to like gm's lineup, then they pull this crap. Could i of been converted over from ford? Before this mess, possibly. Now i have faith in GM or how they stand behind their products.
Now when i think of gm i can't help thinking of people that are now handicapped and will never receive well needed money that they deserve.
Screw gm.
This has got to be some of the worst publicity GM has ever gotten.
jcar302 3:24PM (6/28/2009)
my, bad i meant "no faith".
Ancient posting system.
alex 3:35PM (6/28/2009)
you guys need to get your panties out of a knot. oh someone isn't getting money they were owed? guess what, that's what bankruptcy is! bankruptcy is about forgiving debt which translates into someone isn't getting paid! when normal people go bankrupt, companies that they owe mony to get screwed and never get paid. and when companies go bankrupt, their customers, suppliers, vendors, etc get screwed.
don't like it? then maybe you should call your congressman and demand all bankruptcy laws stricken from the books. the outrage over this is akin to saying "well i knew GM filed for bankruptcy, but i didn't think they'd be given bankruptcy protection!"
optionsss 5:05PM (6/28/2009)
to alex:
When normal people go bankrupt, the debt holder gets absolute say in how the property is divided, to minimize the loss. When my neighbor went bankrupt, the bank dictates how the house was sold and everything else. But in GM’s case, it was given all the protection, but none of the responsibility of being bankrupt. If we do follow the laws, there should even be a good GM. Innocent people are being thrown to the street to appease more voters. This is democracy and capitalism at its absolute worst.
AMcA 9:04PM (6/28/2009)
There's nothing cartoon super-evil-doer about this. It's normal bankruptcy.
Saxxon 12:13AM (6/29/2009)
"how many different ways can they disrespect and generally punish the public and yet still retain some of them as clients?"
I'm confused, are you talking about GM, or the Obama administration?
Cameron 3:12PM (6/28/2009)
"A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."
-Fight Club
Reply
Tagg 3:33PM (6/28/2009)
I'm tired of this "new GM" vs. "old GM" nonsense. "New GM" looks an awful lot like "old GM" considering most of it's top execs are the same and the ones that are different like Henderson have spent their whole careers at "old GM". So the only way they know of running a business is the old way.
If you want to change a culture of a company you need more than just a CEO with 40 years of service in that company.
Reply
Patrick 4:10PM (6/28/2009)
Much as I believe that Chrysler hasn't turned out a decent vehicle since it got rid of the Slant Six, it at least has new management--giving it a better chance of survival than GM.
keep the change 3:40PM (6/28/2009)
With government powers, a company can do what it wants. In GM's case, it won't pay its debt, its legacy costs, nor honor its liabilities. It gets to start over with a clean slate all paid for by tax money as if all those bad decisions, bad products, and bad debt should be forgiven. That is not free enterprise.
The question is, why should anything be different moving forward? I remember when Saturn started, and all the hype about GM doing things different "this" time - A new Kind of Car Company. In the end, it wasn't a new kind of car company.
All this means is that GM gets to accrue debt again so nothing has to change. But because it now starts off with no debt, it will have the luxury of years and years of more bad decisions, bad products, to accrue enough bad debt to make things go critical again. The cycle begins once more.
Reply
letstakeawalk 4:20PM (6/28/2009)
"In GM's case, it won't pay its debt, its legacy costs, nor honor its liabilities. It gets to start over with a clean slate all paid for by tax money as if all those bad decisions, bad products, and bad debt should be forgiven. That is not free enterprise."
It's called bankruptcy, fer crissakes!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_11,_Title_11,_United_States_Code
weather_expert 4:25PM (6/28/2009)
"it won't pay its debt, its legacy costs, nor honor its liabilities"
what do you think bankruptcy is?