Jump to content
Create New...
  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • William Maley
    William Maley

    U.S. Appeals Court Rules GM Has to Face Some Claims Dealing with the Ignition Switch

      General Motors gets a major blow in terms of the ignition switch scandal

    One of the groups that haven't been able to take any legal action against General Motors over the faulty ignition switch were those who bought the affected vehicles before the company announced bankruptcy in 2009. Last year, a bankruptcy judge said that New GM was shielded from liabiliites over the actions taken by Old GM.

     

    But today, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan reversed that decision. In the ruling, the court stated that New GM must face some of the claims from owners that arose from their actions before their bankruptcy.

     

    “We are reviewing the ruling and its impact. Even if some claims are ultimately allowed to proceed, the plaintiffs must still prove their cases," said GM spokesman Jim Cain in an email to the Wall Street Journal.

     

    This decision could expose GM to additional costs as it tries to move away from this mess. According to the ruling, the protection given to GM shielded them from up to $10 billion of liability claims.

     

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), Wall Street Journal (Subscription Required)

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    yes.

     

    Let us start comparing this to Tesla. Shall we?! :explode:

     

    So...is GM Hitler in this scenario? :closedeyes:

     

    Or how about more bad press and still loving it? :scared:

     

    I know. I know.

    I could be a stinker of a troll when I wanna be. :wavey:

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    :killitwithfire:  :fryingpan:  :killitwithfire::fryingpan:

     

    This is what should be done to the stupid judges. If others can dodge the bullet with a bankruptcy, then GM should be able to also. Are they going to go back and allow all the other companies who have declared Bankruptcy to have to deal with their mistakes of the past?

     

    I think GM needs to appeal this as this just reeks of stupid idiot liberal extreme and he probably drives a non american brand and loves consumer reports crap.

     

    If this is allowed to stand then I should be able to sue for money Apple who built and sold me my elisa and then dropped support less than 6 months later and came out with the stupid mac crap. I was stuck with a boat anchor with no support or software use all due to the idiot jobs. So where is my money then?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    :killitwithfire:  :fryingpan:  :killitwithfire::fryingpan:

     

    This is what should be done to the stupid judges. If others can dodge the bullet with a bankruptcy, then GM should be able to also. Are they going to go back and allow all the other companies who have declared Bankruptcy to have to deal with their mistakes of the past?

     

    I think GM needs to appeal this as this just reeks of stupid idiot liberal extreme and he probably drives a non american brand and loves consumer reports crap.

    Do they have the same leadership group(s)? Do those other companies have the same leadership groups prior to and post bankruptcy? 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    :killitwithfire:  :fryingpan:  :killitwithfire::fryingpan:

     

    This is what should be done to the stupid judges. If others can dodge the bullet with a bankruptcy, then GM should be able to also. Are they going to go back and allow all the other companies who have declared Bankruptcy to have to deal with their mistakes of the past?

     

    I think GM needs to appeal this as this just reeks of stupid idiot liberal extreme and he probably drives a non american brand and loves consumer reports crap.

    Do they have the same leadership group(s)? Do those other companies have the same leadership groups prior to and post bankruptcy? 

     

    Many companies who do what GM did, do have the same board, executives as they dump their debt and rebuild. Trump did this 5 major times on destorying other companies just for his own personal wealth building. So people should be able to go after his money then. Just like they are allowing here now.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

     

    :killitwithfire:  :fryingpan:  :killitwithfire::fryingpan:

     

    This is what should be done to the stupid judges. If others can dodge the bullet with a bankruptcy, then GM should be able to also. Are they going to go back and allow all the other companies who have declared Bankruptcy to have to deal with their mistakes of the past?

     

    I think GM needs to appeal this as this just reeks of stupid idiot liberal extreme and he probably drives a non american brand and loves consumer reports crap.

    Do they have the same leadership group(s)? Do those other companies have the same leadership groups prior to and post bankruptcy? 

     

    Many companies who do what GM did, do have the same board, executives as they dump their debt and rebuild. Trump did this 5 major times on destorying other companies just for his own personal wealth building. So people should be able to go after his money then. Just like they are allowing here now.

     

     

    Per your Trump analogy. Donald has never declared personal BK. His corporation are all that has ever filed for Chapter 11. Therefore no court in the world would ok going after his personal wealth.

    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Over ruling bankruptcy protection establishes a very questionable precedent for future cases. Even if you want to see GM punished, this is a double edged sword that may cut harder the other way.

    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    :killitwithfire:  :fryingpan:  :killitwithfire::fryingpan:

     

    This is what should be done to the stupid judges. If others can dodge the bullet with a bankruptcy, then GM should be able to also. Are they going to go back and allow all the other companies who have declared Bankruptcy to have to deal with their mistakes of the past?

     

    I think GM needs to appeal this as this just reeks of stupid idiot liberal extreme and he probably drives a non american brand and loves consumer reports crap.

    Do they have the same leadership group(s)? Do those other companies have the same leadership groups prior to and post bankruptcy?

    Many companies who do what GM did, do have the same board, executives as they dump their debt and rebuild. Trump did this 5 major times on destorying other companies just for his own personal wealth building. So people should be able to go after his money then. Just like they are allowing here now.

     

    Per your Trump analogy. Donald has never declared personal BK. His corporation are all that has ever filed for Chapter 11. Therefore no court in the world would ok going after his personal wealth.

    His point is still valid. They can't go after bankrupt GMs money anymore than they could go after Trumps corporations.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    :killitwithfire:  :fryingpan:  :killitwithfire::fryingpan:

     

    This is what should be done to the stupid judges. If others can dodge the bullet with a bankruptcy, then GM should be able to also. Are they going to go back and allow all the other companies who have declared Bankruptcy to have to deal with their mistakes of the past?

     

    I think GM needs to appeal this as this just reeks of stupid idiot liberal extreme and he probably drives a non american brand and loves consumer reports crap.

    Do they have the same leadership group(s)? Do those other companies have the same leadership groups prior to and post bankruptcy?
    Many companies who do what GM did, do have the same board, executives as they dump their debt and rebuild. Trump did this 5 major times on destorying other companies just for his own personal wealth building. So people should be able to go after his money then. Just like they are allowing here now.
     

    Per your Trump analogy. Donald has never declared personal BK. His corporation are all that has ever filed for Chapter 11. Therefore no court in the world would ok going after his personal wealth.

    His point is still valid. They can't go after bankrupt GMs money anymore than they could go after Trumps corporations.

    He didn't say go after Trumps corporations. He said go after his wealth.

    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

     

    :killitwithfire:  :fryingpan:  :killitwithfire::fryingpan:

     

    This is what should be done to the stupid judges. If others can dodge the bullet with a bankruptcy, then GM should be able to also. Are they going to go back and allow all the other companies who have declared Bankruptcy to have to deal with their mistakes of the past?

     

    I think GM needs to appeal this as this just reeks of stupid idiot liberal extreme and he probably drives a non american brand and loves consumer reports crap.

    Do they have the same leadership group(s)? Do those other companies have the same leadership groups prior to and post bankruptcy? 

     

    Many companies who do what GM did, do have the same board, executives as they dump their debt and rebuild. Trump did this 5 major times on destroying other companies just for his own personal wealth building. So people should be able to go after his money then. Just like they are allowing here now.

     

    If they have the same board that ran them into the ground then I feel no mercy for any company like this. Go back and take everything from them again. You live and learn. If you don't learn and make the same mistakes you deserve nothing with a side order of jack $h!.  :D

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I sadly expected this.....they never backed down from that fight. I expect more lawsuits from the pre BK issues on other stuff as well.

     

    This opens a very big door......

     

     

    GM, in a sense, opened the can and set the precedent themselves when they recalled the 2007/8 Police Impalas for the faulty spindle rods, then shun the civilian models of the same yrs claiming GM has no responsibility as those cars where built by old GM.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    :killitwithfire:  :fryingpan:  :killitwithfire::fryingpan:

     

    This is what should be done to the stupid judges. If others can dodge the bullet with a bankruptcy, then GM should be able to also. Are they going to go back and allow all the other companies who have declared Bankruptcy to have to deal with their mistakes of the past?

     

    I think GM needs to appeal this as this just reeks of stupid idiot liberal extreme and he probably drives a non american brand and loves consumer reports crap.

    Do they have the same leadership group(s)? Do those other companies have the same leadership groups prior to and post bankruptcy?

    Many companies who do what GM did, do have the same board, executives as they dump their debt and rebuild. Trump did this 5 major times on destorying other companies just for his own personal wealth building. So people should be able to go after his money then. Just like they are allowing here now.

     

    Per your Trump analogy. Donald has never declared personal BK. His corporation are all that has ever filed for Chapter 11. Therefore no court in the world would ok going after his personal wealth.

    His point is still valid. They can't go after bankrupt GMs money anymore than they could go after Trumps corporations.

    He didn't say go after Trumps corporations. He said go after his wealth.

    I know that and acknowledged that. It doesn't change the end result is my point. Good grief.

    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I sadly expected this.....they never backed down from that fight. I expect more lawsuits from the pre BK issues on other stuff as well.

     

    This opens a very big door......

     

     

    GM, in a sense, opened the can and set the precedent themselves when they recalled the 2007/8 Police Impalas for the faulty spindle rods, then shun the civilian models of the same yrs claiming GM has no responsibility as those cars where built by old GM.

    Fleet contracts supersede that (hence the reason for the recall) and make it completely unrelated to civilian models. Apples to oranges.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

     

    I sadly expected this.....they never backed down from that fight. I expect more lawsuits from the pre BK issues on other stuff as well.

     

    This opens a very big door......

     

     

    GM, in a sense, opened the can and set the precedent themselves when they recalled the 2007/8 Police Impalas for the faulty spindle rods, then shun the civilian models of the same yrs claiming GM has no responsibility as those cars where built by old GM.

    Fleet contracts supersede that (hence the reason for the recall) and make it completely unrelated to civilian models. Apples to oranges.

     

     

    I'd be interested in seeing the clause in a fleet contract that supersedes GM's bankruptcy. The GM of '07/'08 no longer legally exists, so any contract someone may hold with that company would be null and void. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I sadly expected this.....they never backed down from that fight. I expect more lawsuits from the pre BK issues on other stuff as well.

     

    This opens a very big door......

     

     

    GM, in a sense, opened the can and set the precedent themselves when they recalled the 2007/8 Police Impalas for the faulty spindle rods, then shun the civilian models of the same yrs claiming GM has no responsibility as those cars where built by old GM.

    Fleet contracts supersede that (hence the reason for the recall) and make it completely unrelated to civilian models. Apples to oranges.

     

    I'd be interested in seeing the clause in a fleet contract that supersedes GM's bankruptcy. The GM of '07/'08 no longer legally exists, so any contract someone may hold with that company would be null and void.

    Very true. Didn't consider that. It does not change the fact that you can't use their fleet deal to make a case for going after them.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    There have already been dismissals as well for those Impala spindle suits for same reasons already mentioned, prebankruptcy GM. The courts that dismissed a few of those cases did that specifically for that reason.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    " The court said that because GM didn’t notify customers about the ignition switch recall before its bankruptcy that stopping them from suing the automaker would violate their right to due process protected by the constitution."

    http://www.motortrend.com/news/court-rules-old-gm-defense-ignition-switch-cases/

     

    Not only did GM not notify customers about the flawed ignition switch before bankruptcy. During the BK proceedings, GM didn't even notify and make it aware to the courts.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I never did understand why the ignition switch scandal happened after bk. I would have thought there would have been an entire company-wide audit.

     

    There's been documented proof that employees had requisitioned for a parts change in design but not number for the detent plunger with a supplier. One of the signing employees testified under oath that he was not aware of any change in design, despite his signature on the document. 

     

    Anyways, I don't know if that was just a business as usual kind of deal - you know, parts bins do get changed all the time. And it would even make sense to make the new detent plunger to be legacy vehicle compatible, to have only one part do the job for many vehicles.

     

    Anyways, with VW paying $15 dollars in fines and compensation, what GM got off, and Toyota got off with were much less. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    "New" GM should be responsible for anything done by "old GM". Bankruptcy filings don't mean you are not responsible for breaking the law in the past.

    To put VW in this scenario, they could split Porsche, Audi, Lambo and Bentley into "new VW" and file bankruptcy with "old VW" and say they can't pay the fines. Doesn't work that way.

    These companies are responsible for their past. They chose to cut corners or cheat or break laws to drive profits. So If you do that and get caught you pay up.

    Edited by smk4565
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    There is a lot of thing that need to be done here. 

    Companies need to be held responsible for thing they did do wrong. 

    Customers should be held responsible or in part in cases where they played a big part in their demise or injury. Too many cases are brought knowing they would never win out right but they know companies will settle just because it is cheaper to pay 3 Million to settle vs 20 million to win. 

    Legal black mail is not kind to the consumer as we all pay in the end and the lawyers take most of it. 

    I would love to see the loser pay when cased are brought and that way it would cut down on the bogus cases. 

     

    As for what GM did here it was totally legal and used often as when many companies have a major legal issue it is the only way they survive. As to if it is right or not that is for each of us to decide. I see it as right or wrong depending on the case involved. Some times companies are not always the evil one as they are often made out to be and some times they are, 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Personally I think GM is too late to the Hybrid party and rather than spend and write off all the billions of dollars on their EVs that are actually selling well, they should have stayed the course and not followed Stupid Ford and Idiot47. GM has a 'handful of hybrids' coming - but are they the ones you want? I do not see GM actually doing well in this space as they are already too far behind.
    • On a more positive note, travel related stuff ... A historic milestone was achieved by Cunard Line within the last week.  When she was built, Queen Mary 2 (QM2) was too big to transit the Panama Canal.  The same was true for other supersized passenger ships.  In the interim, new larger locks were engineered and put into service. https://travelweekly.com.au/queen-mary-2s-first-transit-through-panama-canal-on-way-to-australia/ I saw the QM2 enter San Francisco Bay in 2007 because I was living out West.  It came in on a Sunday and I spent the weekend south of the city and near SFO.  I went there in a rented 2007 Monte Carlo costing less than $25 a day and stayed at one of the cheap chain hotels near SFO costing about $50 a night, which was ridiculously cheap even then. The ship went around South America and sailed northward up the Pacific.  As such, it's not a trip they would be making too often with the QM2. QM2 transited the Panama Canal for the first time just days ago.  She is headed to Los Angeles AND San Francisco.  To clarify the article's headline, Australia is just its next leg - this is the full world cruise.  She was last in Los Angeles in 2006 when she saluted her namesake Queen Mary and last in San Francisco in 2007 and seeing the passage under the Golden Gate Bridge was unforgettable.  These were the only visits to these ports.  With the new Panama Canal locks, her visiting the North Pacific Ocean and its major ports is much more likely to be on future world voyages. In the Panama Canal transit, the nail biter was supposedly going under the Bridge of the Americas - the one with the curved top.  I saw this YouTube with passengers cheering and motorists up above honking. I blame my parents for this!  They took us across the Atlantic a time or two too many when we were kids and this fascination began.
    • WTF kind of article is this? Piss-poor grammar and sentences. "By the time the odometer ticked past that 160,000 kilometre mark, equivalent to 160,000 kilometres, 99,000, the pack still retained over 90 percent of its original net capacity." Then it jumps to 91% remaining capacity somehow...? And when jumping to 91% capacity remaining, I don't think they did any math at all. See below for a paragraph that shouldn't be made as evidence of anything. As an engineer, this kind of "facts" should infuriate you.  "Battery health statistics can sound abstract until you translate them into the range figure you see on your dashboard. In this case, the Volkswagen ID. 3 Pro S started life with a usable pack of 77 kWh, and independent testing recorded an initial real world range of 77 k and 272 miles on a full charge. After the long term trial, the car still had 91% of its battery capacity, a figure that aligns with separate reporting that the Volkswagen ID 3 retained 91% battery capacity in a 160,000 kilometre test. In practice, that meant the car lost only around eight miles of usable range, a change small enough that you would struggle to notice in daily driving." 272 x .09 = 24.5 miles. Theoretically losing 9% would lose the owner about 25 miles of range, not 8 miles. It is now a 248-mile range EV.  This looks like some garbage AI-generated article.  Just for the record, I'm not saying that EVs don't have good battery management and degradation. I'm just saying this article was an embarrassing example to stand by.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search