• Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0

    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)

    0


    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0


    User Feedback


    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:

    0

    Share this comment


    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?

    0

    Share this comment


    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? 

    0

    Share this comment


    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.

    0

    Share this comment


    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.

    -1

    Share this comment


    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......

    0

    Share this comment


    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.

    2

    Share this comment


    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.

    0

    Share this comment


    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.

    -1

    Share this comment


    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

    1

    Share this comment


    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.

    0

    Share this comment


    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.

    -1

    Share this comment


    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.

    0

    Share this comment


    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. 

    0

    Share this comment


    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.

    0

    Share this comment


    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.

    0

    Share this comment


    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.

    0

    Share this comment


    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. 

    0

    Share this comment


    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
    0

    Share this comment


    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, 

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

      Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

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

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor




  • Popular Stories

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. dufus22
      dufus22
      (43 years old)
  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      Last week saw the PSA Group (parent company of Citroen and Peugeot) purchasing Opel and Vauxhall from General Motors for $2.3 billion. This move would make the PSA Group the second-largest automaker in Europe. We already know some of the plans that PSA Group has for their new brands such as setting operating profit targets of 2 percent in 2020 (jumps to 6 percent by 2026) and the next-generation Opel/Vauxhall Corsa being the first new product developed with PSA. But as we alluded to in the original news story, there are a lot of questions that remain unanswered such as possible job cuts or what happens to Buick and Holden as they share products with Opel. I have been doing a bit of thinking on these and some other questions. The end result is this piece.
      1: Will there be job cuts and plant closures?
      In 2016, PSA Group employed 172,000 people worldwide. With the acquisition of Opel and Vauxhall, they will be adding close to 42,000 workers (the majority of those from Opel). The number of plants will also increase to 28 due to this purchase. Sooner or later, PSA Group is going have to make cuts. During the press conference announcing the deal, PSA Group CEO Carlos Tavares said the company “would honor existing labor agreements and closing plants is a “simplistic” solution.” That may be true for now, but this might change within the coming years. Some analysts believe PSA Group will close two to three plants within five years.
      The most likely place where the closures and layoffs could take place is in Great Britain. The reason as we talked about in a story back in February deals with the decision made by British citizens last year with leaving the European Union.
      “By leaving, the country would lose access to the EU Single Market which guarantees unconstrained trade across the member states. It would mean various countries would be leveraging tariffs on British-made goods, making production in the country less competitive.”
      Former British member of parliament and business secretary Sir Vincent Cable outlined how bad this decision looks for Vauxhall in a recent interview on BBC Radio 4.
      There could be a way that the British Government could at least stall the possible closures. Back in October, the British Government worked out a secret deal with Nissan to keep them investing in British car production at their plant in Sunderland. This deal caused an uproar as the details were kept as many believed the British Government would be handing over money to keep Nissan happy. But sources told British newspaper The Independent back in January that the deal had no mention of money.
      It could be that the British Government could do something similar for PSA Group to keep jobs, but it is too early to say if this will happen or not.
      2: Will this affect PSA’s plans of entering the U.S.?
      Probably not. Let’s remember that PSA Group is working through a ten-year plan that may or may not see the return of the Citroen and Peugeot, along with the introduction of DS to the country. Already, the first part of this plan is gearing up for the launch of a car sharing service next month. There is also extensive research going on into the U.S. marketplace. 
      But could there be a possibility of Opel or Vauxhall vehicles being sold here? It would not be surprising if there isn’t talk about this at PSA Group’s HQ. But there is a slight complication to this idea. As part of the sale, PSA Group cannot sell any Opel vehicles developed by GM anywhere in various markets outside of Europe (China and U.S. for example) until they transition to PSA platforms. That means a number of models such as the Astra, Insignia, and Mokka are out of the question for the time being. If Opel was chosen to be one of the brands PSA would sell in the U.S., they might not have a full line of vehicles to sell due to this clause.
      3: What does the future hold for Buick and Holden?
      If there are some losers from the sale of Opel, it has to Buick and Holden. Buick has found some success with Opel products as the Encore (rebadged Mokka) has become one the best-selling models for the brand. Holden is getting a shot in the arm as the Astra will hopefully help their fortunes in the compact space, and the new Commodore (rebadged Insignia) has a tough task ahead of it with living up to an iconic name. For the time being, Opel will continue supplying models to both brands. It is what happens in the future that many are concerned about.
      During the Geneva Motor Show, GM President Dan Ammann said something very interest to Australian journalists about the future of Holden’s products.
      This makes sense as the Astra was only launched and the Commodore is getting ready to go on sale. But I wouldn’t be surprised if talks begin very soon about this very topic. The same talks are likely to begin at Buick soon where they face the same issue for the Regal and Encore. Our hunch is Buick might have the easier time of two. The Encore would continue on since it shares the same platform as the Chevrolet Trax. As for the Regal, it could leave Buick’s lineup once the next-generation model runs its course.
      4: Does GM lose anything with this deal?
      There has been a lot of talk about how much money will be freed up from the sale of Opel/Vauxhall for GM, along with making a bit more profit. But it comes at a cost that could hurt GM down the road. The recent crop of compact and midsize sedans from GM owe a lot to Opel’s engineering knowledge. Vehicles that excel in driving dynamics and fuel economy are worth their weight in gold when it comes to the European marketplace. As we know, one part of why GM went into bankruptcy was the lack of competitive small and midsize cars that got good fuel economy. Opel would prove to be GM’s savior with this key knowledge.
      Right now, compacts and midsize sedans aren’t selling as consumers are directing their attention to crossovers and SUVs. This is due in part to lower gas prices. But sooner or later, the price of gas will go back up and cause many to go back to smaller vehicles. With talk about GM scaling back on their small and midsize car lineup, this decision could have consequences down the road. Plus with Opel out of the picture, GM doesn’t have someone it can rely on to get these models back to the forefront. We can hope GM’s North American office has learned some stuff when working with their European counterparts.
    • By William Maley
      Last week saw the PSA Group (parent company of Citroen and Peugeot) purchasing Opel and Vauxhall from General Motors for $2.3 billion. This move would make the PSA Group the second-largest automaker in Europe. We already know some of the plans that PSA Group has for their new brands such as setting operating profit targets of 2 percent in 2020 (jumps to 6 percent by 2026) and the next-generation Opel/Vauxhall Corsa being the first new product developed with PSA. But as we alluded to in the original news story, there are a lot of questions that remain unanswered such as possible job cuts or what happens to Buick and Holden as they share products with Opel. I have been doing a bit of thinking on these and some other questions. The end result is this piece.
      1: Will there be job cuts and plant closures?
      In 2016, PSA Group employed 172,000 people worldwide. With the acquisition of Opel and Vauxhall, they will be adding close to 42,000 workers (the majority of those from Opel). The number of plants will also increase to 28 due to this purchase. Sooner or later, PSA Group is going have to make cuts. During the press conference announcing the deal, PSA Group CEO Carlos Tavares said the company “would honor existing labor agreements and closing plants is a “simplistic” solution.” That may be true for now, but this might change within the coming years. Some analysts believe PSA Group will close two to three plants within five years.
      The most likely place where the closures and layoffs could take place is in Great Britain. The reason as we talked about in a story back in February deals with the decision made by British citizens last year with leaving the European Union.
      “By leaving, the country would lose access to the EU Single Market which guarantees unconstrained trade across the member states. It would mean various countries would be leveraging tariffs on British-made goods, making production in the country less competitive.”
      Former British member of parliament and business secretary Sir Vincent Cable outlined how bad this decision looks for Vauxhall in a recent interview on BBC Radio 4.
      There could be a way that the British Government could at least stall the possible closures. Back in October, the British Government worked out a secret deal with Nissan to keep them investing in British car production at their plant in Sunderland. This deal caused an uproar as the details were kept as many believed the British Government would be handing over money to keep Nissan happy. But sources told British newspaper The Independent back in January that the deal had no mention of money.
      It could be that the British Government could do something similar for PSA Group to keep jobs, but it is too early to say if this will happen or not.
      2: Will this affect PSA’s plans of entering the U.S.?
      Probably not. Let’s remember that PSA Group is working through a ten-year plan that may or may not see the return of the Citroen and Peugeot, along with the introduction of DS to the country. Already, the first part of this plan is gearing up for the launch of a car sharing service next month. There is also extensive research going on into the U.S. marketplace. 
      But could there be a possibility of Opel or Vauxhall vehicles being sold here? It would not be surprising if there isn’t talk about this at PSA Group’s HQ. But there is a slight complication to this idea. As part of the sale, PSA Group cannot sell any Opel vehicles developed by GM anywhere in various markets outside of Europe (China and U.S. for example) until they transition to PSA platforms. That means a number of models such as the Astra, Insignia, and Mokka are out of the question for the time being. If Opel was chosen to be one of the brands PSA would sell in the U.S., they might not have a full line of vehicles to sell due to this clause.
      3: What does the future hold for Buick and Holden?
      If there are some losers from the sale of Opel, it has to Buick and Holden. Buick has found some success with Opel products as the Encore (rebadged Mokka) has become one the best-selling models for the brand. Holden is getting a shot in the arm as the Astra will hopefully help their fortunes in the compact space, and the new Commodore (rebadged Insignia) has a tough task ahead of it with living up to an iconic name. For the time being, Opel will continue supplying models to both brands. It is what happens in the future that many are concerned about.
      During the Geneva Motor Show, GM President Dan Ammann said something very interest to Australian journalists about the future of Holden’s products.
      This makes sense as the Astra was only launched and the Commodore is getting ready to go on sale. But I wouldn’t be surprised if talks begin very soon about this very topic. The same talks are likely to begin at Buick soon where they face the same issue for the Regal and Encore. Our hunch is Buick might have the easier time of two. The Encore would continue on since it shares the same platform as the Chevrolet Trax. As for the Regal, it could leave Buick’s lineup once the next-generation model runs its course.
      4: Does GM lose anything with this deal?
      There has been a lot of talk about how much money will be freed up from the sale of Opel/Vauxhall for GM, along with making a bit more profit. But it comes at a cost that could hurt GM down the road. The recent crop of compact and midsize sedans from GM owe a lot to Opel’s engineering knowledge. Vehicles that excel in driving dynamics and fuel economy are worth their weight in gold when it comes to the European marketplace. As we know, one part of why GM went into bankruptcy was the lack of competitive small and midsize cars that got good fuel economy. Opel would prove to be GM’s savior with this key knowledge.
      Right now, compacts and midsize sedans aren’t selling as consumers are directing their attention to crossovers and SUVs. This is due in part to lower gas prices. But sooner or later, the price of gas will go back up and cause many to go back to smaller vehicles. With talk about GM scaling back on their small and midsize car lineup, this decision could have consequences down the road. Plus with Opel out of the picture, GM doesn’t have someone it can rely on to get these models back to the forefront. We can hope GM’s North American office has learned some stuff when working with their European counterparts.

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      General Motors seems being in a cutting mood as it drives to improve its profit margins and stock price. Last week saw the sale of Opel and Vauxhall to PSA Group and it's only the beginning said GM CEO Mary Barra.
      Automotive News reports that GM is considering reducing investments in North American cars and "select" international markets according to a chart that was shared during a conference call with analysts last week. The chart says these two earned a spot on the chopping block due to low profit potential and weak strength in franchises.
      "There's a little bit more work that we're doing in the international markets. Our overall philosophy is that every country, every market segment has to earn its cost of capital," Barra said on the conference call. 
      Barra and GM President Dan Ammann declined to go into details about these plans.
      GM has already made significant changes in terms of their international operations by ending or reducing operations Australia, Indonesia, Russia, and Thailand. The automaker has also scaled back plans in India. The comments made during the call suggest more cuts could take place here and possibly elsewhere.
      As for 'reducing investments in North American cars', this likely means GM is taking a hard look at various segments in passenger car segment. With consumers trending towards utility vehicles and trucks, sales of passenger cars have been falling precipitously. As of March 1st, dealers had four month's worth of inventory of cars, compared to an 81-day supply for light trucks and less than 60-days for full-size SUVs. GM could walk away from certain segments such as compacts or full-size sedans, or delay investments in certain models.
      These moves will allow GM to funnel money into models that make more money, and returning capital to shareholders.
      "That's an immediate opportunity for us to reward shareholders without changing the risk profile of the company or our ability to manage through a downturn," GM CFO Chuck Stevens said.
      Analysts are mixed on GM's plans.
      "It takes a lot of discipline to shift away from a volume-is-king kind of mentality," she said. "In the end, that's going to make a better GM -- a longer-standing company that's not only more profitable but more relevant," said Rebecca Lindland, a senior analyst with Kelley Blue Book to Automotive News.
      John Murphy, an analyst with Bank of America Merrill Lynch isn't so sure about this plan.
      "It appears that GM's recent decision-making has become much more short-term-focused and, in our opinion, could create challenges for the company in the coming years," Murphy wrote in a report.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

      View full article
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)