"New GM" doesn't honor repairs on "Old GM"
 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...77I0Z820110819

I told you GM will do anything to show a profit.

It gets worse. My father passed away last month and I've been going through his finances for my Mom. He had a couple thousand shares of GM stock which were worth quite a lot a few years ago. The old GM took all the assests (the stockholders owned) and "sold" them to this new GM and left the shareholders behind holding the bag. They actually "cancelled" the stock so that now it isn't worth one red cent. You can pass any laws you want and create fancy words to explain it, but it is still theft.

Because of this, I will never purchase a GM vehicle again. It also adds one more reason to the many that have already convinced me never to vote for another Republican.

Rag on me if you like, but I dare you to trade places.

Slimy business practices...... So my '07 is made by a company that doesn't exist any more. Sweet! :roll: Guess my 50/100 powertrain is questionable now...... :skull1:

"New GM"?????..............Remember how well "New Coke" went over?

The way they're practicing business, the figure in red is only going to get bigger.:skull1:

I can not believe this has been allowed to happen. What was Obama thinking? He bailed out a failing company, shafted the bond holders, stock holders and now the warrenties on cars sold before the new GM was created.

My 06 HHR has been out of warrenty for quite a while and I take it to an independent mechanic now anyway for work. Fortunately not much work has been needed.

This hasn't been "allowed" to happen by Obama or anyone else, this happens all the time under the established bankruptcy law in the United States. The law can be changed by an act of congress, and only by an act of congress.

The actions taken by the "Old GM" are perfectly legal and normal under Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code, sections 1101-1174. The last revision to the Code was in 2005 when bankruptcy abuse reforms were enacted by the congress.

So write your representative in congress and urge them to enact or support revisions to the Code, its too late to affect any changes involving GM, but future perceived abuses my be prevented.

This has been your friendly lawyer speaking.

Did you guys read the article? It says New GM lawyers are stating that they can't be sued because of vehicles made by Old GM. It doesn't say they are not honoring warranties. :roll:

Post up if you have been denied warranty service on your pre-bankruptcy vehicle, other than for legit reasons such as mods or non defects.

When did Obama become a republican?

Obama is NOT a republican. Hell, some people say he is NOT even an American citizen!:roflol:

:roflol:

This thread should go downhill quickly..... :skull:

But hopefully NOT our "warranties & /or powertrain warranties"........

edit: Just got off the phone with my local dealer, he said no problems on the warranty. I'm covered.

I don't think this is warranty related..(as Chevy Mgr stated)....

Why did they sell 2+ years ago when the entire world knew GM was filing BK and the world knew the current shares would be worthless afterwards? No stocks from a company filling for BK is worth anything afterwards.

Obama a republican?

My mother's retirement was mostly based on GM stock. Fortunately, there were some other options. But, in a sense, her assets were seized and sold to someone else. I understand why you might not vote Republican, but I believe there were some Democrats involved in that too. I won't vote for either.

"Obama a republican"

I was in France back in February, but I'm pretty sure Le Monde would have mentioned something about this, go figure...leave the country for a few days and this happens, what next?;)

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that if your car is financed, and you experience warranty problems, you can dump it back on the financer. I believe it is one of the many consumer protection laws.

Can anyone clarify this?

In a word "no". Lemon laws vary by state, but they all require you to receive a letter of discharge from the lien holder before returning the vehicle to the dealer or manufacturer. Just telling the lien holder that the vehicle is defective and you are no longer paying for it/giving them the title, does not absolve you from your obligations to them as outlined in the loan agreement.

In other words, try it and you'll end up on the business end of a lawsuit seeking judgment against you for the amount of the loan and damages.

As an aside, GM is honoring all warranties in effect at the time of the Chapter 11 filing, they are obligated by federal law to do so. All lawsuits in effect at the time of the filing do become null and void under the provisions of Chapter 11 of the U.S. Code.

Yes, & my local Dealer (on the phone) just confirmed the same thing.. :twothumbs:

I can understand Jeff's anger and disillusionment, GM was always one of the corporate giants and at one time the largest company in the world, it was never going to fail...but it did. I got rid of my GM stock in 2001 because even then I saw the writing on the wall, and my broker agreed with me. Sadly, too many people took a financial bath when the stock became worthless, like me they probably grew up believing GM would never go under and that the stock would always be a good rock solid investment.

Things change, 25 years ago the concept of GM filing for Chapter 11 would have been laughable to anyone with half a brain, but they did and there is no going back. At least under reorganization, warranties will be honored, parts are available, and resale values haven't gone down the toilet. Just imagine if GM had closed its doors and gone out of business, where would millions of people be except stuck driving worthless cars and trucks.

Nobody said anything about factory or extended warranties. They are saying they are not responsible to any design error that causes need for repair.

Basically any GM car built prior to 09 that develops an issue that is related to design, manufacturing, etc. will not be recalled.

"Basically any GM car built prior to 09 that develops an issue that is related to design, manufacturing, etc. will not be recalled."


In other words the HHR steering motor...... :skull1:

....crap..

What you have is a case of successor liability, wherein the newly reorganized company is either compelled by the court to take on liabilities incurred by its predecessor, or those liabilities are dismissed by the bankruptcy court in accordance with Chapter 11 of the U.S. Code.

In the case of the class action over the Impala, the lawyers for GM were able to successfully argue that the suit was filed against an entity that no longer exists..I.E. the old GM.

While there is precedence in cases such as Ostrowski v. Hydra-Tool Corp., 479 A.2d 126, 127 (Vt. 1984), in getting liability assigned to a successor entity, its an uphill battle in regards to having the decision of the bankruptcy court reversed.

So if you have complaints with issues like the power steering motor, please continue to report them to NHTSA and you may well see recall action mandated on vehicles manufactured by the "Old GM" under the principal of successor liability.

Jeff.......

I'm not trying to change your opinion or choices.....it appears you are convinced of your conclusions, BUT.....

Many GM stock owners were shocked to find no value in their possession of GM stock. Many were aware of the pending BK but chose to risk the loss of value, for the possibility of a greater worth after the bankruptcy. Many chose to do nothing because of lack of interest/knowledge. There is probably some other reasons as well. My point is, MAYBE your dad fits into this catagory....just saying.

For what it is worth, I sold all of my GM stock in 1998 (at that time, I was told, I was the largest stock holder of GM at my facility). I sold and advised friends to do so, indicating GM was heading into a business direction that was not supportive of investing in GM as a growth or value investment. A few sold, a few didn't. But, without fail, every one of those that were in this group has returned and stated that selling at that time was the smartest idea. My point, anyone holding GM stock for any period prior to the bankruptcy, had an opportunity to dispose of the stock...thus, recognizing appreciation/minimizing their lose. Apparently your dad did not exercise his opportunity.

As for the Republican comment.......like many others, you are critical of a situation based on limited or non existent knowledge. The republicans, nor democrats, had very little to do with this situation. The decision was based on laws of this country and are not different than YOU, as an individual (nearly), filing for bankruptcy.

But reread the article and do research for other articles and you will see this is GM's legal position. The courts will need to rule if, indeed, GM is countering with an effective defense.

Oh, and as stated in the article (and by others here), it has nothing to do warranties.

See post #3 and #5. That is why I posted correct information.

There has already been recalls on vehicles that were built by old GM, so that doesn't hold water either.

As long as we're discussing GM and their warranties or who can sue them, all will be fine.

If it gets into a bash Obama or bash Republicans and/or Democrats, then we will have problems.

Was the "bashing" I was referring to.....

Then enlighten me as to why they are refusing to cover the impala problem.

It seems to me an issue that wears out your tires that fast could cause a tire to blow out resulting in a crash.

Same reason they don't cover the Power Steering motors for the HHRs. They don't want to and the government has forced them to act on either issue. Never said it's right, just stated the facts.

BTW, the Headline for the story is what is the most misleading, not the story itself. It should have read GM applies legal tactic on Impala problem.

Besides the fix isn't to replace the arms like the police vehicles had done, it's to perform a 4 wheel alignment.

Interesting side note to the "old GM" vs "new GM" deal...... They certainly have no issues advertising "Celebrating 100 years of Chevrolet!"*


Wouldn't many of those years be part of that other company that doesn't exist anymore? :gnonespet:

Just sayin' :skull:


*(quoted from a letter I got from a dealer today....... that just hit the trash)

As many of us already know GM of Canada has recalled HHR's for the steering motor issue.. fwiw..

Ok, so they don't want to be effected by past issues and law suits. Fine.

Then, they should be able to use any classic, high sales, names like corvette, camero, etc.

You can't have it both ways.

Just saying...

What are you just saying? They should use a name they are already using? :clueless:

High sales?????? hah, hah, very funny !!

I dont know what the issue is....GM is honoring warranties.....I work on "OLD" GM vehicles everyday covered under warranty and never have we told a customer that New GM wasnt responsible because old GM designed the vehicle.

This is, as stated simply a case of a woman suing GM because she wants to. If her tires wore excessively in 6,000 miles every dealer I have ever worked for would have simply aligned the car, basically no questions asked.

As for new GM not being able to use the heritage names because they dont assume the liabilities......thats simply not the way bakruptcy, asset sales, and corporate restructuring work. If I had bought old GMs assets I could be building 45th anniversary Camaros, 100th anniversary Chevys and getting ready for 60th anniversary Corvettes and had absolutely zero reason to fix the old ones for free under warranty. But GM does....they stand behind all their products, Saturn and Pontiac owners got free services, etc......

Agreed. There's a ton of fail in this thread.

They (GM) are still legally required to honor warranties and produce service parts (OMG, bet you hadn't thought about that!). The Impala issue is not a safety issue. There will be no recall - not now, not before. The police pkg. is different than what's on my Dad's '06 Impala. Period.

If people actually got a 4-wheel alignment once in a blue moon, there would be no issue. As a one-time racer, I urge people to stay on top of alignment if they have any sensitivity about replacing tires prematurely at all. I do my own at home, but would recommend this as a twice a year thing here in the pothole belt. Maintain the car and stop *****ing.

No I'm saying if they don't want to own up to their problems of the past, they should be cut off from everything in the past. INCLUDING and not limited to, classic names they use to sell cars.

so then Gas Man, to your thinking, a Chevy would no longer be a Chevy ?? :lol:

The deal with Chapter 11 reorganization is that its a "reorganization" under the law. Say for instance that the Amalgamated Fruit Flavored Under Britches Corporation got into a real financial bind, they file for bankruptcy under Chapter 11. Once the bankruptcy is approved, the process of reorganization begins, which means reaching settlements with creditors, vendors, and subcontractors.

When everybody is happy, or mostly everybody is happy, the "new" Amalgamated Fruit Flavored Under Britches Corporation can begin where it left off. The new corporate entity retains all the rights and patents to the products manufactured by the old corporate entity, and they also have the legal obligation to honor any and all warranties in effect at the time of the bankruptcy filing. So they can begin making the same old #77 Grape Flavored Boxers that they always have with no restrictions, its still their product...just like the Corvette, Camaro, Malibu, HHR, Silverado and the like remain the products of the entity known as the New GM.

The Impala class action was lost by the plaintiffs on a very clear basis, their attorneys screwed up in so many words. The filed suit on the Old GM, not the New GM, you can't commence litigation on a company or individual that no longer legally exists. However you can commence litigation on their legally appointed successor company, or the legally recognized estate of said no longer existent individual. Where the lawyers made their mistake was in failing to put forth a motion before the bankruptcy court requesting the assignment of liability in regards to the Impala class action to the New GM.

I never said Obama was a Republican. Duh. I never said anything about Obama at all. I have no idea why my father kept the stock. It was his business.

Well there was word several months ago that they were trying to kill off the word "Chevy"..... :skull1: