"New GM" doesn't honor repairs on "Old GM"
08-22-2011, 11:38 AM
#22
Deceased
Join Date: 06-30-2010
Location: Kannapolis NC
Posts: 25,739
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.
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.
08-22-2011, 11:54 AM
#23
Platinum Member
Join Date: 05-09-2006
Location: "Upland" Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 6,805
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.
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.
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.
08-22-2011, 01:52 PM
#24
Founding Member
Join Date: 11-23-2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 8,210
There has already been recalls on vehicles that were built by old GM, so that doesn't hold water either.
08-22-2011, 01:57 PM
#25
Founding Member
Join Date: 11-23-2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 8,210
08-22-2011, 05:47 PM
#27
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 07-29-2008
Location: Mass
Posts: 727
It seems to me an issue that wears out your tires that fast could cause a tire to blow out resulting in a crash.
08-22-2011, 06:05 PM
#28
Founding Member
Join Date: 11-23-2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 8,210
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.
08-22-2011, 06:17 PM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: 03-06-2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 6,869
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?
Just sayin'
*(quoted from a letter I got from a dealer today....... that just hit the trash)
Wouldn't many of those years be part of that other company that doesn't exist anymore?
Just sayin'
*(quoted from a letter I got from a dealer today....... that just hit the trash)
