Joel R. Glucksman
Partner
201-896-7095 jglucksman@sh-law.comKey Contacts
Back
General Motors Co. is returning to the same Manhattan bankruptcy court that granted it protection under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy law in 2009 to face owners of recalled cars, according to Bloomberg Businessweek. The company faces 59 lawsuits by car owners, who are demanding a combined total of as much as $10 billion in damages. The lawsuits center around recalled cars with faulty ignition switches, which shut off the engines while the car is being driven in some circumstances, and prevent airbags from deploying.
In the 2009 ruling, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber granted GM protection from a large number of liabilities by allowing it to split into “Old GM” and “New GM,” the news source explained. While the automaker accepted some liabilities into the new company, like those for warranty obligations and responsibility for post-2009 accidents that occur in pre-2009 cars, the majority of its liabilities stayed with the old GM. This means that new GM is not currently legally responsible for the loss of value on pre-2009 cars resulting from old GM’s alleged conduct.
Many legal experts believe that Judge Gerber is unlikely to undo a key part of the bankruptcy sale that he approved in 2009, but car owners may have a recourse, according to Reuters. With evidence emerging that at least some GM employees were aware of the problems with the ignition switches, the company is asking Gerber to make a clear ruling that it did not intentionally hide any knowledge from the bankruptcy court. Plaintiffs are arguing that GM hid knowledge of the defect, making a case for fraud.
Gerber has not been afraid to admonish GM in the past, Reuters noted. In a 2012 trial regarding the same bankruptcy, Gerber called revelations that the company disclose a payment of $367 million to certain hedge fund creditors “shocking.” Gerber’s decision in this high-profile case may set a precedent for further such bankruptcy filings.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
GM returns to bankruptcy court over recalls
Author: Joel R. Glucksman
General Motors Co. is returning to the same Manhattan bankruptcy court that granted it protection under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy law in 2009 to face owners of recalled cars, according to Bloomberg Businessweek. The company faces 59 lawsuits by car owners, who are demanding a combined total of as much as $10 billion in damages. The lawsuits center around recalled cars with faulty ignition switches, which shut off the engines while the car is being driven in some circumstances, and prevent airbags from deploying.
In the 2009 ruling, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber granted GM protection from a large number of liabilities by allowing it to split into “Old GM” and “New GM,” the news source explained. While the automaker accepted some liabilities into the new company, like those for warranty obligations and responsibility for post-2009 accidents that occur in pre-2009 cars, the majority of its liabilities stayed with the old GM. This means that new GM is not currently legally responsible for the loss of value on pre-2009 cars resulting from old GM’s alleged conduct.
Many legal experts believe that Judge Gerber is unlikely to undo a key part of the bankruptcy sale that he approved in 2009, but car owners may have a recourse, according to Reuters. With evidence emerging that at least some GM employees were aware of the problems with the ignition switches, the company is asking Gerber to make a clear ruling that it did not intentionally hide any knowledge from the bankruptcy court. Plaintiffs are arguing that GM hid knowledge of the defect, making a case for fraud.
Gerber has not been afraid to admonish GM in the past, Reuters noted. In a 2012 trial regarding the same bankruptcy, Gerber called revelations that the company disclose a payment of $367 million to certain hedge fund creditors “shocking.” Gerber’s decision in this high-profile case may set a precedent for further such bankruptcy filings.