Question about GM filing for bankruptcy protection...

[gruntly]

My wife mentioned this this morning and I had never thought about it.

If GM files for bankruptcy protection, does that automatically allow them to abscond from their responsibilities towards safety issues that result in lawsuits during theses proceedings, at least until they are viable again?

Could that also mean that any millions of dollars that prosecution has put towards these lawsuits may be lost in the system and force a refile when GM has renegotiated it's way out of protection?

[Eclipse]

I'm not sure if bankputcy proceedings put on hold cases where GM has been sued for injuries in accidents, but "absconding their responsibilities toward safety issues"? Just because someone sues GM claiming that their injuries in an accident resulted from some design defect doesn't make it so. Lots of these cases are based on the theory that if they don't walk away from an accident unscathed, no matter what the circumstances of the accident, their injuries must be occurred because of some design defect. It just isn't so.

[ctrlaltdel]

hmm... sounds like another John Grisham next novel plot!

[dec]

hmmmmmmm ...... may be a good thing if it puts some of those B$sturd laywers out of business

[forged alloy]

Good question.

GM most likely plans to follow the Chrysler model - enter bankrupcy - go to the puppet court - Form a new GM from the portions of the enterprise which were healthy, and then emerge as a new identity with all the contracts and agreements which have been bargained for in place. The garbage remains in bankrupcy court to hash out their pennies on the dollar.

I would imagine that lawsuits would be considered garbage, and probably would have to seek court permission to sue the new GM?

[gruntly]

I'm not sure if bankputcy proceedings put on hold cases where GM has been sued for injuries in accidents, but "absconding their responsibilities toward safety issues"? Just because someone sues GM claiming that their injuries in an accident resulted from some design defect doesn't make it so. Lots of these cases are based on the theory that if they don't walk away from an accident unscathed, no matter what the circumstances of the accident, their injuries must be occurred because of some design defect. It just isn't so.

I suppose in the case of design defect you would have to prove similarities to other cases, but it could also pertain to an individual situation such as an assembly line defect like a seatbelt or an SRS failure. These are not design defects, just quality control issues that may still prompt individual legal proceedings. forged alloy puts it in such a way that it sounds like the individual lawsuits would have to be refiled after GM has been re-established. If this is true, this sounds very unfair to the individual who had started proceedings against the old GM.

Although it is peanuts to the elephant, bankruptcy protection seems that it may allow GM to not only put all of their creditors on hold but also the people who have bought their product in good faith, only to find themselves out of pocket and out of luck because the old GM basically closes their doors. I hear them saying things like GM warranties are still good, etc, but does that carry over to their responsibility to their product buyers personal safety which may be put in jeopardy as a result of one forgotten or defective part from the factory?

Probably not very many assembly line problems will result in a personal injury, but the fact remains it could happen. My questions (above) pertains specifically to vehicles built before the bankruptcy protection proceedings began.