General Motors 2014 Annual Report Download - page 112

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
seeking economic damages under California consumer protection statutes. One of these actions is a putative class action that has been
consolidated with the ignition switch putative class actions and transferred to the Southern District of New York. The other action was
brought by the Orange County, California district attorney and is pending in California state court. In the aggregate, these actions seek
recovery under California consumer protection statutes for economic damages as well as civil penalties, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees
and costs.
On March 21, 2014 a putative shareholder class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan against GM and various current and former officers or employees of GM (Pio v. General Motors Company et al.) on behalf
of purchasers of GM securities from November 17, 2010 through March 10, 2014. The complaint alleges that defendants made
material misstatements and omissions relating to problems with the ignition switch and other matters in SEC filings. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages, interest and attorneys’ fees and costs. The court appointed the New York State Teachers’ Retirement
System as the lead plaintiff. On January 15, 2015 New York State Teachers’ Retirement System filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint against GM and several current and former officers and employees. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint supersedes
the complaint filed March 21, 2014 in this same case.
On March 28, 2014 a shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
against certain current and former GM directors (Hockstein v. Barra, et al.). The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty, waste of
corporate assets, and unjust enrichment by GM’s directors in connection with monitoring, remediation and disclosure of the issues
underlying the ignition switch recall. Between April 9, 2014 and July 22, 2014, similar shareholder derivative actions were filed in the
Eastern District of Michigan (Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Barra, et al.), the Circuit Court for Wayne County, Michigan
(Bekkerman v. Barra, et al., Wietschiner, et al. v. Barra, et al.) and the Chancery Court for the State of Delaware (Nash v. Barra, et
al., DiStefano v. Barra, et al., Newspaper and Magazine Employees Union v. Barra, et al., Boso v. Solso, et al.). All of these actions
seek damages allegedly resulting from defendants’ failure to timely identify, correct and disclose the ignition switch defect, an order
compelling implementation of various corporate governance policies and practices and other relief purportedly for the benefit of GM.
With regard to the two above listed shareholder derivative actions pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan against certain current and former GM directors, those actions have been consolidated and we filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on October 9, 2014. On January 11, 2015 the court issued an order suspending further
proceedings in the actions and holding our motion to dismiss in abeyance pending disposition of the parallel action currently being
litigated in Delaware Chancery Court (In re General Motors Deriv. Litig., C.A. No. 9627-VCG). With regard to that pending litigation
in Delaware Chancery Court, the four above listed shareholder derivative actions pending in that court have been consolidated and
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on October 13, 2014. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint on December 5, 2014. With regard to the two above listed derivative actions filed in the Circuit Court of Wayne County,
Michigan, those actions have been consolidated and stayed pending the federal derivative actions.
We are also the subject of various inquiries, investigations, subpoenas and requests for information from the U.S. Attorney’s Office
for the Southern District of New York, Congress, the SEC, Transport Canada and 49 state attorneys general in connection with the
2014 recalls. We are investigating these matters and believe we are cooperating fully with all requests. Such investigations and
discussions could in the future result in the imposition of material damages, fines or civil and criminal penalties and other remedies.
We are currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for the lawsuits and investigations because these matters
involve significant uncertainties at these early stages. These uncertainties include the legal theory or the nature of the claims as well as
the complexity of the facts. Although we cannot estimate a reasonable range of loss based on currently available information, the
resolution of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
GMCL Dealers’ Claim
On February 12, 2010 a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against General Motors of Canada Limited
(GMCL) on behalf of a purported class of over 200 former GMCL dealers (the Plaintiff Dealers) which had entered into wind-down
112