General Motors 2015 Annual Report Download - page 89

Table of Contents


in, a single federal court, the Southern District of New York (the multidistrict litigation). Through January 27, 2016 the JPML has transferred 262 pending
cases to, and consolidated them with, the multidistrict litigation. At the court's suggestion, the parties to the multidistrict litigation engage from time to time
in discussions of possible mechanisms to resolve pending litigation. As described below, on September 17, 2015 we announced that we had reached a
memorandum of understanding with certain personal injury claimants regarding possible settlement of their claims.
Because many plaintiffs in the actions described in the above paragraphs are suing over the conduct of General Motors Corporation or vehicles
manufactured by that entity for liabilities not expressly assumed by GM, we moved to enforce the terms of the July 2009 Sale Order and Injunction issued by
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Bankruptcy Court) to preclude claims from being asserted against us for, among
other things, personal injuries based on pre-sale accidents, any economic-loss claims based on acts or conduct of General Motors Corporation and claims
asserting successor liability for obligations owed by General Motors Corporation (successor liability claims). On April 15, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court issued
a Decision precluding claims against us based upon pre-sale accidents, claims based upon the acts or conduct by General Motors Corporation and successor
liability claims, except for claims asserting liabilities that had been expressly assumed by us in the July 2009 Sale Agreement and claims that could be
asserted against us only if they were otherwise viable and arose solely out of our own independent post-closing acts and did not in any way rely on acts or
conduct by General Motors Corporation. Plaintiffs have appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision and we have cross appealed with respect to certain issues
to preserve our rights. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) has accepted a direct appeal of the matter and the parties
have briefed the appeal pursuant to an expedited schedule set by the Second Circuit. Oral argument is scheduled for March 15, 2016. In addition on
December 4, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court issued a judgment regarding certain issues left unresolved by the April 15, 2015 decision including the extent to
which punitive damages could be asserted against GM based on claims involving vehicles manufactured by General Motors Corporation. Various groups of
plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the district court overseeing the multidistrict litigation.
In the putative shareholder class action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Shareholder Class Action), the court
appointed the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System as the lead plaintiff. On January 15, 2015 the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System filed
a Consolidated Class Action Complaint against GM and several current and former officers and employees (Defendants) on behalf of purchasers of our
common stock from November 17, 2010 to July 24, 2014. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleges that Defendants made material misstatements
and omissions relating to problems with the ignition switch and other matters in SEC filings and other public statements. On September 17, 2015 we
announced that we had entered into a binding term sheet regarding settlement of this matter. On November 20, 2015 the district court granted its preliminary
approval of the settlement and has scheduled a final settlement fairness hearing for April 20, 2016.
With regard to the shareholder derivative actions, the two shareholder derivative actions pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan have been consolidated and all proceedings, including those related to the motion to dismiss we filed in that court in October 2014, remain
suspended pending disposition of the parallel action being litigated in Delaware Chancery Court. With regard to that pending litigation in Delaware
Chancery Court, the four shareholder derivative actions pending in that court were consolidated and plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on
October 13, 2014. On June 26, 2015 the Delaware Chancery Court granted our motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs have
appealed that decision to the Delaware Supreme Court, which has set oral argument for February 10, 2016. With regard to the two derivative actions filed in
the Circuit Court of Wayne County, Michigan, those actions have been consolidated and remain stayed pending disposition of the federal derivative actions.
In connection with the 2014 recalls, various investigations, inquiries and complaints have been received from the United States Attorney’s Office for the
Southern District of New York (the Office), Congress, the SEC, Transport Canada and 50 state attorneys general. In connection with the foregoing we have
received subpoenas and requests for additional information and we have participated in discussions with various governmental authorities. On June 3, 2015
we received notice of an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission concerning certified pre-owned vehicle advertising where dealers had certified
vehicles that allegedly needed recall repairs. We believe we are cooperating fully with all requests for information in ongoing investigations. Such matters
could in the future result in the imposition of material damages, fines, civil consent orders, civil and criminal penalties or other remedies.
As described more specifically below, substantial activity took place during the six months ended December 31, 2015 that resulted in total or partial
resolution of several matters including the recognition of additional liabilities for such matters.
85