General Motors 2015 Annual Report Download - page 91

Table of Contents


general and administrative expense in Corporate and treated as adjustments for EBIT-adjusted reporting purposes in the three months ended December 31,
2015. The total amount accrued at December 31, 2015 represents a combination of our best estimates and, where no such estimate is determinable, our
estimate of the low end of the range of probable loss with regard to such claims. The ultimate resolution of these remaining investigations, claims and/or
litigation could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
In January 2016 the first of several “bellwether” trials, Scheuer v. General Motors, LLC, took place in the multidistrict litigation associated with the
ignition switch recalls. On January 22, 2016 a Stipulation of Dismissal was filed by which plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit with prejudice. No
payment was made to plaintiff. Each bellwether trial will be tried on its facts and the result of any subsequent bellwether trial may be different from this first
bellwether trial. Further, this first bellwether trial does not allow us to estimate the possible loss associated with the resolution of the multidistrict litigation.
The second bellwether trial is expected to commence in March 2016.
The uncertainties referenced above include the legal theory or the nature of the claims, the complexity of the facts, the results of any investigation or
litigation, and the timing of resolution of the investigations or litigation. For example, the appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s April 2015 decision is
currently pending before the Second Circuit (discussed previously), as is the appeal to the district court overseeing the multidistrict litigation from the
Bankruptcy Court's December 2015 judgment. The resolution of these appeals could have a substantial impact on the potential liability of GM for acts or
conduct of General Motors Corporation and what claims plaintiffs may pursue against GM in the multidistrict litigation and other courts. Further, there have
been little or no discussions to date concerning any potential resolution of the SEC investigation, the state attorneys general’s investigations, the various
claims for economic loss, or the claims concerning death or personal injury not covered by the memorandum of understanding, discussed previously. We will
continue to consider potential resolution of open matters involving ignition switch recalls and other recalls where it makes sense to do so.

On February 12, 2010 a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against GM Canada on behalf of a purported class of over 200 former GM
Canada dealers (the Plaintiff Dealers) which had entered into wind-down agreements with GM Canada. In May 2009 in the context of the global restructuring
of the business and the possibility that GM Canada might be required to initiate insolvency proceedings, GM Canada offered the Plaintiff Dealers the wind-
down agreements to assist with their exit from the GM Canada dealer network and to facilitate winding down their operations in an orderly fashion by
December 31, 2009 or such other date as GM Canada approved but no later than on October 31, 2010. The Plaintiff Dealers allege that the Dealer Sales and
Service Agreements were wrongly terminated by GM Canada and that GM Canada failed to comply with certain disclosure obligations, breached its statutory
duty of fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' statutory right to associate in an attempt to coerce the Plaintiff Dealers into accepting
the wind-down agreements. The Plaintiff Dealers seek damages and assert that the wind-down agreements are rescindable. The Plaintiff Dealers' initial
pleading makes reference to a claim “not exceeding” CAD $750 million, without explanation of any specific measure of damages. On March 1, 2011 the
court approved certification of a class for the purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined issues including: (1) whether GM Canada breached its
obligation of "good faith" in offering the wind-down agreements; (2) whether GM Canada interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' rights of free association; (3)
whether GM Canada was obligated to provide a disclosure statement and/or disclose more specific information regarding its restructuring plans in connection
with proffering the wind-down agreements; and (4) whether the Plaintiff Dealers can recover damages in the aggregate (as opposed to proving individual
damages). A number of former dealers opted out of participation in the litigation, leaving 181 dealers in the certified class. Trial of the class issues was
completed in the three months ended December 31, 2014. On July 8, 2015 the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the Plaintiff Dealers’ claim against GM
Canada, holding that GM Canada did not breach any common law or statutory obligations toward the class members. The court also dismissed GM Canada’s
counterclaim against the Plaintiff Dealers for repayment of the wind-down payments made to them by GM Canada as well as for other relief. All parties have
filed notices of appeal. We anticipate that the appeal will be heard in the year ending December 31, 2016.

Commencing on or about September 29, 2010 current and former hourly employees of GM Korea filed eight separate group actions in the Incheon District
Court in Incheon, Korea. The cases, which in aggregate involve more than 10,000 employees, allege that GM Korea failed to include bonuses and certain
allowances in its calculation of Ordinary Wages due under the Presidential Decree of the Korean Labor Standards Act. On November 23, 2012 the Seoul High
Court (an intermediate level appellate court) issued a decision affirming a decision of the Incheon District Court in a case involving five GM Korea
employees that was contrary
87