Judges go by "greater economic good" v. "the law?"Submitted by mdefarge on Wed, 05/07/2014 - 12:56
Apparently General Motors' bankruptcy terms disallowed suits from before the "new" company was formed. But regarding the ignition problem and related casualties, *if* the company was aware of the problem (and likelihood of lawsuits) beforehand and withheld information, that could constitute fraud. It seems it will be a matter of who knew what and when. But, as reported in the New York Times - Hoping to Fend Off Suits, G.M. Is to Return to Bankruptcy Court - how does this then figure in?
"The two lead lawyers representing G.M. in its motion to enforce the bankruptcy order did not return phone calls. But outside lawyers say the company may still have the upper hand. There is a generally accepted feeling that judges do not like to tamper with sales or restructuring plans and that the greater economic good of this one — which has been credited not only with saving the company, but also preventing the American economy from sinking deeper into recession — may be paramount."
So that means, even if GM was aware of the problem with the faulty switch and withheld information, i.e., committed fraud, it could maybe still be tough luck on the victims and their families because of some greater economic good? If I'm missing something, someone kindly explain it to me.
P.S. I think it's relevant, and I can't resist the opportunity regardless, to highlight GM's commitment to America. (Ha, ha.) Here's a post-bailout clip of Dan Akerson (CEO until recently) at a 2011 press conference in China: "Our commitment to working in China, with China, for China, remains strong and focused on the future."
"General Motors is becoming China Motors"