|
 Now, with thousands of drivers suing "New GM" for the alleged loss
of value in their cars after an ignition defect sparked a massive
recall, the same judge must decide whether to lift the shield he put
in place.
GM may have the upper hand when it meets for the first time Friday
morning in Gerber's courtroom with the plaintiffs' lawyers leading
the challenge. The company asked Gerber to enforce the so-called
bankruptcy shield, in a pre-emptive move aimed at staving off dozens
of lawsuits from customers who say they took a financial hit from
the recall.
Most legal experts believe the shield is virtually iron-clad and
that Gerber would be unlikely to undo a key part of the bankruptcy
sale order he approved in 2009. But the high-stakes issue is not
necessarily a slam dunk for GM.
While evidence has already emerged that at least some GM employees
were aware of problems with the switch, GM is asking for a clear-cut
ruling declaring that it did not intentionally hide anything from
the bankruptcy court.
But plaintiffs' lawyers have prepared a multi-pronged attack,
raising questions of bankruptcy law and constitutional rights.
Additionally, if plaintiffs can prove that the company knew about
the switch problems during its bankruptcy proceedings but failed to
notify customers or the court, they may be able to convince Gerber
that the company committed fraud on the bankruptcy court. A win for
them would mean they could proceed with their lawsuits against New
GM.
A finding of fraud may not be enough for Gerber to undo the shield,
since the bankruptcy code provides only a six-month window to unwind
bankruptcy sales for fraud. However, he could find other ways to let
the lawsuits proceed.
The bankruptcy court's role in exploring GM's conduct during the
bankruptcy proceedings is unrelated to ongoing investigations by the
U.S. Department of Justice and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, which are looking specifically at potential criminal
or civil violations.
But federal officials may well take notice if Gerber identifies any
misconduct on GM's part.
Moreover, even if Gerber upholds the shield, he could rebuke GM for
any deception, adding to mounting pressure on the automaker to
settle with the thousands of customers who claim the value of their
vehicles has plummeted.
A review of Gerber's track record shows he's not above admonishing
the company for actions he considers underhanded. In a 2012 trial
stemming from the GM bankruptcy, for instance, he expressed "shock"
at revelations that GM did not tell him about a $367 million payment
to certain creditors.
THE SHIELD IS THE SWORD
When GM declared its roughly $91 billion bankruptcy in 2009,
unwanted parts of its business, including environmental and other
legal liabilities, were transferred to a shell now known as "Old
GM". Profitable assets were purchased by "New GM."
New GM did agree to inherit some potential liability claims from Old
GM, including those for injuries, property damage and wrongful
deaths that occurred after the bankruptcy, even if they involved
cars made before the bankruptcy.
But so-called economic damages, such as those related to loss of car
value, were not expressly transferred, GM argued last week in court
filings.
GM has excluded from its motion to enforce the shield any claims
related to injuries, deaths or property damage linked to the switch.
It has retained Kenneth Feinberg, the architect of high-profile
compensation funds, to explore legal options for compensating those
victims.
The company is now asking Gerber to declare that economic-damage
claims belong with Old GM, whose cash is all but dried up.
"The plaintiffs do not have the choice of simply ignoring the
court's sale order," Arthur Steinberg, a lawyer for GM, said in
court papers in April.
Plaintiffs argue the shield should not be enforced because GM
concealed the ignition defect. If plaintiffs were not aware of the
extent of the switch problems when the court imposed the protective
shield, they should not be restricted by it, they contend.
Jim Cain, a spokesman for GM, declined to comment on the Friday
hearing, which is expected to be focused on procedural matters such
as scheduling, but said in a statement that the company has
acknowledged it has "civic and legal obligations relating to
injuries that may relate to recalled vehicles."
[to top of second column] |
WHAT WILL GERBER DO?
On Friday, all eyes will be on Judge Gerber — a 14-year veteran of
the bench who is known as a thoughtful if occasionally ornery
courtroom sheriff — for any hint about his leanings on the shield
issue.
"I think we'll get an understanding of what it is Judge Gerber wants
to do," said Mark Robinson, a lead lawyer for GM plaintiffs. "That's
what everybody wants to know."
Gerber's record so far offers encouragement to both sides.
In 2012, a creditor trust sought to unwind the sale that brought GM
out of bankruptcy, citing GM's alleged failure to disclose a $367
million payment to certain hedge fund creditors. This issue is
reminiscent of current claims by plaintiffs' lawyers that GM hid key
facts from the court.
In the 2012 matter, Gerber said the revelation "wasn't just a
surprise, it was a shock."
"This matter is huge," he said at a hearing in July 2012, according
to a transcript, "and if these things had been disclosed to me then
I would have been as concerned about them then as I am now."
GM eventually settled the litigation for $50 million.
But on more straight-forward matters not involving allegations of
fraud, Gerber enforced the shield.
In a case involving allegedly faulty rear-wheel spindle rods in 2007
and 2008 Chevrolet Impalas, Gerber said that while consumers could
sue New GM to force it to honor repair obligations under Old GM's
warranty, the bankruptcy prohibited them from seeking purely
monetary damages.
GM also has another point in its favor. Court records show that
Gerber was aware in 2009 that the bankruptcy would bar claims that
were not yet known to their claimants — such as the ones now pursued
by plaintiffs who argue they could not have known about their
defective cars until after the bankruptcy.
In approving the bankruptcy terms, he wrote that established case
law in New York holds that a court "should, and indeed must, rule
that property can be sold free and clear of successor liability
claims."
Such "free and clear" sales, in which buyers do not inherit
liabilities of the sellers, are "old hat" in bankruptcy, Charles
Tabb, a bankruptcy expert and professor at the University of
Illinois College of Law, told Reuters.
FRAMING THE ARGUMENTS
Different plaintiff groups may try different tacks to get around the
liability shield, and Friday's conference is a chance for Gerber to
gauge the parties on what, exactly, they plan to allege.
Lawyer Ed Weisfelner, who represents a group of plaintiffs, said he
plans to argue that it would be unconstitutional to apply the shield
to their cases.
Wesifelner argues that the shield violates plaintiffs' due process.
Having not known their cars were defective, he said, they could not
have known they would have claims against GM, and therefore cannot
be bound by a shield to which they were not properly notified.
That argument could appeal to Gerber. In his 2009 order approving
GM's reorganization, he specified in a passage relating to asbestos
claimants that the bankruptcy shield was enforceable only "to the
fullest extent constitutionally permissible."
"The court is not of a mind to do anything that might be
constitutionally suspect," Gerber wrote.
(Reporting by Jessica Dye and Nick Brown;
editing by Eric Effron and
Ken Wills)
[© 2014 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2014 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
