Fighting for Rights in the GM Bankruptcy

I’ve linked to Steve Jakubowski’s bankruptcy litigation blog several times during the auto company Chapter 11 proceedings. I think he has done an admirable job of explaining the ins and outs of the process and the peculiar considerations surrounding the auto company actions.

Now, he’s taken an activist interest in a certain issue that should concern anyone with an ounce of compassion. Specifically, the manner in which product liablilty claimants in the Chrysler bankruptcy were totally disenfranchised and the plans to do the same in the GM proceeding. Here is a part of his recent post on the matter:

Well, Howard’s rant is what a lot of panicked plaintiffs’ lawyers involved in cases against GM are screaming these days as they watch years of toil on behalf of people seriously injured by defective GM products (like crushed roofs, exploding “side saddle” gas tanks, and collapsing seat backs) potentially go for naught as GM makes its grandest attempt ever to crush an entire class of former customers and existing and future products liability claimants in a sale that many plaintiffs lawyers of record only received written notice of in the past couple of days.

Those following this blog know my rising concern (even anger) over how products liability claimants were completely stiffed in Chrysler, so much so that Howard’s famous rant came to mind!

So, I decided to do something about it, and officially stepped into the fray by filing this Objection to the GM Sale and this Memorandum in Support jointly with counsel for the Center for Auto Safety, Consumer Action, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, National Association of Consumer Advocates, and Public Citizen.

We should win; whether we do is a “horse of a different color.”

I am not a supporter of much of what the tort bar puts forth. In my opinion they have turned the practice of law into the business of law and in some cases contorted it into a racket. That being said, there are cases in which manufacturers produce deficient products that injure people. When that occurs those individuals are entitled to a hearing and they should not ever be disenfranchised either by the judiciary or the legislative branches of government.

I am frankly astounded that the Obama administration is a party to this. Not only are they stiffing one of their strongest constituencies but their action gainsays their commitment to the middle class. Apparently there is a slight robber baron pulse beating within their populist body.

I tip my hat to Mr. Jakubowski for his concern and efforts.

About Tom Lindmark 401 Articles

I’m not sure that credentials mean much when it comes to writing about things but people seem to want to see them, so briefly here are mine. I have an undergraduate degree in economics from an undistinguished Midwestern university and masters in international business from an equally undistinguished Southwestern University. I spent a number of years working for large banks lending to lots of different industries. For the past few years, I’ve been engaged in real estate finance – primarily for commercial projects. Like a lot of other finance guys, I’m looking for a job at this point in time.

Given all of that, I suggest that you take what I write with the appropriate grain of salt. I try and figure out what’s behind the news but suspect that I’m often delusional. Nevertheless, I keep throwing things out there and occasionally it sticks. I do read the comments that readers leave and to the extent I can reply to them. I also reply to all emails so feel free to contact me if you want to discuss something at more length. Oh, I also have a very thick skin, so if you disagree feel free to say so.

Enjoy what I write and let me know when I’m off base – I probably won’t agree with you but don’t be shy.

Visit: But Then What

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*