XML 34 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Litigation-Related Liability and Tax Administrative Matters In the normal course of our business, we are named from time to time as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation. We identify below the material individual proceedings and investigations in connection with which we believe a material loss is reasonably possible or probable. We accrue for matters when we believe that losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. At March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017 accruals of $941 million and $930 million were recorded in Accrued liabilities and Other liabilities. In many proceedings, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even reasonably possible or to estimate the size or range of the possible loss. Accordingly an adverse outcome from such proceedings could exceed the amounts accrued by an amount that could be material to our results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period. Proceedings Related to Ignition Switch Recall and Other Recalls In 2014 we announced various recalls relating to safety and other matters. Those recalls included recalls to repair ignition switches that could under certain circumstances unintentionally move from the “run” position to the “accessory” or “off” position with a corresponding loss of power, which could in turn prevent airbags from deploying in the event of a crash. Economic-Loss Claims We are aware of over 100 putative class actions pending against GM in various courts in the U.S. and Canada alleging that consumers who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or Motors Liquidation Company (formerly known as General Motors Corporation) had been economically harmed by one or more of the 2014 recalls and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated with those recalls (economic-loss cases). In general, these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, such as alleged benefit-of-the-bargain damages or damages related to alleged diminution in value of the vehicles, as well as punitive damages, injunctive relief and other relief. Many of the pending economic-loss claims have been transferred to, and consolidated in, a single federal court, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Southern District). These plaintiffs have asserted economic-loss claims under federal and state laws, including claims relating to recalled vehicles manufactured by GM and claims asserting successor liability relating to certain recalled vehicles manufactured by Motors Liquidation Company. The Southern District has dismissed various of these claims, including claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, claims for recovery for alleged reduction in the value of plaintiffs' vehicles due to damage to GM’s reputation and brand as a result of the ignition switch matter, and claims of plaintiffs who purchased a vehicle before GM came into existence in July 2009. The Southern District also dismissed certain state law claims at issue. In August 2017 the Southern District granted our motion to dismiss the successor liability claims of plaintiffs in seven of the sixteen states at issue on the motion and called for additional briefing to decide whether Plaintiffs' claims can proceed in the other nine states. In December 2017 the Southern District granted GM's motion and dismissed successor liability claims of plaintiffs in an additional state, but found that there are genuine issues of material fact that prevent summary judgment for GM in eight other states. In January 2018, GM moved for reconsideration of certain portions of the Southern District's December 2017 summary judgment ruling. That motion was granted in April 2018, holding that plaintiffs cannot advance successor liability claims in any state where New York law applies. Personal Injury Claims We also are aware of several hundred actions pending in various courts in the U.S. and Canada alleging injury or death as a result of defects that may be the subject of the 2014 recalls (personal injury cases). In general, these cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, punitive damages and other relief. Since 2016, several bellwether trials of personal injury cases have taken place in the Southern District and in a Texas state court, which is administering a Texas state multi-district litigation (MDL). None of these trials resulted in a finding of liability against GM. We are currently preparing for two additional bellwether trials in the MDL. Appellate Litigation Regarding Successor Liability Ignition Switch Claims In 2015 the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Bankruptcy Court) issued a decision precluding claims against us based upon pre-sale accidents, claims based upon the acts or conduct by Motors Liquidation Company and claims asserting successor liability for obligations owed by Motors Liquidation Company (successor liability claims), except for claims asserting liabilities that had been expressly assumed by us in the Amended and Restated Master Sale and Purchase Agreement, and certain claims arising solely out of our own independent post-sale acts. In 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) held that the Bankruptcy Court's 2009 order approving the sale of substantially all of the assets of Motors Liquidation Company to GM free and clear of, among other things, successor liability claims could not be enforced to bar claims against GM asserted by either plaintiffs who purchased used vehicles after the sale or against purchasers who asserted claims relating to the ignition switch defect, including pre-sale personal injury claims and economic-loss claims. In 2017, the United States Supreme Court denied our petition for certiorari. Certain of these pre-sale claims were resolved through GM's Compensation Program. Plaintiffs asserting pre-sale claims related to the ignition switch defect that were not resolved by the Compensation Program must still establish their right to assert successor liability claims and demonstrate that their claims have merit. Contingently Issuable Shares Under the Amended and Restated Master Sale and Purchase Agreement between us and Motors Liquidation Company we may be obligated to issue additional shares (Adjustment Shares) of our common stock in the event that allowed general unsecured claims against the Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust (GUC Trust), as estimated by the Bankruptcy Court, exceed $35.0 billion. The maximum number of shares issuable is 30 million shares (subject to adjustment to take into account stock dividends, stock splits and other transactions). On December 31, 2017, the GUC Trust stated in public filings that allowed general unsecured claims were approximately $31.9 billion. In August 2017, a group of plaintiffs’ attorneys alleged that they had an agreement to settle “late claims” against the GUC Trust (i.e., claims filed after the deadline established by the Bankruptcy Court). Although the Bankruptcy Court ruled in January 2018 that the alleged settlement agreement was not binding or enforceable, litigation continues over whether late claims can be asserted against the GUC Trust. On April 25, 2018, the GUC Trust filed a letter with the Bankruptcy Court alleging that it had signed a settlement agreement with certain economic loss plaintiffs and certain of the ignition switch pre-closing accident plaintiffs (the parties seeking to assert late claims). Details of the settlement were not disclosed, and the GUC Trust stated that the settlement agreement would be submitted to the Bankruptcy Court for approval on or before May 2, 2018. If such late claims are allowed by the Bankruptcy Court for certain aggregate amounts sought by plaintiffs, then GM may be required to issue Adjustment Shares to the GUC Trust. We are currently unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter. Securities and Derivative Matter s In a putative shareholder class action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Eastern District) on behalf of purchasers of our common stock from November 17, 2010 to July 24, 2014, the lead plaintiff alleged that GM and several current and former officers and employees made material misstatements and omissions relating to problems with the ignition switch and other matters in SEC filings and other public statements. In 2016 the Eastern District entered a judgment approving a class-wide settlement of the class action for $300 million. One shareholder filed an appeal of the decision approving the settlement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment approving the settlement in November 2017. The objector subsequently filed petitions for rehearing and for en banc review before the entire Sixth Circuit. Both of those petitions were denied. Three shareholder derivative actions against certain current and former GM directors and officers are pending in the Eastern District. In the first two cases, which are consolidated, the parties are currently briefing a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint. The Eastern District dismissed the third action in March 2018. In addition, two derivative actions filed in the Circuit Court of Wayne County, Michigan, which have been consolidated, are also stayed pending disposition of the federal derivative actions. Government Matters In connection with the 2014 recalls, we have from time to time received subpoenas and other requests for information related to investigations by agencies or other representatives of U.S. federal, state and the Canadian governments. In March 2018, we conclusively resolved a civil action initiated by the Arizona Attorney General. GM is cooperating with all reasonable pending requests for information. Any existing governmental matters or investigations could in the future result in the imposition of damages, fines, civil consent orders, civil and criminal penalties or other remedies. Deferred Prosecution Agreement In September 2015, GM entered into the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York (U.S. Attorney's Office) regarding its investigation of the events leading up to certain recalls regarding faulty ignition switches. Pursuant to the DPA we paid the United States $900 million as a financial penalty, and we agreed to retain an independent monitor to review and assess our policies, practices or procedures related to statements about motor vehicle safety, the provision of information to those responsible for recall decisions, recall processes and addressing known defects in certified pre-owned vehicles. In addition, the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed to recommend to the Southern District that prosecution of GM on a two-count information (the Information) filed in the Southern District be deferred for three years. The U.S. Attorney's Office also agreed that if we are in compliance with all of our obligations under the DPA, the U.S. Attorney's Office will, within 30 days after the expiration of the period of deferral (including any extensions thereto), seek dismissal with prejudice of the Information. For a further description of the terms and conditions of the DPA refer to Note 17 of our 2017 Form 10-K. The total amount accrued for the 2014 recalls at March 31, 2018 reflects amounts for a combination of settled but unpaid matters, and for the remaining unsettled investigations, claims and/or lawsuits relating to the ignition switch recalls and other related recalls to the extent that such matters are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The amounts accrued for those unsettled investigations, claims, and/or lawsuits represent a combination of our best single point estimates where determinable and, where no such single point estimate is determinable, our estimate of the low end of the range of probable loss with regard to such matters, if that is determinable. We believe it is probable that we will incur additional liabilities beyond what has already been accrued for at least a portion of the remaining matters, whether through settlement or judgment; however, we are currently unable to estimate an overall amount or range of loss because these matters involve significant uncertainties, including the legal theory or the nature of the investigations, claims and/or lawsuits, the complexity of the facts, the lack of documentation available to us with respect to particular cases or groups of cases, the results of any investigation or litigation and the timing of resolution of the investigation or litigations, including any appeals. We will continue to consider resolution of pending matters involving ignition switch recalls and other recalls where it makes sense to do so. GM Korea Wage Litigation GM Korea Company (GM Korea) is party to litigation with current and former hourly employees in the appellate court and Incheon District Court in Incheon, Korea. The group actions, which in the 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 Korean regulations. In 2012 the Seoul High Court (an intermediate level appellate court) affirmed a decision in one of these group actions involving five GM Korea employees which was contrary to GM Korea's position. GM Korea appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Supreme Court). In 2014, the Supreme Court largely agreed with GM’s legal arguments and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court for consideration consistent with earlier Supreme Court precedent holding that while fixed bonuses should be included in the calculation of Ordinary Wages, claims for retroactive application of this rule would be barred under certain circumstances. In 2015, on reconsideration, the Seoul High Court held in GM Korea’s favor, after which the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not yet rendered a decision. We estimate our reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued to be approximately $600 million at March 31, 2018. Both the scope of claims asserted and GM Korea's assessment of any or all of the individual claim elements may change if new information becomes available or the legal or regulatory framework change. GM Korea is also party to litigation with current and former salaried employees over allegations relating to ordinary wages regulation and whether to include fixed bonuses in the calculation of ordinary wages. In 2017, the Seoul High Court held that certain workers are not barred from filing retroactive wage claims. GM Korea appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not yet rendered a decision. We estimate our reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued to be approximately $200 million at March 31, 2018. Both the scope of claims asserted and GM Korea's assessment of any or all of the individual claim elements may change if new information becomes available or the legal or regulatory framework change. GM Korea is also party to litigation with current and former subcontract workers over allegations that they are entitled to the same wages and benefits provided to full-time employees, and to be hired as full-time employees. At March 31, 2018, we recorded an insignificant accrual covering certain asserted claims. We estimate that the reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued for other current subcontract workers who may assert similar claims to be approximately $150 million at March 31, 2018. We have discussed with other stakeholders our concerns that any additional claims from current or former subcontract workers would significantly jeopardize the success of the viability plan we have proposed for GM Korea. We believe that the stakeholders have a strong incentive to find a solution that will not undermine the viability plan, but cannot be certain how these asserted claims and any additional claims by either current or former subcontract workers will be resolved. GM Brazil Indirect Tax Claim In March 2017 the Supreme Court of Brazil issued a decision concluding that a certain state value added tax should not be included in the calculation of federal gross receipts taxes. The decision reduces GM Brazil’s gross receipts tax prospectively and, potentially, retrospectively. The retrospective right to recover is under judicial review. If the Supreme Court of Brazil grants retrospective recovery, we estimate potential recoveries of up to $1.4 billion. However, given the remaining uncertainty regarding the ultimate judicial resolution of this matter we are unable to assess the likelihood of any favorable outcome at this time. We have not recorded any amounts relating to the retrospective nature of this matter. Other Litigation-Related Liability and Tax Administrative Matters Various other legal actions, including class actions, governmental investigations, claims and proceedings are pending against us or our related companies or joint ventures, including matters arising out of alleged product defects; employment-related matters; product and workplace safety, vehicle emissions, including CO 2 and nitrogen oxide, fuel economy, and related governmental regulations; product warranties; financial services; dealer, supplier and other contractual relationships; government regulations relating to payments to foreign companies; government regulations relating to competition issues; tax-related matters not subject to the provision of ASC 740, Income Taxes (indirect tax-related matters); product design, manufacture and performance; consumer protection laws; and environmental protection laws, including laws regulating air emissions, water discharges, waste management and environmental remediation. There are several putative class actions pending against GM in federal courts in the U.S. and in the Provincial Courts in Canada alleging that various vehicles sold including model year 2011-2016 Duramax Diesel Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra vehicles, violate federal and state emission standards. GM also faces a series of additional lawsuits based primarily on allegations in the Duramax suit, including putative shareholder class actions claiming violations of federal securities law. The securities and shareholder demand lawsuits have been voluntarily stayed by the plaintiffs. At this stage of these proceedings, we are unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or an estimate of the amounts or range of possible loss. We believe that appropriate accruals have been established for losses that are probable and can be reasonably estimated. It is possible that the resolution of one or more of these matters could exceed the amounts accrued in an amount that could be material to our results of operations. We also from time to time receive subpoenas and other inquiries or requests for information from agencies or other representatives of U.S. federal, state and foreign governments on a variety of issues. Indirect tax-related matters are being litigated globally pertaining to value added taxes, customs, duties, sales, property taxes and other non-income tax related tax exposures. The various non-U.S. labor-related matters include claims from current and former employees related to alleged unpaid wage, benefit, severance and other compensation matters. Certain administrative proceedings are indirect tax-related and may require that we deposit funds in escrow or provide an alternative form of security which may range from $250 million to $650 million at March 31, 2018. Some of the matters may involve compensatory, punitive or other treble damage claims, environmental remediation programs or sanctions that, if granted, could require us to pay damages or make other expenditures in amounts that could not be reasonably estimated at March 31, 2018. We believe that appropriate accruals have been established for losses that are probable and can be reasonably estimated. For indirect tax-related matters we estimate our reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued to be up to approximately $1.0 billion at March 31, 2018. Takata Matters In May 2016 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued an amended consent order requiring Takata to file defect information reports (DIRs) for previously unrecalled front airbag inflators that contain phased-stabilized ammonium nitrate-based propellant without a moisture absorbing desiccant on a multi-year, risk-based schedule through 2019 impacting tens of millions of vehicles produced by numerous automotive manufacturers. NHTSA concluded that the likely root cause of the rupturing of the airbag inflators is a function of time, temperature cycling and environmental moisture. Although we do not believe there is a safety defect at this time in any unrecalled GM vehicles within scope of the Takata DIRs, in cooperation with NHTSA we have filed Preliminary DIRs covering certain of our GMT900 vehicles, which are full-size pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs). We have also filed petitions for inconsequentiality with respect to the vehicles subject to those Preliminary DIRs. NHTSA has consolidated our petitions and will rule on them at the same time. While these petitions have been pending, we have provided NHTSA with the results of our long-term studies and the studies performed by third-party experts, all of which form the basis for our determination that the inflators in these vehicles do not present an unreasonable risk to safety and that no repair should ultimately be required. We believe these vehicles are currently performing as designed and ongoing testing continues to support the belief that the vehicles' unique design and integration mitigates against inflator propellant degradation and rupture risk. For example, the airbag inflators used in the vehicles are a variant engineered specifically for our vehicles, and include features such as greater venting, unique propellant wafer configurations, and machined steel end caps. The inflators are packaged in the instrument panel in such a way as to minimize exposure to moisture from the climate control system. Also, these vehicles have features that minimize the maximum temperature to which the inflator will be exposed, such as larger interior volumes and standard solar absorbing windshields and side glass. Accordingly, no warranty provision has been made for any repair associated with our vehicles subject to the Preliminary DIRs and amended consent order. However, in the event we are ultimately obligated to repair the vehicles subject to current or future Takata DIRs under the amended consent order in the U.S., we estimate a reasonably possible impact to GM of approximately $1.0 billion. GM is engaged in discussions with regulators outside the U.S. with respect to Takata inflators. There are significant differences in vehicle and inflator design between the relevant vehicles sold internationally and those sold in the U.S. We continue to gather and analyze evidence about these inflators and to share our findings with regulators. We were required to recall certain vehicles sold outside of the U.S. in the three months ended March 31, 2018 to replace Takata inflators in these vehicles. Additional recalls, if any, could be material to our results of operations and cash flows. We continue to monitor the international situation. Through April 17, 2018 we are aware of three putative class actions pending against GM in federal court in the U.S., one putative class action in Mexico and three putative class actions pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada arising out of allegations that airbag inflators manufactured by Takata are defective. At this early stage of these proceedings, we are unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or an estimate of the amounts or range of possible loss. Product Liability With respect to product liability claims (other than claims relating to the ignition switch recalls discussed above) involving our and General Motors Corporation products, we believe that any judgment against us for actual damages will be adequately covered by our recorded accruals and, where applicable, excess liability insurance coverage. In addition we indemnify dealers for certain product liability related claims including products sold by General Motors Corporation's dealers. At March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017 liabilities of $576 million and $595 million were recorded in Accrued liabilities and Other liabilities for the expected cost of all known product liability claims plus an estimate of the expected cost for product liability claims that have already been incurred and are expected to be filed in the future for which we are self-insured. It is reasonably possible that our accruals for product liability claims may increase in future periods in material amounts, although we cannot estimate a reasonable range of incremental loss based on currently available information. Guarantees We enter into indemnification agreements for liability claims involving products manufactured primarily by certain joint ventures. We also provide vehicle repurchase guarantees and payment guarantees on commercial loans outstanding with third parties such as dealers. These guarantees terminate in years ranging from 2018 to 2032 or upon the occurrence of specific events or are ongoing. We believe that the related potential costs incurred are adequately covered and our recorded accruals are insignificant. The maximum liability, calculated as future undiscounted payments, was $5.1 billion for these guarantees at March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, the majority of which relate to the indemnification agreements. In some instances certain assets of the party whose debt or performance we have guaranteed may offset, to some degree, the amount of certain guarantees. Our payables to the party whose debt or performance we have guaranteed may also reduce the amount of certain guarantees. If vehicles are required to be repurchased under vehicle repurchase obligations, the total exposure would be reduced to the extent vehicles are able to be resold to another dealer. We periodically enter into agreements that incorporate indemnification provisions in the normal course of business. It is not possible to estimate our maximum exposure under these indemnifications or guarantees due to the conditional nature of these obligations. Insignificant amounts have been recorded for such obligations as the majority of them are not probable or estimable at this time and the fair value of the guarantees at issuance was insignificant.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments, contingencies, and guarantees. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2155896 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsContingenciesAndGuaranteesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration