XML 34 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2020
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 where 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 June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, we had accruals of $1.2 billion and $1.3 billion in Accrued liabilities and Other liabilities. In many matters, it is inherently difficult to determine whether loss is probable or reasonably possible or to estimate the size or range of the possible loss. Accordingly, adverse outcomes 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. Appellate Litigation Regarding Successor Liability Ignition Switch Claims In 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the 2009 order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Bankruptcy Court) approving the sale of substantially all of the assets of Motors Liquidation Company (MLC), formerly known as General Motors Corporation, to GM free and clear of, among other things, claims asserting successor liability for obligations owed by MLC 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. Economic-Loss Claims We are aware of ove r 100 putative class actions that were filed against GM in U.S. and Canadian courts alleging that consumers who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or MLC 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 U.S. 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 MLC. 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 the plaintiffs' successor liability claims 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, dismissing plaintiffs' successor liability claims in any state where New York law applies. In September 2018, the Southern District granted our motion to dismiss claims for lost personal time (in 41 out of 47 jurisdictions) and certain unjust enrichment claims, but denied our motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ economic loss claims in 27 jurisdictions under the "manifest defect" rule. In August 2019, the Southern District granted our motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ economic loss “benefit of the bargain” damage claims (the August 2019 Opinion). The Southern District held that plaintiffs’ conjoint analysis-based damages model failed to establish that plaintiffs suffered difference-in-value damages and without such evidence, plaintiffs’ difference-in-value damage claims fail under the laws of all three bellwether states: California, Missouri and Texas. Later in August 2019, the bellwether plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the Southern District reconsider its summary judgment decision or allow an interlocutory appeal if reconsideration is denied. In December 2019, the Southern District denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the August 2019 Opinion, but granted the plaintiffs' motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal. On April 1, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (the Second Circuit) granted the bellwether plaintiffs' petition seeking leave to appeal the August 2019 Opinion. On April 15, 2020, the bellwether plaintiffs and GM filed a Stipulation to withdraw the appeal from the Second Circuit based on the class settlement agreement described below. Pursuant to the Stipulation, the bellwether plaintiffs can reinstate the appeal no later than April 2021. The Second Circuit endorsed the Stipulation by order on April 16, 2020. In September 2019, GM filed an updated motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ remaining economic loss claims that were not addressed in the Southern District’s August 2019 Opinion and renewed its evidentiary motion seeking to strike the opinions of plaintiff’s expert on plaintiffs’ alleged “lost time” damages associated with having the recall repairs performed. In March 2020, GM, plaintiffs and the MLC GUC Trust (GUC Trust) reached a settlement agreement (Class Settlement Agreement) to resolve on a national basis the economic loss claims of the proposed settlement class and proposed sub-classes, consisting of consumers who purchased or leased GM vehicles covered by the seven 2014 safety recalls at issue in the Southern District and the Bankruptcy Court. The proposed Class Settlement Agreement provides a common fund of approximately $120 million for settlement class members, of which GM will fund approximately $70 million and the GUC Trust will fund the remaining $50 million. GM will also pay attorneys’ fees and costs that may be awarded by the Southern District to plaintiffs’ counsel up to a maximum of $35 million. In April 2020, the Avoidance Action Trust (AAT), GM and plaintiffs reached a tentative settlement under which the AAT will pay an insignificant amount and will be added as a settling party to the Class Settlement Agreement. During April and May 2020, the Southern District entered orders granting preliminary approval of the Class Settlement Agreement. The deadline for class members to object to or opt-out of the Class Settlement Agreement is October 2020. The final fairness hearing is set for December 2020. Contingently Issuable Shares Under the Amended and Restated Master Sale and Purchase Agreement between GM and MLC, GM was obligated to issue additional shares (Adjustment Shares) of our common stock if allowed general unsecured claims against the GUC Trust, as estimated by the Bankruptcy Court, exceed $35.0 billion. In March 2020, in conjunction with the Class Settlement Agreement, the GUC Trust filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court seeking approval to enter into and take actions necessary to execute the Class Settlement Agreement, and seeking Bankruptcy Court authorization permitting the GUC Trust to distribute $300 million of GUC Trust assets to its unitholders and entry into a mutual release agreement with GM that would release GM from any and all claims, including any that would require GM to issue any Adjustment Shares. Bankruptcy Court approval of the GUC Trust motion is a condition precedent to preliminary approval of the Class Settlement Agreement by the Southern District. In April 2020, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the GUC Trust's motion in its entirety. In May 2020, the approval and the mutual release agreement became binding and enforceable and GM was fully released from its potential Adjustment Shares obligation. 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/or 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. None of these trials resulted in a finding of liability against GM. 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. 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. The total amount accrued for the 2014 recalls at June 30, 2020 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 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 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 (Korean Supreme Court). In 2014, the Korean Supreme Court largely agreed with GM’s legal arguments and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court for consideration consistent with earlier Korean 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 Korean Supreme Court. In July 2020, the Korean Supreme Court held in GM Korea's favor. In light of this decision, we believe the probability that we will incur a material loss is remote and we estimate our loss in excess of amounts accrued is insignificant at June 30, 2020. 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 Korean Supreme Court. The Korean Supreme Court has not yet rendered a decision. We estimate our reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued to be approximately $170 million at June 30, 2020. 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 frameworks 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. In May 2018, the Korean labor authorities issued an adverse administrative order finding that GM Korea must hire certain current subcontract workers as full-time employees. GM Korea appealed that order, and in June 2020, the Seoul High Court ruled against GM Korea. GM Korea has appealed this decision to the Korean Supreme Court. At June 30, 2020, our accrual covering certain asserted claims and claims that we believe are probable of assertion and for which liability is probable was approximately $190 million. We estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued for other current subcontract workers who may assert similar claims to be approximately $110 million at June 30, 2020. We are currently unable to estimate any possible loss or range of loss that may result from additional claims that may be asserted by former subcontract workers. GM Brazil Indirect Tax Claim In 2019, the Superior Court of Brazil rendered favorable decisions on three cases brought by GM Brazil challenging whether a certain state value-added tax should be included in the calculation of federal gross receipt s taxes. Those decisions granted the Company the right to recover, through offset of federal tax liabilities, certain amounts collected by the government between August 2001 and February 2017. As a result, GM Brazil recorded pre-tax recoveries of $380 million and $1.2 billion in Automotive and other cost of sales in the three and six months ended June 30, 2019. We recorded a total of $1.4 billion in pre-tax recoveries i n Automotive and other cost of sales in the year ended December 31, 2019. Realization of these recoveries depends on the timing of administrative approvals and generation of federal tax liabilities eligible for offset. The Brazilian IRS has filed a Motion of Clarification on this matter with the Brazilian Supreme Court, which motion is awaiting decision as of the time of this disclosure. In addition, we expect third parties to make claims on some or all of the pre-tax recoveries, against which GM intends to defend. 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 and fuel economy regulations; product warranties; financial services; dealer, supplier and other contractual relationships; government regulations relating to competition issues; tax-related matters not subject to the provision of Accounting Standards Codification 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 from stationary sources. There ar e several putat ive class actions pending against GM in federal courts in the U.S., in the Provincial Courts in Canada and in Israel alleging that various vehicles sold, including model year 2011-2016 Duramax Diesel Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra vehicles, violate federal, state and foreign emission standards. We are unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions. GM has also faced a series of additional lawsuits in the U.S. based on these allegations, including putative shareholder class actions claiming violations of federal securities law and a shareholder demand lawsuit. The securities lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs in those actions. 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. 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 b e reasonably estimated at June 30, 2020. 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 $700 million at June 30, 2020. 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. 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 $1.2 billion. GM has recalled cer tain vehicles sold outside of the U.S. to replace Takata inflators in those vehicles. 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. Additional recalls, if any, could be material to our results of operations and cash flows. We continue to monitor the international situation. There are several putative class actions that have been filed against GM, including in the federal courts in the U.S., in the Provincial Courts in Canada, and in Mexico and Israel, ar ising 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. Opel/Vauxhall Sale In 2017 we sold the Opel and Vauxhall businesses and certain other assets in Europe (the Opel/Vauxhall Business) to PSA Group. We also sold the European financing subsidiaries and branches (the Fincos, and together with the Opel/Vauxhall Business, the European Business) to Banque PSA Finance S.A. and BNP Paribas Personal Finance S.A. Our wholly owned subsidiary (the Seller) agreed to indemnify PSA Group for certain losses resulting from any inaccuracy of the representations and warranties or breaches of our covenants included in the Master Agreement (the Agreement) and for certain other liabilities, including certain emissions and product liabilities. The Company entered into a guarantee for the benefit of PSA Group and pursuant to which the Company agreed to guarantee the Seller's obligation to indemnify PSA Group. Certain of these indemnification obligations are subject to time limitations, thresholds and/or caps as to the amount of required payments. Although the sale reduced our new vehicle presence in Europe, we may still be impacted by actions taken by regulators related to vehicles sold before the sale. In Germany, the Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt (KBA) issued an order in November 2019, which converted a voluntary recall initiated by Opel in 2017 and 2018 into a mandatory recall for allegedly failing to comply with certain emissions regulations. However, because the overwhelming majority of vehicles have already received KBA-approved software calibration updates pursuant to the voluntary recall, the number of vehicles subject to the mandatory recall is insignificant. The Seller may also be obligated to indemnify PSA Group or otherwise absorb costs and expenses resulting from the foregoing as well as certain related potential litigation costs, settlements, judgments and potential fines. In addition, at the KBA's request, the German authorities re-opened a separate criminal investigation related to this matter that had previously been closed with no action. We are unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter. Transactions with PSA We continue to purchase from and supply to PSA Group certain vehicles, parts and engineering services for a period of time following the sale. The following table summarizes transactions with the Opel/Vauxhall Business:
| Three Months Ended |  |  |  | Six Months Ended |  |
| June 30, 2020 |  | June 30, 2019 |  | June 30, 2020 |  | June 30, 2019
Net sales and revenue(a) | $ | 8 |  |  | $ | 441 |  |  | $ | 61 |  |  | $ | 868 |
Purchases and expenses(a) | $ | 56 |  |  | $ | 213 |  |  | $ | 204 |  |  | $ | 405 |
Cash payments(b) |  |  |  |  | $ | 458 |  |  | $ | 616 |
Cash receipts(b) |  |  |  |  | $ | 177 |  |  | $ | 1,057 |
__________ (a)Included in Net income (loss). (b)Included in Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities. Product Liability We recorded liabilitie s of $562 million an d $544 million in Accrued liabilities and Other liabilities at June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019 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. Other than claims relating to the ignition switch recalls discussed above, we believe that any judgment against us involving our and MLC products for actual damages will be adequately covered by our recorded accruals and, where applicable, excess liability insurance coverage. Guarantees We enter into indemnification agreements for liabili ty claims involving products manufactured primarily by certain joint ventures. These guarantees terminate in years ranging from 2020 to 2025 or upon the occurrence of specific events or are ongoing. We believe that the related potential costs incurred are adequately covered by our recorded accruals, which are insignificant. The maximum future undiscounted payments mainly based on vehicles sold to date were $3.1 billion and $2.6 billion for these guarantees at June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the majority of which relates to the indemnification agreements. We provide payment guarantees on commercial loans outstanding with third parties such as dealers. In some instances, certain assets of the party or our payables to the party whose debt or performance we have guaranteed may offset, to some degree, the amount of any potential future payments. We are also exposed to residual value guarantees associated with certain sales to rental car companies. We p eriodically 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. Refer to the Opel/Vauxhall Sale section of this note for additional information on our indemnification obligations to PSA Group under the Agreement.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2155896 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 3: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsContingenciesAndGuaranteesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration