Today, the president of GM Europe (the European arm of General Motors Corp. (GM)), Carl-Peter Forster, stated that GM Europe was “working hard to adapt [its] European business according to the [restructuring] plan” submitted by GM to the U.S.

Everyday, most of us in the United States encounter evidence of relentless economic globalization. Gone are the days when American-brand automobiles dominated our roads. As a result of NAFTA, fresh Mexican produce fills the shelves of our local supermarkets. You are perhaps just as likely to fly overseas on Japan Air Lines, Aer Lingus or Lufthansa as on Northwest-Delta, American or United.

In the course of fewer than 60 days this summer, the North American automotive industry was fundamentally reorganized and restructured as both General Motors and Chrysler reorganized under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Ford was the only one of the “Big 3” not involved in a Court-driven restructuring. Both General Motors and Chrysler, of course, had and indeed continue to have substantial operations in Canada and the Canadian operations were a critical part of the overall restructuring of both companies.

Estas herramientas pueden emplearse, en cuanto sea adecuado y conveniente, para promover y dinamizar el mercado de compraventa de compañías en dificultades.

Dos de los pilares más importantes del régimen de insolvencia son la protección del crédito y la conservación de la empresa como unidad de explotación económica y fuente generadora de empleo, siempre bajo el criterio de agregación de valor. Así lo reconoce la Ley 1116 del 2006 y las legislaciones de un sinnúmero de jurisdicciones.

As many of you know, on December 19, 2011, Saab Automobile AB and affiliated companies filed for bankruptcy in Sweden. The company issued a bulletin to its dealers that same day, announcing that it immediately suspended processing and payment of all claims, and it is suspending warranty coverage on all new Saab vehicles. What does this mean for dealers? Every dealer’s situation is different, and each dealer will have to evaluate its own circumstances based on consultation with an attorney.

Highlighting a potential shortcoming in some attempts to transfer environmental liability in bankruptcy proceedings, a federal court in New York found common law liability for environmental contamination was not covered by a release of “Environmental Law” liability. See In re: Motors Liquidation Company, et al., BANKR No.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn recently decided that a fully-negotiated agreement would not be enforced in the absence of required signatures. The agreement contemplated a settlement between the General Motors bankruptcy trust and car purchasers and accident victims of General Motors cars following an alleged vehicle defect; both parties fully and unambiguously agreed to be bound by the terms of the agreement.

The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in In re Motors Liquidation Company is yet the latest case to show the difficulty in using the bankruptcy process to resolve tort claims.[1]

The Background Basics

The Second Circuit’s recent opinion in The Matter of: Motors Liquidation Company, 2016 WL 3766237 (2^nd Cir. 2016) should give pause to all buyers of assets from bankruptcy estates.

Borrowers, agent banks, syndicate members and secondary market purchasers incur, syndicate, sell and buy bank debt on the assumption that bank debt is not a “security.” However, a June 30, 2016, opinion in the General Motors preference litigation¹shows that such an assumption may no longer be valid, at least under the Bankruptcy Code.