GM & Ignition Switches
My take on the Second Circuit's opinion – which Levitin has also written about (and I agree with him that the used car analysis is a bit "off") – is over on Dealb%k. In short, I think that GM mostly has itself to blame for the inability to "discharge" these claims in its chapter 11 case. But the basic point that the federal Bankruptcy Code can override state law successor liability claims remains, despite what some state (and federal) courts have previously held.
There was an excellent sale objection filed in one of the car company bankruptcies by Steve Jakubowski, on behalf of tort claimants, which pointed out that each time the Bankruptcy Code uses the word "interest" it is ordinarily plain from the context that such term does not include the word "claim," so why should in section 363(f). Still confused why that line of thinking was summarily rejected.
Posted by: Jeff Chubak | July 15, 2016 at 02:22 PM