IBJNews

GM ignition-defect recall delay investigated by Indiana

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

General Motors Co.’s delayed decision to recall almost 2.6 million cars for ignition-switch defects is being investigated by Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller, a spokeswoman for his office said.

GM has acknowledged 13 deaths tied to the defect, which can cut power to the vehicles’ steering and brakes and prevent airbags from deploying in a crash. Company executives were aware of the defect for at least a decade before the recall.

“We are investigating the matter and the investigation is ongoing,” Jaime Barb, a spokeswoman for Zoeller, said Wednesday in an e-mailed statement.

The Detroit-based company last week fired 15 people it said played a role in the recall delay immediately after it released the results of an internal investigation led by former Chicago U.S. Attorney Anton Valukas, now chairman of the law firm Jenner & Block LLC.

GM faces about 85 federal lawsuits filed by car owners claiming their vehicles lost value as a result of the recall and more claims over injuries and deaths attributed to crashes.

Federal judges two days ago transferred the economic-loss cases filed across the nation to U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in New York. He will preside over pretrial litigation and disclosure of evidence.

James Cain, a spokesman for the company, declined Wednesday to comment immediately on the Indiana investigation.

In an April filing with the SEC, GM said it was the subject of “various inquiries, investigations, subpoenas and requests for information” from the office of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in New York, Congress, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and one state’s attorney general.

The company said it was cooperating fully in those probes and that they might “result in the imposition of damages, fines or civil and criminal penalties.”

ADVERTISEMENT

  • WASTE
    What a waste of time and money by Indiana. Congress is already doing this.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT