Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Andrew Sorkin of The New York Times indicated that GM and Chrysler pay $10–20 more per hour than transplants; this was vigorously disputed by David Cole of the Center for Automotive Research. [21] [22] Average annual wages for production workers at the Big Three were $67,480 in 2007, and $81,940 for skilled workers.
As part of a reorganization plan agreed to with the U.S., Canadian and Ontario governments, and the company's unions, General Motors filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in a federal Manhattan court in New York on June 1, 2009, at approximately 8:00 am, planning to re-emerge as a less debt-burdened organization. [13]
The Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry was an ad hoc group of United States cabinet-level and other officials that was formed by President Barack Obama to deal with the financial bailout of automakers Chrysler and General Motors.
General Motors Corp. (GM) and Chrysler have received $17.4 billion in U.S. funds (so far), which they received only after much congressional teeth gnashing. Meanwhile, American International Group ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
When California raised its own standards, the auto companies sued. [99] [100] The Big Three received funding for a $25 billion government loan during October 2008 to help them re-tool their factories to meet new fuel-efficiency standards of at least 35 mpg ‑US (6.7 L/100 km; 42 mpg ‑imp) by 2020. The $25 billion in loans from the Department ...
General Motors' attorneys, however, preferred to file in the federal courts in New York, because those courts have a reputation for expertise in bankruptcy. [5] In a press conference that began four hours and eighteen minutes after the filing, the GM Chief Executive Officer, Fritz Henderson , stressed that he intended for the bankruptcy process ...
In Dec 2008, Congress declined to authorize the Auto industry bailout bill. [1] The defendant (U.S. Government) asked to allow the bankruptcy plan to proceed, noting that the needs of the economy outweigh the needs of the deal's detractors. Government lawyers defended the use of funds from TARP and argued that Indiana's appeal lacked legal merit.