Commitments and Contingencies

The following tables summarize information related to Commitments and contingencies (dollars in millions):



	June 30, 2014				December 31, 2013
	Liability Recorded		Maximum Liability(a)		Liability Recorded		Maximum Liability(a)
Guarantees
Third party commercial loans and other obligations(b)	$	18	$	2,982	$	51	$	15,616
Other product-related claims	$	56	$	1,403	$	54	$	1,317

________


(a)	Calculated as future undiscounted payments.


(b)	Includes liabilities recorded of $3 million and $10 million and maximum liabilities of $2.8 billion and $15.3 billion related to Ally Financial repurchase obligations at June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013.



	Liability Recorded
	June 30, 2014		December 31, 2013
Other litigation-related liability and tax administrative matters	$	1,343	$	1,227
Product liability	$	726	$	690
Ignition switch recall compensation program	$	400	$	—
Environmental liability	$	143	$	154

Guarantees

We provide payment guarantees on commercial loans outstanding with third parties such as dealers or rental car companies. We determined the fair value ascribed to the guarantees at inception and subsequent to inception to be insignificant based on the credit worthiness of the third parties. In March 2014 a new agreement was signed with Ally Financial that removed the repurchase obligation for vehicles invoiced after December 31, 2013. The existing repurchase obligation for vehicles invoiced prior to December 31, 2013 is maintained until December 31, 2014 at which time repurchase obligations will expire for all vehicles.

We have agreements with third parties that guarantee the fulfillment of certain suppliers' commitments and other obligations. These guarantees expire in 2014 through 2019 or are ongoing, or upon the occurrence of specific events.

In some instances certain assets of the party whose debt or performance we have guaranteed may offset, to some degree, the cost of the guarantee. The offset of certain of our payables to guaranteed parties may also offset certain guarantees, if triggered. If vehicles are required to be repurchased under vehicle repurchase obligations, the total exposure would be reduced to the extent vehicles are able to be resold to another dealer.

In connection with certain divestitures of assets or operating businesses, we have entered into agreements indemnifying certain buyers and other parties with respect to environmental conditions and other closure costs pertaining to real property we owned. We periodically 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.

In addition to the guarantees and indemnifying agreements previously discussed, we indemnify dealers for certain product liability related claims as subsequently discussed.

With respect to other product-related claims involving products manufactured by certain joint ventures, we believe that costs incurred are adequately covered by recorded accruals. These guarantees terminate in years ranging from 2020 to 2028.

Other Litigation-Related Liability and Tax Administrative Matters

Various legal actions, governmental investigations, claims and proceedings are pending against us including matters arising out of alleged product defects; employment-related matters; governmental regulations relating to safety, emissions and fuel economy; product warranties; financial services; dealer, supplier and other contractual relationships; tax-related matters not recorded pursuant to Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 740, "Income Taxes" (indirect tax-related matters) and environmental matters.

With regard to the litigation matters discussed in the previous paragraph, reserves have been established for matters in which we believe that losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated, the majority of which are associated with indirect tax-related matters as well as non-U.S. labor-related matters. 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 South American administrative proceedings are indirect tax-related and may require that we deposit funds in escrow. Escrow deposits may range from $500 million to $700 million. 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 be reasonably estimated at June 30, 2014. We believe that appropriate accruals have been established for such matters based on information currently available. Reserves for litigation losses are recorded in Accrued liabilities and Other liabilities and deferred income taxes. Litigation is inherently unpredictable however; and unfavorable resolutions could occur. Accordingly it is possible that an adverse outcome from such proceedings could exceed the amounts accrued in an amount that could be material to our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows in any particular reporting period.

Proceedings Related to Ignition Switch Recall

In the three months ended March 31, 2014 we announced a recall to repair ignition switches that under certain circumstances could unintentionally move from the “run” position to the “accessory” or “off” position with a corresponding loss of power, which in turn may prevent front airbags from deploying in the event of a crash. The recall includes approximately 2.6 million Chevrolet Cobalt, HHR, Pontiac G5, Pursuit, Solstice, and Saturn ION and Sky vehicles.

Through July 23, 2014 we are aware of 95 putative class actions that have been filed against GM in various U.S. District Courts and state courts since the recall announcement alleging that consumers have been economically harmed by the recall and/or the underlying vehicle condition. In the aggregate, these cases seek recovery for compensatory damages, including for alleged diminution in value of the vehicles, punitive damages and injunctive and other relief. Most, but not all, of these lawsuits are pending in federal court. Additionally, through July 23, 2014, eight putative class actions have been filed in various Provincial Courts in Canada seeking similar relief. In June 2014 the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that 15 of the then pending U.S. federal lawsuits involving ignition switches be transferred to and consolidated in a single federal court, the Southern District of New York. To date, more than 100 cases (including personal injury cases) have been transferred and consolidated in that same court, and GM has requested that various other recently filed federal lawsuits also be transferred and consolidated with those same actions. Because the majority of plaintiffs in these actions are suing over vehicles manufactured by pre-bankruptcy General Motors Corporation, GM will seek to enforce the terms of the federal Bankruptcy Court’s July 2009 Sale Order and Injunction to preclude liability for any economic loss damages based on vehicles and parts manufactured prior to July 2009. These cases are in their very early stages. No discovery has yet taken place.

Through July 23, 2014 we are aware of two actions that have been filed against GM alleging that GM’s purported concealment of the ignition switch and other defects that have been the subject of recalls in 2014 has diminished the value of other GM vehicles and seeking economic damages under California consumer protection statutes. One of these actions is a putative class action that has been consolidated with the ignition switch putative class actions and transferred to the Southern District of New York. The other action was brought by the Orange County, California district attorney and is pending in California state court. In the aggregate these actions seek recovery under California consumer protection statutes for economic damages as well as civil penalties, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

On March 21, 2014 a putative shareholder class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against GM and various current and former officers of GM (Pio v. General Motors Company et al.) on behalf of purchasers of GM securities from November 17, 2010 through March 10, 2014. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misstatements and omissions relating to problems with the ignition switch in SEC filings. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest and attorneys’ fees and costs. Four shareholders have filed motions seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff in this putative class action. After the court rules on those motions and appoints a lead plaintiff, we anticipate the lead plaintiff will file an amended complaint that may include allegations different from those in the current complaint.

On March 28, 2014 a shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against certain current and former GM directors (Hockstein v. Barra, et al.). The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment by GM’s directors in connection with monitoring, remediation and disclosure of the issues underlying the ignition switch recall. Between April 9, 2014 and July 22, 2014 seven other similar shareholder derivative actions were filed in the Eastern District of Michigan (Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Barra, et al.), the Circuit Court for Wayne County, Michigan (Bekkerman v. Barra, et al., Wietschiner, et al. v. Barra, et al.) the Chancery Court for the State of Delaware (Nash v. Barra, et al., DiStefano v. Barra, et al., Newspaper and Magazine Employees Union v. Barra, et al., Boso v. Solso, et al.). All of these actions seek damages allegedly resulting from defendants’ failure to timely identify, correct and disclose the ignition switch defect, an order compelling implementation of various corporate governance policies and practices, and other relief purportedly for the benefit of GM.

Through July 23, 2014 we are aware of 26 actions pending against GM alleging injury or death as a result of faulty ignition switches and/or the failure of air bags to properly deploy due to faulty ignition switches. Of these actions eight have been transferred to federal court in the Southern District of New York, three are the subject of GM’s motion to consolidate and transfer to a single state court in Texas, and 15 are pending in various other federal and state courts throughout the country. These actions generally assert that GM intentionally and fraudulently concealed facts relating to faulty ignition switches and related defects from plaintiffs, the public and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) over a lengthy period. These complaints assert various causes of action under federal and state law, including strict products liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty, fraud and fraudulent concealment, and Federal and Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Acts and seek compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Through July 23, 2014 we are aware of six actions pending against GM alleging injury or death as a result of inadvertent ignition key rotation and/or failure of air bags to properly deploy as a result of inadvertent ignition key rotation. Of these actions, two have been transferred to federal court in the Southern District of New York, one is pending in federal court in the Southern District of Texas, two are pending in Texas state court and one is pending in Indiana state court. In the aggregate these actions assert that GM intentionally and fraudulently concealed facts relating to the inadvertent ignition key rotation and related defects from plaintiffs, the public and NHTSA over a lengthy period. These complaints assert various causes of action under federal and state law, including strict products liability, negligence, breach of implied warranties, fraud and fraudulent concealment and seek compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

We are also subject to product liability claims associated with recently announced recalls, none of which we believe to be individually material. The number of product liability claims we receive may be higher as a result of the recently announced recalls.

GM intends to vigorously defend all of these actions.

We are also the subject of various inquiries, investigations, subpoenas and requests for information from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, Congress, the SEC, Transport Canada and 45 state attorney generals in connection with our recent recalls. We are investigating these matters internally and believe we are cooperating fully with all requests. Such investigations could in the future result in the imposition of material damages, fines or civil and criminal penalties.

We are currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for the lawsuits and investigations because these matters involve significant uncertainties at these early stages. These uncertainties include the legal theory or the nature of the claims as well as the complexity of the facts. Although we cannot estimate a reasonable range of loss based on currently available information, the resolution of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

GM Korea Wage Litigation

Commencing on or about September 29, 2010 current and former hourly employees of GM Korea filed eight separate group actions in the Incheon District Court in Incheon, Korea. The cases, which in 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 the Presidential Decree of the Korean Labor Standards Act. On November 23, 2012 the Seoul High Court (an intermediate level appellate court) issued a decision affirming a decision of the Incheon District Court in a case 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 (Supreme Court) and initiated a constitutional challenge to the adverse interpretation of the relevant statute. In December 2013 the Supreme Court rendered a decision in a case involving another company not affiliated with us which addressed many of the issues presented in the cases pending against GM Korea and resolved many of them in a manner which we believe is favorable to GM Korea. In particular, while the Supreme Court held that fixed bonuses should be included in the calculation of Ordinary Wages, it also held that claims for retroactive application of this rule would be barred under certain circumstances. On May 29, 2014 the Supreme Court rendered its decision with respect to the case involving the five GM Korea employees and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court consistent with its December 2013 ruling. At June 30, 2014 we have an accrual of 79 billion South Korean Won (equivalent to $78 million) related to these cases. We estimate our reasonably possible loss, as defined by ASC 450, “Contingencies,” in excess of amounts accrued to be 591 billion South Korean Won (equivalent to $584 million) at June 30, 2014. We are also party to litigation with current and former salaried employees over allegations relating to Ordinary Wages regulation. At June 30, 2014 we have identified a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount of our accrual of 159 billion South Korean Won (equivalent to $157 million). 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. These cases are currently pending before various district courts in Korea and the Supreme Court.

GMCL Dealers' Claim

On February 12, 2010 a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL) on behalf of a purported class of over 200 former GMCL dealers (the Plaintiff Dealers) which had entered into wind-down agreements with GMCL. In May 2009 in the context of the global restructuring of the business and the possibility that GMCL might be required to initiate insolvency proceedings, GMCL offered the Plaintiff Dealers the wind-down agreements to assist with their exit from the GMCL dealer network and to facilitate winding down their operations in an orderly fashion by December 31, 2009 or such other date as GMCL approved but no later than on October 31, 2010. The Plaintiff Dealers allege that the Dealer Sales and Service Agreements were wrongly terminated by GMCL and that GMCL failed to comply with certain disclosure obligations, breached its statutory duty of fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' statutory right to associate in an attempt to coerce the Plaintiff Dealers into accepting the wind-down agreements. The Plaintiff Dealers seek damages and assert that the wind-down agreements are rescindable. The Plaintiff Dealers' initial pleading makes reference to a claim “not exceeding” Canadian Dollar $750 million, without explanation of any specific measure of damages. On March 1, 2011 the court approved certification of a class for the purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined issues including: (1) whether GMCL breached its obligation of "good faith" in offering the wind-down agreements; (2) whether GMCL interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' rights of free association; (3) whether GMCL was obligated to provide a disclosure statement and/or disclose more specific information regarding its restructuring plans in connection with proffering the wind-down agreements; and (4) assuming liability, whether the Plaintiff Dealers can recover damages in the aggregate (as opposed to proving individual damages). A number of former dealers have opted out of participation in the litigation, leaving 181 dealers in the certified class. Trial of the class issues is scheduled to commence in the third quarter of 2014. The current prospects for liability are uncertain, but because liability is not deemed probable we have no accrual relating to this litigation. We cannot estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in the event of liability as the case presents a variety of different legal theories, none of which GMCL believes are valid.

UAW Claim

On April 6, 2010 the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agriculture Implement Workers of America (UAW) filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan claiming that we breached an obligation to contribute $450 million to the UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust. The UAW alleges that we were contractually required to make this contribution. On December 10, 2013 the court granted our motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims asserted by the UAW, holding that the relevant agreement is unambiguous and does not require the payment sought. The UAW has appealed. At this juncture we believe the prospects for liability on the claims asserted in this matter are remote.

Product Liability

With respect to product liability claims involving our and General Motors Corporation products, we believe that any judgment against us for actual damages will be adequately covered by our recorded accruals and, where applicable, excess liability insurance coverage. Although punitive damages are claimed in some of these lawsuits and such claims are inherently unpredictable, accruals incorporate historic experience with these types of claims. In addition we indemnify dealers for certain product liability related claims including products sold by General Motors Corporation. We monitor actual claims experience and make periodic adjustments to our estimates. In light of recent vehicle recalls 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.

Liabilities have been recorded in Accrued liabilities and Other liabilities and deferred income taxes 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.

Ignition Switch Recall Compensation Program

In the three months ended June 30, 2014 we announced the creation of a compensation program (the Program) to compensate accident victims who died or suffered physical injury (or their families) as a result of a faulty ignition switch related to the 2.6 million vehicles recalled as more fully described in Note 8. It is important to our company that we reach everyone through this Program who has been impacted. The Program is being administered by an independent program administrator. The independent administrator has established a protocol that defines the eligibility requirements to participate in the Program. There is no cap on the amount of payments that can be made to claimants under the Program.

At June 30, 2014 we have an accrual of $400 million recorded in Corporate which represents our best estimate of amounts that may be paid under the Program. However, it is reasonably possible that the liability could exceed our recorded amount by approximately $200 million. The most significant estimates affecting the amount recorded include the number of participants that have eligible claims related to death and physical injury, which also contemplates the severity of injury, the length of hospital stays and related compensation amounts and the number of people who actually elect to participate in the Program. Our estimate is subject to significant uncertainties, as programs of this nature are highly unusual and each eligible claim will have a unique underlying fact pattern. While we do not anticipate material changes to our current estimate, it is possible that material changes could occur should actual eligible claims and the related compensation amounts differ from this estimate. The Program will accept claims from August 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014. Payments to eligible claimants are anticipated to begin in the third quarter of 2014 and continue through the first half of 2015. Accident victims (or their families) could choose not to participate in the Program and pursue litigation against us.

Environmental Liability

Automotive operations, like operations of other companies engaged in similar businesses, are subject to a wide range of environmental protection laws, including laws regulating air emissions, water discharges, waste management and environmental remediation. Liabilities have been recorded primarily in Other liabilities and deferred income taxes for the expected costs to be paid over the periods of remediation for the applicable sites, which typically range from five to 30 years.

The final outcome of environmental matters cannot be predicted with certainty at this time. Subsequent adjustments to initial estimates are recorded as necessary based upon additional information obtained. In future periods new laws or regulations, advances in remediation technologies and additional information about the ultimate remediation methodology to be used could significantly change our estimates. It is possible that the resolution of one or more environmental matters could exceed the amounts accrued in an amount that could be material to our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. At June 30, 2014 we estimate the remediation losses could range from $110 million to $210 million.

Other Matters

Brazil Excise Tax Incentive

In October 2012 the Brazilian government issued a decree which increased an excise tax rate by 30 percentage points, but also provided an offsetting tax incentive that requires participating companies to meet certain criteria, such as local investment and fuel efficiency standards. Participating companies that fail to meet the required criteria are subject to clawback provisions and fines. At June 30, 2014 we believe it is reasonably assured that the program requirements will be met based on the current business model and available technologies.

GME Planned Spending Guarantee

As part of our Opel/Vauxhall restructuring plan agreed to with European labor representatives we committed to achieving specified milestones associated with planned spending from 2011 to 2014 on certain product programs. If we had failed to accomplish the requirements set out under the agreement we would have been required to pay certain amounts up to Euro 265 million for each of those years, and/or interest on those amounts, to our employees. In April 2014 we reached an agreement with the European labor representatives terminating the agreement as all milestones have been or will be met timely in 2014.

India Tavera Emissions Compliance

We determined there was an emissions compliance issue with certain Tavera models produced in India. We self-reported this issue in the three months ended September 30, 2013 to local government authorities and are continuing to cooperate. We developed a solution, and while the issue was not safety related, we voluntarily recalled the vehicles to serve our customers.