Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation-Related Liability and Tax Administrative Matters In the normal course of business, we are named from time to time as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation, that arise in connection with our business as a global company. We identify below the material individual proceedings and investigations in connection with which we believe a material loss is reasonably possible or probable. We accrue for matters when we believe that losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. At September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 accruals were $1.3 billion and $1.2 billion and were recorded in Accrued liabilities and Other liabilities. In many proceedings, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even reasonably possible or to estimate the size or range of the possible loss. Accordingly an adverse outcome from such proceedings could exceed the amounts accrued by an amount that could be material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period.

Proceedings Related to Ignition Switch Recall and Other Recalls In 2014 we announced various recalls relating to safety, customer satisfaction and other matters. Those recalls included recalls to repair ignition switches that could under certain circumstances unintentionally move from the “run” position to the “accessory” or “off” position with a corresponding loss of power, which could in turn prevent airbags from deploying in the event of a crash.

Through October 19, 2016 we were aware of 100 putative class actions pending against GM in various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. and 17 putative class actions pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada alleging that consumers who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or General Motors Corporation had been economically harmed by one or more of the recalls announced in 2014 and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated with those recalls (economic-loss cases). In general, these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, such as alleged benefit-of-the-bargain damage or damages related to alleged diminution in value of the vehicles, as well as punitive damages, injunctive relief and other relief. There are also two civil actions brought by state governmental entities relating to the 2014 recalls that seek injunctive relief as well as civil penalties and attorneys' fees for alleged violations of state laws.

Through October 19, 2016 we were aware of 286 actions pending in various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. and 18 actions pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada alleging injury or death as a result of defects that may be the subject of recalls announced in 2014 (personal injury cases). In general, these personal injury cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, punitive damages and other relief.

Since June 2014 the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has issued orders from time to time directing that certain pending economic-loss and personal injury federal lawsuits involving faulty or allegedly faulty ignition switches or other defects that may be related to the recalls announced in 2014 be transferred to, and consolidated in, a single federal court, the Southern District of New York (the multidistrict litigation). Through October 19, 2016 the JPML has transferred 306 pending cases to, and consolidated them with, the multidistrict litigation. At the court's suggestion, the parties to the multidistrict litigation engage from time to time in discussions of possible mechanisms to resolve pending litigation. Since September 17, 2015 we have reached various agreements with certain personal injury claimants regarding possible settlement of their claims.

In order to facilitate the resolution of the multidistrict litigation, the Southern District of New York (the district court) scheduled six cases involving personal injury for bellwether trials in 2016 (i.e., trials designed to be representative of the group of personal injury cases in the multidistrict litigation). Through October 19, 2016 two of the cases set for bellwether trials were dismissed with prejudice by the plaintiffs. In a third bellwether trial, a jury returned a verdict finding that GM was not liable to the plaintiffs. In the remaining three federal cases set for bellwether trials in 2016, GM and the plaintiffs entered into confidential settlement agreements to resolve those cases prior to trial. The district court has scheduled additional personal injury bellwether trials for 2017 and 2018. In addition to the federal bellwether trials, a Texas state court administering a Texas state court multidistrict litigation scheduled two bellwether trials in August and September 2016. In the first case, tried in August 2016, a jury returned a verdict finding that GM was not liable to the plaintiffs. In the second case, the Texas state court granted summary judgment to GM and dismissed plaintiff's case before the trial commenced. Each bellwether trial will be tried on its facts and the result of any subsequent bellwether trial may be different from the earlier bellwether trials.

On July 15, 2016 the district court overseeing the federal multidistrict litigation issued a ruling on GM's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint seeking damages for alleged economic losses relating to the ignition switch and other recalls by GM in 2014. The district court granted GM's motion in part and denied it in part. The district court dismissed plaintiffs' claims brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, and those brought by any plaintiff whose vehicle was not allegedly defective when sold. The district court also rejected plaintiffs' broadest theory of damages – that plaintiffs could seek recovery for alleged reduction in the value of their vehicles due to damage to GM's reputation and brand as a result of the ignition switch matter. The district court also held that plaintiffs did not have a common basis for their claims across all defects and models to proceed as a single class, and that the remaining claims may have to proceed individually or in subclasses of vehicles affected by a common defect. Further, the district court held that the named plaintiffs may assert claims only on behalf of owners of the same vehicle models that they themselves purchased (or leased) or models with sufficiently similar defects, and that it will not specify the specific permissible class claims until the class-certification stage. Finally, the district court granted GM's motion to dismiss with respect to certain state law claims but denied it as to other state law claims. The court held that the viability of state law claims will depend on each state's specific laws and plaintiffs' specific factual allegations. While the ruling is limited to post-bankruptcy claims, we believe the district court's legal holdings rejecting plaintiffs' broadest damages theory and dismissing certain other claims should apply to similarly limit plaintiffs' pre-bankruptcy claims. On September 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint, amending their economic loss claims.

Because many plaintiffs in the actions described in the above paragraphs are suing over the conduct of General Motors Corporation or vehicles manufactured by that entity for liabilities not expressly assumed by GM, we moved to enforce the terms of the July 2009 Sale Order and Injunction (2009 Sale Order) issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Bankruptcy Court) to preclude claims from being asserted against us for, among other things, personal injuries based on pre-sale accidents, any economic-loss claims based on acts or conduct of General Motors Corporation and claims asserting successor liability for obligations owed by General Motors Corporation (successor liability claims). On April 15, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision precluding claims against us based upon pre-sale accidents, claims based upon the acts or conduct by General Motors Corporation and successor liability claims, except for claims asserting liabilities that had been expressly assumed by us in the July 2009 Sale Agreement, and claims that could be asserted against us only if they were otherwise viable and arose solely out of our own independent post-closing acts and did not in any way rely on acts or conduct by General Motors Corporation. Plaintiffs appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision and we cross appealed with respect to certain issues to preserve our rights.

On July 13, 2016 a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) issued a decision and judgment affirming in part, reversing in part, and vacating portions of the Bankruptcy Court's April 15, 2015 decision and subsequent judgment. Among other things, the Second Circuit held that the 2009 Sale Order could not be enforced to bar claims against GM asserted by either plaintiffs who purchased used vehicles after the sale closing or against purchasers who asserted claims relating to the ignition switch defect, including pre-closing personal injury claims and economic loss claims. The Second Circuit also vacated that portion of the Bankruptcy Court judgment enforcing the 2009 Sale Order against plaintiffs with pre-sale claims based on defects other than the ignition switch and remanded that issue to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings. The Second Circuit denied our request for an en banc review of the panel's decision and judgment and we now intend to appeal the Second Circuit's decision to the United States Supreme Court. In 2014, GM voluntarily established the Ignition Switch Recall Compensation Program, administered by an independent administrator, which provided compensation for individuals who suffered personal injuries resulting from the ignition switch defect, both before and after bankruptcy. As a result, certain pre-closing personal injury claims relating to the ignition switch defect were resolved through this program. Refer to the Ignition Switch Recall Compensation Program section below for a discussion of the payments made under this program through September 30, 2016.

In addition on December 4, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court issued a judgment regarding certain issues, including the extent to which punitive damages could be asserted against GM based on claims in connection with vehicles manufactured by General Motors Corporation, for which GM assumed liability in the 2009 Sale Agreement. Various groups of plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the district court overseeing the multidistrict litigation.

In the putative shareholder class action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Eastern District) on behalf of purchasers of our common stock from November 17, 2010 to July 24, 2014 (Shareholder Class Action), the lead plaintiff, the New York State Teachers' Retirement System alleged that GM and several current and former officers and employees made material misstatements and omissions relating to problems with the ignition switch and other matters in SEC filings and other public statements.

On February 11, 2016 the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of four consolidated shareholder derivative actions that had been pending in the Delaware Chancery Court. In light of the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision, proceedings have resumed in the two consolidated shareholder derivative actions in the Eastern District that had been stayed pending disposition of the Delaware cases and the Eastern District is now considering our motion to dismiss in those actions. In early 2016 an additional shareholder derivative action was filed in the Eastern District against certain current and former GM directors and officers making similar allegations to the two other shareholder derivative actions that are pending in the Eastern District. This most recent derivative action has been transferred to the same judge handling those two other shareholder derivative actions. Two derivative actions filed in the Circuit Court of Wayne County, Michigan, have been consolidated and remain stayed pending disposition of the federal derivative actions.

In connection with the 2014 recalls, various investigations, inquiries and complaints have been received from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (the Office), Congress, the SEC, Transport Canada and 50 state attorneys general. In connection with the foregoing we have received subpoenas and requests for additional information and we have participated in discussions with various governmental authorities. We have not received inquiries from the committees in Congress for a substantial period of time and are unaware of any further action they may take. On June 3, 2015 we received notice of an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning certified pre-owned vehicle advertising where dealers had certified vehicles that allegedly needed recall repairs. On January 28, 2016 the FTC published a proposed consent agreement for public comment. The public comment period has closed; the matter remains pending before the FTC. We believe we are cooperating fully with all pending requests for information in ongoing investigations. Such matters could in the future result in the imposition of material damages, fines, civil consent orders, civil and criminal penalties or other remedies.

As described more specifically below, we have resolved, partially or totally, several matters relating to the recalls announced in 2014, including the recognition of additional liabilities for such matters.

First, with regard to the investigation by the Office, on September 16, 2015 we entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the DPA) with the Office regarding its investigation of the events leading up to certain recalls regarding faulty ignition switches. Under the DPA we have paid the United States $900 million as a financial penalty, and we agreed to retain an independent monitor to review and assess our policies, practices or procedures related to statements about motor vehicle safety, the provision of information to those responsible for recall decisions, recall processes and addressing known defects in certified pre-owned vehicles. In addition, the Office agreed to recommend to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Southern District) that prosecution of GM on the two-count information filed in the Southern District be deferred for three years. The Office also agreed that if we are in compliance with all of our obligations under the DPA, the Office will, within 30 days after the expiration of the period of deferral (including any extensions thereto), seek dismissal with prejudice of the two-count information filed against GM. For a further description of the terms and conditions of the DPA refer to Note 15 of our 2015 Form 10-K.

Second, on May 23, 2016 the district court entered a judgment approving a class-wide settlement of the Shareholder Class Action described above for $300 million. One significant shareholder opted out of the settlement prior to approval and one shareholder has filed an appeal of the decision approving the settlement.

Third, on September 17, 2015 we announced we had reached a memorandum of understanding regarding a $275 million settlement that could potentially cover approximately 1,400 personal injury claimants who have lawsuits pending in the multidistrict litigation or who have otherwise asserted claims related to the ignition switch recall or certain other recalls announced in 2014. In December 2015 the court overseeing the multidistrict litigation established a qualified settlement fund and appointed a special master to administer certain facets of the settlement pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of understanding. The special master commenced his work in the three months ended December 31, 2015 and his work continues.

The total amount accrued at September 30, 2016 for the remaining investigations, claims and/or lawsuits relating to the ignition switch recalls and other related recalls represents a combination of our best single point estimates where determinable and, where no such single point estimate is determinable, our estimate of the low end of the range of probable loss with regard to such matters, if that is determinable. We believe it is probable that we will incur additional liabilities beyond what has already been accrued with regard to at least a portion of the remaining matters, whether through settlement or judgment; however, we are currently unable to estimate an overall amount or range of loss because these matters involve significant uncertainties. The uncertainties include the legal theory or the nature of the investigations, claims and/or lawsuits, the complexity of the facts, the lack of documentation available to us with respect to particular cases or groups of cases, the results of any investigation or litigation and the timing of resolution of the investigation or litigations, including any appeals, and further proceedings following the Second Circuit's July 13 decision and the district court's July 15 decision. We will continue to consider resolution of pending matters involving ignition switch recalls and other recalls where it makes sense to do so.

GM Canada Dealers' Claim On February 12, 2010 a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against GM Canada on behalf of a purported class of over 200 former GM Canada dealers (the Plaintiff Dealers) which had entered into wind-down agreements with GM Canada. In May 2009 in the context of the global restructuring of GM's business and the possibility that GM Canada might be required to initiate insolvency proceedings, GM Canada offered the Plaintiff Dealers the wind-down agreements to assist with their exit from the GM Canada dealer network and to facilitate winding down their operations in an orderly fashion. The Plaintiff Dealers allege that their Dealer Sales and Service Agreements were wrongly terminated by GM Canada and that GM Canada 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” 750 million Canadian Dollars, 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. A number of former dealers opted out of participation in the litigation, leaving 181 dealers in the certified class. On July 8, 2015 the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the Plaintiff Dealers’ claim against GM Canada. The court also dismissed GM Canada’s counterclaim against the Plaintiff Dealers for repayment of the wind-down payments made to them by GM Canada as well as for other relief. All parties have filed notices of appeal. The appeals and cross appeals are scheduled to be heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal in January 2017.

GM Korea Wage Litigation Commencing on or about September 29, 2010 current and former hourly employees of GM Korea Company (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) affirmed 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). On May 29, 2014 the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Seoul High Court for consideration consistent with earlier Supreme Court precedent holding that while fixed bonuses should be included in the calculation of Ordinary Wages, claims for retroactive application of this rule would be barred under certain circumstances. On reconsideration, the Seoul High Court held in GM Korea’s favor on October 30, 2015, after which the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. In July 2014 GM Korea and its labor union also agreed to include bonuses and certain allowances in Ordinary Wages retroactive to March 1, 2014. Therefore our accrual related to these cases was reclassified from a contingent liability to the Pensions liability. We estimate our reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued to be 604 billion South Korean Won (equivalent to $551 million) at September 30, 2016, which relates to periods before March 1, 2014. We are also party to litigation with current and former salaried employees over allegations relating to Ordinary Wages regulation. On November 26 and 27, 2015 the Supreme Court remanded two salary cases to the Seoul High Court for a review of the merits. 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 courts in Korea.

Other Litigation-Related Liability and Tax Administrative Matters Various other 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 product and workplace safety, emissions and fuel economy; product warranties; financial services; dealer, supplier and other contractual relationships; government regulations relating to payments to foreign companies; government regulations relating to competition issues; tax-related matters not subject to Accounting Standards Codification 740, Income Taxes (indirect tax-related matters); and environmental 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 or provide an alternative form of security which may range from $300 million to $700 million at September 30, 2016. 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 September 30, 2016. We believe that appropriate accruals have been established for losses that are probable and can be reasonably estimated. For indirect tax-related matters we estimate our reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued to be up to approximately $1.0 billion at September 30, 2016.

Takata Matters On May 4, 2016 the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued an amended consent order requiring Takata Corporation (Takata) to file defect information reports (DIRs) for previously unrecalled front airbag inflators that contain an ammonium nitrate-based propellant without a moisture absorbing desiccant on a multi-year, risk-based schedule through 2019 impacting tens of millions of vehicles produced by numerous automotive manufacturers. NHTSA concluded that the likely root cause of the rupturing of the airbag inflators is a function of time, temperature cycling and environmental moisture. On May 16, 2016 Takata issued its first DIR in connection with the amended consent order. Its next DIR is due to be filed on December 31, 2016.

Although we do not believe there is a safety defect at this time in any GM vehicles within the scope of the Takata DIR, in cooperation with NHTSA we filed a Preliminary DIR on May 27, 2016, updated as of June 13, 2016, covering 2.5 million of certain of our GMT900 vehicles, which are full-size pick-up trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs). As a result of discussions with NHTSA and as described in the Preliminary DIR, GM believes it will have an opportunity to prove to NHTSA that the inflators in these vehicles do not and will not pose an unreasonable risk to safety. We believe these vehicles are currently performing as designed and ongoing testing continues to support the belief that the vehicles' unique design and integration mitigates against inflator degradation. We presently believe that the results of further testing and analysis will continue to demonstrate that the vehicles do not present an unreasonable risk to safety and that no repair will ultimately be required.

Based, in part, on the results of our testing, analysis and data to date, on September 2, 2016, we filed a petition with NHTSA to delay inclusion of GMT900 vehicles in the Takata DIR equipment schedule from December 31, 2016 until December 31, 2017. We believe that this timeline will permit us to complete our testing of the relevant non-desiccated Takata inflators in GMT900 vehicles.

Accordingly, no provision has been made for any repair associated with our vehicles subject to the Preliminary DIR and amended consent order. However, in the event we are ultimately obligated to repair the inflators in these vehicles, we estimate a reasonably possible cost of up to $320 million for the 2.5 million vehicles subject to the Preliminary DIR and an additional $550 million for up to 4.3 million vehicles subject to future Takata DIRs under the amended consent order.

On July 28, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey claiming that numerous 2003 - 2011 model year GM vehicles are defective because they are equipped with Takata airbags and alleging, among other things, fraud and breach of warranty. The complaint seeks nationwide class certification or, alternatively, certification of various state classes, damages, costs and fees. At this early stage of the proceedings, we are unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or an estimate of the amounts or range of possible loss.

Product Liability With respect to product liability claims (other than claims relating to the ignition switch recalls discussed previously) 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. In addition we indemnify dealers for certain product liability related claims including products sold by General Motors Corporation's dealers. At September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 liabilities of $683 million and $712 million were recorded in Accrued liabilities and Other liabilities 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. In light of vehicle recalls in recent years 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.

Ignition Switch Recall Compensation Program In the three months ended June 30, 2014 we created a compensation program (the Program) for accident victims who died or suffered physical injury (or for their families) as a result of a faulty ignition switch related to the 2.6 million vehicles recalled in the three months ended March 31, 2014. The Program is being administered by an independent administrator and accepted claims for review from August 1, 2014 through January 31, 2015. The Program completed its claims review process in the three months ended September 30, 2015, but continues to process acceptances that require court approval and resolve liens related to accepted claims. Accident victims (or their families) that accept a payment under the Program agree to settle all claims against GM related to the accident. The following table summarizes the activity for the Program:



	Nine Months Ended
	September 30, 2016			September 30, 2015
Balance at beginning of period	$	66		$	315
Provisions	—			225
Payments	(53		)	(350		)
Balance at end of period	$	13		$	190

Guarantees We enter into indemnification agreements for liability claims involving products manufactured primarily by certain joint ventures. We also provide vehicle repurchase guarantees and payment guarantees on commercial loans outstanding with third parties such as dealers. These guarantees terminate in years ranging from 2016 to 2030, upon the occurrence of specific events or are ongoing. We believe that the related potential costs incurred are adequately covered and our recorded accruals are insignificant. The maximum liability, calculated as future undiscounted payments, was $4.4 billion and $2.6 billion for these guarantees at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the majority of which relate to the indemnification agreements.

In some instances certain assets of the party whose debt or performance we have guaranteed may offset, to some degree, the amount of certain guarantees. Our payables to the party whose debt or performance we have guaranteed may also reduce the amount of certain guarantees. 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.

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.