Chrysler « California Lemon Law blog

On Wednesday, June 10, 2009, Fiat management assumed control of Chrysler after the company had emerged from 42 days under bankruptcy protection. The new company is restarting operations under the name Chrysler Group L.L.C. and will be under the management control of Fiat which initially will hold 20% and whose eventual holding may increase to 35%. The remainder of the ownership is divided between a health-care trust for retirees of the United Automobile Workers union which holds 55%, and the American and Canadian governments which hold 8% and 2% respectively. Fiat cannot take majority control of Chrysler until it repays the federal government the monies which had been borrowed by Chrysler.

Chrysler’s new board of directors will consists of nine members, with three to be appointed by Fiat, four from the US Treasury, one by the Canadian government, and one by the UAW health care trust. It is not yet clear whether Chrysler will be selling shares to the public but the UAW president, Ron Gettelfinger, had recently stated that he wanted to sell the health care trust holdings as soon as possible.

The new company announced it would restart production soon but in the meantime was re-distributing vehicles, which it has an ample supply of, from its closed dealerships to the remaining dealers. Chrysler closed approximately 800 dealers as part of its bankruptcy. Remaining dealerships will operate normally.

While the federal government had backed Chrysler warranties of new vehicles sold while the company was in bankruptcy, Chrysler Group will now assume that responsibility. Likewise, warranties on Chrysler products which were purchased before Chrysler filed for bankruptcy will also be honored until they expire. Warranty work for vehicles which were sold by the now closed dealerships can be done at any of the remaining open Chrysler dealers.

Fiat management announced last week that it would soon begin transferring technology, engines, transmissions and other components to the Chrysler plants to enable them to start building small and medium-sized cars for sale in North America. As one of the first steps Chrysler Group will be offering the Fiat 500 to US consumers.

Think the Chrysler you are driving may be a lemon. Call 888-Ex-Lemon (888-395-3666) and speak with an attorney at the Law Offices of Delsack and Associates for a free consultation.

Earlier this month General Motors started a new advertising campaign to acquire a larger share of the California market. Californians tend to buy more hybrids and those in other states and are more environmentally conscious. Chrysler, too, wants to grab a share of California’s penchant for small, fuel-efficient car sales which it hopes to fulfill with its partner Italian automaker Fiat. GM has already gotten rid of its high fuel consumption lines of vehicles, in particular Hummer and instead will now focus on more fuel-efficient Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac, and GMC vehicles. Chevrolet, Cadillac, and GMC already have gas-electric hybrids in their current 2009 product lines, which include the Chevrolet Malibu, Chevrolet Silverado, Cadillac Escalade, and GMC Yukon.

The main focus of GM’s green strategy will be the Chevrolet Volt, an electric hybrid designed to travel 40 miles on one charge, and thereafter have a three cylinder gas engine take over to recharge its lithium-Ion battery pack. The car will be offered for sale in the 2010 model year.

California, in 2008, represented 24.2% of America’s hybrid market which is more than two times the state’s historical share of new vehicle sales in this past decade. Although GM has been steadily losing ground to Toyota and Honda it was still ahead of Ford and Chrysler. In 2008 GM had a 14.2% share of new car sales whereas Ford had an 11.4%, and Chrysler’s was 7.5%. These were significantly less than Toyota’s 25.6% share and Honda’s 13.4% share.

Although 8.5 million cars and light trucks were assembled in the United States last year, the traditional Big Three automakers, Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors, only accounted for about 5 million of those. The remaining 3 million were built in the United States in American plants for manufacturers such as Toyota, Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai, Honda, and BMW. Making it more confusing is that the Big Three also have assembly plants in Canada and Mexico. Thus, American car buyers are faced with the question of whether a car manufactured by a company with its headquarters in Japan, but which has been built in Ohio, as is the Honda Accord, is more American than is a car from an American company headquartered in Michigan selling cars manufactured in Mexico, as is, for example, the Ford Fusion.

Toyota is the leading producer of vehicles built in the United States beating out Chrysler last year by a slight margin. In fact, Honda has been building its vehicles in the United States since as early as 1982 in its plant in Marysville Ohio. And in the 80s and 90s Canadian and Mexican plants were already turning out cars for the Big Three American manufacturers.

Therefore, what is euphemistically called “domestic content,” may not be domestic at all. Domestic content may include parts made in Canada and Mexico. However, while American auto workers are assembling vehicles in American plants for foreign manufacturers, labor is excluded from the determination of what is American-built. Thus, foreign auto manufacturers with assembly plants in the United States cannot factor in the value of American labor, nor be credited for it.

To further confuse matters while, for example, Honda builds its engines in its plant in Ohio for the Acura RTX, the country of origin is still listed as Japan. The reason is that one expensive part, the turbocharger, is actually manufactured and imported from Japan although installed by workers in the Ohio plant.

Clearly, determining whether a car is American-built is confusing and oftentimes misleading.

After a federal appeals court upheld a lower court’s approval to sell most of Chrysler’s assets to Fiat, three Indiana state pension funds appealed the ruling to the United States Supreme Court. The three Indiana funds represent teachers and police personnel and hold about $42.5 million of Chrysler’s $6.9 billion in debt. The funds were demanding greater compensation for Chrysler’s secured debt, and argue that Chrysler might have received a better outcome through liquidation rather than by the Fiat offer. The sale of Chrysler’s assets had been stayed until Monday, June 8, 2009. Late in the afternoon on Monday the Supreme Court agreed to delay the sale until a hearing on the appeal by the three Indiana state funds could be heard, thereby raising questions as to the outcome of Chrysler’s bankruptcy case.

Free Lemon Law Case Review

Category Archives: Chrysler

Some Basics About The New Chrysler

Success in California Market Critical to GM’s Future

Buying American? Or Are You?

Supreme Court Delays Chrysler Bankruptcy

Free Lemon Law Case Review

Contact

Quick Links