General Motors Corp. No. 05-CV-73991, 2006 WL 891151 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2006, aff’d, Int’l Union, UAW v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007)) and the transactions, agreements or arrangements contemplated thereby or by similar agreements.
General Motors Corp. Civil Action No. 07-14074 (E.D. Mich. filed Sept. 9, 2007).
General Motors Corp. Civil Action No. 07-14074 (E.D. Mich. filed Sept. 9, 2007) and/or (2) the class action of UAW et al. v.
General Motors Corp. No. 05-CV-73991, 2006 WL 891151 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2006, aff’d, Int’l Union, UAW v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007) entered into a settlement agreement, and thereafter, GM, the UAW, and the class representatives entered into a settlement agreement in the class action of Int’l Union, UAW, et. al. v.
General Motors Corp. Civil Action Xx. 00- 00000 (X.X. Xxxx. filed Sept. 9, 2007) (“Xxxxx XX”), and/or (2) the class action of UAW et al. v.
General Motors Corp. No. 05-CV-73991, 2006 WL 891151 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2006, aff’d, Int’l Union, UAW v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007). Any such redemption pursuant to the preceding sentence is referred to as a “Termination Redemption.” A Termination Redemption shall be made in cash at a price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Series U Debentures, plus accrued and unpaid interest thereon to but not including the Redemption Date. For the avoidance of doubt, no Redemption Adjustment Amount shall be payable in connection with any Termination Redemption.
General Motors Corp. Civil Action No. 05-73991, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; and
General Motors Corp. Civil Action No. 07-14074 (E.D. Mich. filed Sept. 26, 2007) (“Xxxxx XX”) that was approved by the Court on July 31, 2008 (the “Xxxxx XX Settlement”). Subsequent to entering into the MOU and the Xxxxx XX Settlement, GM filed a bankruptcy action, known as In re General Motors Corporation, No. 09-50026 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. filed June 1, 2009), pursuant to which New Co purchased certain assets of GM (such purchase, the “Sale Transaction”). The UAW asserted that, under Document Nos. 13 and 91 of the GM-UAW National Agreement, New Co was bound by the terms of the MOU. According to the UAW, any sale of GM’s assets required UAW approval and, in the event of a sale, New Co was bound by the terms of the MOU. New Co denied that Document Nos. 13 and 91 of the GM-UAW National Agreement and the MOU applied to New Co and took the position that it was free to make decisions with respect to retiree health care benefits on a unilateral basis. After due consideration of the factual and legal arguments regarding this issue, as well as the costs, risks, and delays associated with litigating the issue, New Co and the UAW have agreed to enter into this Settlement Agreement, which will be presented to the Bankruptcy Court for approval after notice is provided to affected parties. This Settlement Agreement recognizes and approves on the basis set forth herein: (i) the adoption of the New Co Plan; (ii) the amendment of the New Co Plan to terminate coverage for and exclude from coverage the Class and the Covered Group; (iii) the transfer of the UAW Related Account of the Existing Internal VEBA to the New VEBA; (iv) the termination of participation by the Class and the Covered Group under the Existing Internal VEBA; (v) the termination of the Existing External VEBA in conjunction with the establishment of the New Plan, and the transfer to the New VEBA of all assets and liabilities of the Existing External VEBA; (vi) that all claims for Retiree Medical Benefits incurred after the Implementation Date by the Class and the Covered Group, including but not limited to COBRA continuation coverage where such election is or had been made on or after retirement and any coverage provided on a self-paid basis in retirement, shall be solely the responsibility and liability of the New Plan and the New VEBA; (vii) the Committee’s designation under the New Plan and New VEBA as named fiduciary and administrator of the New Plan; (viii) that the New Plan shall replace the New Co Plan with respect to the pr...
General Motors Corp. 594 F.2d 1106. If objections are filed, the district court is to evaluate 21 whether they suggest serious reasons why the settlement proposal might be unfair. Xxxxxxx x.
General Motors Corp. 889 F.2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 16 Xxxx x. Xxxx Xxxxxxx, Inc. 23 909 F.2d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 16 Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines 25 731 F.2d 909 (D.C. Cir. 1984) 20, 21 26 Medtronic, Inc. v. Catalyst Research Corp. 27 518 F. Supp. 946 (D. Minn. 1981), aff’d, 664 F.2d 660 (8th Cir. 28 1981) ..................................................................................................................... 18
