When a company reorganizes itself through a bankruptcy, is it the same company? And if so, is it liable for alleged wrongdoing committed by the previous version of itself? 
 
 These are questions raised by General Motors' efforts to dodge hundreds of lawsuits related to a potentially fatal ignition-switch flaw in millions of its older sedans. After receiving a stinging defeat in a federal appellate court this past summer, the automaker is now making a Hail Mary pass to the U.S. Supreme Court to try to convince judges that it has reincarnated into a seven-year-old car company free of liabilities from its previous life. 
 
 Advertisement: 
 
 With potentially billions of dollars’ worth of personal and financial injury claims at stake, the Detroit automaker’s lawyers argue that allowing these lawsuits to go through would undermine an important aspect of corporate bankruptcy: giving assurance to the buyers of troubled companies that they aren’t also buying a whole bunch of unexpected legal headaches. 
 
 But in GM’s case there was no outside buyer. It essentially bought itself (with taxpayer money) in the wake of the mortgage-lending crisis that tipped the nation into recession and steered the American auto industry into a ditch. 
 
 GM is arguing that it became a new company on July 10, 2009, the day a federal court approved the sale of assets owned by General Motors Corporation to General Motors Company. 
 
 With the blessing of a federal judge, GM initiated in 2009 a so-called 363 Sale, named after a code in corporate bankruptcy that has a “free and clear” doctrine that absolves buyers legal liabilities. 
 
 Mark Roe, a Harvard Law School professor who specializes in corporate bankruptcy, says GM’s use of the 363 Sale process doesn’t conform to the reason why the doctrine exists. 
 
 “The GM sale was not a true third-party sale,” Roe told Salon. “It was General Motors selling to a reorganized version of itself. The factories were the same, the employees were the same. There isn’t the same reason to protect a third-party buyer.” 
 
 The liabilities GM is trying to dodge pertain to a faulty ignition switch in 2.6 million of its older sedans linked to at least 124 deaths and at least 275 injuries, some of them severe. The switch can slip out of place while the vehicle is in motion, shutting off the engine and cutting power to steering, brakes and airbag systems. GM has already paid out about $2 billion in criminal and civil claims since the flaw was made public more than two years ago, but since the defect includes cars manufactured as far back as 2000, many of the injuries occurred prior to GM’s 2009 reorganization. 
 
 Last year, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber — the same judge who oversaw the company’s 2009 bankruptcy — ruled in favor of GM on the “free and clear” doctrine. But in July, a three-judge panel at the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York overturned Gerber’s decision, saying the people injured by this ignition switch flaw deserve a chance to have their day in court based on the constitutional right to due process. The U.S. Supreme Court isn’t expected to respond to GM’s petition, which was sent on Tuesday, until sometime next year. 
 
 Advertisement: 
 
 "This case presents exceptionally important questions, and the Second Circuit's answers were exceptionally wrong," GM's lawyers said in the petition obtained by Reuters. 
 
 Lawyers representing these plaintiffs argue that their clients don’t lose their constitutional right to due process simply because GM deployed a code in the bankruptcy law, and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agrees. 
 
 GM argues that top executives at the company weren’t aware of the flaw until January 2014, when newly appointed CEO Mary Barra, a lifetime GM employee, was filled in on the issue. But the appeals court ruled in July that because some mid-level managers in the company had been aware of the problem for years, GM should have disclosed this during its 2009 bankruptcy proceedings, in accordance to the law. 
 
 Roe says that GM deployed a bankruptcy procedure more appropriate for cases when a company is truly selling itself off, not simply reorganizing itself to stay afloat. If GM wasn’t aware of its own litigation risks from its own product, then it should have investigated itself more thoroughly back in 2009. 
 
 Advertisement: 
 
 “General Motors senior management could have sent out a notice saying, ‘if anybody knows of any non-trivial claims, we’re obligated to list them under our bankruptcy petition,'” said Roe. “'We’ve listed what our chief financial officer knows, what our outside attorneys know, but if you know of anything substantial let us know.’ I suspect GM did not do that.” 
 
 Last year, GM initiated its own internal claims processing, in which it did accept claims from customers who were injured prior to 2009, but the company has stood firm against allowing any of them to pursue their cases in court. Now GM will wait and see if the U.S. Supreme Court agrees. ||||| (Reuters) - General Motors Co (GM.N) on Tuesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn an appellate court’s ruling that the automaker’s 2009 bankruptcy does not shield it from lawsuits over a faulty ignition switch linked to 124 deaths and 275 injuries. 
 
 The GM logo is seen at the General Motors Warren Transmission Operations Plant in Warren, Michigan October 26, 2015. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook 
 
 The petition marked a last-ditch effort by GM to block hundreds of customer lawsuits over faulty ignition switches, and other vehicles components, on grounds that they were barred by the automaker’s 2009 bankruptcy sale to a new corporate entity. 
 
 In its petition, GM said the federal bankruptcy code permits a purchaser, in this case a newly formed company, to obtain a debtor’s rapidly deteriorating assets and be “free and clear” of its liabilities. 
 
 GM said that if the July 2016 ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York was left standing, it would undermine a key component of its corporate rescue and make future such deals more difficult. 
 
 “In short, this case presents exceptionally important questions, and the Second Circuit’s answers were exceptionally wrong,” GM’s lawyers said in the petition. “The Court should grant review.” 
 
 The case related to an ignition switch that could slip out of place, causing engines to stall and cutting power to the brake, steering and air bag systems. The defect prompted GM to begin recalling 2.6 million vehicles in 2014. 
 
 GM has already paid roughly $2 billion in criminal and civil penalties and settlements in connection with the switch. The company previously acknowledged that some of its employees knew about the switch defect for years before a recall was initiated. 
 
 The 2nd Circuit’s decision affected injury and death cases stemming from pre-bankruptcy crashes, as well as claims from customers who say their vehicles lost value as a result of the ignition switch and recalls involving other parts. 
 
 The three-judge panel at that time held that barring plaintiffs from suing GM over the faulty switch would violate their constitutional rights to due process, since they had not been notified of the defect prior to GM’s bankruptcy. 
 
 The 2nd Circuit appeal stemmed from a 2015 decision from the judge who oversaw GM’s 2009 bankruptcy, which created “New GM” to contain valuable assets while leaving behind most of its burdensome liabilities with “Old GM.” 
 
 U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber, now retired, ruled in 2015 that New GM was shielded from liability over Old GM’s pre-bankruptcy actions, but he allowed some “independent” claims based solely on New GM’s conduct to proceed. ||||| General Motors CEO Mary Barra said Tuesday she wants to find out if GM engineering employees executed a coverup or were merely incompetent in failing to recall a defective part linked to 13 deaths. 
 
 In testimony before a House Energy and Commerce Committee panel investigating why the automaker waited years to fix the vehicles, Barra said she has asked former U.S. attorney Anton “Tony” Valukas to help figure that out. 
 
 Previously Valukas investigated the collapse of the Lehman Bros. financial services firm in 2008. 
 
 Barra also issued yet another apology for GM's failure to fix the problem years earlier. She conceded that company officials knew of issues with the faulty ignition switches behind the crashes and deaths for more than a decade. 
 
 Barra said she found the automaker's worries about the cost to fix defective cars "disturbing." Those concerns were detailed in documents obtained by the House committee. 
 
 “That is not acceptable,” Barra said. “Today, if there is safety issue ... if we know that there is a safety defect on our vehicles, we don’t look at the cost but at the speed at which we can fix the problem.” 
 
 Barra’s apologies notwithstanding, GM legally shed responsibility for crashes before the automaker's 2009 bankruptcy and federal bailout. The restructuring created a new company, which bought the assets of the old GM, but allowed it to shed its debts and legal liabilities. 
 
 But Barra, in more than two hours of testimony, hinted GM might compensate victims and their families in connection with recall-related accidents that took place before the bankruptcy. 
 
 "We do understand we have civic responsibilities as well as legal responsibilities," she said when asked about how the company would handle pre-bankruptcy crashes. 
 
 Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) asked if GM purposely withheld information about problems with the ignition switch and other safety issues when it was negotiating the terms of its bankruptcy and federal bailout in 2009. 
 
 Barra said she was not aware of any effort to hide information about potential liabilities, “but I can’t speak to every single person.” 
 
 Barra said the company has hired Kenneth Feinberg as a consultant to explore and evaluate options for the families of victims of accidents caused by the defective part. 
 
 “Mr. Feinberg is highly qualified, and is very experienced in the handling of matters such as this,” Barra said. “He brings expertise and objectivity to this effort, and will help us evaluate the situation and recommend the best path forward.” 
 
 Feinberg has previously handled compensation issues for victims of 9/11, the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the Boston Marathon bombings. 
 
 “My mandate from the company is to consider the options for dealing with issues surrounding the ignition switch matter, and to do so in an independent, balanced and objective manner, based upon my prior experience,” Feinberg said. 
 
 Barra also told the panel that the automaker made “mistakes” in not recalling vehicles with a deadly flaw years ago. 
 
 Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) an industrial engineer, asked Barra why the company used an ignition switch that did not meet company specifications. 
 
 “Why in the world would a company with the stellar reputation of General Motors purchase a part that did not meet its own specifications?” he said. 
 
 Barra responded: “I want to know that as much as you do.” 
 
 When pressed on whether GM now would purchase parts that don’t meet specifications in the future, Barra said in some cases they do if the part meets safety, functionality and durability standards among others. 
 
 Barton called that answer “gobbledygook.” 
 
 “That’s not an acceptable answer for the American people,” he said. “There shouldn’t be a part used in any GM product ... that doesn’t meet the specifications.” 
 
 Although it knew about the problem as far back as 2001, GM only in the last two months has recalled 2.6 million vehicles to replace the defective ignition switch, which is now linked to 13 deaths. The switch can unintentionally turn off the vehicle and disable its airbags. 
 
 GM faces investigations from the NHTSA and the Justice Department into why it did not recall the vehicles sooner. 
 
 Barra is to be joined before the committee by David J. Friedman, the acting administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Lawmakers are set to quiz Friedman about why the safety agency didn’t force GM to recall the vehicles earlier. Documents show that the NHTSA was aware of the problem. 
 
 In his written testimony, Friedman said GM had failed to provide regulators “critical information” that could have triggered recalls years earlier. Only recently did GM provide “new evidence” that made it clear that the ignition problem could disable air bags, he said. 
 
 Meanwhile, families of victims of fatal crashes of the GM compact cars in question on Tuesday sharply criticized the automaker for delays in recalling the vehicles and called for legislation to prevent a repeat of the situation. About two dozen family members gathered in front of the Capitol to make their case before Barra and Friedman testified. 
 
 The families were joined by four Democratic lawmakers who want to toughen laws governing the disclosure of auto defects. 
 
 [For The Record, 5:46 p.m. PDT April 1: An earlier version of this post stated that Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) asked if GM purposely withheld information about problems with an ignition switch and other safety issues when it was negotiating the terms of its bankruptcy and federal bailout in 2009. The question was asked by Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) 
 
 Tweets from https://twitter.com/latimesbiz/autos 
 
 ALSO: 
 
 U.S. orders rear cameras for cars 
 
 Toyota admits to deceiving consumers, regulators 
 
 Federal bailout, bankruptcy lets GM escape liability in fatal crashes 
 
 Follow me on Twitter (@LATimesJerry), Facebook and Google+.
– General Motors has been cruising along since 1908, but the automaker recently decided it would rather celebrate another birthday: July 10, 2009, making it just a tad over seven years old instead of 108. And the reason GM picked that specific date: That was the day it was "born again" as a new company in a bankruptcy reorganization, a fact it now hopes will get it out of further lawsuits for its ignition switch debacle, the Wall Street Journal reports. The company made the request via a petition Tuesday to use this shield in what Salon is calling a "Hail Mary pass" to the US Supreme Court, asking the high court to overturn an appellate court's decision that the company is fair game for legal complaints against it, even if they were from before 2009. The faulty switches caused 124 deaths and at least 275 injuries, Reuters reports. GM's main argument is that in 2009 it initiated a "363 Sale," a bankruptcy reorg that allowed a company to scoop up a debtor's assets and then be "free and clear" of all that debtor's liabilities. But GM effectively "bought" itself —"General Motors Corporation" moved its assets to the newly organized "General Motors Company"—and a Harvard Law School expert in corporate bankruptcy says this facet of the law is meant to protect third-party buyers, not a company like GM in this case. "It was General Motors selling to a reorganized version of itself," he says. "The factories were the same, the employees were the same." The Journal notes unblocked lawsuits could translate to "billions of dollars" in claims; GM has already paid up around $2 billion in settlements and penalties tied to the ignition switches. The Supreme Court is expected to address the issue next year.