SEC Filing | General Motors Company

View:

Download DOC

Download PDF

Download XLS

Form 10-K

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549-1004

Form 10-K

þ	ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the year ended December 31, 2009

¨	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from to

Commission file number 333-160471

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY

(Exact Name of Company as Specified in its Charter)


STATE OF DELAWARE		27-0756180
(State or other jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

300 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan		48265-3000
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)		(Zip Code)

Company’s telephone number, including area code

(313) 556-5000

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12 (g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the company is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ¨ No þ

Indicate by check mark if the company is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes þ No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the company (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months, and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ¨ No þ

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its company Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ¨ No ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the company’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. Yes þ No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the company is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “small reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer ¨ Accelerated filer ¨ Non-accelerated filer þ Smaller reporting company ¨

Do not check if smaller reporting company

Indicate by check mark whether the company is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ¨ No þ

As of March 15, 2010, the number of shares outstanding of $0.01 par value common stock was 500,000,000 shares.

General Motors Company was formed by the United States Department of the Treasury (UST) in 2009 originally as a Delaware limited liability company, Vehicle Acquisition Holdings LLC, and subsequently converted to a Delaware corporation, NGMCO, Inc. This company, which on July 10, 2009 acquired substantially all of the assets and assumed certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation (363 Sale) and changed its name to General Motors Company, is sometimes referred to in this Annual Report on Form 10-K (2009 10-K) for the periods on or subsequent to July 10, 2009 as “we,” “our,” “us,” “ourselves,” the “Company,” “General Motors,” or “GM,” and is the successor entity solely for accounting and financial reporting purposes (Successor). General Motors Corporation is sometimes referred to in this 2009 10-K, for the periods on or before July 9, 2009, as “Old GM.” Prior to July 10, 2009 Old GM operated the business of the Company, and pursuant to the agreement with the SEC Staff, the accompanying consolidated financial statements include the financial statements and related information of Old GM as it is our predecessor entity solely for accounting and financial reporting purposes (Predecessor). On July 10, 2009 in connection with the 363 Sale, General Motors Corporation changed its name to Motors Liquidation Company, which is sometimes referred to in this 2009 10-K for the periods after July 10, 2009 as “MLC.” MLC continues to exist as a distinct legal entity for the sole purpose of liquidating its remaining assets and liabilities. Refer to Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information.

We are a private company and were not previously subject to the filing requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. We are a voluntary filer with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). We are filing an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, a Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 and a Registration Statement on Form 10 pursuant to an agreement with the SEC Staff, as described in a no-action letter issued to Old GM by the SEC Staff on July 9, 2009 regarding our filing requirements and those of MLC.

The 363 Sale resulted in a new entity, General Motors Company, which is the successor entity solely for accounting and financial reporting purposes. Because we are a new reporting entity, our financial statements are not comparable to the financial statements of Old GM.

INDEX


			Page
PART I
Item 1.	Business		1
Item 1A.	Risk Factors		22
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments		31
Item 2.	Properties		32
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings		32
Item 4.	Reserved		35
PART II
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities		36
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data		39
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations		41
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk		117
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data		122
	Consolidated Statements of Operations		122
	Consolidated Balance Sheets		123
	Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows		124
	Consolidated Statements of Equity (Deficit)		126
	Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements		128
	Note 1.	Nature of Operations	128
	Note 2.	Chapter 11 Proceedings and the 363 Sale	128
	Note 3.	Basis of Presentation	146
	Note 4.	Significant Accounting Policies	147
	Note 5.	Acquisition and Disposal of Businesses	160
	Note 6.	Marketable Securities	163
	Note 7.	Securitizations	165
	Note 8.	Inventories	165
	Note 9.	Equipment on Operating Leases, net	166
	Note 10.	Equity in Net Assets of Nonconsolidated Affiliates	167
	Note 11.	Property, net	171
	Note 12.	Goodwill	173
	Note 13.	Intangible Assets, net	174
	Note 14.	Restricted Cash	175
	Note 15.	Other Assets	175
	Note 16.	Variable Interest Entities	176
	Note 17.	Accrued Expenses, Other Liabilities and Deferred Income Taxes	180
	Note 18.	Short-Term and Long-Term Debt	181
	Note 19.	Pensions and Other Postretirement Benefits	192
	Note 20.	Derivative Financial Instruments and Risk Management	217
	Note 21.	Commitments and Contingencies	224
	Note 22.	Income Taxes	233
	Note 23.	Fair Value Measurements	241
	Note 24.	Restructuring and Other Initiatives	245
	Note 25.	Impairments	249
	Note 26.	Other Expenses	255
	Note 27.	Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit) and Noncontrolling Interests	255
	Note 28.	Earnings (Loss) Per Share	258
	Note 29.	Stock Incentive Plans	260
	Note 30.	Transactions with GMAC	267
	Note 31.	Transactions with MLC	272
	Note 32.	Supplementary Quarterly Financial Information (Unaudited)	273
	Note 33.	Segment Reporting	275
	Note 34.	Supplemental Information for Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows	282
	Note 35.	Subsequent Events	282


		Page
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	285
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	285
Item 9B.	Other Information	287
PART III
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	288
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	297
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	326
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence	327
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	328
PART IV
Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedule	330
Signatures

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

PART I

Item 1. Business

Launch of General Motors Company

Prior to July 10, 2009 Old GM operated the business of the Company, and pursuant to the agreement with the SEC Staff, the accompanying consolidated financial statements include the financial statements and related information of Old GM as it is our predecessor entity solely for accounting and financial reporting purposes. On June 1, 2009 Old GM and three of its domestic direct and indirect subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 (Chapter 11 Proceedings) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankruptcy Code) in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Bankruptcy Court). On July 10, 2009 in connection with the 363 Sale, we, through certain of our subsidiaries, acquired substantially all of the assets and assumed certain liabilities of Old GM. MLC continues to exist as a distinct legal entity for the sole purpose of liquidating its remaining assets and liabilities.

Through our purchase of substantially all of the assets and assumption of certain liabilities of Old GM in connection with the 363 Sale, we have launched a new company with a strong balance sheet, a competitive cost structure, and a strong cash position, which we believe will enable us to compete more effectively with our U.S. and foreign-based competitors in the U.S. and to continue our strong presence in growing global markets. In particular, we acquired Old GM’s strongest operations and we believe we will have a competitive operating cost structure, partly as a result of recent agreements with the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) and Canadian Auto Workers Union (CAW).

In addition the formation of General Motors Company comes with a renewed vision to design, build and sell the world’s best vehicles. In order to implement this renewed vision, a majority of our Board of Directors is comprised of directors that did not serve on Old GM’s Board of Directors, and we have recently appointed new executive leadership, including our CEO and CFO. We have also recently installed a smaller executive committee, which meets more frequently than prior leadership committees, resulting in faster decision making and increased accountability.

Our executive leadership and our employees are committed to:

•

Building our market share, revenue, earnings and cash flow with the goal of paying back in 2010 our loans from the UST and Export Development Canada (EDC), a corporation wholly-owned by the government of Canada;

•

Improving the quality of our cars and trucks, while increasing customer satisfaction and overall perception of our products; and

•

Continuing to take a leadership role in the development of advanced energy saving technologies, including advanced combustion engines, biofuels, fuel cells, hybrid vehicles, extended-range-electric vehicles, and advanced battery development.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

General

We develop, produce and market cars, trucks and parts worldwide. We do so through our three segments: General Motors North America (GMNA), General Motors Europe (GME) and General Motors International Operations (GMIO).

In the year ended 2009 vehicle sales, market share data and production volume combine our data in the period July 10, 2009 through December 31, 2009 with Old GM’s data in the period January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2009 for comparative purposes.

Total combined GM and Old GM worldwide vehicle sales in the year ended 2009 were 7.5 million. Old GM’s total worldwide vehicle sales were 8.4 million and 9.4 million in the years ended 2008 and 2007. Substantially all of the cars, trucks and parts are marketed through retail dealers in North America, and through distributors and dealers outside of North America, the substantial majority of which are independently owned. GMNA primarily meets the demands of customers in North America with vehicles developed, manufactured and/or marketed under the following core brands:


• Buick		• Cadillac		• Chevrolet		• GMC

The demands of customers outside North America are primarily met with vehicles developed, manufactured and/or marketed under the following brands:


• Buick	• Daewoo	• Holden	• Opel
• Cadillac	• GMC	• Isuzu	• Vauxhall
• Chevrolet

At December 31, 2009 we had equity ownership stakes directly or indirectly through various regional subsidiaries, including GM Daewoo Auto & Technology Co. (GM Daewoo), Shanghai General Motors Co., Ltd. (SGM), SAIC-GM-Wuling Automobile Co., Ltd. (SGMW), and FAW-GM Light Duty Commercial Vehicle Co., Ltd. (FAW-GM). These companies design, manufacture and market vehicles under the following brands:


• Buick	• Daewoo	• GMC	• Jiefang
• Cadillac	• FAW	• Holden	• Wuling
• Chevrolet

In addition to the products we sell to our dealers for consumer retail sales, we also sell cars and trucks to fleet customers, including daily rental car companies, commercial fleet customers, leasing companies and governments. Sales to fleet customers are completed through our network of dealers and in some cases directly by us. Our retail and fleet customers can obtain a wide range of aftersale vehicle services and products through our dealer network, such as maintenance, light repairs, collision repairs, vehicle accessories and extended service warranties.

Brand Rationalization

We have focused our resources in the U.S. on four core brands: Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC. As a result, we have sold our Saab brand and announced plans to phase out our Pontiac, Saturn and HUMMER brands. In connection with the rationalization of our brands, there is no planned investment for Pontiac, and the brand is expected to be phased out by the end of 2010.

Saturn

In September 2009 we decided to wind-down the Saturn brand and dealership network in accordance with the deferred termination agreements that Saturn dealers have signed with us. Refer to “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Brand Rationalization” for a further discussion on the Saturn disposition.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

HUMMER

In February 2010 we announced that Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Co., Ltd. (Tengzhong), was unable to complete the acquisition of HUMMER and that we would proceed to wind down the HUMMER brand. Refer to “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Brand Rationalization” for a further discussion on the HUMMER disposition.

Saab

In February 2010 we completed the sale of Saab to Spyker Cars NV. Refer to “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Brand Rationalization” for a further discussion on the Saab disposition.

Opel/Vauxhall Restructuring Activities

In February 2010 we presented our plan for the long-term viability of our Opel/Vauxhall operations to the German government. Our plan includes specific capital requirements, restructuring initiatives, estimated 12 product launches in the next two years and emphasis on alternative propulsion technologies. Refer to “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Opel/Vauxhall Restructuring Activities” for a further discussion on the Opel/Vauxhall operations long-term viability plan.

Vehicle Sales

The following tables summarize total industry sales of new motor vehicles of domestic and foreign makes and the related competitive position (vehicles in thousands):


	Vehicle Sales(a)(b) Years Ended December 31,
	2009			2008			2007
	Industry	Combined GM and Old GM	Combined GM and Old GM as a % of Industry	Industry	Old GM	Old GM as a % of Industry	Industry	Old GM	Old GM as a % of Industry
United States
Cars
Midsize	2,288	518	22.7%	2,920	760	26.0%	3,410	884	25.9%
Small	2,051	202	9.8%	2,547	328	12.9%	2,605	381	14.6%
Luxury	778	69	8.8%	1,017	122	12.0%	1,184	157	13.3%
Sport	253	85	33.7%	272	48	17.7%	372	68	18.2%

Total cars	5,370	874	16.3%	6,756	1,257	18.6%	7,571	1,489	19.7%

Trucks
Utilities	3,071	642	20.9%	3,654	809	22.1%	4,752	1,136	23.9%
Pick-ups	1,404	487	34.7%	1,993	738	37.0%	2,710	979	36.1%
Vans	583	68	11.7%	841	151	17.9%	1,119	219	19.6%
Medium Duty	178	13	7.1%	259	26	10.0%	321	44	13.7%

Total trucks	5,238	1,210	23.1%	6,746	1,723	25.5%	8,902	2,377	26.7%

Total United States	10,608	2,084	19.6%	13,503	2,981	22.1%	16,473	3,867	23.5%
Canada, Mexico, and Other	2,464	400	16.2%	3,064	585	19.1%	3,161	650	20.6%


Total GMNA	13,073	2,485	19.0%	16,567	3,565	21.5%	19,634	4,516	23.0%
GMIO	32,358	3,326	10.3%	28,641	2,754	9.6%	28,173	2,672	9.5%
GME	18,827	1,667	8.9%	21,968	2,043	9.3%	23,123	2,182	9.4%

Total Worldwide	64,257	7,478	11.6%	67,176	8,362	12.4%	70,929	9,370	13.2%

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES


	Vehicle Sales (a)(b) Years Ended December 31,
	2009			2008			2007
	Industry	Combined GM and Old GM	Combined GM and Old GM as a % of Industry	Industry	Old GM	Old GM as a % of Industry	Industry	Old GM	Old GM as a % of Industry
GMNA
United States	10,608	2,084	19.6%	13,503	2,981	22.1%	16,473	3,867	23.5%
Canada	1,482	254	17.2%	1,674	359	21.4%	1,691	404	23.9%
Mexico	774	138	17.9%	1,071	212	19.8%	1,146	230	20.1%
Other	208	7	3.5%	319	13	4.2%	325	16	4.8%

Total GMNA	13,073	2,485	19.0%	16,567	3,565	21.5%	19,634	4,516	23.0%


GMIO
China	13,671	1,826	13.4%	9,074	1,095	12.1%	8,457	1,032	12.2%
Brazil	3,141	596	19.0%	2,820	549	19.5%	2,463	499	20.3%
Australia	937	121	12.9%	1,012	133	13.1%	1,050	149	14.2%
Middle East Operations	1,053	117	11.1%	1,118	144	12.9%	1,276	136	10.7%
South Korea	1,455	115	7.9%	1,215	117	9.7%	1,271	131	10.3%
Argentina	517	79	15.2%	616	95	15.5%	573	92	16.1%
India	2,240	69	3.1%	1,971	66	3.3%	1,989	60	3.0%
Colombia	185	67	36.1%	219	80	36.3%	252	93	36.8%
Egypt	204	52	25.6%	262	60	23.1%	227	40	17.5%
Venezuela	137	49	36.1%	272	90	33.2%	492	151	30.7%
Other	8,817	235	2.7%	10,061	325	3.2%	10,123	289	2.9%

Total GMIO	32,358	3,326	10.3%	28,641	2,754	9.6%	28,173	2,672	9.5%


GME
Germany	4,049	382	9.4%	3,425	300	8.8%	3,482	331	9.5%
United Kingdom	2,223	287	12.9%	2,485	384	15.4%	2,800	427	15.2%
Italy	2,349	189	8.0%	2,423	202	8.3%	2,778	237	8.5%
Russia	1,494	142	9.5%	3,024	338	11.2%	2,707	260	9.6%
France	2,686	119	4.4%	2,574	114	4.4%	2,584	125	4.8%
Spain	1,075	94	8.7%	1,363	107	7.8%	1,939	171	8.8%
Other	4,951	455	9.2%	6,674	599	9.0%	6,832	632	9.2%

Total GME	18,827	1,667	8.9%	21,968	2,043	9.3%	23,123	2,182	9.4%

Total Worldwide	64,257	7,478	11.6%	67,176	8,362	12.4%	70,929	9,370	13.2%

(a)

Vehicle sales above primarily represent vehicles manufactured or sold under a GM brand or through an owned distribution network. Under contractual agreements with SGMW and FAW-GM, joint venture vehicle sales in China are included in the vehicle sales and global market share above. Combined GM and Old GM joint venture vehicle sales in China included in the vehicle sales and market share data above was 1.0 million vehicles in the year ended 2009. Old GM’s joint venture vehicle sales in China included in the vehicle sales and market share data above was 606,000 vehicles and 516,000 vehicles in the years ended 2008 and 2007. Consistent with industry practice, vehicle sales information includes estimates of industry sales in certain countries where public reporting is not legally required or otherwise available on a consistent basis.

(b)	Totals may include rounding differences.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Fleet Sales and Deliveries

The sales and market share data provided previously includes both retail and fleet vehicle sales. Fleet sales are comprised of vehicle sales to daily rental car companies, as well as leasing companies and commercial fleet and government customers. Certain fleet transactions, particularly daily rental, are generally less profitable than retail sales. As part of our pricing strategy, particularly in the U.S., we have improved our mix of sales to specific customers.

The following table summarizes estimated fleet sales and the amount of those sales as a percentage of total vehicle sales (vehicles in thousands):


	Years Ended December 31,
	2009	2008	2007
	Combined GM and Old GM	Old GM	Old GM
GMNA	590	953	1,152
GMIO	510	587	594
GME	540	769	833

Total fleet sales (a)	1,640	2,309	2,579

Fleet sales as a percentage of total vehicle sales	21.9%	27.6%	27.5%

(a)	Fleet sale transactions vary by segment and some amounts are estimated.

The following table summarizes U.S. fleet sales and the amount of those sales as a percentage of total U.S. vehicle sales (vehicles in thousands):


	Years Ended December 31,
	2009	2008	2007
	Combined GM and Old GM	Old GM	Old GM
Daily rental sales	307	480	596
Other fleet sales	207	343	412

Total fleet sales	514	823	1,008

Fleet sales as a percentage of total vehicle sales
Cars	29.0%	34.8%	34.9%
Trucks	21.6%	22.4%	20.5%
Total cars and trucks	24.7%	27.6%	26.1%

Competitive Position

The global automotive industry is highly competitive. The principal factors that determine consumer vehicle preferences in the markets in which we operate include price, quality, available options, style, safety, reliability, fuel economy and functionality. Market leadership in individual countries in which we compete varies widely.

In the year ended 2009 combined GM and Old GM estimated worldwide market share was 11.6%. In 2009 the U.S. continued to be negatively affected by the economic factors experienced in 2008 as U.S. automotive industry sales declined 21.4% when compared to 2008. Despite this U.S. industry sales decline and the fact that the market share decreased from Old GM 2008 levels of 22.1%, combined GM and Old GM estimated U.S. market share of 19.6% was the highest among GM and Old GM’s principal competitors.

Old GM’s estimated worldwide market share was 12.4% and 13.2% in the years ended 2008 and 2007. In 2008 worldwide market share was severely affected by the recession in Old GM’s largest market, the U.S., and the recession in Western Europe. Tightening of the credit markets, increases in the unemployment rate, declining consumer confidence as a result of declining household incomes and

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

escalating public speculation related to Old GM’s potential bankruptcy contributed to significantly lower vehicle sales in the U.S. These economic factors had a negative effect on the U.S. automotive industry and the principal factors that determine consumers’ vehicle buying decisions. As a result, consumers delayed purchasing or leasing new vehicles which caused a decline in U.S. vehicle sales.

The following table summarizes the respective U.S. market shares in passenger cars and trucks:


	Years Ended December 31,
	2009	2008	2007
GM (a)	19.6%	22.1%	23.5%
Toyota	16.7%	16.5%	15.9%
Ford	15.9%	14.7%	15.2%
Honda	10.8%	10.6%	9.4%
Chrysler	8.8%	10.8%	12.6%
Nissan	7.3%	7.0%	6.5%
Hyundai/Kia	6.9%	5.0%	4.7%

(a)

Market share data in the year ended 2009 combines our market share data in the period July 10, 2009 through December 31, 2009 with Old GM’s market share data in the period January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2009 for comparative purposes. Market share data in the years ended 2008 and 2007 relate to Old GM.

Product Pricing

A number of methods are used to promote our products, including the use of dealer, retail and fleet incentives such as customer rebates and finance rate support. The level of incentives is dependent in large part upon the level of competition in the markets in which we operate and the level of demand for our products. In 2010, we will continue to price vehicles competitively, including offering strategic and tactical incentives as required. We believe this strategy coupled with improved inventory management will continue to strengthen the reputation of our brands and continue to improve our average transaction price.

Cyclical Nature of Business

In the automotive industry, retail sales are cyclical and production varies from month to month. Vehicle model changeovers occur throughout the year as a result of new market entries. The market for vehicles is cyclical and depends on general economic conditions, credit availability and consumer spending. In 2009 the global automotive industry, particularly in the U.S., had not yet recovered from the negative economic factors experienced in 2008 and has continued to experience decreases in the total number of new cars and trucks sold and decreased production volume.

Relationship with Dealers

Worldwide we market vehicles through a network of independent retail dealers and distributors. At December 31, 2009 there were 5,619 vehicle dealers in the U.S., 568 in Canada and 263 in Mexico. Additionally, there were a total of 14,317 distribution outlets throughout the rest of the world. These outlets include distributors, dealers and authorized sales, service and parts outlets.

The following table summarizes the number of authorized dealerships:


	December 31,
	2009	2008	2007
GMNA	6,450	7,360	7,835
GMIO	5,895	5,510	5,150
GME	8,422	8,732	8,902

Total Worldwide	20,767	21,602	21,887

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

As part of achieving and sustaining long-term viability and the viability of our dealer network, we determined that a reduction in the number of GMNA dealerships was necessary. In determining which dealerships would remain in our network we performed analyses of volumes and consumer satisfaction indexes, among other criteria. Refer to “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — U.S. Dealer Reduction” for a further discussion on our plan to reduce U.S. dealerships.

We enter into a contract with each authorized dealer agreeing to sell to the dealer one or more specified product lines at wholesale prices and granting the dealer the right to sell those vehicles to retail customers from a GM approved location. Our dealers often offer more than one GM brand of vehicle at a single dealership. In fact, we actively promote this for several of our brands in a number of our markets in order to enhance dealer profitability. Authorized GM dealers offer parts, accessories, service and repairs for GM vehicles in the product lines that they sell, using genuine GM parts and accessories. Our dealers are authorized to service GM vehicles under our limited warranty program, and those repairs are to be made only with genuine GM parts. In addition, our dealers generally provide their customers access to credit or lease financing, vehicle insurance and extended service contracts provided by GMAC Inc. (GMAC) or its subsidiaries and other financial institutions.

Because dealers maintain the primary sales and service interface with the ultimate consumer of our products, the quality of GM dealerships and our relationship with our dealers and distributors are critical to our success. In addition to the terms of our contracts with our dealers, we are regulated by various country and state franchise laws that may supersede those contractual terms and impose specific regulatory requirements and standards for initiating dealer network changes, pursuing terminations for cause and other contractual matters.

Research, Development and Intellectual Property

Costs for research, manufacturing engineering, product engineering, and design and development activities relate primarily to developing new products or services or improving existing products or services, including activities related to vehicle emissions control, improved fuel economy and the safety of drivers and passengers.

The following table summarizes research and development expense (dollars in millions):


	Successor		Predecessor
	July 10, 2009 Through December 31, 2009		January 1, 2009 Through July 9, 2009		Year Ended December 31, 2008		Year Ended December 31, 2007
Research and development expense	$	3,034	$	3,017	$	8,012	$	8,081

Research

Overview

Our top priority for research is to continue to develop and advance our alternative propulsion strategy, as energy diversity and environmental leadership are critical elements of our overall business strategy. Our objective is to be the recognized industry leader in fuel efficiency through the development of a wide variety of technologies to reduce petroleum consumption. To meet this objective we focus on five specific areas:

•

Continue to increase the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks;

•

Development of alternative fuel vehicles;

•

Invest significantly in our hybrid and electric technologies;

•

Invest significantly in plug-in electric vehicle technology; and

•

Continued development of hydrogen fuel cell technology.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Fuel Efficiency

We and Old GM have complied with federal fuel economy requirements since their inception in 1978, and we are fully committed to meeting the requirements of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) and compliance with other regulatory schemes, including the California CO₂ program. We anticipate steadily improving fuel economy for both our car and truck fleets. We are committed to meeting or exceeding all federal fuel economy standards in the 2010 through 2015 model years. We plan to achieve compliance through a combination of strategies, including: (1) extensive technology improvements to conventional powertrains; (2) increased use of smaller displacement engines and six speed automatic transmissions; (3) vehicle improvements, including increased use of lighter, front-wheel drive architectures; (4) increased hybrid offerings and the launch of the Chevrolet Volt electric vehicle with extended range in 2010; and (5) portfolio changes, including the increasing car/crossover mix and dropping select larger vehicles in favor of smaller, more fuel efficient offerings.

We are among the industry leaders in fuel efficiency and we are committed to lead in the development of technologies to increase the fuel efficiency of internal combustion engines such as cylinder deactivation, direct injection, turbo-charging with engine downsizing, six speed transmissions and variable valve timing. As a full-line manufacturer that produces a wide variety of cars, trucks and sport utility vehicles, we currently offer 20 models obtaining 30 mpg or more in highway driving, more than any other manufacturer.

Alternative Fuel Vehicles

We have also been in the forefront in the development of alternative fuel vehicles, leveraging experience and capability developed around these technologies in our operations in Brazil. Alternative fuels offer the greatest near-term potential to reduce petroleum consumption in the transportation sector, especially as cellulosic sources of ethanol become more affordable and readily available in the U.S. An increasing percentage of our sales will be alternative fuel capable vehicles, estimated to increase from 17% in 2010 to 65% in 2014.

As part of an overall energy diversity strategy, we remain committed to making at least 50% of the vehicles we produce for the U.S. capable of operating on biofuels, specifically E85 ethanol, by 2012. We currently offer 17 FlexFuel models capable of operating on gasoline, E85 ethanol or any combination of the two.

We are focused on promoting sustainable biofuels derived from non-food sources, such as agricultural, forestry and municipal waste. We are continuing to work with our two strategic alliances with cellulosic ethanol makers Coskata, Inc., of Warrenville, Illinois, and New Hampshire based Mascoma Corp. In October 2009 Coskata, Inc. opened its semi-commercial facility for manufacturing cellulosic ethanol and Mascoma Corp. has been making cellulosic ethanol at its Rome, New York, demonstration plant since late 2008.

We are also supporting the development of biodiesel, a clean-burning alternative diesel fuel that is produced from renewable sources. We currently approve the use of B5, which are certified biodiesel blends of up to 5%, in our Duramax engine that we sell in the U.S. This engine is available on the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra heavy-duty pick-up trucks, Chevrolet Express and GMC Savanna fullsize vans and the Chevrolet Kodiak and GMC Top Kick commercial vehicles. B5 is also approved for all GM diesels in Europe and Asia. We offer a special equipment option on the 6.6-liter Duramax for B20, a 20% biodiesel blend. The special equipment option is available on certain configurations of the GMC Savanna and Chevrolet Express Vans and the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra Heavy-Duty One-Ton Pick-ups. For the 2011 model year, B20 capability will be available on our 6.6L turbo diesel engine.

Hybrid and Plug-In Electric Vehicles

We are also investing significantly in vehicle electrification including hybrid, plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles with extended-range technology. We currently offer seven hybrid models. We are also developing plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technology (PHEV) and the Chevrolet Volt and Opel Ampera electric vehicles with extended range. We plan to invest heavily between 2010 and 2012 to support the expansion of our electrified vehicle offering and in-house development and manufacturing capabilities of the enabling technologies-advanced batteries, electric motors and power control systems.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

We have multiple technologies offering increasing levels of vehicle electrification — hybrid, plug-in hybrid and electric vehicle with extended range.

The highly capable GM Two-mode Hybrid system is offered with the automotive industry’s only hybrid fullsize trucks and sport utility vehicles: Chevrolet Tahoe, Chevrolet Silverado, GMC Yukon and Yukon Denali, GMC Sierra, Cadillac Escalade and Escalade Platinum.

A PHEV, using a modified version of GM’s Two-Mode Hybrid system and advanced lithium-ion battery technology, is scheduled to launch in 2012. The PHEV will provide low-speed electric-only propulsion, and blend engine and battery power to significantly improve fuel efficiency.

We have also announced that we plan to launch the Chevrolet Volt electric vehicle with extended range in late 2010. The Chevrolet Volt is powered by electricity at all times and at all speeds. The Chevrolet Volt is designed to operate on battery power alone for up to 40 miles, after which an engine-generator will provide the electricity to power the electric drive unit. Advanced lithium-ion battery technology is the key enabling technology for the Chevrolet Volt. In January 2009 Old GM announced that it would assemble the battery packs for the Chevrolet Volt in the U.S. using cells supplied by LG Chem. Battery production began at our Brownstown Battery facility in January 2010. A second electric vehicle with extended range, the Opel Ampera, is under development and scheduled to launch in Europe in late 2011.

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technology

As part of our long-term strategy to reduce petroleum consumption and greenhouse gas emissions we are committed to continuing development of our hydrogen fuel cell technology. We and Old GM have conducted research in hydrogen fuel cell development spanning the last 15 years, and we are the only U.S. automobile manufacturer actively engaged in fuel cell development. Our Chevrolet Equinox fuel cell electric vehicle demonstration programs, such as Project Driveway, are the largest in the world and have accumulated more than 1.2 million miles of real-world driving by consumers, celebrities, business partners and government agencies. More than 6,000 individuals have driven the fuel cell powered Chevrolet Equinox, either in short drives, such as media or special events, or as part of Project Driveway. To date, their feedback has led to technology improvements such as extending fuel cell stack life and improvements in the regenerative braking system, which has also benefited our Two-Mode Hybrid vehicles, and improvements in the infrastructure of fueling stations for hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles. In addition, the knowledge gained during Project Driveway on the fuel cell itself has affected the development of the Chevrolet Volt battery as we are applying fuel cell thermal design knowledge to the Chevrolet Volt battery design. Project Driveway operates in Washington DC and California (including Los Angeles, Orange County and Sacramento) for the California Fuel Cell Partnership and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Project Driveway also operates in the New York Metropolitan area in Westchester County with expansion to the greater New York City area due to recent openings of hydrogen fueling stations at JFK International Airport and in the Bronx. Most Project Driveway participants drive Chevrolet Equinoxes for two months with the cost of fuel and insurance provided free in exchange for participant feedback. The Chevrolet Equinox fuel cell electric vehicles do not use any gasoline or oil and emit only water vapor. We have made significant progress on the fuel cell stack for a second-generation fuel cell vehicle, though we currently have no vehicle program approved.

OnStar

Advancements in telematics technology are demonstrated through our OnStar service. OnStar’s in-vehicle safety, security and communications service is the automotive industry’s leading telematics provider, available on more than 30 of our 2010 model year vehicles and currently serving approximately 5.5 million subscribers. OnStar’s key services include: Automatic Crash Response, Stolen Vehicle Assistance, Turn-by-Turn Navigation, OnStar Vehicle Diagnostics and Hands-Free Calling. In May 2009 OnStar announced the development of an Injury Severity Prediction based on the findings of a Center for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel. This will allow OnStar advisors to alert first responders when a vehicle crash is likely to have caused serious injury to the occupants. Data from OnStar’s Automatic Crash Response system will be used to automatically calculate the Injury Severity Prediction which can assist responders in determining the level of care required and the transport destination for patients. OnStar has

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

also expanded its Stolen Vehicle Assistance services with the announcement of Remote Ignition Block. This will allow an OnStar Advisor to send a remote signal to a subscriber’s stolen vehicle to prevent the vehicle from restarting once the ignition is turned off. This capability will not only help authorities recover stolen vehicles, but can also prevent or shorten dangerous high speed pursuits.

Other Technologies

Other safety systems include the third generation of our StabiliTrak electronic stability control system. In addition to controlling brakes and reducing engine power, the latest iteration of the system combines active front steering to turn the front wheels into the skid when the rear wheels lose traction. Our Lane Departure Warning System and Side Blind Zone Alert System extend and enhance driver awareness and vision.

Refer to “Environmental and Regulatory Matters” for a discussion of vehicle emissions requirements, vehicle noise requirements, fuel economy requirements and safety requirements, which also affect our research and development activities.

Product Development

Our vehicle development activities are integrated into a single global organization. This strategy built on earlier efforts to consolidate and standardize our approach to vehicle development.

For example, in the 1990s Old GM merged 11 different engineering centers in the U.S. into a single organization. In 2005, GM Europe Engineering was created, following a similar consolidation from three separate engineering organizations. At the same time, we and Old GM have grown our engineering operations in emerging markets in the Asia Pacific and Latin America/Africa/Middle East (LAAM) regions.

As a result of this process, product development activities are fully integrated on a global basis under one budget and one decision-making group. Similar approaches have been in place for a number of years in other key functions, such as powertrain, purchasing and manufacturing, to take full advantage of our global footprint and resources.

Under our global vehicle architecture strategy and for each of our nine global architectures, we define a specific range of performance characteristics and dimensions supporting a common set of major underbody components and subsystems with common interfaces.

A centralized organization is responsible for many of the non-visible parts of the vehicle, referred to as the architecture, such as steering, suspension, the brake system, the heating, ventilation and air conditioning system and the electrical system. This team works very closely with the global architecture development teams around the world, who are responsible for components that are unique to each brand, such as exterior and interior design, tuning of the vehicle to meet the brand character requirements and final validation to meet applicable government requirements.

We currently have nine different global architectures that are assigned to regional centers around the world. The allocation of the architectures to specific regions is based on where the expertise for the vehicle segment resides, e.g., mini and small vehicles in Asia Pacific, compact vehicles in Europe and fullsize pick-up trucks, sport utility vehicles, midsize vehicles and crossover vehicles in North America.

The nine global architectures are:


• Mini		• Rear-Wheel Drive and Performance
• Small		• Crossover
• Compact		• Midsize Truck
• Full and Midsize		• Electric
• Fullsize Truck

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Intellectual Property

We generate and hold a significant number of patents in a number of countries in connection with the operation of our business. While none of these patents by itself is material to our business as a whole, these patents are very important to our operations and continued technological development. In addition, we hold a number of trademarks and service marks that are very important to our identity and recognition in the marketplace.

Raw Materials, Services and Supplies

We purchase a wide variety of raw materials, parts, supplies, energy, freight, transportation and other services from numerous suppliers for use in the manufacture of our products. The raw materials are primarily comprised of steel, aluminum, resins, copper, lead and platinum group metals. We have not experienced any significant shortages of raw materials and normally do not carry substantial inventories of such raw materials in excess of levels reasonably required to meet our production requirements. In 2009 the weakening of commodity prices experienced in the latter part of 2008 was generally reversed, with prices returning to more historical levels in the year ended 2009 and having the effect of increasing our costs. In a gradually recovering global economic climate, this shift is believed to be the result of speculative activity and the weakening of the U.S. Dollar combined with increased confidence and mild improvements in underlying demand.

In some instances, we purchase systems, components, parts and supplies from a single source, and may be at an increased risk for supply disruptions. Based on our standard payment terms with our systems, components and parts suppliers, we are generally required to pay most of these suppliers on average 47 days following delivery with weekly disbursements.

Environmental and Regulatory Matters

Automotive Emissions Control

We are subject to laws and regulations, regarding vehicle exhaust emission standards, vehicle evaporative emission standards and onboard diagnostic system (OBD) requirements, in the regions throughout the world in which we sell cars, trucks and heavy-duty engines.

North America

The U.S. federal government imposes stringent emission control requirements on vehicles sold in the U.S., and additional requirements are imposed by various state governments, most notably California. These requirements include pre-production testing of vehicles, testing of vehicles after assembly, the imposition of emission defect and performance warranties and the obligation to recall and repair customer owned vehicles that do not comply with emissions requirements. We must obtain certification that the vehicles will meet emission requirements from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before we can sell vehicles in the U.S. and Canada and from the CARB before we can sell vehicles in California and other states that have adopted the California emissions requirements.

The EPA and the CARB continue to emphasize testing on vehicles sold in the U.S. for compliance. We believe that our vehicles meet currently applicable EPA and CARB requirements. If our vehicles do not comply with the emission standards or if defective emission control systems or components are discovered in such testing, or as part of government required defect reporting, we could incur substantial costs related to emissions recalls. We expect that new CARB and federal requirements will increase the time and mileage periods over which manufacturers are responsible for a vehicle’s emission performance.

The EPA and the CARB emission requirements currently in place are referred to as Tier 2 and Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) II. The Tier 2 requirements began in 2004 and were fully phased-in by the 2009 model year, while the LEV II requirements began in 2004 and increase in stringency each year through the 2010 model year. Fleet-wide compliance with the Tier 2 and LEV II standards must be achieved based on a sales-weighted fleet average. CARB is developing its next generation emission standards, LEV III,

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

which will further increase the stringency of its emission standards. Based on discussions with the CARB staff, we expect the LEV III requirements to be adopted in the second half of 2010 and to apply beginning in the 2014 model year. California has also passed legislation and enacted a regulation to control the emissions of greenhouse gases. Since we believe this regulation is effectively a form of fuel economy requirement, it is discussed under “Automotive Fuel Economy.” In addition, both the CARB and the EPA have adopted more stringent standards applicable to heavy-duty trucks.

California law requires that a specified percentage of cars and certain light-duty trucks sold in the state must be zero emission vehicles (ZEV), such as electric vehicles or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. This requirement started at 10% for the 2005 model year and increased in subsequent years. Manufacturers have the option of meeting a portion of this requirement with partial ZEV credit for vehicles that meet very stringent exhaust and evaporative emission standards and have extended emission system warranties. An additional portion of the ZEV requirement can be met with vehicles that meet these partial ZEV requirements and incorporate advanced technology, such as a hybrid electric propulsion system meeting specified criteria. We are complying with the ZEV requirements using a variety of means, including producing vehicles certified to the partial ZEV requirements. California recently adopted changes applicable to the 2012 and later model years that allow an additional portion of the ZEV requirements to be met with PHEVs, including E-REV’s such as the Chevrolet Volt, that meet partial ZEV requirements and other specified criteria. CARB has also announced plans to adopt, in the second half of 2010, 2015 model year and later requirements for ZEVs and PHEVs to achieve greenhouse gas as well as criteria pollutant emission reductions.

The Clean Air Act permits states that have areas with air quality compliance issues to adopt the California car and truck emission standards in lieu of the federal requirements. Ten states, including New York, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington, currently have these standards in effect. Maryland and New Mexico have adopted the California standards effective beginning in the 2011 model year and Arizona’s standards are effective beginning in the 2012 model year. Additional states could also adopt the California standards in the future.

In addition to the exhaust emission programs previously discussed, advanced OBD systems, used to identify and diagnose problems with emission control systems, have been required under federal and California law since the 1996 model year. Problems detected by the OBD system have the potential of increasing warranty costs and the chance for recall. OBD requirements become more challenging each year as vehicles must meet lower emission standards, and new diagnostics are required. Beginning with the 2004 model year, California adopted more stringent OBD requirements, including new design requirements and corresponding enforcement procedures, and we have implemented hardware and software changes to comply with these more stringent requirements. In addition, California adopted technically challenging new OBD requirements that take effect from the 2008 through 2013 model years.

The federal Tier 2 and California evaporative emission LEV II requirements began phasing-in with the 2004 model year. The federal requirements are being harmonized with the California requirements beginning with a 2009 model year phase-in. California plans to further increase the stringency of its requirements as part of its LEV III rulemaking.

Europe

In Europe emissions are regulated by two different entities: the European Union (EU) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN ECE). The EU imposes stringent emission control requirements on vehicles sold in all 27 EU Member States, and other countries apply regulations under the framework of the UN ECE. EU member states can give tax incentives to automobile manufacturers for vehicles which meet emission standards earlier than the compliance date. This can result in specific market requirements for automobile manufacturers to introduce technology earlier than is required for compliance with the EU emission standards. The current EU requirements include type approval of preproduction testing of vehicles, testing of vehicles after assembly and the obligation to recall and repair customer owned vehicles that do not comply with emissions requirements. EU and UN ECE requirements are equivalent in terms of stringency and implementation. We must demonstrate that vehicles will meet emission requirements in witness tests and obtain type approval from an approval authority before we can sell vehicles in the EU.

Emission requirements in Europe will become even more stringent in the future. A new level of exhaust emission standards for cars and light-duty trucks, Euro 5 standards, were applied in September 2009, while stricter Euro 6 standards are expected to apply beginning in 2014. The OBD requirements associated with these new standards will become more challenging as well. The new

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

European emission standards focus particularly on reducing emissions from diesel vehicles. Diesel vehicles have become important in the European marketplace, where they encompass 50% of the market share. The new requirements will require additional technologies and further increase the cost of diesel engines, which currently cost more than gasoline engines. To comply with Euro 6, we expect that technologies need to be implemented which are identical to those being developed to meet U.S. emission standards. The technologies available today are not cost effective and would therefore not be suitable for the European market for small and midsize diesel vehicles, which typically are under high cost pressure. Further, measures to reduce exhaust pollutant emissions have detrimental effects on vehicle fuel economy which drives additional technology cost to maintain fuel economy.

In the long-term, notwithstanding the already low vehicle emissions in Europe, regulatory discussions in Europe are expected to continue. Regulators will continue to refine the testing requirements addressing issues such as test cycle, durability, OBD, in-service conformity and off-cycle emissions.

International Operations

Within the Asia Pacific region, our vehicles are subject to a broad range of vehicle emission laws and regulations. China has implemented European standards, with Euro 4 standards first applied in Beijing in 2008. Shanghai implemented Euro 4 standards with European OBD requirements for newly registered vehicles in November 2009 and other cities are expected to implement the same standards for newly registered vehicles in 2010. China plans to implement Euro 4 standards nationwide beginning in July 2010 for new vehicle type approvals and beginning in July 2011 for newly registered vehicles. Since January 2009 South Korea has implemented the CARB emission Fleet Average System with different application timings and levels of nonmethanic organic gas targets for gasoline and liquefied petroleum gas powered vehicles. In September 2009 South Korea implemented Euro 5 standards for diesel powered vehicles. South Korea has adopted CARB standards for gasoline powered vehicles and EU regulations for diesel powered vehicles for OBD and evaporative emissions. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Committee has agreed that the major ASEAN countries Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and Singapore will implement Euro 4 standards in 2012, although implementation of OBD requirements is still under study. In India, Bharat Stage IV emission standards will be required for new vehicle registrations in 11 major cities and Bharat Stage III emission standards will be required throughout India beginning in April 2010. Japan sets specific exhaust emission and durability standards, test methods and driving cycles. In Japan, OBD is required with both EU and U.S. OBD systems accepted. All other countries in which we conduct operations within the Asia Pacific region either require or allow some form of EPA, EU or UN ECE style emission regulations with or without OBD requirements.

Within the LAAM region, some countries follow the U.S. test procedures, standards and OBD requirements and some follow the EU test procedures, standards and OBD requirements with different levels of stringency. In terms of standards, Brazil implemented national LEV standards, L5, which preceded Tier 2 standards in the U.S., for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles in January 2009. Brazil has published new emission standards, L6, which are based on Euro 5 standards, for light diesel and gasoline vehicles. L6 standards for light diesel vehicles are to be implemented in January 2013, which mandate OBD requirements for light diesel vehicles in 2015. L6 standards for light gasoline vehicles are to be implemented in January 2014 for new types and January 2015 for all models. Argentina implemented Euro 4 standards starting with new vehicle registrations in January 2009 and is moving to Euro 5 standards in January 2012 for new vehicle types and January 2014 for all models. Chile currently requires Euro 3 standards for gasoline vehicles and Euro 4 standards for diesel vehicles and has proposed Euro 4 standards for gasoline vehicles beginning in September 2010 and Euro 5 standards for diesel vehicles beginning in September 2011. Other countries in the LAAM region either have some level of U.S. or EU standards or no standards at all.

Industrial Environmental Control

Our operations are subject to a wide range of environmental protection laws including those laws regulating air emissions, water discharges, waste management and environmental cleanup. In connection with the 363 Sale we have assumed various stages of investigation for sites where contamination has been alleged and a number of remediation actions to clean up hazardous wastes as required by federal and state laws. Certain environmental statutes require that responsible parties fund remediation actions regardless of fault, legality of original disposal or ownership of a disposal site. Under certain circumstances these laws impose joint and several liability, as well as liability for related damages to natural resources.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

The future effect of environmental matters, including potential liabilities, is often difficult to estimate. Environmental reserves are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability is reasonably estimable. This practice is followed whether the claims are asserted or unasserted. The amounts of current reserves are expected to be paid out over the periods of remediation for the applicable sites, which typically range from two to 30 years.

The following table summarizes the expenses for site remediation actions, including ongoing operations and maintenance (dollars in millions):


	Successor		Predecessor
	July 10, 2009 Through December 31, 2009		January 1, 2009 Through July 9, 2009		Year Ended December 31, 2008		Year Ended December 31, 2007
Site remediation expenses	$	3	$	34	$	94	$	104

It is possible that such remediation actions could require average annual expenditures of $30 million over the next five years.

Remediation costs and other damages for which we ultimately may be responsible are not reasonably estimable because of uncertainties with respect to factors such as our connection to the site or to materials located at the site, the involvement of other potentially responsible parties, the application of laws and other standards or regulations, site conditions and the nature and scope of investigations, studies and remediation to be undertaken (including the technologies to be required and the extent, duration and success of remediation). As a result, we are unable to determine or reasonably estimate the amount of costs or other damages for which we are potentially responsible in connection with these sites, although that total could be substantial.

To mitigate the effects our worldwide facilities have on the environment we are committed to convert as many of our worldwide facilities as possible to landfill-free facilities. Landfill-free facilities send no waste to landfills, waste is either recycled or used to create energy. As part of Old GM’s commitment to reduce the effect its worldwide facilities had on the environment, Old GM had committed to convert half of its major global manufacturing operations to landfill-free facilities by 2010. This landfill-free strategy translated, on an individual facility basis, to more than 70 of Old GM’s manufacturing operations worldwide. At July 10, 2009 we had acquired, in connection with the 363 Sale, 56 landfill-free manufacturing facilities worldwide. At our landfill-free facilities, 97% of waste materials are recycled or reused and 3% is converted to energy at waste-to-energy facilities. We estimate that over 2 million tons of waste materials were recycled or reused by us and Old GM in 2009 and estimate that 41,000 tons of waste materials from us and Old GM in 2009 were converted to energy at waste-to-energy facilities. These numbers will increase as additional manufacturing sites reach landfill-free status.

We currently have not announced publicly any future targets to reduce CO₂ emission levels from our worldwide facilities; however, we are continuing to make significant progress in further reducing CO₂ emission levels. Seven of our facilities in Europe are included in and comply with the European Emissions Trading Scheme, which is being implemented to meet the European Community’s greenhouse gas reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. We and Old GM reported in accordance with the Global Reporting Initiative, the Carbon Disclosure Project, the EPA Climate Leaders Program and the Department of Energy (DOE) 1605(b) program since their inception. We are implementing and publicly reporting on various voluntary initiatives to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from our worldwide operations. In 2005 Old GM had a 2010 target of an 8% reduction in CO₂ emissions from its worldwide facilities compared to Old GM’s worldwide facilities 2005 emission levels. By 2008 Old GM had exceeded this target by reducing CO₂ emissions from its worldwide facilities by 20% compared to 2005 levels.

Automotive Fuel Economy

North America

The 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) provided for average fuel economy requirements for fleets of passenger cars built for the 1978 model year and thereafter. For the 2009 model year, our and Old GM’s domestic passenger car fleet achieved a Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) of 31.1 mpg, which exceeded the standard of 27.5 mpg. The estimated CAFE for our 2010 model year domestic passenger cars is 30.3 mpg, which would also exceed the 27.5 mpg standard applicable for that model year.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Cars that are imported for sale in the U.S. are accounted for separately. For our and Old GM’s imported passenger cars, the 2009 model year CAFE was 30.3 mpg, which exceeded the requirement of 27.5 mpg. The estimated CAFE for our 2010 model year imported passenger cars is 34.5 mpg, which would also exceed the applicable requirement.

Fuel economy standards for light-duty trucks became effective in 1979. Starting with the 2008 model year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) implemented substantial changes to the structure of the truck CAFE program, including reformed standards based upon truck size. Under the existing truck rules, reformed standards are optional for the 2008 through 2010 model years. Old GM chose to comply with these optional reform-based standards beginning with the 2008 model year. Our and Old GM’s light-duty truck CAFE performance for the 2009 model year was 23.7 mpg, which exceeds our and Old GM’s reformed requirement of 22.5 mpg. Our projected reform standard for light-duty trucks for the 2010 model year is 22.9 mpg and our projected performance under this standard is 23.7 mpg.

In 2007 Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which directed NHTSA to modify the CAFE program. Among the provisions in the new law was a requirement that fuel economy standards continue to be set separately for cars and trucks that combined would increase to at least 35.0 mpg by 2020.

In addition, California has passed legislation (AB 1493) requiring the CARB to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles (which is the same as regulating fuel economy). This California program is currently established for the 2009 through 2016 model years. California needed a federal waiver to implement this program and was granted this waiver on June 30, 2009.

Further, in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, the EPA was directed to establish a new program to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for vehicles under the Clean Air Act. As a result, in September 2009 the EPA and the NHTSA issued a joint proposal to establish a coordinated national program consisting of new requirements for model year 2012 through 2016 light-duty vehicles that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act and improve fuel economy pursuant to the CAFE standards under the EPCA. These reform-based standards will apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles (collectively, light-duty vehicles) built in model years 2012 through 2016. The rule is to be finalized by April 2010. Our current product plan projects compliance with the federal and California programs through 2016.

CARB has agreed that compliance with the EPA’s greenhouse gas emission standards will be deemed compliant with the AB 1493 standards for 2012 through 2016 model years. In the meantime, California’s program to regulate vehicle greenhouse gases is in effect for the 2009-2011 model years. The following table illustrates California’s program compliance standards and our projected compliance (in grams per mile CO₂-equivalent):


	2009 Model Year		2010 Model Year		2011 Model Year
	Standard	Combined GM and Old GM	Standard	GM(a)	Standard	GM(a)
Passenger car and light-duty truck 1 fleet	323	292	301	303	267	290
Light–duty truck 2 + medium-duty passenger vehicle fleet	439	413	420	387	390	394

(a)	Our performance projections for the 2010 model year for the passenger car and light-duty truck 1 fleet as well as both fleets for the 2011 model year are projected to be more than the standard. We are still projecting compliance due to the allowed use of credits earned in previous years.

Europe

In Europe, the EU passed legislation in December 2008 to regulate CO₂ emissions beginning in 2012. Based on a target function of CO₂ to vehicle weight, each manufacturer must meet a specific target based on the CO₂ target value on this curve for each vehicle it sells, but with the ability to average across its fleet in each year. This requirement will be phased in with 65% of vehicles sold in 2012 required to meet this target, 75% in 2013, 80% in 2014 and 100% in 2015 and beyond. Automobile manufacturers can earn super-credits under this legislation for the sales volume of vehicles having a specific CO₂ value of less than 50 grams CO₂. This is intended to encourage the early introduction of ultra-low CO₂ vehicles such as the Chevrolet Volt and Opel/Vauxhall Ampera by providing an

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

additional incentive to reduce the CO₂ fleet average. Automobile manufacturers may gain credit of up to 7 grams for eco-innovations for those technologies which improve real-world fuel economy but may not show in the test cycle, such as solar panels on vehicles. There is also a 5% credit for E85 flexible-fuel vehicles if more than 30% of refueling stations in an EU member state sell E85. Further regulatory detail is being developed in the comitology process, which develops the detail of the regulatory requirements through a process involving the European Commission and member states. The legislation sets a target of 95 grams per kilometer CO₂ for 2020 with an impact assessment required to further assess and develop this requirement. We have developed a compliance plan by adopting operational CO₂ targets for each market entry in Europe.

In October 2009 the EU Commission adopted a proposal to regulate CO₂ emissions from light commercial vehicles. The proposal is modeled after the CO₂ regulation for passenger cars. It proposes that new light commercial vehicles meet a fleet average CO₂ target of 175 grams per kilometer CO₂ with a phase-in of compliance beginning with 75% of new light commercial vehicles by 2014, 80% by 2015 and 100% compliance by 2016. The manufacturer-specific CO₂ compliance target will be determined as a function of vehicle curb mass. Flexibilities, such as eco-innovations and super credits, are part of the regulatory proposal as well. A long-term target for 2020 of 135g/km has been also proposed, to be confirmed after an impact assessment in 2013. We are currently making an assessment of the effect of the proposal on our fleet of light commercial vehicles. The EU Commission’s proposal will now go through the legislative process with the European Parliament and European Council, during which we expect some modifications to be adopted.

A regulation has been adopted that will require low-rolling resistance tires, tire pressure monitoring systems and gear shift indicators by 2012. An additional regulation has been adopted that will require labeling of tires for noise, fuel efficiency and rolling resistance, affecting vehicles at sale as well as the sale of tires in the aftermarket. Further, there are plans to introduce regulatory proposals regarding energy efficiency of air conditioning systems and fuel economy meters.

Sixteen EU member states have introduced CO₂ based vehicle taxation schemes. Tax measures are within the jurisdiction of the EU member states. We are faced with significant challenges relative to the predictability of future tax laws and differences in the tax schemes and thresholds.

International Operations

In the Asia Pacific region, we face new or increasingly more stringent fuel economy standards. In China, Phase 3 fuel economy standards are under development and may move from a vehicle pass-fail system to a corporate fleet average scheme. Phase 3 fuel economy standards are expected to increase by 15% to 20% from the current Phase 2 targets and implementation is expected to begin in 2012. Phase 2 currently allows some relief for certain vehicle types and vehicles with automatic transmissions. It is unclear at this time if that relief will be carried over in Phase 3. In Korea, new fuel economy/CO₂ targets were announced last year as part of the government’s low carbon/green growth strategy. These targets are planned to be set at levels more stringent than fuel economy/CO₂ targets in the U.S., but less stringent than fuel economy/CO₂ targets in Europe. Phase-in is expected to begin in 2012 and finish in 2015 with manufacturers having the option to certify either on a fuel consumption basis or a CO₂ emissions basis. Each manufacturer will be given a corporate target to meet based on an overall industry fleet fuel economy/CO₂ average. Other aspects of the program being considered include credits, incentives, and penalties. Legislation of the new standard is expected to be completed by the end of 2010. In Australia the government is conducting an assessment of possible vehicle fuel efficiency measures including shifting from voluntary to mandatory standards and how any such move would align with the government’s policy response to climate change. Before the government makes any decisions on additional fuel efficiency measures, it will conduct an industry consultation. For the first time, India is expected to establish fuel economy norms based on weight and measured in CO₂ emissions that will become mandatory sometime in 2011. Final targets and labeling requirements are still to be determined. In April 2009 automobile manufacturers in India began to voluntarily declare the fuel economy of each vehicle at the point of sale.

In Brazil, governmental bodies and the Brazilian automobile makers association established, in 2009, a national voluntary program for evaluation and labeling of light passenger and commercial vehicles equipped with internal combustion engines. This voluntary program aims to increase vehicles energy efficiency by labeling vehicles with fuel consumption measurements for urban, extra-urban and combined (equivalent to city and highway mpg measurements in the U.S.) driving conditions. We are and Old GM was engaged in this program along with other leading car manufacturers.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Chemical Regulations

North America

Several states have introduced legislation related to green chemistry and product stewardship initiatives. These initiatives would give states broad regulatory authority in relation to the use of certain chemical substances and potentially affect a manufacturer’s vehicle life-cycle responsibilities. For example, we expect California’s Green Chemistry regulations to be finalized at the end of 2010. Currently, vehicles are not included in the scope of the regulations; however, if vehicles are included in future revised regulations it could lead to increased product complexity and cost.

Europe

In June 2007 the EU implemented its regulatory requirements to register, evaluate, authorize and restrict the use of chemical substances (REACH). The regulation deals with chemical substances produced with a production volume of one ton or more per year are required to be registered with a new European Chemicals Agency. During REACH’s pre-registration phase, Old GM and our suppliers registered those substances identified by the regulation. REACH is to be phased in over a 10 year period from the implementation date. During the implementation phase, REACH will require ongoing action from us, Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM), our suppliers and other suppliers in the supply chain. Under REACH, substances of very high concern may require authorization for further use and may also be restricted in the future, which could increase the cost of certain substances that are used to manufacture vehicles and parts. In addition, our research and development initiatives may be diverted to address future REACH requirements. We are continually monitoring the implementation of REACH and its effect on our suppliers and the automotive industry to maintain compliance.

Safety

New vehicles and equipment sold in the U.S. are required to meet certain safety standards promulgated by the NHTSA. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorized the NHTSA to determine these standards and the schedule for implementing them. In addition, in the case of a vehicle defect that creates an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety or does not comply with a safety standard, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 generally requires that the manufacturer notify owners and provide a remedy. The Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act requires us to report certain information relating to certain customer complaints, warranty claims, field reports and lawsuits in the U.S. and fatalities and recalls outside the U.S.

We are subject to certain safety standards and recall regulations in the markets outside the U.S. in which we operate. These standards often have the same purpose as the U.S. standards, but may differ in their requirements and test procedures. From time to time, other countries pass regulations which are more stringent than U.S. standards. Most countries require type approval while the U.S. and Canada require self-certification.

Vehicular Noise Control

Vehicles we manufacture and sell may be subject to noise emission regulations.

In the U.S., passenger cars and light-duty trucks are subject to state and local motor vehicle noise regulations. We are committed to designing and developing our products to meet these noise regulations. Since addressing different vehicle noise regulations established in numerous state and local jurisdictions is not practical, we attempt to identify the most stringent requirements and validate to those requirements. In the rare instances where a state or local noise regulation is not covered by the composite requirement, a waiver of the requirement is requested and to date no significant cost has resulted from such a request. Medium to heavy-duty trucks are regulated at the federal level. Federal truck regulations preempt all United States state or local noise regulations for trucks over 10,000 lbs. gross vehicle weight rating.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Outside the U.S., noise regulations have been established by authorities at the national and supranational level (e.g., EU or UN ECE for Europe). We believe that our vehicles meet all applicable noise regulations in the markets where they are sold.

While current noise emission regulations serve to regulate maximum allowable noise levels, proposals have been made to regulate minimum noise levels. These proposals stem from concern that vehicles that are relatively quiet, specifically hybrids, may not be heard by the sight-impaired. We are committed to design and manufacture vehicles to comply with potential noise emission regulations that may come from these proposals.

Potential Effect of Regulations

We have established aggressive near-term and long-term plans to develop and bring to market technologies designed to further reduce emissions, mitigate remediation expenses related to environmental liabilities, improve fuel efficiency, monitor and enhance the safety features of our vehicles and provide additional value and benefits to our customers. This is illustrated by our commitment to marketing more hybrid vehicles, our accelerated commitment to develop electrically powered vehicles, our use of biofuels in our expanded portfolio of flexible-fuel vehicles and enhancements to conventional internal combustion engine technology have contributed to the fuel efficiency of our vehicles. In addition, the conversion of many of our manufacturing facilities to landfill-free status has shown our commitment to mitigate potential environmental liability. We believe that the development and global implementation of new, cost-effective energy technologies in all sectors is the most effective way to improve energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate environmental liabilities.

Despite these advanced technology efforts, our ability to satisfy fuel economy and CO₂ requirements is contingent on various future economic, consumer, legislative and regulatory factors that we cannot control and cannot predict with certainty. If we are not able to comply with specific new fuel economy requirements, which include higher CAFE standards and state CO₂ requirements such as those imposed by the AB 1493 Rules, then we could be subject to sizeable civil penalties or have to restrict product offerings drastically to remain in compliance. Environmental liabilities, which we may be responsible for, are not reasonably estimable and could be substantial. In addition, violations of safety standards could result in the recall of one or more of our products. In turn, any of these actions could have substantial adverse effects on our operations, including facility idling, reduced employment, increased costs and loss of revenue.

Pension Legislation

We are subject to a variety of federal rules and regulations, including the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) and the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which govern the manner in which we fund and administer our pensions for our retired employees and their spouses. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 is designed, among other things, to more appropriately reflect the value of pension assets and liabilities to determine funding requirements. Under the Pension Protection Act of 2006 we expect there will be no cash funding requirement for our U.S. hourly and salaried pension plans in 2010. We remeasure our U.S. pension plans at the end of each year and for significant plan amendments, benefit modifications and related events. Based on preliminary asset returns, the year-to-date discount rate, assuming interest rates remain at current levels and pension fund assets earn 8.5% annually going forward, we may need to make significant contributions to the U.S. pension plans in 2013 and beyond. We are currently analyzing our pension funding strategies. We also maintain pension plans for employees in a number of countries outside the U.S., which are subject to local laws and regulations.

Export Control

We are subject to U.S. export control laws and regulations, including those administered by the U.S. Departments of State, Commerce, and Treasury. In addition, most countries in which we do business have applicable export controls. Our Office of Export Compliance and global Export Compliance Officers are responsible for working with our business units to ensure compliance with these laws and regulations. Non-U.S. export controls are likely to become increasingly significant to our business as we develop our research and development operations on a global basis. If we fail to comply with applicable export compliance regulations, we and our employees could be subject to criminal and civil penalties and, under certain circumstances, loss of export privileges and debarment from doing business with the U.S. government and the governments of other countries.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Significant Transactions

On July 10, 2009 we completed the acquisition of substantially all of the assets and assumed certain liabilities of Old GM and its direct and indirect subsidiaries (collectively, the Sellers). The 363 Sale was consummated in accordance with the Amended and Restated Master Sale and Purchase Agreement, dated June 26, 2009, as amended, (Purchase Agreement) between us and the Sellers, and pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court’s sale order dated July 5, 2009.

In connection with the 363 Sale, the purchase price we paid to Old GM equaled the sum of:

•

A credit bid in an amount equal to the total of: (1) debt of $19.8 billion under Old GM’s UST Loan Agreement, plus notes of $1.2 billion issued as additional compensation for the UST Loan Agreement, plus interest on such debt Old GM owed as of the closing date of the 363 Sale; and (2) debt of $33.3 billion under Old GM’s DIP Facility, plus notes of $2.2 billion issued as additional compensation for the DIP Facility, plus interest Old GM owed as of the closing date, less debt of $8.2 billion owed under the DIP Facility;

•

The UST’s return of the warrants Old GM previously issued to it;

•

The issuance to MLC of 50 million shares (or 10%) of our common stock and warrants to acquire newly issued shares of our common stock initially exercisable for a total of 91 million shares of our common stock (or 15% on a fully diluted basis); and

•

Our assumption of certain specified liabilities of Old GM (including debt of $7.1 billion owed under the DIP Facility).

Under the Purchase Agreement, we are obligated to issue additional shares of our common stock to MLC (Adjustment Shares) in the event that allowed general unsecured claims against MLC, as estimated by the Bankruptcy Court, exceed $35.0 billion. The maximum Adjustment Shares equate to 2% (or 10 million shares) of our common stock. The number of Adjustment Shares to be issued is calculated based on the extent to which estimated general unsecured claims exceed $35.0 billion with the maximum number of Adjustment Shares issued if estimated general unsecured claims total $42.0 billion or more. We determined that it is probable that general unsecured claims allowed against MLC will ultimately exceed $35.0 billion by at least $2.0 billion. In that circumstance, under the terms of the Purchase Agreement, we would be required to issue 2.9 million Adjustment Shares to MLC as an adjustment to the purchase price.

At July 10, 2009 we accrued $113 million in Other liabilities and deferred income taxes related to this contingent obligation.

Agreements with the UST, UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust and Export Development Canada

On July 10, 2009 we entered into the UST Credit Agreement and assumed debt of $7.1 billion Old GM incurred under its DIP Facility. Immediately after entering into the UST Credit Agreement, we made a partial pre-payment, reducing the UST Loans principal balance to $6.7 billion. An amendment to the UST Credit Agreement, as subsequently discussed, provides for quarterly payments of $1.0 billion beginning in December 2009. At March 31, 2010 the first two quarterly payments have been made reducing the UST Loans principal balance to $4.7 billion. We also entered into the VEBA Note Agreement and issued a note in the principal amount of $2.5 billion (VEBA Notes) to the UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust (New VEBA).

We are required to prepay the UST Loans, VEBA Notes and Canadian Loan (as subsequently defined), in certain cases on a pro rata basis, in an amount equal to the net cash proceeds received from certain asset dispositions, casualty events, extraordinary receipts and the incurrence of certain debt. We can voluntarily repay all or a portion of the UST Loans or VEBA Notes at any time. Once repaid, we cannot reborrow under the UST Credit Agreement.

The obligations under the UST Credit Agreement and the VEBA Note Agreement are secured by substantially all of our assets, subject to certain exceptions, including our equity interests in certain of our foreign subsidiaries, limited in most cases to 65% of the equity interests of the pledged foreign subsidiaries due to tax considerations.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Proceeds of the DIP Facility of $16.4 billion were deposited in escrow and will be distributed to us at our request if the following conditions are met: (1) the representations and warranties we made in the loan documents are true and correct in all material respects on the date of our request; (2) we are not in default on the date of our request taking into consideration the amount of the withdrawal request; and (3) the UST, in its sole discretion, approves the amount and intended use of the requested disbursement. Any unused amounts in escrow on June 30, 2010 are required to be used to repay the UST Loans and the Canadian Loan on a pro rata basis. Any proceeds remaining in the escrow account after the UST Loans and the Canadian Loan are repaid in full shall be returned to us.

On July 10, 2009 through our wholly-owned subsidiary General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL), we also entered into the amended and restated Canadian Loan Agreement with EDC, as a result of which GMCL has a CAD $1.5 billion (equivalent to $1.3 billion when entered into) term loan (Canadian Loan). An amendment to the UST Credit Agreement provides for quarterly payments of $192 million beginning December 2009. At March 31, 2010 the first two quarterly payments had been made reducing the Canadian Loan principal balance to $1.0 billion.

GMCL may voluntarily repay the Canadian Loan in whole or in part at any time. Once repaid, GMCL cannot reborrow under the Canadian Loan Agreement. We and 1908 Holdings Ltd., Parkwood Holdings Ltd., and GM Overseas Funding LLC, each of which is a Subsidiary Guarantor of GMCL, have guaranteed the Canadian Loan. Our guarantee of GMCL’s obligations under the Canadian Loan Agreement is secured by a lien on the equity of GMCL. Because 65% of our ownership interest in GMCL was previously pledged to secure the obligations under the UST Credit Agreement and the VEBA Note Agreement, EDC received a first priority lien on 35% of our equity interest in GMCL and a second priority lien on the remaining 65%. With certain exceptions, GMCL’s obligations under the Canadian Loan Agreement are secured by a first lien on substantially all of its and the Subsidiary Guarantors’ assets, including GMCL’s ownership interests in the Subsidiary Guarantors and a portion of GMCL’s equity interests in General Motors Product Services Inc., a subsidiary of ours.

In November 2009 we signed amendments to the UST Credit Agreement and the Canadian Loan Agreement to provide for quarterly repayments of the UST Loans and Canadian Loan. Under these amendments, we agreed to make quarterly payments of $1.0 billion and $192 million to the UST and EDC, which began in the fourth quarter of 2009. Upon making such payments, equivalent amounts were released to us from escrow. In the event of an initial public offering of our equity, this payment schedule would be suspended. The remaining terms would remain unchanged versus the original agreement. Any funds remaining in our escrow account after repayment of the loans will be released to us.

Agreement with Delphi Corporation

In July 2009 we entered into the Delphi Master Disposition Agreement (DMDA) with Delphi Corporation (Delphi) and other parties. Under the DMDA, we agreed to acquire Delphi’s global steering business (Nexteer), which supplies us and other OEMs with steering systems and columns, and four domestic facilities that manufacture a variety of automotive components, primarily sold to us. We and several third party investors who held the Delphi Tranche DIP facilities (collectively the Investors) agreed to acquire substantially all of Delphi’s remaining assets through DIP HOLDCO, LLP, subsequently named Delphi Automotive LLP (New Delphi). Certain excluded assets and liabilities have been retained by a Delphi entity (DPH) to be sold or liquidated. In October 2009 we consummated the transaction contemplated by the DMDA with Delphi, New Delphi, Old GM and other sellers and other buyers that are party to the agreement, as more fully described in Note 5 to the consolidated financial statements. Refer to “Item 7 — Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Strategic Initiatives — Delphi Master Disposition Agreement” for a description of the terms of the DMDA and related agreements.

Holding Company Merger

On October 19, 2009 we completed our holding company merger to implement a new holding company structure that is intended to provide greater financial and organizational flexibility. In connection with the merger, all of the outstanding shares of common stock and Series A Preferred Stock in our previous legal entity were exchanged on a one-for-one basis for new shares of our common stock and Series A Preferred Stock. These new securities have the same economic terms and provisions as the securities for which they were exchanged and are held by our securityholders in the same class evidencing the same proportional interest in us as the securityholders held prior to the exchange.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

In addition, in connection with the merger we entered into amended and restated warrant agreements and a Stockholders Agreement dated as of October 15, 2009, which are substantially identical to our prior warrant agreements and Stockholders Agreement dated as of July 10, 2009, respectively. Also in connection with the merger, GMCL entered into an amendment (Canadian Loan Amendment) to the Canadian Loan Agreement and we entered into an assignment and assumption agreement and amendment to the UST Credit Agreement and an assignment and assumption agreement and amendment to the VEBA Note Agreement. Refer to “Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities — Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities” for a further discussion on the merger.

Employees

At December 31, 2009 we employed 217,000 employees, of whom 151,000 (70%) were hourly employees and 66,000 (30%) were salaried employees. The following table summarizes employment by segment (in thousands):


	Successor	Predecessor
	Year Ended December 31, 2009	Years Ended December 31,
	Year Ended December 31, 2009	2008	2007
GMNA(a)	102	116	139
GMIO	61	70	68
GME	53	55	57
Corporate	1	2	2

Total Worldwide	217	243	266

U.S. — Salaried(a)(b)(d)	26	29	34
U.S. — Hourly(a)(c)	51	62	78

(a)	Includes additional 11,000 employees due to the acquisition of Nexteer and four domestic facilities from Delphi on October 6, 2009, of which 2,000 are U.S. salaried employees, 5,000 are U.S. hourly employees and 4,000 are employees located outside the U.S.

(b)	5,000 U.S. salaried employees irrevocably accepted the 2009 Salaried Window Program (a voluntary program, subject to management approval, to reduce salaried headcount based on individual eligibility and employees elections made) option or the GM severance program option.

(c)	13,000 U.S. hourly employees elected to participate in Old GM’s 2009 Special Attrition Programs, which were introduced in February and June of 2009 and offered cash and other incentives for individuals who elected to retire or voluntarily terminate employment.

(d)	Includes employees in GMNA and Corporate.

Refer to Note 19 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information on our salaried and hourly severance programs.

At December 31, 2009 52,000 of our U.S. employees (or 67%) were represented by unions, of which 50,000 employees were represented by the UAW. In addition, many of our employees outside the U.S. were represented by various unions. At December 31, 2009 we had 388,000 U.S. hourly and 118,000 U.S. salaried retirees, surviving spouses and deferred vested participants.

Segment Reporting Data

Operating segment and principal geographic area data for July 10, 2009 through December 31, 2009, January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2009, and the years ended 2008 and 2007 are summarized in Note 33 to the consolidated financial statements.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Website Access to Our Reports

Our internet website address is www.gm.com.

Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (Exchange Act) are available free of charge through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

In addition to the information about us and our subsidiaries contained in this 2009 Form 10-K, extensive information about us can be found on our website, including information about our management team, our brands and products and our corporate governance principles.

The public may read and copy the materials we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. Additionally, the SEC maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information. The address of the SEC’s website is www.sec.gov.

* * * * * * *

Item 1A. Risk Factors

We face a number of significant risks and uncertainties in connection with our operations. Our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected by the factors described below.

While we describe each risk separately, some of these risks are interrelated and certain risks could trigger the applicability of other risks described below. Also, the risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones that we may face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us, or that we currently do not consider significant, could also potentially impair, and have a material adverse effect on, our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our business is highly dependent on sales volume. Global vehicle sales have declined significantly from their peak levels and there is no assurance that the global automobile market will recover in the near future or that it will not suffer a significant further downturn.

Our business and financial results are highly sensitive to sales volume, as demonstrated by the effect of sharp declines in vehicle sales in the U.S. since 2007 and globally since 2008 on our business. Vehicle sales in the U.S. have fallen significantly on an annualized basis since their peak in 2007, and sales globally have shown steep declines on an annualized basis since their peak in January 2008. The deteriorating economic and market conditions that have driven the drop in vehicle sales, including declines in real estate and equity values, rising unemployment, tightened credit markets, depressed consumer confidence and weak housing markets, may not improve significantly during 2010 and may continue past 2010 and could deteriorate further. Although vehicle sales began to recover in the last quarter of 2009 and we expect that they will continue to recover in 2010, there is no assurance that any recovery in vehicle sales will continue. Further, sales volumes may decline more severely or take longer to recover than we expect, and if they do, our results of operations and financial condition will be materially adversely affected.

Our ability to attract a sufficient number of consumers to consider our vehicles particularly our new products, including cars and crossover vehicles, is essential.

Our ability to achieve long-term profitability depends on our ability to entice consumers to consider our products when purchasing a new vehicle. The automotive industry, particularly in the U.S., is very competitive and our competitors have been very successful in persuading customers that previously purchased our products to purchase their vehicles instead as is reflected by our loss of market

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

share over the past three years. We believe that this is due, in part, to a negative public perception of our products in relation to those of some of our competitors. Changing this perception will be critical. If we are unable to change public perception of our company and products, particularly our new products, including cars and crossovers, our results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

Our continued ability to achieve cost reductions and to realize production efficiencies for our automotive operations is critical to our ability to return to profitability.

We are continuing to implement a number of cost reduction and productivity improvement initiatives in our automotive operations, including substantial restructuring initiatives for our North American operations. Our future competitiveness depends upon our continued success in implementing these restructuring initiatives throughout our automotive operations, especially in North America. In addition, while some of the elements of cost reduction are within our control, others such as interest rates or return on investments, which influence our expense for pensions, depend more on external factors, and there can be no assurance that such external factors will not materially adversely affect our ability to reduce our structural costs. Reducing costs may prove difficult due to our focus on increasing advertising and our belief that engineering expenses necessary to improve the performance, safety, and customer satisfaction of our vehicles are likely to increase.

The ability of our new executive management team to quickly learn the automotive industry and lead our company will be critical to our ability to succeed.

During the last six months we have substantially changed our executive management team. We have appointed a new Chief Executive Officer and a new Chief Financial Officer, both of whom have no outside automotive industry experience. We have also promoted from within many new senior officers in areas ranging from marketing to engineering. It is important to our success that the new members of the executive management team quickly understand the automotive industry and that our senior officers quickly adapt and excel in their new senior management roles. If they are unable to do so, and as a result are unable to provide effective guidance and leadership, our business and financial results could be materially adversely affected.

Failure of our suppliers, due to difficult economic conditions affecting our industry, to provide us with the systems, components and parts that we need to manufacture our automotive products and operate our business could result in a disruption in our operations and have a material adverse effect on our business.

We rely on many suppliers to provide us with the systems, components and parts that we need to manufacture our automotive products and operate our business. In recent years, a number of these suppliers have experienced severe financial difficulties and solvency problems, and some have sought relief under the Bankruptcy Code or similar reorganization laws. This trend intensified in 2009 due to the combination of general economic weakness, sharply declining vehicle sales and tightened credit availability that has affected the automotive industry generally. Suppliers may encounter difficulties in obtaining credit or may receive an opinion from their independent public accountants regarding their financial statements that includes a statement expressing substantial doubt about their ability to continue as a going concern, which could trigger defaults under their financings or other agreements or impede their ability to raise new funds.

When comparable situations have occurred in the past, suppliers have attempted to increase their prices, pass through increased costs, alter payment terms or seek other relief. In instances where suppliers have not been able to generate sufficient additional revenues or obtain the additional financing they need to continue their operations, either through private sources or government funding, which may not be available, some have been forced to reduce their output, shut down their operations or file for bankruptcy protection. Such actions would likely increase our costs, create challenges to meeting our quality objectives and in some cases make it difficult for us to continue production of certain vehicles. To the extent we take steps in such cases to help key suppliers remain in business, our liquidity would be adversely affected. It may also be difficult to find a replacement for certain suppliers without significant delay.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Increase in cost, disruption of supply or shortage of raw materials could materially harm our business.

We use various raw materials in our business including steel, non-ferrous metals such as aluminum and copper and precious metals such as platinum and palladium. The prices for these raw materials fluctuate depending on market conditions. In recent years, freight charges and raw material costs increased significantly. Substantial increases in the prices for our raw materials increase our operating costs and could reduce our profitability if we cannot recoup the increased costs through vehicle prices. In addition, some of these raw materials, such as corrosion-resistant steel, are only available from a limited number of suppliers. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to maintain favorable arrangements and relationships with these suppliers. An increase in the cost or a sustained interruption in the supply or shortage of some of these raw materials, which may be caused by a deterioration of our relationships with suppliers or by events such as labor strikes, could negatively affect our net revenues and profitability to a material extent.

The pace of introduction and market acceptance of new vehicles is important to our success and the frequency of new vehicle introductions may be materially adversely affected by reductions in capital expenditures.

Our competitors have introduced new and improved vehicle models designed to meet consumer expectations, and will continue to do so. Our profit margins, sales volumes and market shares may decrease if we are unable to produce models that compare favorably to these competing models. If we are unable to produce new and improved vehicle models on a basis competitive with the models introduced by our competitors, demand for our vehicles may be materially adversely affected. Further, the pace of our development and introduction of new and improved vehicles depends on our ability to successfully implement improved technological innovations in design, engineering and manufacturing, which requires extensive capital investment. Any capital expenditure cuts in this area that we may determine to implement in the future to reduce costs and conserve cash could reduce our ability to develop and implement improved technological innovations, which may materially reduce demand for our vehicles.

Inadequate cash flow could materially adversely affect our business operations in the future.

We will require substantial liquidity to implement long-term cost savings and restructuring plans, satisfy our obligations under the UST Credit Agreement, continue capital spending to support product programs and development of advanced technologies, and meet scheduled term debt and lease maturities, in each case as contemplated by our business plan. If our cash levels approach the minimum cash levels necessary to support our normal business operations, we may be forced to borrow additional funds at rates that may not be favorable, curtail capital spending, and reduce research and development and other programs that are important to the future success of our business. If this were to happen, our need for cash would be intensified.

Although we believe that the funding we received in connection with our formation and our purchase of substantially all of MLC’s assets provides us with sufficient liquidity to operate our business in the near-term, our ability to maintain adequate liquidity in the medium- and long-term will depend significantly on the volume, mix and quality of vehicle sales and the continuing curtailment of operating expenses. Our liquidity needs are sensitive to changes in each of these and other factors.

As part of our business plan, we have reduced compensation for our most highly paid executives and have reduced the number of our management and non-management salaried employees, and these actions may materially adversely affect our ability to hire and retain salaried employees.

As part of the cost reduction initiatives in our business plan, and pursuant to the direction of the Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation we have imposed salary reductions on our most highly paid executives, and reduced benefits to a level that we believe is significantly lower than offered by other major corporations. Furthermore, the UST Credit Agreement restricts the compensation that we can provide to our top executives and prohibits certain types of compensation or benefits for any employees. At the same time, we have substantially decreased the number of salaried employees so that the workload is shared among fewer employees and in general the demands on each salaried employee are increased. Companies in similar situations have experienced significant difficulties in hiring and retaining highly skilled employees, particularly in competitive specialties. Given our compensation structure and increasing job demands, there is no assurance that we will be able to hire and retain the employees whose expertise is required to execute our business plan while at the same time developing and producing vehicles that will stimulate demand for our products.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Our plan to reduce the number of our retail channels and core brands and to consolidate our dealer network is likely to reduce our total sales volume, may not create the cost savings we anticipate and is likely to result in restructuring costs that may materially adversely affect our results of operations.

As part of our business plan, we will focus our resources in the U.S. on our four core brands: Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC. We completed the sale of Saab in February 2010, and the current business plan also provides for the resolution of HUMMER in 2010. In conjunction with these brand eliminations, there is no planned investment for Pontiac, and therefore the brand will be phased out by the end of 2010. We will also be winding down the Saturn brand and dealership networks in accordance with the deferred termination agreements that Saturn dealers have signed with us. We also intend to consolidate our dealer network by reducing the total number of our U.S. dealers to approximately 3,600 to 4,000 in the long term. We anticipate that this reduction in retail outlets, core brands and dealers will result in costs savings over time, but there is no assurance that we would realize the savings expected. Based on our experience and the experiences of other companies that have eliminated brands, models and/or dealers, we believe that our market share could decline because of these reductions. In addition, executing the phase-out of retail channels and brands and the reduction in the number of our dealers will require us to terminate established business relationships. There is no assurance that we will be able to terminate all of these relationships, and if we are not able to terminate substantially all of these relationships we would not be able to achieve all of the benefits we have targeted. In December 2009 President Obama signed legislation giving dealers access to neutral arbitration should they decide to contest the wind-down of their dealership. Under the terms of the legislation we have informed dealers as to why their dealership received a wind-down agreement. In turn, dealers were given a timeframe to file for reinstatement through the American Arbitration Association. Under the law, decisions in these arbitration proceedings must generally be made by June 2010 and are binding and final. We have sent letters to over 2,000 of our dealers explaining the reasons for their wind-down agreements and over 1,100 dealers have filed for arbitration. In response to the arbitration filings we reviewed each of the dealer reinstatement claims filed with the American Arbitration Association. Our review resulted in over 600 letters of intent sent to dealers, which upon compliance by the dealer, would result in reinstatement of the dealership. We anticipate that negotiating these terminations on an individual basis through binding arbitration will require considerable time and expense and we would be required to comply with a variety of national and state franchise laws, which will limit our flexibility and increase our costs. Given the pendency of the arbitration process and the anticipated cost of negotiating terminations on an individual basis if dealers are granted reinstatement it is impossible for us to know at this point how many dealers will be in our network long-term or the cost of restructuring our dealership network.

Our business plan contemplates that we restructure our operations in various European countries, but we may not succeed in doing so, and that could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our business plan contemplates that we restructure our operations in various European countries and we are actively working to accomplish this. We continue to work towards a restructuring of our German and certain other European operations. We are engaging in discussions with certain European governments regarding financial support for our European operations. We cannot be certain that we will be able to successfully complete any of these restructurings. In addition, restructurings, whether or not ultimately successful, can involve significant expense and disruption to the business as well as labor disruptions, which can adversely affect the business. Moreover, our decision to restructure our European operations could require us to invest significant additional funds particularly if we are unable to obtain financial support from European governments. We cannot assure you that any of our contemplated restructurings will be completed or achieve the desired results, and if we cannot successfully complete such restructurings out of court, we may seek to, or the directors of the relevant entity may be compelled to, or creditors may force us to, seek relief under applicable local bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency or similar laws, where we may lose control over the outcome of the restructuring process due to the appointment of a local receiver, trustee or administrator (or similar official) or otherwise and which could result in a liquidation and us losing all or a substantial part of our interest in the business.

Continued limited availability of adequate financing on acceptable terms through GMAC or other sources to our customers and dealers, distributors and suppliers to enable them to continue their business relationships with us could materially adversely affect our business.

Our customers and dealers require financing to purchase a significant percentage of our global vehicle sales. Historically, GMAC has provided most of the financing for our dealers and a significant amount of financing for our customers. Due to conditions in credit markets particularly later in 2008, retail customers and dealers have experienced severe difficulty in accessing the credit markets. As a

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

result, the number of vehicles sold or leased declined rapidly in the second half of 2008, with lease contract volume dropping significantly by the end of 2008. This had a significant effect on Old GM vehicle sales overall, since many of its competitors have captive finance subsidiaries that were better capitalized than GMAC during 2008 and 2009 and thus were able to offer consumers subsidized financing and leasing offers.

Similarly, the reduced availability of GMAC wholesale dealer financing (particularly in the second half of 2008), the increased cost of such financing and a limited availability of other sources of dealer financing due to the general weakness of the credit market, has caused and may continue to cause dealers to modify their plans to purchase vehicles from us.

Because of recent modifications to our commercial agreements with GMAC, GMAC no longer is subject to contractual wholesale funding commitments or retail underwriting targets. Therefore, there can be no assurance that GMAC will continue to provide adequate funding at competitive rates to ensure that financing for purchases of our vehicles by our dealers and customers will be consistent with the funding levels and competitive rates that have historically been available from GMAC.

The UST (or its designee) owns a controlling interest in us and its interests may differ from those of our other stockholders.

The UST beneficially owns a majority of our common stock on a fully diluted basis. As a result of its majority stock ownership interest and its role as a significant lender to us, the UST is able to exercise significant influence and control over our business if it elects to do so. This includes the ability to have significant influence and control over matters brought for a shareholder vote. To the extent the UST elects to exercise such influence or control over us, its interests (as a government entity) may differ from those of our other stockholders and it may influence matters including:

•

The selection and tenure and compensation of our management;

•

Our business strategy and product offerings;

•

Our relationship with our employees, unions and other constituencies; and

•

Our financing activities, including the issuance of debt and equity securities.

In the future we may also become subject to new and additional laws and government regulations regarding various aspects of our business as a result of participation in the TARP program and the U.S. government’s ownership in (and financing of) our business. These regulations could make it more difficult for us to compete with other companies that are not subject to similar regulations. Refer to “Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance — Stockholders Agreement” for further information.

The UST Credit Agreement and VEBA Note Agreement contain significant representations and affirmative and negative covenants that may restrict our ability and the ability of our subsidiaries to take actions management believes are important to our long-term strategy.

The UST Credit Agreement and VEBA Note Agreement contain representations and warranties, affirmative covenants requiring us to take certain actions and negative covenants restricting our ability to take certain actions. The affirmative covenants impose obligations on us with respect to, among other things, financial and other reporting to the UST (including periodic confirmation of compliance with certain expense policies and executive privileges and compensation requirements), use of proceeds of asset sales, maintenance of facility collateral and other property, payment of obligations, compliance with various restrictions on executive privileges and compensation and compliance with a corporate expense policy.

The negative covenants in the UST Credit Agreement generally apply to us and our U.S. subsidiaries that provided guarantees of our obligations under that agreement and restrict us with respect to, among other things, granting liens, distributions on capital stock, amendments or waivers of certain documents and entering into new indebtedness.

Compliance with the representations, warranties and affirmative and negative covenants contained in the UST Credit Agreement and VEBA Note Agreement could restrict our ability to take actions that management believes are important to our long-term

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

strategy. If strategic transactions we wish to undertake are prohibited or inconsistent with, or detrimental to, our long-term viability, our ability to execute our long-term strategy could be materially adversely affected. In addition, monitoring and certifying our compliance with the UST Credit Agreement and VEBA Note Agreement requires a high level of expense and management attention on a continuing basis.

Even though we have made significant modifications to our obligations to the New VEBA, we are still obligated to contribute a significant amount of cash to fund the New VEBA in the future and cumulative dividends on the Series A Preferred Stock must be paid prior to any dividends or distributions to common stockholders.

Even though we have made significant modifications to our obligations to the New VEBA, we are still required to contribute a significant amount of cash to the New VEBA over a period of years. The amounts payable to the New VEBA include: (1) dividends payable on the 260 million shares of Series A Preferred Stock issued to the New VEBA in connection with the closing of the 363 Sale, which have a liquidation preference of $25.00 per share and accrue cumulative dividends at a rate equal to 9.0% per annum (payable quarterly on March 15, June 15, September 15 and December 15) if, as and when declared by our Board of Directors (the UST and Canada Holdings hold an additional 100 million shares of Series A Preferred Stock); and (2) payments on the VEBA Notes in three equal installments of $1.4 billion on July 15, 2013, 2015 and 2017. On or after December 31, 2014, we may redeem, in whole or in part, the shares of Series A Preferred Stock at the time outstanding, at a redemption price per share equal to the sum of: (1) $25.00 per share; and (2) subject to limited exceptions, any accrued and unpaid dividends. There is no assurance that we will be able to obtain all of the necessary funding to fund our existing VEBA payment obligations on terms that will be acceptable to us. If we are unable to obtain funding from internal or external sources or some combination thereof on terms that are consistent with our business plan, we would have to delay, reduce or cancel other planned expenditures.

Our pension funding obligations may increase significantly due to weak performance of financial markets and its effect on plan assets.

Our future funding obligations for our U.S. defined benefit pension plans qualified with the IRS depends upon the future performance of assets placed in trusts for these plans, the level of interest rates used to determine funding levels, the level of benefits provided for by the plans and any changes in government laws and regulations. Our employee benefit plans currently hold a significant amount of equity and fixed income securities. Due to Old GM’s contributions to the plans and to the strong performance of these assets during prior periods, the U.S. hourly and salaried pension plans were consistently overfunded from 2005 through 2007, which allowed Old GM to maintain a surplus without making additional contributions to the plans. However, due to significant declines in financial markets and a deterioration in the value of our plan assets, as well as the coverage of additional retirees, including certain Delphi hourly employees, we may need to make significant contributions to our U.S. pension plans in 2013 and beyond. There is no assurance that interest rates will remain constant or that our pension fund assets can earn our assumed rate of 8.5% annually, and our actual experience may be significantly more negative.

If the market values of the assets held by our pension plans decline, our pension expenses would increase and, as a result, could materially adversely affect our financial position. Decreases in interest rates that are not offset by contributions and asset returns could also increase our obligations under such plans. In addition, if local legal authorities increase the minimum funding requirements for our pension plans outside the U.S., we could be required to contribute more funds, which would negatively affect our cash flow.

Despite the formation of our new Company, we continue to have indebtedness and other obligations. Our debt obligations together with our cash needs may require us to seek additional financing, minimize capital expenditures or seek to refinance some or all of our debt.

Despite the formation of our new Company, we continue to have indebtedness and other obligations. Our current and future indebtedness and other obligations could have several important consequences. For example, it could:

•

Require us to dedicate a larger portion of our cash flow from operations than we currently do to the payment of principal and interest on our indebtedness and other obligations, which will reduce the funds available for other purposes such as product development;

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

•

Make it more difficult for us to satisfy our obligations;

•

Make us more vulnerable to adverse economic and industry conditions;

•

Limit our ability to withstand competitive pressures;

•

Limit our ability to fund working capital, capital expenditures and other general corporate purposes;

•

Make us more vulnerable to any continuing downturn in general economic conditions and adverse developments in our business; and

•

Reduce our flexibility in responding to changing business and economic conditions.

Future liquidity needs may require us to seek additional financing, or minimize capital expenditures. There is no assurance that any of these alternatives would be available to us on satisfactory terms or on terms that would not require us to renegotiate the terms and conditions of our existing debt agreements.

Our planned investment in new technology in the future is significant and may not be funded at anticipated levels, and, even if funded at anticipated levels, may not result in successful vehicle applications.

We intend to invest significant capital resources to support our products and to develop new technology. In addition, we are committed to invest heavily in alternative fuel and advanced propulsion technologies between 2010 and 2012, largely to support our planned expansion of hybrid and electric vehicles, consistent with our announced objective of being recognized as the industry leader in fuel efficiency. Moreover, if our future operations do not provide us with the liquidity we anticipate, we may be forced to reduce, delay or cancel our planned investments in new technology.

In some cases, the technologies that we plan to employ, such as hydrogen fuel cells and advanced battery technology, are not yet commercially practical and depend on significant future technological advances by us and by suppliers. For example, we have announced that we intend to produce by November 2010 the Chevrolet Volt, an electric car, which requires battery technology that has not yet proven to be commercially viable. There can be no assurance that these advances will occur in a timely or feasible way, that the funds that we have budgeted for these purposes will be adequate or that we will be able to establish our right to these technologies. Moreover, our competitors and others are pursuing similar technologies and other competing technologies, in some cases with more money available, and there can be no assurance that they will not acquire similar or superior technologies sooner than we do or on an exclusive basis or at a significant price advantage.

New laws, regulations or policies of governmental organizations regarding increased fuel economy requirements and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, or changes in existing ones, may have a significant effect on how we do business.

We are affected significantly by governmental regulations that can increase costs related to the production of our vehicles and affect our product portfolio. We anticipate that the number and extent of these regulations, and the costs and changes to our product lineup to comply with them, will increase significantly in the future. In the U.S. and Europe, for example, governmental regulation is primarily driven by concerns about the environment (including greenhouse gas emissions), vehicle safety, fuel economy and energy security. These government regulatory requirements could significantly affect our plans for global product development and may result in substantial costs including civil penalties. They may also result in limits on the types of vehicles we sell and where we sell them, which can affect revenue.

CAFE provisions in the EISA mandate fuel economy standards beginning in the 2011 model year that would increase to at least 35 mpg by 2020 on a combined car and truck fleet basis, a 40% increase over current levels. In addition, California is implementing a program to regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions (AB 1493 Rules), and therefore will require increased fuel economy. This California program has standards currently established for the 2009 model year through the 2016 model year. Thirteen additional states and the Province of Quebec have also adopted the California greenhouse gas standards.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

On May 19, 2009 President Obama announced his intention for the federal government to implement a harmonized federal program to regulate fuel economy and greenhouse gases. He directed the EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to work together to create standards through a joint rulemaking for control of emissions of greenhouse gases and for fuel economy. In the first phase, these standards would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles built in model years 2012 through 2016. The CARB has agreed that compliance with EPA’s greenhouse gas standards will be deemed compliance with the California greenhouse gas standards for the 2012 through 2016 model years. EPA and DOT issued their final rule to implement this new federal program on April 1, 2010. We have committed to work with EPA, the DOT, the states and other stakeholders in support of a strong national program to reduce oil consumption and address global climate change.

We are committed to meeting or exceeding these regulatory requirements, and our product plan of record projects compliance with the anticipated federal program through the 2016 model year. We expect that to comply with these standards we will be required to sell a significant volume of hybrid or electrically powered vehicles throughout the U.S., as well as implement new technologies for conventional internal combustion engines, all at increased cost levels. There is no assurance that we will be able to produce and sell vehicles that use such technologies at a competitive price, or that our customers will purchase such vehicles in the quantities necessary for us to comply with these regulatory programs.

In addition, the EU passed legislation in December 2008 to begin regulating vehicle carbon dioxide emissions beginning in 2012. The legislation sets a target of a fleet average of 95 grams per kilometer for 2020, with the requirements for each manufacturer based on the weight of the vehicles it sells. Additional measures have been proposed or adopted in Europe to regulate features such as tire rolling resistance, vehicle air conditioners, tire pressure monitors, gear shift indicators and others. At the national level, 16 EU Member States have adopted some form of carbon dioxide-based vehicle taxation system, which could result in specific market requirements for us to introduce technology earlier than is required for compliance with the EU emissions standards.

Other governments around the world, such as Canada, South Korea and China, are also creating new policies to address these same societal issues. As in the U.S., these government policies could significantly affect our plans for product development. Due to these regulations we could be subject to sizable civil penalties or have to restrict product offerings drastically to remain in compliance. Additionally, the regulations will result in substantial costs, which could be difficult to pass through to our customers, and could result in limits on the types of vehicles we sell and where we sell them, which could affect our operations, including facility closings, reduced employment, increased costs and loss of revenue.

We may be unable to qualify for federal funding for our advanced technology vehicle programs under Section 136 of the EISA or may not be selected to participate in the program.

The U.S. Congress provided the DOE with $25.0 billion in funding to make direct loans to eligible applicants for the costs of re-equipping, expanding, and establishing manufacturing facilities in the U.S. to produce advanced technology vehicles and components for these vehicles. Old GM submitted three applications for Section 136 Loans aggregating $10.3 billion to support its advanced technology vehicle programs prior to July 2009. Based on the findings of the President’s Designee under the U.S. Treasury Loan Agreement in March 2009, the DOE determined that Old GM did not meet the viability requirements for Section 136 Loans.

On July 10, 2009 we purchased certain assets of Old GM pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, including the rights to the loan applications submitted to the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Incentive Program (ATVMIP). Further, we submitted a fourth application in August 2009. Subsequently, the DOE advised us to resubmit a consolidated application including all the four applications submitted earlier and also the Electric Power Steering project acquired from Delphi in October 2009. We submitted the consolidated application in October 2009, which requested an aggregate amount of $14.4 billion of Section 136 Loans. Ongoing product portfolio updates and project modifications requested from the DOE have the potential to reduce the maximum loan amount. To date, the DOE has announced that it would provide approximately $8.3 billion in Section 136 Loans to Ford Motor Company, Nissan Motor Company, Tesla Motors, Inc., Fisker Automotive, Inc., and Tenneco Inc. There can be no assurance that we will qualify for any remaining loans or receive any such loans even if we qualify.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

A significant amount of our operations are conducted by joint ventures that we cannot operate solely for our benefit.

Many of our operations, particularly in emerging markets, are carried on by joint ventures such as Shanghai GM. In joint ventures we share ownership and management of a company with one or more parties who may not have the same goals, strategies, priorities or resources as we do. In general, joint ventures are intended to be operated for the equal benefit of all co-owners, rather than for our exclusive benefit. Operating a business as a joint venture often requires additional organizational formalities as well as time-consuming procedures for sharing information and making decisions. In joint ventures, we are required to pay more attention to our relationship with our co-owners as well as with the joint venture, and if a co-owner changes, our relationship may be materially adversely affected. In addition, the benefits from a successful joint venture are shared among the co-owners, so that we do not receive all the benefits from our successful joint ventures.

Shortages of and volatility in the price of oil have caused and may continue to cause diminished profitability due to shifts in consumer vehicle demand.

Volatile oil prices in 2008 and 2009 contributed to weaker demand for some of Old GM’s and our higher margin vehicles, especially our fullsize sport utility vehicles, as consumer demand shifted to smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles, which provide lower profit margins and in recent years represented a smaller proportion of Old GM’s and our sales volume in North America. Fullsize pick-up trucks, which are generally less fuel efficient than smaller vehicles, represented a higher percentage of Old GM’s and our North American sales during 2008 and 2009 compared to the total industry average percentage of fullsize pick-up truck sales in those periods. Demand for traditional sport utility vehicles and vans also declined during the same periods. Any future increases in the price of oil in the U.S. or in our other markets or any sustained shortage of oil could further weaken the demand for such vehicles, which could reduce our market share in affected markets, decrease profitability and have a material adverse effect on our business.

We could be materially adversely affected by changes or imbalances in foreign currency exchange and other rates.

Because we sell products and buy materials globally over a significant period of time, we are exposed to risks related to the effects of changes in foreign currency exchange rates, commodity prices and interest rates, which can have material adverse effects on our business. In recent years, the relative weakness of certain currencies, including the Japanese Yen, has provided competitive advantages to certain of our competitors. While in recent months the Japanese Yen has strengthened significantly, its weakness in recent years has provided pricing advantages for vehicles and parts imported from Japan to markets with more robust currencies like the U.S. and Western Europe. Moreover, the relative strength of other currencies has negatively affected our business. For example, before the current financial crisis, the relative weakness of the British Pound compared to the Euro has had an adverse effect on our results of operations in Europe. In addition, in preparing our consolidated financial statements we translate our revenues and expenses outside the U.S. into U.S. Dollars using the average foreign currency exchange rate for the period and the assets and liabilities using the foreign currency exchange rate at the balance sheet date. As a result, foreign currency fluctuations and the associated translations could have a material adverse effect on our results of operation.

Our businesses outside the U.S. expose us to additional risks that may materially adversely affect our business.

The majority of our vehicle sales are generated outside the U.S. We are pursuing growth opportunities for our business in a variety of business environments outside the U.S. Operating in a large number of different regions and countries exposes us to political, economic and other risks as well as multiple foreign regulatory requirements that are subject to change, including:

•

Foreign regulations restricting our ability to sell our products in those countries;

•

Differing local product preferences and product requirements, including fuel economy, vehicle emissions and safety;

•

Differing labor regulations and union relationships;

•

Consequences from changes in tax laws;

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

•

Difficulties in obtaining financing in foreign countries for local operations; and

•

Political and economic instability, natural calamities, war, and terrorism.

The effects of these risks may, individually or in the aggregate, materially adversely affect our business.

New laws, regulations or policies of governmental organizations regarding safety standards, or changes in existing ones, may have a significant negative effect on how we do business.

Our products must satisfy legal safety requirements. Meeting or exceeding government-mandated safety standards is difficult and costly, because crashworthiness standards tend to conflict with the need to reduce vehicle weight in order to meet emissions and fuel economy standards. While we are managing our product development and production operations on a global basis to reduce costs and lead times, unique national or regional standards or vehicle rating programs can result in additional costs for product development, testing and manufacturing. Governments often require the implementation of new requirements during the middle of a product cycle, which can be substantially more expensive than accommodating these requirements during the design of a new product.

The costs and effect on our reputation of product recalls could materially adversely affect our business.

From time to time, we recall our products to address performance, compliance or safety-related issues. The costs we incur in connection with these recalls typically include the cost of the part being replaced and labor to remove and replace the defective part. In addition, product recalls can harm our reputation and cause us to lose customers, particularly if those recalls cause consumers to question the safety or reliability of our products. Any costs incurred or lost sales caused by future product recalls could materially adversely affect our business. Conversely, not issuing a recall or not issuing a recall on a timely basis can harm our reputation and cause us to lose customers for the same reasons as expressed above.

We have determined that our disclosure controls and procedures and our internal control over financial reporting are currently not effective. The lack of effective internal controls could materially adversely affect our financial condition and ability to carry out our business plan.

As discussed in Item 9A, “Controls and Procedures”, our management team for financial reporting, under the supervision and with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer, conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our internal controls. At December 31, 2009, because of the inability to sufficiently test the effectiveness of remediated internal controls, they concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures and our internal control over financial reporting were not effective. Until we have been able to test the operating effectiveness of remediated internal controls, and ensure the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures, it may materially adversely affect our ability to report accurately our financial condition and results of operations in the future in a timely and reliable manner. In addition, although we continually review and evaluate internal control systems to allow management to report on the sufficiency of our internal controls, we cannot assure you that we will not discover additional weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. Any such additional weakness or failure to remediate the existing weakness could adversely affect our financial condition or ability to comply with applicable financial reporting requirements and the requirements of the Company’s various financing agreements.

* * * * * * *

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None

* * * * * * *

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Item 2. Properties

Other than dealerships, at December 31, 2009 we had 121 locations in 27 states and 95 cities or towns in the United States. Of these locations, 41 are manufacturing facilities, of which 11 are engaged in the final assembly of our cars and trucks and other manufacture automotive components and power products. Of the remaining locations, 27 are service parts operations primarily responsible for distribution and warehouse functions, and the remainder are offices or facilities primarily involved in engineering and testing vehicles. In addition, we have 17 locations in Canada, and assembly, manufacturing, distribution, office or warehousing operations in 56 other countries, including equity interests in associated companies which perform assembly, manufacturing or distribution operations. The major facilities outside the United States and Canada, which are principally vehicle manufacturing and assembly operations, are located in:


• Argentina	• Colombia	• Kenya	• South Korea	• Venezuela
• Australia	• Ecuador	• Mexico	• Spain	• Vietnam
• Belgium	• Egypt	• Poland	• Thailand
• Brazil	• Germany	• Russia	• United Kingdom
• China	• India	• South Africa	• Uzbekistan

We, our subsidiaries, or associated companies in which we own an equity interest, own most of the above facilities. Leased properties primarily comprised of warehouses and administration, engineering and sales offices. The leases for warehouses generally provide for an initial period of five to 10 years, based upon prevailing market conditions and may contain renewal options. Leases for administrative offices are generally for shorter periods.

Our properties include facilities which, in our opinion, are suitable and adequate for the manufacture, assembly and distribution of our products.

* * * * * * *

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

The following section summarizes material pending legal proceedings to which the Company is a party, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business. We and the other defendants affiliated with us intend to defend all of the following actions vigorously.

Canadian Export Antitrust Class Actions

Approximately eighty purported class actions on behalf of all purchasers of new motor vehicles in the United States since January 1, 2001, have been filed in various state and federal courts against General Motors Corporation, GMCL, Ford Motor Company, Chrysler, LLC, Toyota Motor Corporation, Honda Motor Co., Ltd., Nissan Motor Company, Limited, and Bavarian Motor Works and their Canadian affiliates, the National Automobile Dealers Association, and the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association. The federal court actions have been consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings under the caption In re New Market Vehicle Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation Cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, and the more than 30 California cases have been consolidated in the California Superior Court in San Francisco County under the case captions Belch v. Toyota Corporation, et al. and Bell v. General Motors Corporation. Old GM’s liability in these matters was not assumed by General Motors Company as part of the 363 Sale. GMCL was not part of Old GM’s bankruptcy proceeding and potentially remains liable in all matters. In the California state court cases, oral arguments on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and defendants’ motion in limine were heard on April 21, 2009. The court ruled that it would certify a class. Defendants written appeal to the appropriate California court was denied. Defendants are preparing other substantive motions for summary judgment.

The nearly identical complaints alleged that the defendant manufacturers, aided by the association defendants, conspired among themselves and with their dealers to prevent the sale to U.S. citizens of vehicles produced for the Canadian market and sold by dealers in Canada. The complaints alleged that new vehicle prices in Canada are 10% to 30% lower than those in the United States, and that

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

preventing the sale of these vehicles to U.S. citizens resulted in the payment of higher than competitive prices by U.S. consumers. The complaints, as amended, sought injunctive relief under U.S. antitrust law and treble damages under U.S. and state antitrust laws, but did not specify damages. The complaints further alleged unjust enrichment and violations of state unfair trade practices act. On March 5, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine issued a decision holding that the purported indirect purchaser classes failed to state a claim for damages under federal antitrust law but allowed a separate claim seeking to enjoin future alleged violations to continue. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine on March 10, 2006 certified a nationwide class of buyers and lessees under Federal Rule 23(b)(2) solely for injunctive relief, and on March 21, 2007 stated that it would certify 20 separate statewide class actions for damages under various state law theories under Federal Rule 23(b)(3), covering the period from January 1, 2001 to April 30, 2003. On October 3, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard oral arguments on Old GM’s consolidated appeal of the both class certification orders.

On March 28, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the certification of the injunctive class and ordered dismissal of the injunctive claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit also vacated the certification of the damages class and remanded to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine for determination of several issues concerning federal jurisdiction and, if such jurisdiction still exists, for reconsideration of that class certification on a more complete record. On remand, plaintiffs again moved to certify a damages class, and defendants again moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs’ economic expert. On July 2, 2009, the court granted one of defendants’ summary judgment motions. Plaintiffs did not appeal. As a result, the only issues remaining in the federal actions relate to disposition of the funds paid by Toyota in a settlement years ago.

American Export Antitrust Class Actions

On September 25, 2007, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against GMCL and Old GM on behalf of a purported class of actual and intended purchasers of vehicles in Canada claiming that a similar alleged conspiracy was now preventing lower-cost U.S. vehicles from being sold to Canadians. The Plaintiffs have delivered their certification materials. An order staying claims against MLC was granted in November 2009. A certification hearing has not yet been scheduled. No determination has been made that the case may be maintained as a class action, and it is not possible to determine the likelihood of liability or reasonably ascertain the amount of any damages.

Canadian Dealer Class Action

On January 21, 2010, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against GMCL for damages on behalf of a purported class of 215 Canadian General Motors dealers which entered into wind-down agreements with GMCL in May 2009. GMCL offered the Plaintiff dealers the wind-down agreements to assist the Plaintiffs’ exit from the GMCL Canadian dealer network upon the expiration of their GM Dealer Sales and Service Agreements (DSSAs) on October 31, 2010, and to assist the Plaintiffs in winding down their dealer operations in an orderly fashion. The Plaintiff dealers allege that the DSSAs have been wrongly terminated by GMCL and that GMCL failed to comply with franchise disclosure obligations, breached its statutory duty of fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the dealers’ statutory right to associate in an attempt to coerce the class member dealers into accepting the wind-down agreements. The Plaintiff dealers claim that the wind-down agreements are void. GMCL is vigorously defending the claims. A certification hearing has not yet been scheduled. No determination has been made that the case may be maintained as a class action, and it is not possible to determine the likelihood of liability or reasonably ascertain the amount of any damages.

Delphi Salaried Pension Plan Claim

On November 12, 2009, we were served with an Amended Complaint in a previously pending case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan captioned Dennis Black, Charles Cunningham, Kenneth Hollis and the Delphi Salaried Retiree Association v. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the US Treasury Departments, The Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, Timothy Geithner, Steve Rattner, Ron Bloom and General Motors Company. The case, brought on behalf of participants in the salaried pension plan formerly offered by Delphi, challenges the complex series of events which led to the termination of the Delphi salaried pension plan and its assumption by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation with a significant reduction in benefits, and the allegedly more favorable outcome for unionized employees and retirees participating in other Delphi plans. With respect to us, the Amended Complaint asserts that by reason of the United States Treasury’s substantial equity interest in

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

the company, we are a government actor and that our actions and those of the other defendants constituted a violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights because of the difference in outcome for participants in the Delphi salaried and hourly pension plans respectively. Plaintiffs ask that the court order us to “top up” Delphi salaried plan consistent with its contributions to Delphi’s union plan under other agreements or to require us to distribute funds allocated for Delphi pension plans equally between hourly and salaried plans. Plaintiffs ask the court to order the United States Treasury and other defendants to require us to take such actions, providing loan assistance if necessary. The Amended Complaint also seeks compensatory and punitive damages from defendants other than us and costs and attorneys fees from all defendants. On February 25, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court in the Delphi bankruptcy proceeding granted our motion to enforce the Delphi plan of reorganization as approved by that Court and to enforce its injunction against lawsuits contrary to provisions of that plan, which includes a release with respect to any liability we may have regarding plaintiffs’ claims. The Court has ordered plaintiffs to dismiss their claims against us in the Eastern District of Michigan. Such dismissal, however, would be without prejudice to plaintiffs’ ability to petition the Bankruptcy Court to set aside its injunction based upon new evidence that we had willfully violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Indications are that plaintiffs will appeal the Bankruptcy Court order. In the meantime, plaintiffs have filed a motion to dismiss their case against us in the Eastern District of Michigan.

OnStar Analog Equipment Litigation

Our wholly-owned subsidiary OnStar Corporation is a party to more than 20 putative class actions filed in various states, including Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and California. All of these cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a multi-district proceeding under the caption In re OnStar Contract Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The litigation arises out of the discontinuation by OnStar of services to vehicles equipped with analog hardware. OnStar was unable to provide services to such vehicles because the cellular carriers which provide communication service to OnStar terminated analog service beginning in February 2008. In the various cases, the plaintiffs are seeking certification of nationwide or statewide classes of owners of vehicles currently equipped with analog equipment, alleging various breaches of contract, misrepresentation and unfair trade practices. This proceeding has not reached the class certification motion stage, though class discovery is nearly complete. No determination has been made as to whether class certification motions are appropriate, and it is not possible at this time to determine whether class certification or liability is probable as to OnStar or to reasonably ascertain the amount of any liability.

Patent Infringement Litigation

On July 10, 2009, Kruse Technology Partnership v. General Motors Company was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In Kruse, the plaintiff alleges that we infringed three U.S. patents related to “Internal Combustion Engine with Limited Temperature Cycle” by making and selling diesel engines. The plaintiff has not made a claim specifying damages in this case. However, in a similar case filed against Old GM in December 2008, plaintiff asserted that its royalty damages would be significantly more than $100 million. In April 2009, the plaintiff filed a separate patent infringement action against DMAX, Inc., then a joint venture between Isuzu Diesel Services of America, Inc. and Old GM, and which is now a joint venture between Isuzu Diesel Services of America, Inc. and General Motors LLC, our subsidiary. DMAX manufactures and assembles mechanical and other components of Duramax diesel engines for sale to us. The plaintiff asserted that its royalty damages claim against DMAX, Inc. would exceed $100 million and requests an injunction in both the case against DMAX and the case against General Motors LLC. We are defending Kruse on several grounds, including non-infringement and invalidity of the patents.

Unintended Acceleration Class Actions

We have been named as a co-defendant in two of the many class action lawsuits brought against Toyota arising from Toyota’s recall of certain vehicles related to reports of unintended acceleration. The two cases are Nimishabahen Patel v. Toyota Motors North America, Inc. et al (filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on February 9, 2010) and Darshak Shah v. Toyota Motors North America, Inc. et al (filed in the United States District court for the District of Massachusetts on or about February 16, 2010). The 2009 and 2010 model year Pontiac Vibe, which was manufactured by a joint venture between Toyota and Old GM, included components that were common with those addressed by the Toyota recall and were accordingly the subject of a parallel recall by us. Each case makes allegations regarding Toyota’s conduct related to the condition addressed by the recall and asserts breaches of implied and express warranty, unjust enrichment and violation of consumer protection statutes and seeks actual damages, multiple damages, attorneys fees, costs and injunctive relief on behalf of classes of vehicle owners which include owners of

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

2009 and 2010 model year Pontiac Vibes. The cases are in their earliest stage, with no determination that class treatment is appropriate. Although a comprehensive assessment of the cases is not possible at this time, we believe that, with respect to the overwhelming majority of Pontiac vehicles addressed by the two cases, the claims asserted are barred by the Sale Approval Order entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on July 5, 2009.

UAW VEBA Contribution Claim

On April 6, 2010, the UAW filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan claiming that we breached our obligation to contribute $450 million to the New VEBA. The UAW alleges that we were required to make this contribution pursuant to the UAW-Delphi-GM Memorandum of Understanding Delphi Restructuring dated June 22, 2007. The UAW is seeking payment of $450 million. We have not been served in this matter.

* * * * * * *

Environmental Matters

Carbon Dioxide Emission Standard Litigation

In a number of cases, we and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Chrysler, and various automobile dealers brought suit for declaratory and injunctive relief from state legislation imposing stringent controls on new motor vehicle CO₂ emissions. These cases argue that such state regulation of CO₂ emissions is tantamount to state regulation of fuel economy and is preempted by two federal statutes, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and the Clean Air Act. California adopted such standards pursuant to its AB 1493 legislation. The California standards have been adopted by 13 other states.

The cases were brought against: (1) CARB on December 7, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno Division); (2) the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation on November 18, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont; and (3) the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management on February 13, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The cases in Vermont and California were decided at the district court level in 2007. In both cases, the trial courts dismissed the EPCA claims, but the California district court enjoined enforcement of the CO₂ standards under the Clean Air Act unless the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved them under the Clean Air Act. In March 2008, the EPA disapproved the California CO₂ standards. By that time, appeals of the adverse decisions under EPCA were being initiated in California (Ninth Circuit) and Vermont (Second Circuit). The EPA’s action and the California district court’s injunction effectively halted implementation of the CO₂ standards in each State that had adopted them.

In January 2009, President Obama directed the EPA to reconsider its disapproval of the California CO₂ standards, and to consider adoption of a national approach to the regulation of vehicle CO₂ emissions that would eliminate any environmental justification for separate state CO₂ standards. The EPA granted approval of the current California CO₂ standards in June 2009, pursuant to President Obama’s instruction. In May 2009, we and most of the automotive industry agreed to this “National Standard” approach and, as part of that agreement, to discontinue litigation against the state standards if California and other states agreed to treat compliance with any new federal CO₂ standards as compliance with their separate state standards. Under that agreement, on April 1, 2010 California completed rulemaking to revise its CO₂ standards, and the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) completed rulemaking to establish coordinated vehicle CO₂ emissions and fuel economy standards. The parties have reached agreement on the terms for dismissal of all pending litigation against the state standards, in which we are involved, and we expect that dismissal motions will be filed soon. The litigation had been stayed pending finalization of the California and federal rulemaking.

* * * * * * *

Item 4. Reserved

* * * * * * *

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Market Information

On April 7, 2010, we filed a Form 10 with the SEC and, pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act, registered our common stock. Our common stock is not traded on any exchange or other interdealer electronic trading facility and there is no established public trading market for our common stock.

Holders

We have a total of 500 million issued and outstanding shares of common stock which are held by four stockholders of record and a total of 106 million shares of common stock for which warrants are initially exercisable by two stockholders of record.

Dividends

Since our formation, we have not paid any dividends on our common stock. We have no current plans to pay any dividends on our common stock. So long as any share of our Series A Preferred Stock remains outstanding, no dividend or distribution may be declared or paid on our common stock unless all accrued and unpaid dividends have been paid on our Series A Preferred Stock, subject to exceptions, such as dividends on our common stock payable solely in shares of our common stock. In addition, the UST Credit Agreement and the VEBA Note Agreement contain certain restrictions on our ability to pay dividends, other than dividends payable solely in shares of our common stock.

In particular, each of the UST Credit Agreement and the VEBA Note Agreement provides that we may not pay any such dividends on our common stock unless: no default or event of default has occurred under such agreement and is continuing at the time of such payment; and immediately prior to and after giving effect to such dividend, our consolidated leverage ratio is less than 3.00 to 1.00.

Our payment of dividends in the future, if any, will be determined by our Board of Directors and will be paid out of funds legally available for that purpose.

Equity Compensation Plan Information

The table below contains information about securities authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans. The features of these plans are discussed further in Note 29 to the consolidated financial statements.


Plan Category	Number of Securities To be Issued Upon Exercise of Outstanding Options, Warrants and Rights (in millions)	Weighted-Average Exercise Price of Outstanding Options, Warrants and Rights (a)		Number of Securities Remaining Available For Future Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans (b)
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders General Motors Company 2009 Long-Term Incentive Plan and Salary Stock Plan (c)	0.3	$	—	9.7

(a)

The awards under the General Motors Company 2009 Long-Term Incentive Plan and Salary Stock Plan are restricted stock units. The restricted stock units do not have an exercise price, and the awards will be payable in cash if settled prior to six months after completion of an initial public offering of our equity.

(b)	Excludes securities reflected in the first column, “Number of Securities to be Issued Upon Exercise of Outstanding Options, Warrants and Rights.”

(c)	At December 31, 2009 all of our equity compensation plans were approved by security holders.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

Holding Company Merger

In October 2009 in connection with a merger effected pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 15, 2009 by and among us, the previous GM Company and GM Merger Subsidiary Inc., a Delaware corporation and indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of the previous GM Company, we issued new securities. These new securities were issued solely in exchange for the corresponding securities of the previous GM Company. These new securities have the same economic terms and provisions as the corresponding previous GM Company securities and upon completion of the merger were held by our securityholders in the same class evidencing the same proportional interest in us as the securityholders held in the previous GM Company.

Common Stock

•

Issued 304 million shares to the UST;

•

Issued 58 million shares to Canada Holdings;

•

Issued 88 million shares to the New VEBA; and

•

Issued 50 million shares to MLC.

Series A Preferred Stock

•

Issued 84 million shares to the UST;

•

Issued 16 million shares to Canada Holdings; and

•

Issued 260 million shares to the New VEBA.

The shares of Series A Preferred Stock have a liquidation preference of $25.00 per share and accrue cumulative dividends at a rate equal to 9.0% per annum (payable quarterly on March 15, June 15, September 15 and December 15) if, as and when declared by our Board of Directors. So long as any share of the Series A Preferred Stock remains outstanding, no dividend or distribution may be declared or paid on our common stock unless all accrued and unpaid dividends have been paid on the Series A Preferred Stock, subject to exceptions, such as dividends on our common stock payable solely in shares of our common stock. On or after December 31, 2014, we may redeem, in whole or in part, the shares of Series A Preferred Stock at the time outstanding, at a redemption price per share equal to $25.00 per share plus any accrued and unpaid dividends, subject to limited exceptions.

Warrants

•

Issued warrants to MLC to acquire 45.5 million shares of our common stock, exercisable at any time prior to July 10, 2016, with an exercise price of $30.00 per share;

•

Issued warrants to MLC to acquire 45.5 million shares of our common stock, exercisable at any time prior to July 10, 2019, with an exercise price of $55.00 per share; and

•

Issued warrants to the New VEBA to acquire 15.2 million shares of our common stock, exercisable at any time prior to December 31, 2015, with an exercise price set at $126.92 per share.

The number of shares of our common stock underlying each of the warrants issued to MLC and the New VEBA and the per share exercise price are subject to adjustment as a result of certain events, including stock splits, reverse stock splits and stock dividends.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

363 Sale

The foregoing securities were issued to the UST, Canada Holdings, the New VEBA and MLC solely in exchange for the corresponding securities of the previous GM Company in connection with the merger. The consideration originally paid for the securities of the previous GM Company with respect to each of the UST, Canada Holdings, the New VEBA and MLC in connection with the formation of the previous GM Company and the 363 Sale on July 10, 2009 was as follows:

UST

•

The UST’s existing credit agreement with Old GM;

•

The UST’s portion of Old GM’s DIP Facility (other than debt we assumed or MLC’s wind-down facility) and all of the rights and obligations as lender thereunder;

•

The warrants Old GM previously issued to the UST; and

•

Any additional amounts the UST loaned to Old GM prior to the closing of the 363 Sale with respect to each of the foregoing UST credit facilities.

Canada Holdings

•

Certain existing loans made to GMCL;

•

Canada Holding’s portion of the DIP Facility (other than debt we assumed or MLC’s wind-down facility); and

•

The loans made to us under the existing loan agreement between GMCL and EDC immediately following the closing of the 363 Sale.

New VEBA

•

The compromise of certain claims against MLC existing under the 2008 UAW Settlement Agreement.

MLC

•

The assets acquired by us pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, offset by the liabilities we assumed pursuant to the Purchase Agreement.

Refer to Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements for a discussion of the Chapter 11 Proceedings and the 363 Sale.

Securities Act Exemption

The securities of the previous GM Company, and our securities issued in replacement thereof in the merger, were issued pursuant to an exemption provided by Section 4(2) under the Securities Act.

* * * * * * *

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

(Dollars in millions except per share amounts)


	Successor			Predecessor
	July 10, 2009 Through December 31, 2009 (a)			January 1, 2009 Through July 9, 2009			Years Ended December 31,
	July 10, 2009 Through December 31, 2009 (a)			January 1, 2009 Through July 9, 2009			2008			2007			2006			2005
Total net sales and revenue (b)	$	57,474		$	47,115		$	148,979		$	179,984		$	204,467		$	192,143

Reorganization gains, net (c)	$	—		$	128,155		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—

Income (loss) from continuing operations (c)(d)	$	(3,786	)	$	109,003		$	(31,051	)	$	(42,685	)	$	(2,155	)	$	(10,625	)
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax (e)		—			—			—			256			445			313
Gain on sale of discontinued operations, net of tax (e)		—			—			—			4,293			—			—
Cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle (f)		—			—			—			—			—			(109	)

Net income (loss) (c)		(3,786	)		109,003			(31,051	)		(38,136	)		(1,710	)		(10,421	)
Less: Net (income) loss attributable to noncontrolling interests		(511	)		115			108			(406	)		(324	)		(48	)
Less: Cumulative dividends on preferred stock		(131	)		—			—			—			—			—

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders (c)	$	(4,428	)	$	109,118		$	(30,943	)	$	(38,542	)	$	(2,034	)	$	(10,469	)

GM $0.01 par value common stock and Old GM $1-2/3 par value common stock
Basic earnings (loss) per share:
Income (loss) from continuing operations attributable to common stockholders before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle	$	(10.73	)	$	178.63		$	(53.47	)	$	(76.16	)	$	(4.39	)	$	(18.87	)
Income from discontinued operations attributable to common stockholders (e)		—			—			—			8.04			0.79			0.55
Loss from cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle attributable to common stockholders (f)		—			—			—			—			—			(0.19	)

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders	$	(10.73	)	$	178.63		$	(53.47	)	$	(68.12	)	$	(3.60	)	$	(18.51	)

Diluted earnings (loss) per share:
Income (loss) from continuing operations attributable to common stockholders before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle	$	(10.73	)	$	178.55		$	(53.47	)	$	(76.16	)	$	(4.39	)	$	(18.87	)
Income from discontinued operations attributable to common stockholders (e)		—			—			—			8.04			0.79			0.55
Loss from cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle attributable to common stockholders (f)		—			—			—			—			—			(0.19	)

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders	$	(10.73	)	$	178.55		$	(53.47	)	$	(68.12	)	$	(3.60	)	$	(18.51	)

Cash dividends per common share	$	—		$	—		$	0.50		$	1.00		$	1.00		$	2.00
Total assets (b)(d)(g)	$	136,295		$	104,575		$	91,039		$	148,846		$	185,995		$	473,938
Notes and loans payable (b)(h)	$	15,783		$	48,394		$	45,938		$	43,578		$	47,476		$	286,943
Equity (deficit) (d)(f)(i)(j)	$	21,957		$	(109,128	)	$	(85,076	)	$	(35,152	)	$	(4,076	)	$	15,931

(a)

At July 10, 2009 we applied fresh-start reporting following the guidance in ASC 852, “Reorganizations.” The consolidated financial statements for the periods ended on or before July 9, 2009 do not include the effect of any changes in the fair value of assets or liabilities as a result of the application of fresh-start reporting. Therefore, our financial information at and for the period July 10, 2009 through December 31, 2009 is not comparable to Old GM’s financial information.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

(b)	In November 2006 Old GM sold a 51% controlling ownership interest in GMAC, resulting in a significant decrease in total consolidated net sales and revenue, assets and notes and loans payable.

(c)

In the period January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2009 Old GM recorded Reorganization gains, net of $128.2 billion directly associated with the Chapter 11 Proceedings, the 363 Sale and the application of fresh-start reporting. Refer to Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements for additional detail.

(d)	In September 2007 Old GM recorded full valuation allowances of $39.0 billion against net deferred tax assets in Canada, Germany and the United States.

(e)	In August 2007 Old GM completed the sale of the commercial and military operations of its Allison business. The results of operations, cash flows and the 2007 gain on sale of Allison have been reported as discontinued operations for all periods presented.

(f)	In December 2005 Old GM recorded an asset retirement obligation of $181 million, which was $109 million net of related income tax effects.

(g)	In December 2006 Old GM recorded the funded status of its benefit plans on the consolidated balance sheet with an offsetting adjustment to Accumulated other comprehensive loss of $16.9 billion in accordance with the adoption of new provisions of ASC 715, “Compensation — Retirement Benefits.”

(h)	In December 2008 Old GM entered into the UST Loan Agreement, pursuant to which the UST agreed to provide a $13.4 billion UST Loan Facility. In December 2008 Old GM borrowed $4.0 billion under the UST Loan Facility.

(i)	In January 2007 Old GM recorded a decrease to Retained earnings of $425 million and a decrease of $1.2 billion to Accumulated other comprehensive loss in accordance with the early adoption of the measurement provisions of ASC 715, “Compensation — Retirement Benefits.”

(j)	In January 2007 Old GM recorded an increase to Retained earnings of $137 million with a corresponding decrease to its liability for uncertain tax positions.

* * * * * * *

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

General Motors Company

General Motors Company was formed by the UST in 2009 originally as a Delaware limited liability company, Vehicle Acquisition Holdings LLC, and subsequently converted to a Delaware corporation, NGMCO, Inc. This company acquired substantially all of the assets and assumed certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation in the 363 Sale on July 10, 2009 and changed its name to General Motors Company. General Motors Corporation is sometimes referred to in this 2009 10-K, for the periods on or before July 9, 2009, as “Old GM.” Prior to July 10, 2009 Old GM operated the business of the Company, and pursuant to the agreement with the SEC Staff, the accompanying consolidated financial statements include the financial statements and related information of Old GM as it is our predecessor entity solely for accounting and financial reporting purposes. On July 10, 2009 in connection with the 363 Sale, General Motors Corporation changed its name to Motors Liquidation Corporation (MLC). MLC continues to exist as a distinct legal entity for the sole purpose of liquidating its remaining assets and liabilities.

We are engaged primarily in the worldwide development, production and marketing of cars, trucks, and parts. We also own a 16.6% equity interest in GMAC, which is accounted for as a cost method investment because we cannot exercise significant influence over GMAC. GMAC provides a broad range of financial services, including consumer vehicle financing, automotive dealership and other commercial financing, residential mortgage services, and automobile service contracts.

Basis of Presentation

This Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A) should be read in conjunction with the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

We analyze the results of our business through our three segments, namely GMNA, GME, and GMIO.

Consistent with industry practice, market share information includes estimates of industry sales in certain countries where public reporting is not legally required or otherwise available on a consistent basis.

Use of Estimates in the Preparation of the Financial Statements

The consolidated financial statements are prepared in conformity with U.S. GAAP, which requires the use of estimates, judgments, and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses in the periods presented. We believe that the accounting estimates employed are appropriate and the resulting balances are reasonable; however, due to the inherent uncertainties in making estimates, actual results could differ from the original estimates, requiring adjustments to these balances in future periods.

OVERVIEW

Chapter 11 Proceedings and the 363 Sale

Background

Over time as Old GM’s market share declined in North America, Old GM needed to continually restructure its business operations to reduce cost and excess capacity. In addition, legacy labor costs and obligations and capacity in its dealer network made Old GM less competitive than new entrants into the U.S. market. These factors continue to strain on Old GM’s liquidity. In 2005 Old GM incurred significant losses from operations and from restructuring activities such as providing support to Delphi and other efforts intended to reduce operating costs. Old GM managed its liquidity during this time through a series of cost reduction initiatives, capital markets transactions and sales of assets. However, the global credit market crisis had a dramatic effect on Old GM and the automotive industry. In the second half of 2008, the increased turmoil in the mortgage and overall credit markets (particularly the lack of

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

financing for buyers or lessees of vehicles), the continued reductions in U.S. housing values, the volatility in the price of oil, recessions in the United States and Western Europe and the slowdown of economic growth in the rest of the world created a substantially more difficult business environment. The ability to execute capital markets transactions or sales of assets was extremely limited, vehicle sales in North America and Western Europe contracted severely, and the pace of vehicle sales in the rest of the world slowed. Old GM’s liquidity position, as well as its operating performance, were negatively affected by these economic and industry conditions and by other financial and business factors, many of which were beyond its control.

As a result of these economic conditions and the rapid decline in sales in the three months ended December 31, 2008 Old GM determined that, despite the actions it had then taken to restructure its U.S. business, it would be unable to pay its obligations in the normal course of business in 2009 or service its debt in a timely fashion, which required the development of a new plan that depended on financial assistance from the U.S. government.

In December 2008 Old GM requested and received financial assistance from the U.S. government and entered into the UST Loan Agreement. In early 2009 Old GM’s business results and liquidity continued to deteriorate, and, as a result, Old GM obtained additional funding from the UST under the UST Loan Agreement. Old GM also received funding from EDC, a corporation wholly-owned by the government of Canada, under a loan and security agreement entered into in April 2009 (EDC Loan Facility).

As a condition to obtaining the loans under the UST Loan Agreement, Old GM was required to submit a Viability Plan in February 2009 that included specific actions intended to result in the following:

•

Repayment of all loans, interest and expenses under the UST Loan Agreement, and all other funding provided by the U.S. government;

•

Compliance with federal fuel efficiency and emissions requirements and commencement of domestic manufacturing of advanced technology vehicles;

•

Achievement of a positive net present value, using reasonable assumptions and taking into account all existing and projected future costs;

•

Rationalization of costs, capitalization and capacity with respect to its manufacturing workforce, suppliers and dealerships; and

•

A product mix and cost structure that is competitive in the U.S. marketplace.

The UST Loan Agreement also required Old GM to, among other things, use its best efforts to achieve the following restructuring targets:

Debt Reduction

•

Reduction of its outstanding unsecured public debt by not less than two-thirds through conversion of existing unsecured public debt into equity, debt and/or cash or by other appropriate means.

Labor Modifications

•

Reduction of the total amount of compensation paid to its U.S. employees so that, by no later than December 31, 2009, the average of such total amount is competitive with the average total amount of such compensation paid to U.S. employees of certain foreign-owned, U.S. domiciled automakers (transplant automakers);

•

Elimination of the payment of any compensation or benefits to U.S. employees who have been fired, laid-off, furloughed or idled, other than customary severance pay; and

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

•

Application of work rules for U.S. employees in a manner that is competitive with the work rules for employees of transplant automakers.

VEBA Modifications

•

Modification of its retiree healthcare obligations arising under the 2008 UAW Settlement Agreement under which responsibility for providing healthcare for UAW retirees, their spouses and dependents would permanently shift from Old GM to the New Plan funded by the New VEBA, such that payment or contribution of not less than one-half of the value of each future payment was to be made in the form of Old GM common stock, subject to certain limitations.

The UST Loan Agreement provided that if, by March 31, 2009 or a later date (not to exceed 30 days after March 31, 2009) as determined by the President’s Designee (Certification Deadline), the President’s Designee had not certified that Old GM had taken all steps necessary to achieve and sustain its long-term viability, international competitiveness and energy efficiency in accordance with the Viability Plan, then the loans and other obligations under the UST Loan Agreement were to become due and payable on the thirtieth day after the Certification Deadline.

On March 30, 2009 the President’s Designee determined that the plan was not viable and required substantial revisions. In conjunction with the March 30, 2009 announcement, the administration announced that it would offer Old GM adequate working capital financing for a period of 60 days while it worked with Old GM to develop and implement a more accelerated and aggressive restructuring that would provide a sound long-term foundation. On March 31, 2009 Old GM and the UST agreed to postpone the Certification Deadline to June 1, 2009.

Old GM made further modifications to its Viability Plan in an attempt to satisfy the President’s Designee’s requirement that it undertake a substantially more accelerated and aggressive restructuring plan (Revised Viability Plan). The following is a summary of significant cost reduction and restructuring actions contemplated by the Revised Viability Plan, the most significant of which included reducing Old GM’s indebtedness and VEBA obligations:

Indebtedness and VEBA obligations

In April 2009 Old GM commenced exchange offers for certain unsecured notes to reduce its unsecured debt in order to comply with the debt reduction condition of the UST Loan Agreement.

Old GM also commenced discussions with the UST regarding the terms of a potential restructuring of its debt obligations under the UST Loan Agreement, the UST GMAC Loan Agreement (as subsequently defined), and any other debt issued or owed to the UST in connection with those loan agreements pursuant to which the UST would exchange at least 50% of the total outstanding debt Old GM owed to it at June 1, 2009 for Old GM common stock.

In addition, Old GM commenced discussions with the UAW and the VEBA-settlement class representative regarding the terms of potential VEBA modifications.

Other cost reduction and restructuring actions

In addition to the efforts to reduce debt and modify the VEBA obligations, the Revised Viability Plan also contemplated the following cost reduction efforts:

•

Extended shutdowns of certain North American manufacturing facilities in order to reduce dealer inventory;

•

Refocus its resources on four core U.S. brands: Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC;

•

Acceleration of the resolution for Saab Automobile AB (Saab), HUMMER and Saturn and no planned future investment for Pontiac, which was to be phased out by the end of 2010;

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

•

Acceleration of the reduction in U.S. nameplates to 34 by 2010;

•

A reduction in the number of U.S. dealers from 6,246 in 2008 to 3,605 in 2010;

•

A reduction in the total number of plants in the U.S. to 34 by the end of 2010 and 31 by 2012; and

•

A reduction in the U.S. hourly employment levels from 61,000 in 2008 to 40,000 in 2010 as a result of the nameplate reductions, operational efficiencies and plant capacity reductions.

Old GM had previously announced that it would reduce salaried employment levels on a global basis by 10,000 during 2009 and had instituted several programs to effect reductions in salaried employment levels. Old GM had also negotiated a revised labor agreement with the CAW to reduce its hourly labor costs to approximately the level paid to the transplant automakers; however, such agreement was contingent upon receiving longer term financial support for its Canadian operations from the Canadian federal and Ontario provincial governments.

Chapter 11 Proceedings

Old GM was not able to complete the cost reduction and restructuring actions in its Revised Viability Plan, including the debt reductions and VEBA modifications, which resulted in extreme liquidity constraints. As a result, on June 1, 2009 Old GM and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries entered into the Chapter 11 Proceedings.

In connection with the Chapter 11 Proceedings, Old GM entered into a secured superpriority debtor-in-possession credit agreement with the UST and EDC (DIP Facility) and received additional funding commitments from EDC to support Old GM’s Canadian operations.

The following table summarizes the total funding and funding commitments Old GM received from the U.S. and Canadian governments and the additional notes Old GM issued related thereto in the period December 31, 2008 through July 9, 2009 (dollars in millions):


Description of Funding Commitment	Funding and Funding Commitments		Additional Notes Issued(a)		Total Obligation
UST Loan Agreement (b)	$	19,761	$	1,172	$	20,933
EDC funding (c)		6,294		161		6,455
DIP Facility		33,300		2,221		35,521

Total	$	59,355	$	3,554	$	62,909

(a)	Old GM did not receive any proceeds from the issuance of these promissory notes, which were issued as additional compensation to the UST and EDC.

(b)	Includes debt of $361 million, which the UST loaned to Old GM under the warranty program.

(c)

Includes approximately $2.4 billion from the EDC Loan Facility received in the period January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2009 and funding commitments of CAD $4.5 billion (equivalent to $3.9 billion when entered into) that were immediately converted into our equity. This funding was received on July 15, 2009.

363 Sale

On July 10, 2009 we completed the acquisition of substantially all of the assets and assumed certain liabilities of Old GM and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries (collectively, the Sellers). The 363 Sale was consummated in accordance with the Purchase Agreement between us and the Sellers, and pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court’s sale order dated July 5, 2009.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

In connection with the 363 Sale, the purchase price paid to Old GM was comprised of:

•

The UST’s return of the warrants Old GM previously issued to it;

•

Our assumption of certain specified liabilities of Old GM (including debt of $7.1 billion owed under the DIP Facility).

Under the Purchase Agreement, we are obligated to issue the Adjustment Shares in the event that allowed general unsecured claims against MLC, as estimated by the Bankruptcy Court, exceed $35.0 billion. The maximum Adjustment Shares equate to 2% (or 10 million shares) of our common stock. The number of Adjustment Shares to be issued is calculated based on the extent to which estimated general unsecured claims exceed $35.0 billion with the maximum number of Adjustment Shares issued if estimated general unsecured claims total $42.0 billion or more. We determined that it is probable that general unsecured claims allowed against MLC will ultimately exceed $35.0 billion by at least $2.0 billion. In that circumstance, we would be required to issue 2.9 million Adjustment Shares to MLC as an adjustment to the purchase price. At July 10, 2009 we accrued $113 million in Other liabilities and deferred income taxes related to this contingent obligation.

Agreements with the UST, UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust and Export Development Canada

On July 10, 2009 we entered into the UST Credit Agreement and assumed the UST Loans of $7.1 billion. Immediately after entering into the UST Credit Agreement, we made a partial prepayment, reducing the UST Loans principal balance to $6.7 billion. We also entered into the VEBA Note Agreement and issued a note in the principal amount of $2.5 billion (VEBA Notes) to the New VEBA. Through our wholly-owned subsidiary General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL), we also entered into the amended and restated Canadian Loan Agreement with EDC, as a result of which GMCL has the Canadian Loan of CAD $1.5 billion (equivalent to $1.3 billion when entered into).

Refer to Note 18 for additional information on the UST Loans, VEBA Notes and the Canadian Loan.

Issuance of Common Stock, Preferred Stock and Warrants

On July 10, 2009 we issued the following securities to the UST, Canada Holdings, the New VEBA and MLC:

UST

•

304.1 million shares of our common stock;

•

83.9 million shares of our Series A Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock (Series A Preferred Stock);

Canada Holdings

•

58.4 million shares of our common stock;

•

16.1 million shares of Series A Preferred Stock;

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

New VEBA

•

87.5 million shares of our common stock;

•

260.0 million shares of Series A Preferred Stock;

•

Warrant to acquire 15.2 million shares of our common stock;

MLC

•

50.0 million shares of our common stock; and

•

Two warrants, each to acquire 45.5 million shares of our common stock.

Preferred Stock

The shares of Series A Preferred Stock have a liquidation preference of $25.00 per share and accrue cumulative dividends at 9.0% per annum (payable quarterly on March 15, June 15, September 15 and December 15) that are payable if, as and when declared by our Board of Directors. So long as any share of the Series A Preferred Stock remains outstanding, no dividend or distribution may be declared or paid on our common stock unless all accrued and unpaid dividends have been paid on the Series A Preferred Stock, subject to exceptions, such as dividends on our common stock payable solely in shares of our common stock. On or after December 31, 2014 we may redeem, in whole or in part, the shares of Series A Preferred Stock outstanding, at a redemption price per share equal to $25.00 per share plus any accrued and unpaid dividends, subject to limited exceptions.

The Series A Preferred Stock is classified as temporary equity because one of the holders, the UST, controls our Board of Directors and could compel us to call the Preferred Stock for redemption in 2014. We are not accreting the Preferred Stock to its redemption amount of $9.0 billion because we believe it is not probable that the UST will control our Board of Directors in 2014.

Warrants

The first tranche of warrants issued to MLC is exercisable at any time prior to July 10, 2016, with an exercise price of $30.00 per share. The second tranche of warrants issued to MLC is exercisable at any time prior to July 10, 2019, with an exercise price of $55.00 per share. The warrant issued to the New VEBA is exercisable at any time prior to December 31, 2015, with an exercise price of $126.92 per share. The number of shares of our common stock underlying each of the warrants issued to MLC and the New VEBA and the per share exercise price are subject to adjustment as a result of certain events, including stock splits, reverse stock splits and stock dividends.

Additional Modifications to Pension and Other Postretirement Plans Contingent upon the Emergence from Bankruptcy

We also modified the U.S. hourly pension plan, the U.S. executive retirement plan, the U.S. salaried life plan, the non-UAW hourly retiree medical plan and the U.S. hourly life plan. These modifications became effective upon the completion of the 363 Sale. The key modifications were:

•

Elimination of the post 65 benefits and placing a cap on pre 65 benefits in the non-UAW hourly retiree medical plan;

•

Capping the life benefit for non-UAW retirees and future retirees at $10,000 in the U.S. hourly life plan;

•

Capping the life benefit for existing salaried retirees at $10,000, reduced the retiree benefit for future salaried retirees and eliminated the executive benefit for the U.S. salaried life plan;

•

Elimination of a portion of nonqualified benefits in the U.S. executive retirement plan; and

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

•

Elimination of the flat monthly special lifetime benefit of $66.70 that was to commence on January 1, 2010 for the U.S. hourly pension plan.

Accounting for the Effects of the Chapter 11 Proceedings and the 363 Sale

Chapter 11 Proceedings

Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 852, “Reorganizations,” (ASC 852) is applicable to entities operating under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. ASC 852 generally does not affect the application of U.S. GAAP that we and Old GM followed to prepare the consolidated financial statements, but it does require specific disclosures for transactions and events that were directly related to the Chapter 11 Proceedings and transactions and events that resulted from ongoing operations.

Old GM prepared its consolidated financial statements in accordance with the guidance in ASC 852 in the period June 1, 2009 through July 9, 2009. Revenues, expenses, realized gains and losses, and provisions for losses directly related to the Chapter 11 Proceedings were recorded in Reorganization gains, net. Reorganization gains, net do not constitute an element of operating loss due to their nature and due to the requirement of ASC 852 that they be reported separately from operating loss. Old GM’s balance sheet prior to the 363 Sale distinguished prepetition liabilities subject to compromise from prepetition liabilities not subject to compromise and from postpetition liabilities. Cash amounts provided by or used in the Chapter 11 Proceedings are separately disclosed in the statement of cash flows.

Renewed Business Focus

The formation of General Motors Company, in connection with the 363 Sale, has positioned us to achieve profitability with the execution of certain key strategic initiatives. Achieving our goal of returning to profitability includes developing a culture with an increased focus on our customers’ needs and our product quality and design.

Core Brands

Going forward we will focus on four core brands in North America: Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, and GMC. We anticipate that these four core brands will have a total of 34 U.S. nameplates by the end of 2010. We believe the focus on four core brands will enable us to allocate more resources to each, resulting in improved product, design, quality and marketing.

Operational Structure

To promote a new company culture, we have revised our operational structure to streamline our business and speed our decision making processes in order to respond to customer needs and market demands faster. In order to streamline our business and speed our decision making processes and in anticipation of the sale of our Adam Opel GmbH (Adam Opel) operations, we had revised our operational structure, combining Old GM’s Europe, Latin America/Africa/Middle East and Asia Pacific segments into one segment, GMIO. In November 2009 our Board of Directors subsequently elected to retain sole ownership of the Adam Opel operations. We have therefore determined our current operational structure to be GMNA, GME, and GMIO, which combines Old GM’s Latin America/Africa/Middle East and Asia Pacific segments. We have eliminated our regional strategy boards, as well as two senior leadership forums, the Automotive Strategy Board and the Automotive Product Board. We have instituted a single, smaller executive committee, which meets more frequently and focuses on business results, products, brands and customers. We have revised the segment presentation for all periods presented.

Nonsegment operations are classified as Corporate. Corporate includes investments in GMAC, certain centrally recorded income and costs, such as interest, income taxes and corporate expenditures, certain nonsegment specific revenues and expenses, including costs related to the Delphi Benefit Guarantee Agreements and a portfolio of automotive retail leases. The Delphi Benefit Guarantee Agreements require that in the event that Delphi or its successor companies ceases doing business or becomes subject to financial distress Old GM could be liable if Delphi fails to provide certain benefits at the required level.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Investment in GMAC

As part of the approval process for GMAC to obtain Bank Holding Company status in December 2008, Old GM agreed to reduce its ownership in GMAC to less than 10% of the voting and total equity of GMAC by December 24, 2011. At December 31, 2009 our equity ownership in GMAC was 16.6%.

In December 2008 Old GM and FIM Holdings, an assignee of Cerberus ResCap Financing LLC, entered into a subscription agreement with GMAC under which each agreed to purchase additional Common Membership Interests in GMAC, and the UST committed to provide Old GM with additional funding in order to purchase the additional interests. In January 2009 Old GM entered into the UST GMAC Loan Agreement pursuant to which it borrowed $884 million (UST GMAC Loan) and utilized those funds to purchase 190,921 Class B Common Membership Interests of GMAC. The UST GMAC Loan was scheduled to mature in January 2012 and bore interest, payable quarterly, at the same rate of interest as the UST Loans. The UST GMAC Loan was secured by Old GM’s Common and Preferred Membership Interests in GMAC. As part of this loan agreement, the UST had the option to convert outstanding amounts into a maximum of 190,921 shares of GMAC’s Class B Common Membership Interests on a pro rata basis.

In May 2009 the UST exercised this option, the outstanding principal and interest under the UST GMAC Loan was extinguished, and Old GM recorded a net gain of $483 million. The net gain was comprised of a gain on the disposition of GMAC Common Membership Interests of $2.5 billion and a loss on extinguishment of the UST GMAC Loan of $2.0 billion. After the exchange, Old GM’s ownership was reduced to 24.5% of GMAC’s Common Membership Interests.

GMAC converted its status to a C corporation effective June 30, 2009. At that date, Old GM began to account for its investment in GMAC using the cost method rather than the equity method as Old GM no longer exercised significant influence over GMAC. In connection with GMAC’s conversion into a C corporation, each unit of each class of GMAC Membership Interests was converted into shares of capital stock of GMAC with substantially the same rights and preferences as such Membership Interests. On July 10, 2009 we acquired the investments in GMAC’s common and preferred stocks in connection with the 363 Sale.

In December 2009 the UST made a capital contribution to GMAC of $3.8 billion consisting of the purchase of trust preferred securities of $2.5 billion and mandatory convertible preferred securities of $1.3 billion. The UST also exchanged all of its existing GMAC non-convertible preferred stock for newly issued mandatory convertible preferred securities valued at $5.3 billion. In addition the UST converted $3.0 billion of its mandatory convertible preferred securities into GMAC common stock. These actions resulted in the dilution of our GMAC common stock investment from 24.5% to 16.6%, of which 6.7% is held directly and 9.9% is held in an independent trust. Pursuant to previous commitments to reduce influence over and ownership in GMAC, the trustee, who is independent of us, has the sole authority to vote and is required to dispose of all GMAC common stock held in the trust by December 24, 2011.

Strategic Initiatives

The execution of certain strategic initiatives is critical in achieving our goal of sustained future profitability. The following provides a summary of these initiatives and significant results and events.

U.S. Automobile Industry and GMNA

Our U.S. operations represent a substantial portion of our business and attaining future profitability in our U.S. operations is imperative if we are to achieve our worldwide profitability, debt reduction and U.S. market share goals.

Our plan to return our U.S. operations to profitability includes programs that enhance our customers’ interaction at the point of sale through improved dealership operations. The first program, Standards for Excellence, is an initiative focused upon improving sales and customer satisfaction. The program includes an in-store facilitator, process improvement programs and customer research. Incentives are awarded to those dealers that achieve their targets under this program. Participating dealers in this program have consistently outperformed non-participating dealers. The second program, Essential Brand Elements, is an initiative focused upon

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

conformance with four critical sales and marketing elements: (1) Customer Sales and Service Retention communications; (2) digital marketing; (3) high training standards; and (4) facility image requirements. Dealers that participate and are compliant earn quarterly incentives. Of our dealerships, 97% have participated in the program and compliance has increased for all elements.

In the year ended 2009 certain data such as vehicle sales, market share data and production volume combine our data in the period July 10, 2009 through December 31, 2009 with Old GM’s data in the period January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2009 for comparative purposes.

Vehicle Sales and Market Share

In the year ended 2009 U.S. industry vehicle sales were 10.6 million vehicles, of which combined GM and Old GM market share was 19.6%. This represents a decline in U.S. industry vehicle sales from 13.5 million vehicles (or 21.4%) and a decline in Old GM market share, which was 22.1% in 2008. The negative economic effects of the U.S. recession, in 2008, continued to effect the U.S. automobile industry in 2009 resulting in decreased U.S. industry vehicle sales.

Combined GM and Old GM dealers in the U.S. sold 2.1 million vehicles in the year ended 2009. This represents a decline from Old GM U.S. vehicle sales of 3.0 million vehicles (or 30.1%) in 2008. This decrease relates to the continuing tight credit markets, high unemployment rates and recessions in the United States and many international markets negatively affecting industry vehicle sales during 2009. In addition, Old GM’s well publicized liquidity issues, public speculation as to the effects of Chapter 11 proceedings and the actual Chapter 11 Proceedings negatively affected vehicle sales. This decrease was also affected by a reduction in combined GM and Old GM U.S. fleet sales to 514,000 vehicles from 823,000 vehicles (or 37.5%), reduced incentive spending and the orderly wind-down of non-core brands. Despite this decrease in the combined GM and Old GM U.S. vehicle sales, combined GM and Old GM dealers’ U.S. quarterly vehicle sales increased from 413,000 vehicles in the three months ended March 31, 2009 to 541,000 vehicles (or 31.1%) in the three months ended June 30, 2009. Combined GM and Old GM dealers’ U.S. quarterly vehicle sales increased to 593,000 vehicles (or 9.4%) in the three months ended September 30, 2009 as compared to June 30, 2009 levels. The combined GM and Old GM dealers’ U.S. quarterly vehicle sales increases in the first three quarters of 2009 reflect successful product launches, such as the Chevrolet Camaro, and vehicle sales from our portfolio of fuel efficient vehicles, such as the Chevrolet Aveo and Cobalt and crossovers Equinox and HHR, related to the U.S. government Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) program. In the fourth quarter of 2009 our dealers’ U.S. vehicle sales decreased to 538,000 vehicles (or 9.3%) as compared to September 2009 levels reflecting lost momentum from the expired CARS program.

In the year ended 2009 combined GM and Old GM core brands accounted for 87.1% of combined GM and Old GM total U.S vehicle sales. These core brands consist of Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet and GMC. Combined GM and Old GM dealers’ U.S. quarterly core brand vehicle sales increased from 346,000 vehicles in the three months ended March 31, 2009 to 465,000 vehicles (or 34.4%) in the three months ended June 30, 2009. Combined GM and Old GM dealers’ U.S. quarterly core brand vehicle sales increased to 509,000 vehicles (or 9.4%) in the three months ended September 30, 2009 as compared to June 30, 2009 levels. These core brand vehicle sale increases are reflective of the new product launches and the CARS program mentioned previously. In the fourth quarter of 2009 our U.S. core brand vehicle sales decreased to 496,000 vehicles (or 2.5%) reflecting the expiration of the CARS program. In the fourth quarter of 2009 core brand vehicle sales reached 92.3% of total U.S. vehicle sales as the wind-down of non-core brands Pontiac and Saturn were ahead of schedule. At December 31, 2009 only 2,752 Pontiac or Saturn vehicles remained in dealer stock.

The continued increase in U.S. industry and core brand vehicle sales is critical for us to achieve our worldwide profitability, debt reduction, and U.S. market share goals.

U.S. Salaried and Hourly Headcount Reductions

In June 2009 Old GM announced its intention to reduce U.S salaried headcount by means of the 2009 Salaried Window Program. At December 31, 2009 our U.S. salaried workforce was 26,000 employees. At December 31, 2008 Old GM’s U.S. salaried workforce was 29,000 employees. This represents a decrease of 5,000 U.S. salaried employees, excluding 2,000 U.S. salaried employees acquired with Delphi’s global steering business (Nexteer) and four domestic facilities, as more fully discussed in “Delphi Master Disposition Agreement” in this MD&A.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

In order to align U.S. hourly headcount with current production levels, Old GM determined that reductions in its U.S. hourly workforce were necessary. At December 31, 2009 13,000 U.S. hourly employees had elected to participate in the 2009 Special Attrition Programs, introduced in February and in June of 2009. At December 31, 2009 our U.S. hourly headcount was 51,000 employees. At December 31, 2008 Old GM’s U.S. hourly headcount was 62,000 employees. This represents a decrease of 16,000 U.S. hourly employees, excluding 5,000 U.S. hourly employees acquired with Nexteer and four domestic facilities.

Manufacturing Operations Rationalization

We continue to consolidate our U.S. manufacturing operations while maintaining the flexibility to meet increasing 2010 production levels. At December 31, 2009 we had reduced the number of U.S. manufacturing plants to 41 from 47 in 2008, excluding Nexteer and four domestic facilities recently acquired from Delphi.

In the year ended 2009 combined GM and Old GM GMNA produced 1.9 million vehicles. This represents a decrease of 44.5% compared to 3.4 million vehicles in the year ended 2008. However, combined GM and Old GM GMNA production levels increased from 371,000 vehicles in the three months ended March 31, 2009 to 395,000 vehicles (or 6.5%) in the three months ended June 30, 2009. Combined GM and Old GM GMNA production increased to 531,000 vehicles (or 34.4%) in the three months ended September 30, 2009 as compared to June 30, 2009 quarterly production levels. GMNA production increased to 616,000 vehicles (or 16.0%) in the three months ended December 31, 2009 as compared to September 30, 2009 quarterly production levels. The increase in production levels from the three months ended September 30, 2009 related to increased consumer demand for certain products such as the Chevrolet Equinox, GMC Terrain, Buick LaCrosse and Cadillac SRX.

Timely Repayment of Debt

Proceeds from the DIP Facility were necessary in order to provide sufficient capital to operate. In connection with the 363 Sale, we assumed the UST Loans and Canadian Loan, which Old GM incurred under the DIP Facility. One of our key priorities going forward is to repay the outstanding balances from these loans prior to maturity.

Repayment of UST Loans and Canadian Loan

In November 2009 we signed amendments to the UST Credit Agreement and Canadian Loan Agreement to provide for quarterly repayments of the UST Loans and Canadian Loan. Under these amendments, we agreed to make quarterly payments of $1.0 billion and $192 million to the UST and EDC. In December 2009 and March 2010 we made our first two quarterly payments on the UST Loans and Canadian Loan. Upon making such payments, equivalent amounts were released to us from escrow. After these payments, the carrying amounts of the UST Loans and Canadian Loan were $4.7 billion and $1.0 billion.

UST Escrow Funds

Proceeds of the DIP Facility of $16.4 billion were deposited in escrow and will be distributed to us at our request upon certain conditions. Any unused amounts in escrow on June 30, 2010 are required to be used to repay the UST Loans and Canadian Loan. In the event of an initial public offering of our equity, this accelerated payment schedule would be suspended. Any funds remaining in our escrow account after repayment of the loans will be released to us. We have used our escrow account to acquire all Class A Membership Interests in DIP HOLDCO LLP, subsequently named Delphi Automotive LLP, (New Delphi) in the amount of $1.7 billion and acquire Nexteer and four domestic facilities and make other related payments in the amount of $1.0 billion. In addition, $2.4 billion were released from escrow in connection with two quarterly payments of $1.2 billion on the UST Loans and Canadian Loan. At March 31, 2010 our escrow account had a balance of $11.3 billion.

UST Credit Agreement and Canadian Loan Agreement

On July 10, 2009 we entered into the UST Credit Agreement and assumed the UST Loans in the amount of $7.1 billion incurred by Old GM under its DIP Facility. Immediately after entering into the UST Credit Agreement, we made a partial pre-payment, reducing

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

the UST Loans principal balance to $6.7 billion. On July 10, 2009 through our wholly-owned subsidiary GMCL, we also entered into the amended and restated Canadian Loan Agreement with EDC, and assumed the CAD $1.5 billion (equivalent to $1.3 billion when entered into) Canadian Loan.

We are required to prepay the UST Loans and Canadian Loan on a pro rata basis, between the UST Loans, Canadian Loan and VEBA Notes, in an amount equal to the amount of net cash proceeds received from certain asset dispositions, casualty events, extraordinary receipts and the incurrence of certain debt. We may also voluntarily repay the UST Loans and Canadian Loan in whole or in part at any time. Once repaid, amounts borrowed under the UST Credit Agreement may not be reborrowed. The UST Credit Agreement and the Canadian Loan Agreement mature on July 10, 2015.

Repayment of German Revolving Bridge Facility

In May 2009 Old GM entered into a revolving bridge facility with the German government and certain German states (German Facility) with a total commitment of up to Euro 1.5 billion (equivalent to $2.1 billion when entered into) and maturing November 30, 2009. The German Facility was necessary in order to provide sufficient capital to operate Opel/Vauxhall. On November 24, 2009, the debt was paid in full and extinguished.

Brand Rationalization

As mentioned previously, we will focus our resources in the U.S. on four core brands: Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC. As a result, we completed the sale of Saab in February 2010 and have announced plans to sell or phase out our Pontiac, Saturn, and HUMMER brands. In connection with the rationalization of our brands, there is no planned investment for Pontiac, and the brand is expected to be phased out by the end of 2010.

Saturn

In September 2009 we decided to wind-down the Saturn brand and dealership network in accordance with the deferred termination agreements that Saturn dealers have signed with us. Pursuant to the terms of the deferred termination agreements, the wind-down process is scheduled to be completed no later than October 2010.

HUMMER

In February 2010 we announced Tengzhong was unable to complete the acquisition of HUMMER. We will now work closely with HUMMER employees, dealers and suppliers to wind-down the HUMMER brand in an orderly, responsible manner.

Saab

In February 2010 we completed the sale of Saab to Spyker Cars NV. As part of the agreement, Saab and Spyker Cars NV will operate under the Spyker Cars NV umbrella and Spyker Cars NV will assume responsibility for Saab operations. The previously announced wind-down activities of Saab operations have ended.

U.S. Dealer Reduction

As part of achieving and sustaining long-term viability and the viability of our dealer network, we determined that a reduction in the number of U.S. dealerships was necessary. In determining which dealerships would remain in our network we performed analyses of volumes and consumer satisfaction indexes, among other criteria. Wind-down agreements with over 1,800 U.S. retail dealers have been executed. The retail dealers executing wind-down agreements have agreed to terminate their dealer agreements with us prior to October 31, 2010. Our plan was to reduce dealerships in the United States to approximately 3,600 to 4,000 in the long-term. However, in December 2009 President Obama signed legislation giving dealers access to neutral arbitration should they decide to contest the wind-down of their dealership. Under the terms of the legislation we have informed dealers as to why their dealership received a

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

wind-down agreement. In turn, dealers were given a timeframe to file for reinstatement through the American Arbitration Association. Under the law decisions in these arbitration proceedings must generally be made by June 2010 and are binding and final. We have sent letters to over 2,000 of our dealers explaining the reasons for their wind-down agreements and over 1,100 dealers have filed for arbitration. In response to the arbitration filings we reviewed each of the dealer reinstatement claims filed with the American Arbitration Association. Our review resulted in our sending over 600 letters of intent, containing our core business criteria for operation of a dealership to dealers, which upon compliance by the dealer, would result in reinstatement of the dealership. We expect to have the overall arbitration and reinstatement process fundamentally resolved in 2010. Due to the reinstatement of dealerships and the uncertainty of the outcome of the remaining binding arbitration cases we expect the number of dealerships in our network to exceed the previously estimated range.

To create a strong and viable distribution network for our products, continuing dealers have signed participation agreements. These participation agreements include performance expectations in the areas of retail sales, new vehicle inventory and facility exclusivity.

Opel/Vauxhall Restructuring Activities

In February 2010 we presented our plan for the long-term viability of our Opel/Vauxhall operations to the German government. We are currently in discussions with European governments concerning funding support. Our plan includes:

•

Funding requirement estimate of Euro 3.7 billion (equivalent to $5.1 billion) including original estimate of Euro 3.3 billion plus an additional Euro 0.4 billion, requested by European governments, to offset the potential effect of adverse market developments;

•

Financing contributions from us of Euro 1.9 billion (equivalent to $2.6 billion) or more than 50% of the overall funding requirements;

•

Requested of total funding support/loan guarantees from European governments of Euro 1.8 billion (equivalent to $2.5 billion);

•

We plan to invest in capital and engineering of Euro 11.0 billion (equivalent to $15.0 billion) over the next five years; and

•

Reduced capacity to adjust to current and forecasted market conditions including headcount reductions of 1,300 employees in sales and administration, 7,000 employees in manufacturing and the idling of our Antwerp, Belgium facility.

With these restructuring initiatives complete, we plan to have 80% of our carlines at an age of three years or less by 2012. This would be accomplished by eight product launches in 2010 and another four product launches in 2011. In addition, we plan to invest Euro 1.0 billion to introduce innovative fuel efficient powertrain technologies including an additional extended-range electric vehicle and introducing battery-electric vehicles in smaller-size segments.

If our Opel/Vauxhall operations cannot secure the government-sponsored financing package above, we would be responsible for its remaining funding requirements and this could have a significant negative effect on our liquidity position. To the extent our liquidity is not available to finance the Opel/Vauxhall operations and Adam Opel fails to secure government-sponsored financing or other financing, the long term viability of the Opel/Vauxhall operations could be negatively affected.

Delphi Master Disposition Agreement

In October 2009 we consummated the transaction contemplated in the DMDA with Delphi and other parties. Under the DMDA, we agreed to acquire Nexteer, which supplies us and other OEMs with steering systems and columns, and four domestic facilities that manufacture a variety of automotive components, primarily sold to us. We, along with the Investors who held the Delphi Tranche DIP facilities, agreed to acquire substantially all of Delphi’s remaining assets through New Delphi. Certain excluded assets and liabilities have been retained by DPH to be sold or liquidated. In connection with the DMDA, we agreed to pay or assume Delphi obligations of $1.0 billion related to its senior DIP credit facility, including certain outstanding derivative instruments, its junior DIP credit facility, and other Delphi obligations, including certain administrative claims. At the closing of the transactions contemplated by the DMDA,

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

we waived administrative claims associated with our advance agreements with Delphi, the payment terms acceleration agreement with Delphi and the claims associated with previously transferred pension costs for hourly employees.

We agreed to acquire, prior to the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the DMDA, all Class A Membership Interests in New Delphi for a cash contribution of $1.7 billion with the Investors acquiring Class B Membership Interests. We and the Investors also agreed to establish: (1) a secured delayed draw term loan facility for New Delphi, with us and the Investors each committing to provide loans of up to $500 million; and (2) a note of $41 million to be funded at closing by the Investors. In addition, the DMDA settled outstanding claims and assessments against and from MLC, us and Delphi, including the termination of the Master Restructuring Agreement with limited exceptions, and establishes an ongoing commercial relationship with New Delphi. We agreed to continue all existing Delphi supply agreements and purchase orders for GMNA to the end of the related product program, and New Delphi agreed to provide us with access rights designed to allow us to operate specific sites on defined triggering events to provide us with protection of supply.

In separate agreements, we, Delphi and the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) negotiated the settlement of the PBGC’s claims from the termination of the Delphi pension plans and the release of certain liens with the PBGC against Delphi’s foreign assets. In return, the PBGC was granted a 100% interest in Class C Membership Interests in New Delphi which provides for the PBGC to participate in predefined equity distributions and received a payment of $70 million from us. We maintain the obligation to provide the difference between pension benefits paid by the PBGC according to regulation and those originally guaranteed by Old GM under the Delphi Benefit Guarantee Agreements.

Section 136 Loans

Section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 establishes an incentive program consisting of both grants and direct loans to support the development of advanced technology vehicles and associated components in the U.S.

The U.S. Congress provided the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) with $25.0 billion in funding to make direct loans to eligible applicants for the costs of re-equipping, expanding, and establishing manufacturing facilities in the United States to produce advanced technology vehicles and components for these vehicles. Old GM submitted three applications for Section 136 Loans aggregating $10.3 billion to support its advanced technology vehicle programs prior to July 2009. Based on the findings of the President’s Designee under the U.S. Treasury Loan Agreement in March 2009, the DOE determined that Old GM did not meet the viability requirements for Section 136 Loans.

On July 10, 2009, we purchased certain assets of Old GM pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, including the rights to the loan applications submitted to the ATVMIP. Further, we submitted a fourth application in August 2009. Subsequently, the DOE advised us to resubmit a consolidated application including all the four applications submitted earlier and also the Electric Power Steering project acquired from Delphi in October 2009. We submitted the consolidated application in October 2009, which requested an aggregate amount of $14.4 billion of Section 136 Loans. Ongoing product portfolio updates and project modifications requested from the DOE have the potential to reduce the maximum loan amount. To date, the DOE has announced that it would provide approximately $8.3 billion in Section 136 Loans to Ford Motor Company, Nissan Motor Company, Tesla Motors, Inc., Fisker Automotive, Inc., and Tenneco Inc. There can be no assurance that we will qualify for any remaining loans or receive any such loans even if we qualify.

Special Attrition Programs, Labor Agreements and Benefit Plan Changes

2009 Special Attrition Programs

In February and June 2009 Old GM announced the 2009 Special Attrition Programs for eligible UAW represented employees, offering cash and other incentives for individuals who elected to retire or voluntarily terminate employment. In the period January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2009 Old GM recorded postemployment benefit charges related to these programs for 13,000 employees. In the periods January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2009 and July 10, 2009 through December 31, 2009 7,980 and 5,000 employees accepted the terms of the 2009 Special Attrition Programs.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Global Salaried Workforce Reductions

In February and June 2009 Old GM announced its intention to reduce global salaried headcount. The U.S. salaried employee reductions related to this initiative were to be accomplished primarily through the 2009 Salaried Window Program or through a severance program funded from operating cash flows. These programs were involuntary programs subject to management approval where employees were permitted to express interest in retirement or separation, for which the charges for the 2009 Salaried Window Program were recorded as special termination benefits funded from the U.S. salaried defined benefit pension plan and other applicable retirement benefit plans.

A net reduction of 9,000 salaried employees was achieved globally, excluding 2,000 salaried employees acquired with our acquisition of Nexteer and four domestic facilities, as more fully discussed in “Delphi Master Disposition Agreement” in this MD&A. Global salaried headcount decreased from 73,000 salaried employees at December 31, 2008 to 66,000 at December 31, 2009, including a reduction of 5,500 U.S. salaried employees.

U.S. Salaried Benefits Changes

In February 2009 Old GM reduced salaried retiree life benefits for U.S. salaried employees. In June 2009 Old GM approved and communicated plan amendments associated with the U.S. salaried retiree health care program including reduced coverage and increases to cost sharing. In June 2009 Old GM also communicated changes in benefits for retired salaried employees including an acceleration and further reduction in retiree life insurance, elimination of the supplemental executive life insurance benefit, and reduction in supplemental executive retirement plan, contingent on completion of the 363 Sale.

2009 Revised UAW Settlement Agreement

In May 2009 the UAW and Old GM agreed to the 2009 Revised UAW Settlement Agreement relating to the UAW hourly retiree medical plan and the 2008 UAW Settlement Agreement that permanently shifted responsibility for providing retiree health care from Old GM to the New Plan funded by the New VEBA. The 2009 Revised UAW Settlement Agreement was subject to the successful completion of the 363 Sale and we and the UAW executed the 2009 Revised UAW Settlement Agreement on July 10, 2009 in connection with the 363 Sale. Details of the most significant changes to the agreement are:

•

The Implementation Date changed from January 1, 2010 to the later of December 31, 2009 or the emergence from bankruptcy, which occurred on July 10, 2009;

•

The timing of payments to the New VEBA changed as subsequently discussed;

•

The form of consideration changed as subsequently discussed;

•

The contribution of employer securities changed such that they are contributed directly to the New VEBA in connection with the 363 Sale on July 10, 2009;

•

Certain coverages will be eliminated and certain cost sharing provisions will increase; and

•

The flat monthly special pension lifetime benefit that was scheduled to commence on January 1, 2010 was eliminated.

There was no change to the timing of our existing internal VEBA asset transfer to the New VEBA in that the internal VEBA asset transfer occurred within 10 business days after December 31, 2009 in accordance with both the 2008 UAW Settlement Agreement and the 2009 Revised UAW Settlement Agreement.

The new payment terms to the New VEBA under the 2009 Revised UAW Settlement Agreement are:

•

VEBA Notes of $2.5 billion and accrued interest, at an implied interest rate of 9.0% per annum, are scheduled to be repaid in three equal installments of $1.4 billion on July 15 of 2013, 2015 and 2017;

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

•

260 million shares of our Series A Preferred Stock that accrue cumulative dividends at 9.0% per annum;

•

88 million shares (17.5%) of our common stock;

•

A warrant to acquire 15 million shares (2.5%) of our common stock at $126.92 per share at any time prior to December 31, 2015;

•

Two years funding of claims costs for certain individuals that elected to participate in the 2009 Special Attrition Programs; and

•

The existing internal VEBA assets.

Under the terms of the 2009 Revised UAW Settlement Agreement, we are released from UAW retiree health care claims incurred after December 31, 2009. All obligations of ours, the New Plan and any other entity or benefit plan of ours for retiree medical benefits for the class and the covered group arising from any agreement between us and the UAW terminated at December 31, 2009. Our obligations to the New Plan and the New VEBA are limited to the 2009 Revised UAW Settlement Agreement.

IUE-CWA and USW Settlement Agreement

In September 2009 we entered into a settlement agreement with MLC, the IUE-CWA, and the USW. Under the settlement agreement, the IUE-CWA and the USW agreed to withdraw and release all claims against us and MLC relating to retiree health care benefits and basic life insurance benefits. In exchange, the IUE-CWA, the USW and any additional union that agrees to the terms of the settlement agreement will be granted an allowed pre-petition unsecured claim in MLC’s Chapter 11 proceedings of $1.0 billion with respect to retiree health and life insurance benefits for the post-age-65 medicare eligible retirees, post-age-65 surviving spouses and under-age-65 medicare eligible retirees or surviving spouses disqualified for retiree health care benefits from us under the settlement agreement. For participants remaining eligible for health care, certain coverages were eliminated and cost sharing will increase.

The settlement agreement was expressly conditioned upon, and did not become effective until approved by the Bankruptcy Court in MLC’s Chapter 11 proceedings, which occurred in November 2009. Several additional unions representing MLC hourly retirees joined the IUE-CWA and USW settlement agreement with respect to health care and life insurance.

2009 CAW Agreement

In March 2009 Old GM announced that the members of the CAW had ratified the 2009 CAW Agreement intended to reduce manufacturing costs in Canada by closing the competitive gap with transplant automakers in the United States on active employee labor costs and reducing legacy costs through introducing co-payments for healthcare benefits, increasing employee healthcare cost sharing, freezing pension benefits and eliminating cost of living adjustments to pensions for retired hourly workers. The 2009 CAW Agreement was conditioned on Old GM receiving longer term financial support from the Canadian and Ontario governments.

GMCL subsequently entered into additional negotiations with the CAW which resulted in a further addendum to the 2008 collective agreement which was ratified by the CAW members in May 2009. In June 2009 the Ontario and Canadian governments agreed to the terms of a loan agreement, approved the GMCL viability plan and provided funding to GMCL.

In June 2009 GMCL and the CAW agreed to the terms of an independent Health Care Trust (HCT) to provide retiree health care benefits to certain active and retired employees represented by the CAW. The HCT will be implemented when certain preconditions are achieved including certain changes to the Canadian Income Tax Act. The preconditions have not been achieved and the HCT is not yet implemented at December 31, 2009. Under the terms of the HCT agreement, GMCL is obligated to make a payment of CAD $1.0 billion on the HCT implementation date which it will fund out of its CAD $1.0 billion escrow funds, adjusted for the net difference between the amount of retiree monthly contributions received during the period December 31, 2009 through the HCT implementation date less the cost of benefits paid for claims incurred by covered employees during this period. GMCL will provide a

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

CAD $800 million note payable to the HCT on the HCT implementation date which will accrue interest at an annual rate of 7.0% with five equal annual installments of $256 million due December 31 of 2014 through 2018. Concurrent with the implementation of the HCT, GMCL will be legally released from all obligations associated with the cost of providing retiree health care benefits to current employees and retired plan participants.

Canadian Defined Benefit Pension Plan Contributions

Under the terms of the pension agreement with the Government of Ontario and the Superintendent of Financial Services, GMCL was required to make initial contributions of CAD $3.3 billion to the Canadian hourly defined benefit pension plan and CAD $0.7 billion to the Canadian salaried defined benefit pension plan, effective September 2, 2009. The contributions were made as scheduled. GMCL is required to make five annual contributions of CAD $200 million, payable in monthly installments, beginning in September 2009. The payments will be allocated between the Canadian hourly defined benefit pension plan and the Canadian salaried defined benefit pension plan as specified in the loan agreement.

Delphi Corporation

In July 2009 we entered into the DMDA with Delphi and other parties. Under the DMDA, we agreed to acquire Nexteer and four domestic facilities. As a result of the DMDA, active Delphi plan participants at the sites covered by the DMDA are now covered under our comparable counterpart plans as new employees with vesting rights. As part of the DMDA, we also assumed liabilities associated with certain international benefit plans.

Job Security Programs

In May 2009 Old GM and the UAW entered into an agreement that suspended the Job Opportunity Bank (JOBS) Program. The Supplemental Unemployment Benefit (SUB) was modified and the Transition Support Program (TSP) was added. These job security programs provide reduced wages and employees continue to receive coverage under certain employee benefit programs. The number of weeks that an employee receives these benefits depends on the employee’s classification as well as the number of years of service that the employee has accrued. A similar tiered benefit is provided to CAW employees.

Effect of Fresh-Start Reporting

The application of fresh-start reporting significantly affected certain assets, liabilities, and expenses. As a result, certain financial information at and in the period July 10, 2009 through December 31, 2009 is not comparable to Old GM’s financial information. Therefore, we did not combine certain financial information in the period July 10, 2009 through December 31, 2009 with Old GM’s financial information in the period January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2009 for comparison to prior periods. We have combined our Total net sales and revenue in the period July 10, 2009 through December 31, 2009 with Old GM’s Total net sales and revenue in the period January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2009. Total net sales and revenue was not significantly affected by fresh-start reporting and therefore we combined vehicle sales data comparing the Successor and Predecessor periods. Refer to Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information on fresh-start reporting.

Because our and Old GM’s financial information is not comparable, we are providing additional financial metrics for the periods presented in addition to disclosures concerning significant transactions and trends at December 31, 2009 and in the periods presented.

Total net sales and revenue is primarily comprised of revenue generated from the sales of vehicles, in addition to revenue from OnStar, our customer subscription service, vehicle sales accounted for as operating leases and sales of parts and accessories.

Cost of sales is primarily comprised of material, labor, manufacturing overhead, freight, foreign currency transaction and translation gains and losses, product engineering, design and development expenses, depreciation and amortization, policy and warranty costs, postemployment benefit gains and losses, and separation and impairment charges. Prior to our application of fresh-start reporting, Cost of sales also included gains and losses on derivative instruments. Effective July 10, 2009 gains and losses related to all nondesignated derivatives are recorded in Interest income and other non-operating income, net.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Selling, general and administrative expense is primarily comprised of costs related to the advertising, selling and promotion of products, support services, including central office expenses, labor and benefit expenses for employees not considered part of the manufacturing process, consulting costs, rental expense for offices, bad debt expense and state and local taxes.

Consolidated Results of Operations

(Dollars in millions)


	Successor			Predecessor
	July 10, 2009 Through December 31, 2009			January 1, 2009 Through July 9, 2009			Year Ended December 31, 2008			Year Ended December 31, 2007
Net sales and revenue
Sales	$	57,329		$	46,787		$	147,732		$	177,594
Other revenue		145			328			1,247			2,390

Total net sales and revenue		57,474			47,115			148,979			179,984

Costs and expenses
Cost of sales		56,381			55,814			149,257			165,573
Selling, general and administrative expense		6,006			6,161			14,253			14,412
Other expenses, net		15			1,235			6,699			4,308

Total costs and expenses		62,402			63,210			170,209			184,293

Operating loss		(4,928	)		(16,095	)		(21,230	)		(4,309	)
Equity in income (loss) of and disposition of interest in GMAC		—			1,380			(6,183	)		(1,245	)
Interest expense		(694	)		(5,428	)		(2,525	)		(3,076	)
Interest income and other non-operating income, net		440			852			424			2,284
Gain (loss) on extinguishment of debt		(101	)		(1,088	)		43			—
Reorganization gains, net		—			128,155			—			—

Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes and equity income		(5,283	)		107,776			(29,471	)		(6,346	)
Income tax expense (benefit)		(1,000	)		(1,166	)		1,766			36,863
Equity income, net of tax		497			61			186			524

Income (loss) from continuing operations		(3,786	)		109,003			(31,051	)		(42,685	)
Discontinued operations
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax		—			—			—			256
Gain on sale of discontinued operations, net of tax		—			—			—			4,293

Income from discontinued operations		—			—			—			4,549

Net income (loss)		(3,786	)		109,003			(31,051	)		(38,136	)
Less: Net (income) loss attributable to noncontrolling interests		(511	)		115			108			(406	)

Net income (loss) attributable to stockholders		(4,297	)		109,118			(30,943	)		(38,542	)
Less: Cumulative dividends on preferred stock		131			—			—			—

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders	$	(4,428	)	$	109,118		$	(30,943	)	$	(38,542	)

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Vehicle Sales and Production Volume

The following tables summarize total production volume and industry sales of new motor vehicles and competitive position (in thousands):


	Combined GM and Old GM	Old GM
	Year Ended December 31, 2009	Year Ended December 31, 2008	Year Ended December 31, 2007
Production Volume (a)(b)
GMNA	1,913	3,449	4,267
GME	1,134	1,550	1,828
GMIO (b)	3,456	3,145	3,191

Worldwide	6,503	8,144	9,286

(a)	Production volume represents the number of vehicles manufactured by our and Old GM’s assembly facilities and also includes vehicles produced by certain joint ventures.

(b)	Includes SGM, SGMW and FAW-GM joint venture production. Ownership of 50% in SGM, 34% in SGMW and 50% in FAW-GM, under the joint venture agreements, allows for significant rights as a member as well as the contractual right to report SGMW and FAW-GM production volume in China.


	Year Ended December 31, 2009			Year Ended December 31, 2008			Year Ended December 31, 2007
	Industry	Combined GM and Old GM	Combined GM and Old GM as a % of Industry	Industry	Old GM	Old GM as a % of Industry	Industry	Old GM	Old GM as a % of Industry
Vehicle Sales (a)(b)(c)(d)
GMNA	13,073	2,485	19.0%	16,567	3,565	21.5%	19,634	4,516	23.0%
GME	18,827	1,667	8.9%	21,968	2,043	9.3%	23,123	2,182	9.4%
GMIO (c)	32,358	3,326	10.3%	28,641	2,754	9.6%	28,173	2,672	9.5%

Worldwide	64,257	7,478	11.6%	67,176	8,362	12.4%	70,929	9,370	13.2%

(a)	Vehicle sales primarily represent estimated sales to the ultimate customer.

(b)	Includes HUMMER, Saab, Saturn and Pontiac vehicle sales data.

(c)

Includes SGM, SGMW and FAW-GM joint venture sales. Ownership of 50% in SGM, 34% in SGMW and 50% in FAW-GM, under the joint venture agreements, allows for significant rights as a member as well as the contractual right to report SGMW and FAW-GM joint venture vehicle sales in China as part of global market share.

(d)	Vehicle sales data may include rounding differences.

Reconciliation of Segment Results

Management believes earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) provides meaningful supplemental information regarding our operating results because it excludes amounts that management does not consider part of operating results when assessing and measuring the operational and financial performance of the organization. Management believes these measures allow it to readily view operating trends, perform analytical comparisons, benchmark performance among geographic regions and assess whether our plan to return to profitability is on target. Accordingly, we believe EBIT is useful in allowing for greater transparency of supplemental information used by management in its financial and operational decision-making.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

While management believes that EBIT provides useful information, it is not an operating measure under U. S. GAAP and there are limitations associated with its use. Our calculation of EBIT may not be completely comparable to similarly titled measures of other companies due to potential differences between companies in the method of calculation. As a result, the use of EBIT has limitations and should not be considered in isolation from, or as a substitute for, other measures such as Net income (loss) or Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders. Due to these limitations, EBIT is used as a supplement to U. S. GAAP measures.

The following table summarizes the reconciliation of Income (loss) attributable to stockholders before interest and taxes to Net income (loss) attributable to stockholders for each of our operating segments (dollars in millions):


	Successor			Predecessor
	July 10, 2009 Through December 31, 2009			January 1, 2009 Through July 9, 2009			Year Ended December 31, 2008			Year Ended December 31, 2007
Operating segments
GMNA (a)	$	(4,820	)	$	(11,092	)	$	(12,203	)	$	1,876
GMIO (a)		1,198			(956	)		473			1,911
GME (a)		(805	)		(2,823	)		(2,637	)		(410	)

Total operating segments		(4,427	)		(14,871	)		(14,367	)		3,377
Corporate and eliminations (b)		(360	)		128,068			(12,940	)		(3,208	)

Income (loss) attributable to stockholders before interest and income taxes		(4,787	)		113,197			(27,307	)		169
Interest income		184			183			655			1,228
Interest expense		694			5,428			2,525			3,076
Income tax expense (benefits)		(1,000	)		(1,166	)		1,766			36,863

Net income (loss) attributable to stockholders	$	(4,297	)	$	109,118		$	(30,943	)	$	(38,542	)

(a)	Interest and income taxes are recorded centrally in Corporate; therefore, there are no reconciling items for our operating segments between Income (loss) attributable to stockholders before interest and taxes and Net income (loss) attributable to stockholders.

(b)	Includes Reorganization gains, net of $128.2 billion in the period January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2009.

July 10, 2009 Through December 31, 2009 and January 1, 2009 Through July 9, 2009

(Dollars in millions)

Total Net Sales and Revenue


	Combined GM and Old GM		Successor		Predecessor				Year Ended 2009 vs. 2008 Change
	Year Ended December 31, 2009		July 10, 2009 Through December 31, 2009		January 1, 2009 Through July 9, 2009		Year Ended December 31, 2008		Year Ended 2009 vs. 2008 Change
	Year Ended December 31, 2009		July 10, 2009 Through December 31, 2009		January 1, 2009 Through July 9, 2009		Year Ended December 31, 2008		Amount		%
Total net sales and revenue	$	104,589	$	57,474	$	47,115	$	148,979	$	(44,390)	(29.8)%

In the periods July 10, 2009 through December 31, 2009 and January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2009 several factors have continued to affect global vehicle sales. The continuing tight credit markets, increasing unemployment rates and recessions in the U.S. and many international markets all contributed to significantly lower sales than those in the prior year. Old GM’s well publicized liquidity issues, public speculation as to the effects of Chapter 11 proceedings and the actual Chapter 11 Proceedings also negatively affected vehicle sales in several markets.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

In response to these negative conditions, several countries took action to improve vehicle sales. Many countries in the Asia Pacific region have responded to the global recession by lowering interest rates and initiating programs to provide credit to consumers, which had a positive effect on vehicle sales. Certain countries including Germany, China, Brazil, India and South Korea benefited from effective government economic stimulus packages and began showing signs of recovery, and the CARS program initiated by the U.S. government temporarily stimulated vehicle sales in the U.S. We expect that the challenging sales environment resulting from the economic slowdown will continue in 2010, but we anticipate that China and other key emerging markets will continue showing strong sales and market growth.

In the year ended 2009 Total net sales and revenue decreased by $44.4 billion (or 29.8%) primarily due to: (1) a decrease of revenue of $36.7 billion in GMNA related to volume reductions; (2) a decrease in domestic wholesale volumes and lower exports of $11.0 billion in GMIO; (3) a decrease in domestic wholesale volumes of $4.8 billion in GME; (4) foreign currency translation and transaction losses of $3.7 billion in GME, primarily due to the strengthening of the U.S. Dollar versus the Euro; (5) a decrease in sales revenue of $1.2 billion in GME related to Saab; (6) lower powertrain and parts and accessories revenue of $0.8 billion in GME; and (7) a decrease in other financing revenue of $0.7 billion related to the continued liquidation of the portfolio of automotive retail leases.

These decreases in Total net sales and revenue were partially offset by: (1) improved pricing, lower sales incentives and improved lease residuals, mostly related to daily rental car vehicles returned from lease and sold at auction, of $5.4 billion in GMNA; (2) favorable vehicle mix of $2.8 billion in GMNA; (3) favorable vehicle pricing of $1.3 billion in GME; (4) gains on derivative instruments of $0.9 billion in GMIO; (5) favorable pricing of $0.5 billion in GMIO, primarily due to a 60% price increase in Venezuela due to high inflation; and (6) favorable vehicle mix of $0.4 billion in GMIO driven by launches of new vehicle models at GM Daewoo.

Cost of Sales


	Successor			Predecessor
	July 10, 2009 Through December 31, 2009		Percentage of Total net sales and revenue	January 1, 2009 Through July 9, 2009			Percentage of Total net sales and revenue
Cost of sales	$	56,381	98.3%	$	55,814		118.5%
Gross margin	$	1,093	1.9%	$	(8,699	)	(18.5)%

Cost of sales for the year ended December 2009, representing our cost of sales combined with Old GM’s, is down from historical levels primarily due to reduced volume.

In the period July 10, 2009 through December 31, 2009 Cost of sales included: (1) a settlement loss of $2.6 billion related to the termination of the UAW hourly retiree medical plan and Mitigation Plan; (2) foreign currency translation losses of $1.3 billion; and (3) separation charges of $0.2 billion. These expenses were partially offset by foreign currency transaction gains of $0.5 billion.

Old GM

In the period January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2009 Cost of sales included: (1) incremental depreciation charges of $2.0 billion in GMNA that Old GM recorded prior to the 363 Sale for facilities included in GMNA’s restructuring activities and for certain facilities that MLC retained at July 10, 2009; (2) foreign currency translation losses of $0.7 billion, primarily in GMNA due to the strengthening of the Canadian Dollar versus the U.S. Dollar; and (3) foreign currency transaction losses of $0.3 billion.

In the period January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2009 Cost of sales included: (1) charges of $1.1 billion related to the SUB and TSP; (2) separation charges of $0.7 billion related to hourly employees who participated in the 2009 Special Attrition Program and Second 2009 Special Attrition Program; (3) expenses of $0.7 billion related to U.S. pension and other postemployment benefit (OPEB) plans

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

for hourly and salary employees; (4) separation charges of $0.3 billion for U.S. salaried workforce reduction programs to allow 6,000 terminated employees to receive ongoing wages and benefits for no longer than 12 months; and (5) expenses of $0.3 billion related to Canadian pension and OPEB plans for hourly and salary employees and restructuring activities. These costs were partially offset by favorable adjustments of $0.7 billion primarily related to the suspension of the JOBS Program.

In the period January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2009 negative gross margin reflected the under absorption of manufacturing overhead resulting from declining sales volumes and incremental depreciation of $2.0 billion and $0.7 billion in GMNA and GME.

Selling, General and Administrative Expense


	Successor			Predecessor
	July 10, 2009 Through December 31, 2009		Percentage of Total net sales and revenue	January 1, 2009 Through July 9, 2009		Percentage of Total net sales and revenue
Selling, general and administrative expense	$	6,006	10.4%	$	6,161	13.1%

Selling, general and administrative expense for the year ended December 2009, representing our selling, general and administrative expense combined with Old GM’s is down from historical levels due to reduced advertising and other spending.

In the period July 10, 2009 through December 31, 2009 Selling, general and administrative expense included charges of $0.3 billion in GMNA, primarily for dealer wind-down costs for our Saturn dealers after plans to sell the Saturn brand and dealer network were terminated. These expenses were partially offset by reductions on overall spending for media and advertising fees related to our global cost saving initiatives and a decline in Saturn sales and marketing efforts in anticipation of the sale of Saturn, and ultimately, the wind-down of operations.

Old GM

In the period January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2009 Selling, general and administrative expense included charges of $0.5 billion recorded for dealer wind-down costs in GMNA. This was partially offset by the positive effects of various cost savings initiatives, the cancellation of certain sales and promotion contracts as result of the Chapter 11 Proceedings in the U.S. and overall reductions in advertising and marketing budgets.

Interest Expense


	Successor			Predecessor
	July 10, 2009 Through December 31, 2009			January 1, 2009 Through July 9, 2009
Interest expense	$	(694	)	$	(5,428	)

As a result of the 363 Sale, our debt balance is significantly lower than Old GM’s. Accordingly, Interest expense is down from historical levels.

Old GM

In the period January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2009 Old GM recorded amortization of discounts related to the UST Loan, EDC Loan and DIP Facilities of $3.7 billion. In addition, Old GM incurred interest expense of $1.7 billion primarily related to interest expense of

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

$0.8 billion on unsecured debt balances, $0.4 billion on the UST Loan Facility and $0.2 billion on GMIO debt. Old GM ceased accruing and paying interest on most of its unsecured U.S. and foreign denominated debt on June 1, 2009, the date of its Chapter 11 Proceedings.

Gain (Loss) on Extinguishment of Debt


	Successor			Predecessor
	July 10, 2009 Through December 31, 2009			January 1, 2009 Through July 9, 2009
Gain (loss) on extinguishment of debt	$	(101	)	$	(1,088	)

Old GM

In the period January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2009 Old GM recorded a loss related to the extinguishment of the UST GMAC Loan of $2.0 billion when the UST exercised its option to convert outstanding amounts to shares of GMAC’s Class B Common Membership Interests. This loss was partially offset by a gain on extinguishment of debt of $0.9 billion related to an amendment to Old GM’s $1.5 billion U.S. term loan in March 2009.

Income Tax Expense (Benefit)


	Successor			Predecessor
	July 10, 2009 Through December 31, 2009			January 1, 2009 Through July 9, 2009
Income tax expense (benefit)	$	(1,000	)	$	(1,166	)

In the period July 10, 2009 through December 31, 2009 Income tax expense (benefit) primarily resulted from a $1.4 billion income tax allocation between operations and Other comprehensive income, partially offset by income tax provisions of $0.3 billion for profitable entities. In the period July 10, 2009 through December 31, 2009 our U.S. operations incurred losses from operations with no income tax benefit due to full valuation allowances against our U.S. deferred tax assets, and we had Other comprehensive income, primarily due to remeasurement gains on our U.S. pension plans. We recorded income tax expense related to the remeasurement gains in Other comprehensive income and allocated income tax benefit to operations.

Old GM

In the period January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2009 Income tax expense (benefit) primarily resulted from the reversal of valuation allowances of $0.7 billion related to Reorganization gains, net and the resolution of a transfer pricing matter of $0.7 billion between the U.S. and Canadian governments, offset by income tax provisions of profitable entities.

Equity Income, net of tax


	Successor			Predecessor
	July 10, 2009 Through December 31, 2009		Percentage of Total net sales and revenue	January 1, 2009 Through July 9, 2009			Percentage of Total net sales and revenue
SGM and SGMW	$	466	0.8%	$	298		0.6%
Other equity interests		31	0.1%		(237	)	(0.5)%

Total equity income, net of tax	$	497	0.9%	$	61		0.1%

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

In the period July 10, 2009 through December 31, 2009 equity income, net of tax reflected increased sales volume at SGM and SGMW.

Old GM

In the period January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2009 Equity income, net of tax reflected: (1) increased sales volume at SGM; (2) charges of $0.2 billion related to Old GM’s investment in New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI); and (3) equity losses of $0.1 billion related to NUMMI and CAMI Automotive, Inc. (CAMI), primarily due to lower volumes.

2008 Compared to 2007

(Dollars in Millions)

Automotive Industry

Global industry vehicle sales decreased in the year ended 2008 by 3.8 million vehicles (or 5.3%) to 67.2 million vehicles. This decline started in North America and extended into the other regions, especially during the second half of 2008, reflecting the effect of slowing economies, tightening credit markets, volatile oil prices and declining consumer confidence around the world. Industry vehicle sales in North America decreased by 3.1 million vehicles (or 15.6%) to 16.6 million vehicles and Europe decreased by 1.2 million vehicles (or 5.0%) to 22.0 million vehicles. These decreases were offset by industry vehicle sales increases in the Asia Pacific and the Latin America, Africa and Middle East (LAAM) regions by 468,000 vehicles (or 1.7%) to 28.6 million vehicles.

Total Net Sales and Revenue


	Predecessor
	Year Ended December 31, 2008		Year Ended December 31, 2007		Year Ended 2008 vs. 2007 Change
	Year Ended December 31, 2008		Year Ended December 31, 2007		Amount			%
Total net sales and revenue	$	148,979	$	179,984	$	(31,005	)	(17.2)%

Total net sales and revenue decreased in the year ended 2008 by $31.0 billion (or 17.2%) primarily due to declining Sales of $29.9 billion. This decrease reflects the decline in the global automotive industry that resulted from tightening credit markets, a recession in the U.S. and Western Europe, volatile oil prices and declining consumer confidence around the world. These factors first affected the U.S. economy in late 2007 and continued to deteriorate and spread during 2008 to Western Europe and the emerging markets in Asia and South America. Sales decreased by $26.3 billion in GMNA primarily due to: (1) declining volumes and unfavorable vehicle mix of $23.1 billion; and (2) an increase in the accrual for residual support programs for leased vehicles of $1.8 billion related to the decline in residual values of fullsize pick-up trucks and sport utility vehicles in the middle of 2008. Sales also decreased in GME by $3.1 billion and in GMIO by $0.2 billion.

Cost of Sales


	Predecessor
	Year Ended December 31, 2008			Year Ended December 31, 2007		Year Ended 2008 vs. 2007 Change
	Year Ended December 31, 2008			Year Ended December 31, 2007		Amount			%
Cost of sales	$	149,257		$	165,573	$	(16,316	)	(9.9)%
Gross margin	$	(278	)	$	14,411	$	(14,689	)	(101.9)%

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

In the year ended 2008 Cost of sales decreased by $16.3 billion (or 9.9%) due to: (1) decreased costs related to lower production volumes of $14.0 billion in GMNA; (2) a net curtailment gain of $4.9 billion in GMNA related to the 2008 UAW Settlement Agreement; (3) a decrease in wholesale sales volumes of $3.5 billion in GME; (4) non-recurring pension prior service costs of $2.2 billion recorded in GMNA in the year ended 2007; (5) manufacturing savings of $1.4 billion in GMNA from lower manufacturing costs and hourly headcount levels resulting from attrition programs and productivity improvements; and (6) favorable foreign currency translation gains of $1.4 billion in GMNA, primarily due to the strengthening of the U.S. Dollar versus the Canadian Dollar.

These decreases were partially offset by: (1) charges of $5.8 billion in GMNA related to restructuring and other costs associated with Old GM’s special attrition programs, certain Canadian facility idlings and finalization of Old GM’s negotiations with the CAW; (2) foreign currency translation losses of $2.4 billion in GME, primarily driven by the strengthening of the Euro and Swedish Krona, offset partially by the weakening of the British Pound versus the U.S. Dollar; (3) expenses of $1.7 billion in GMNA related to the salaried post-65 healthcare settlement; (4) increased content cost of $0.7 billion in GMIO driven by an increase in imported material costs at Venezuela and high inflation across the region; (5) increased Delphi related charges of $0.6 billion in GMNA related to certain cost subsidies reimbursed during the year.

Selling, General and Administrative Expense


	Predecessor
	Year Ended December 31, 2008		Year Ended December 31, 2007		Year Ended 2008 vs. 2007 Change
	Year Ended December 31, 2008		Year Ended December 31, 2007		Amount			%
Selling, general and administrative expense	$	14,253	$	14,412	$	(159	)	(1.1)%

In the year ended 2008 Selling, general and administrative expense decreased by $0.2 billion (or 1.1%) primarily due to: (1) reductions in incentive and compensation and profit sharing costs of $0.4 billion in GMNA; and (2) a decrease in advertising, selling and sales promotion expenses of $0.3 billion in GMNA. These decreases were partially offset by: (1) a charge of $0.2 billion related to the 2008 Salaried Window Program in GMNA; (2) increased administrative, marketing and selling expenses of $0.2 billion in GMIO, primarily due to Old GM’s expansion in Russia and other European markets; and (3) bad debt charges of $0.2 billion.

Other Expenses, net


	Predecessor
	Year Ended December 31, 2008		Year Ended December 31, 2007		Year Ended 2008 vs. 2007 Change
	Year Ended December 31, 2008		Year Ended December 31, 2007		Amount		%
Other expenses, net	$	6,699	$	4,308	$	2,391	55.5%

In the year ended 2008 Other expenses, net increased $2.4 billion (or 55.5%) primarily due to: (1) increased charges of $3.3 billion related to the Delphi Benefit Guarantee Agreements; (2) impairment charges related to goodwill of $0.5 billion and $0.2 billion in GME and GMNA; partially offset by (3) a non-recurring charge of $0.6 billion recorded in the year ended 2007 for pension benefits granted to future and current retirees of Delphi.

Equity in Income (Loss) of and Disposition of Interest in GMAC


	Predecessor						Year Ended 2008 vs. 2007 Change
	Year Ended December 31, 2008			Year Ended December 31, 2007			Year Ended 2008 vs. 2007 Change
	Year Ended December 31, 2008			Year Ended December 31, 2007			Amount			%
Equity in income (loss) of and disposition of interest in GMAC	$	916		$	(1,245	)	$	2,161		173.6%
Impairment charges related to GMAC Common Membership Interests		(7,099	)		—			(7,099	)	n.m.

Total equity in income (loss) of and disposition of interest in GMAC	$	(6,183	)	$	(1,245	)	$	(4,938	)	n.m.

n.m. = not meaningful

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

In the year ended 2008 Equity in loss of and disposition of interest in GMAC increased $4.9 billion due to impairment charges of $7.1 billion related to Old GM’s investment in GMAC Common Membership Interests, offset by an increase in Old GM’s proportionate share of GMAC’s income from operations of $2.2 billion.

Interest Expense


	Predecessor						Year Ended 2008 vs. 2007 Change
	Year Ended December 31, 2008			Year Ended December 31, 2007			Year Ended 2008 vs. 2007 Change
	Year Ended December 31, 2008			Year Ended December 31, 2007			Amount		%
Interest expense	$	(2,525	)	$	(3,076	)	$	551	17.9%

Interest expense decreased in the year ended 2008 by $0.6 billion (or 17.9%) due to the de-designation of certain derivatives as hedges of $0.3 billion and an adjustment to capitalized interest of $0.2 billion.

Interest Income and Other Non-Operating Income, net


	Predecessor
	Year Ended December 31, 2008		Year Ended December 31, 2007		Year Ended 2008 vs. 2007 Change
	Year Ended December 31, 2008		Year Ended December 31, 2007		Amount			%
Interest income and other non-operating income, net	$	424	$	2,284	$	(1,860	)	(81.4)%

In the year ended 2008 Interest income and other non-operating income, net decreased by $1.9 billion (or 81.4%) primarily due to impairment charges of $1.0 billion related to Old GM’s GMAC Preferred Membership Interests in the year ended 2008 and a reduction in interest earned on cash balances of $0.3 billion due to lower market interest rates and lower cash balances on hand.

Income Tax Expense


	Predecessor				Year Ended 2008 vs. 2007 Change
	Year Ended December 31, 2008		Year Ended December 31, 2007		Year Ended 2008 vs. 2007 Change
	Year Ended December 31, 2008		Year Ended December 31, 2007		Amount			%
Income tax expense	$	1,766	$	36,863	$	(35,097	)	(95.2)%

Income tax expense decreased in the year ended 2008 by $35.1 billion (or 95.2%) due to the effect of recording valuation allowances of $39.0 billion against Old GM’s net deferred tax assets in the United States, Canada and Germany in the year ended 2007, offset by the recording of additional valuation allowances in the year ended 2008 of $1.9 billion against Old GM’s net deferred tax assets in South Korea, the United Kingdom, Spain, Australia, other jurisdictions.

Equity Income, net of tax


	Predecessor					Year Ended 2008 vs. 2007 Change
	Year Ended December 31, 2008			Year Ended December 31, 2007		Year Ended 2008 vs. 2007 Change
	Year Ended December 31, 2008			Year Ended December 31, 2007		Amount			%
SGM and SGMW	$	312		$	430	$	(118	)	(27.4)%
Other equity interests		(126	)		94		(220	)	n.m.

Total equity income, net of tax	$	186		$	524	$	(338	)	n.m.

n.m. = not meaningful

In the year ended 2008 Equity income, net of tax decreased by $0.3 billion due to: (1) lower earnings at SGM driven by a volume decrease, mix deterioration and higher sales promotion expenses, partially offset by higher earnings at SGMW driven by a volume increase; (2) a decrease of $0.2 billion in GMNA due to impairment charges and lower income from Old GM’s investments in NUMMI and CAMI.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Changes in Consolidated Financial Condition

(Dollars in millions, except share amounts)


	Successor			Predecessor
	December 31, 2009			December 31, 2008
ASSETS
Current Assets
Cash and cash equivalents	$	22,679		$	14,053
Marketable securities		134			141

Total cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities		22,813			14,194
Restricted cash		13,917			672
Accounts and notes receivable (net of allowance of $250 and $422)		7,518			7,918
Inventories		10,107			13,195
Assets held for sale		388			—
Equipment on operating leases, net		2,727			5,142
Other current assets and deferred income taxes		1,777			3,146

Total current assets		59,247			44,267
Non-Current Assets
Restricted cash		1,489			1,917
Equity in net assets of nonconsolidated affiliates		7,936			2,146
Assets held for sale		530			—
Equipment on operating leases, net		3			442
Property, net		18,687			39,665
Goodwill		30,672			—
Intangible assets, net		14,547			265
Deferred income taxes		564			98
Prepaid pension		98			109
Other assets		2,522			2,130

Total non-current assets		77,048			46,772

Total Assets	$	136,295		$	91,039

LIABILITIES AND EQUITY (DEFICIT)
Current Liabilities
Accounts payable (principally trade)	$	18,725		$	22,259
Short-term debt and current portion of long-term debt		10,221			16,920
Liabilities held for sale		355			—
Postretirement benefits other than pensions		846			4,002
Accrued expenses		22,288			32,427

Total current liabilities		52,435			75,608
Non-Current Liabilities
Long-term debt		5,562			29,018
Liabilities held for sale		270			—
Postretirement benefits other than pensions		8,708			28,919
Pensions		27,086			25,178
Other liabilities and deferred income taxes		13,279			17,392

Total non-current liabilities		54,905			100,507

Total liabilities		107,340			176,115
Commitments and contingencies
Preferred stock, $0.01 par value (1,000,000,000 shares authorized and 360,000,000 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2009)		6,998			—
Equity (Deficit)
Old GM
Preferred stock, no par value (6,000,000 shares authorized, no shares issued and outstanding)		—			—
Preference stock, $0.10 par value (100,000,000 shares authorized, no shares issued and outstanding)		—			—
Common stock, $1²/3 par value common stock (2,000,000,000 shares authorized, 800,937,541 shares issued and 610,483,231 shares outstanding at December 31, 2008)		—			1,017
General Motors Company
Common stock, $0.01 par value (2,500,000,000 shares authorized and 500,000,000 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2009)		5			—
Capital surplus (principally additional paid-in capital)		24,050			16,489
Accumulated deficit		(4,394	)		(70,727	)
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)		1,588			(32,339	)

Total stockholders’ equity (deficit)		21,249			(85,560	)
Noncontrolling interests		708			484

Total equity (deficit)		21,957			(85,076	)

Total Liabilities and Equity (Deficit)	$	136,295		$	91,039

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Liquidity Measures


	Successor	Predecessor
	December 31, 2009	December 31, 2008
Current ratio	1.13	0.59
Days sales outstanding (a)	17	25
Inventory turnover (a)	2.54	1.85
Days payable outstanding (a)	54	68

(a)	These measurements show the relationship of the applicable sales or cost of sales activity and the related average balance carried during the quarter ended December 31, 2009 and 2008.

Current Assets

At December 31, 2009 Restricted cash of $13.9 billion was primarily comprised of $13.4 billion in our UST Credit Agreement and Canadian Health Care Trust escrow accounts. The remainder was primarily comprised of amounts prefunded related to supplier payments and other third parties and other cash collateral requirements.

At December 31, 2009 Accounts and notes receivable, net of $7.5 billion was affected by lower volumes.

At December 31, 2009 Inventories were $10.1 billion. Inventories were recorded on a FIFO basis and were affected by efforts to reduce inventory levels globally.

At December 31, 2009 current Assets held for sale of $0.4 billion were related to Saab. Saab’s Assets held for sale were primarily comprised of cash and cash equivalents, inventory and receivables.

At December 31, 2009 Equipment on operating leases, net of $2.7 billion was comprised of vehicle sales to daily rental car companies and to retail leasing customers. At December 31, 2009 there were 119,000 vehicles leased to U.S. daily rental car companies and 24,000 vehicles leased through the automotive retail portfolio. The numbers of vehicles on lease were at lower levels primarily due to the continued wind-down of our automotive retail portfolio.

Old GM

At December 31, 2008 Restricted cash of $0.7 billion was primarily comprised of amounts pre-funded related to supplier payments and other third parties and other cash collateral requirements.

At December 31, 2008 Inventories were $13.2 billion. Inventories for certain business units were recorded on a LIFO basis.

At December 31, 2008 Equipment on operating leases, net of $5.1 billion was comprised of vehicle sales to daily rental car companies and to retail leasing customers. At December 31, 2008 there were 137,000 vehicles leased to U.S. daily rental car companies and 133,000 vehicles leased through the automotive retail portfolio.

Non-Current Assets

At December 31, 2009 Restricted cash of $1.5 billion was primarily comprised of collateral for insurance related activities and other cash collateral requirements.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

At December 31, 2009 Equity in net assets of nonconsolidated affiliates of $7.9 billion was primarily comprised of our investment in SGM and SGMW. In connection with our application of fresh-start reporting, we recorded Equity in net assets of nonconsolidated affiliates at its fair value of $5.8 billion. In the three months ended December 31, 2009 we also recorded an investment of $1.9 billion in New Delphi.

At December 31, 2009 non-current Assets held for sale of $0.5 billion were related to certain of our operations in India (India Operations). The India Operations Assets held for sale were primarily comprised of cash and cash equivalents, inventory, receivables and property, plant and equipment. We classified these Assets held for sale as long-term at December 31, 2009 because we received a promissory note in exchange for the India Operations that will not convert to cash within one year.

At December 31, 2009 Property, net was $18.7 billion. In connection with our application of fresh-start reporting, we recorded Property at its fair value of $18.5 billion at July 10, 2009.

At December 31, 2009 Goodwill was $30.7 billion. In connection with our application of fresh-start reporting, we recorded Goodwill of $30.5 billion at July 10, 2009. When applying fresh-start reporting, certain accounts, primarily employee benefit and income tax related, were recorded at amounts determined under specific U.S. GAAP rather than fair value, and the difference between the GAAP and fair value amounts gives rise to goodwill, which is a residual. Further, we recorded valuation allowances against certain of our deferred tax assets, which under ASC 852 also resulted in goodwill. Our employee benefit related accounts were recorded in accordance with ASC 712 and ASC 715 and deferred income taxes were recorded in accordance with ASC 740. There was no goodwill on an economic basis based on the fair value of our equity, liabilities and identifiable assets.

At December 31, 2009 Intangible assets, net were $14.5 billion. In connection with our application of fresh-start reporting, we recorded Intangible assets at their fair value of $16.1 billion at July 10, 2009. Newly recorded identifiable intangible assets include brand names, our dealer network, customer relationships, developed technologies, favorable contracts and other intangible assets.

At December 31, 2009 Other assets of $2.5 billion was primarily comprised of our cost method investments in GMAC common and preferred stock. In connection with our application of fresh-start reporting, we recorded our investments in GMAC common and preferred stock at their fair values of $1.3 billion and $0.7 billion at July 10, 2009. In the three months ended December 31, 2009 we recorded an impairment charge of $0.3 billion related to our investment in GMAC common stock.

Old GM

At December 31, 2008 Restricted cash of $1.9 billion was primarily comprised of collateral for insurance related activities and other cash collateral requirements.

At December 31, 2008 Equity in net assets of nonconsolidated affiliates of $2.1 billion was primarily comprised of Old GM’s investments in SGM, SGMW and GMAC. In May 2009 Old GM’s ownership interest in GMAC’s Common Membership Interests was reduced to 24.5% and at June 30, 2009 GMAC converted its status to a C corporation. At that date Old GM began to account for its investment in GMAC using the cost method rather than equity method as Old GM no longer exercised significant influence over GMAC.

At December 31, 2008 Other assets of $2.1 billion was primarily comprised of taxes other than income, derivative assets and debt issuance expense.

Current Liabilities

At December 31, 2009 Accounts payable was $18.7 billion. Accounts payable amounts were correlated, in part, with vehicle production and sales volume, which drive purchases of materials, freight costs and advertising expenditures.

At December 31, 2009 Short-term debt and current portion of long-term debt of $10.2 billion was primarily comprised of amounts we entered into or assumed under various agreements with the U.S. and Canadian governments. In addition, we assumed secured and unsecured debt obligations (including capital leases) owed by our subsidiaries.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

At December 31, 2009 current Liabilities held for sale of $0.4 billion were related to Saab. Saab’s Liabilities held for sale were primarily comprised of accounts payable, warranty and pension obligations and other liabilities.

At December 31, 2009 our current OPEB obligation of $0.8 billion included the effect of the 2009 Revised UAW Settlement Agreement and other OPEB plan changes.

At December 31, 2009 Accrued expenses were $22.3 billion. Major components of accrued expenses were dealer and customer allowances, claims and discounts, deposits from rental car companies, policy, product warranty and recall campaigns, accrued payrolls and employee benefits, current pension obligation, taxes other than income taxes and liabilities related to plant closures. Accrued expenses were affected by sales volumes which affect customer deposits, dealer incentives and policy and warranty costs as well as certain liabilities MLC retained as a result of the 363 transaction.

Old GM

At December 31, 2008 Accounts payable was $22.3 billion. Accounts payable amounts were correlated, in part, with vehicle production and sales volume, which drive purchases of materials, freight costs and advertising expenditures.

At December 31, 2008 Short-term debt and current portion of long-term debt of $16.9 billion was primarily comprised of UST Loans, a secured revolving credit facility and secured and unsecured debt obligations (including capital leases) owed by Old GM’s subsidiaries.

In connection with the 363 Sale, MLC retained Old GM’s unsecured U.S. dollar denominated bonds, foreign currency denominated bonds, contingent convertible debt and certain other debt obligations of $2.4 billion.

At December 31, 2008 the current OPEB obligation of $4.0 billion represents the liability to provide postretirement medical, dental, legal service and life insurance to eligible U.S. and Canadian retirees and their eligible dependents.

At December 31, 2008 Accrued expenses were $32.4 billion. Major components of accrued expenses were dealer and customer allowances, claims and discounts, deposits from rental car companies, policy, product warranty and recall campaigns, accrued payrolls and employee benefits, current pension obligation, taxes other than income taxes and liabilities related to plant closures. Other accrued expenses included accruals for advertising and promotion, legal, insurance, and various other items.

Non-Current Liabilities

At December 31, 2009 Long-term debt of $5.6 billion was primarily comprised of VEBA Notes and secured and unsecured debt obligations (including capital leases) owed by our subsidiaries. In connection with our application of fresh-start reporting, we recorded a decrease of $1.5 billion to record Long-term debt at its fair value of $2.5 billion at July 10, 2009.

At December 31, 2009 non-current Liabilities held for sale of $0.3 billion were related to certain of our operations in India (India Operations). The India Operations Liabilities held for sale were primarily comprised of accounts payable, warranty and pension obligations and other liabilities. We classified these Liabilities held for sale as long-term at December 31, 2009 because we received a promissory note in exchange for the India Operations that will not convert to cash within one year.

At December 31, 2009 our non-current OPEB obligation of $8.7 billion included the effect of the 2009 Revised UAW Settlement Agreement and other OPEB plan changes. In May 2009 the UAW, the UST and Old GM agreed to the 2009 Revised UAW Settlement Agreement, subject to the successful completion of the 363 Sale, which related to the 2008 UAW Settlement Agreement that permanently shifted responsibility for providing retiree health care from Old GM to the New Plan funded by the New VEBA. We and the UAW executed the 2009 Revised Settlement Agreement on July 10, 2009 in connection with the 363 Sale closing. The 2009

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Revised UAW Settlement Agreement significantly reduced our OPEB obligations as a result of changing the amount, form and timing of the consideration to be paid to the New VEBA, eliminating certain coverages and increasing certain cost sharing provisions.

At December 31, 2009 our non-current Pensions obligation of $27.1 billion included the effects of the 2009 Salaried Window Program, 2009 Special Attrition Program, Second 2009 Special Attrition Program, Delphi Benefit Guarantee Agreements, the 2009 Revised UAW Settlement Agreement and other employee related actions.

At December 31, 2009 Other liabilities and deferred income taxes were $13.3 billion. Major components of Other liabilities included policy and product warranty, accrued payrolls and employee benefits, postemployment benefits including facility idling reserves, and dealer and customer allowances, claims and discounts.

Old GM

At December 31, 2008 Long-term debt of $29.0 billion was primarily comprised of: (1) unsecured U.S. Dollar denominated bonds of $14.9 billion; (2) foreign currency denominated bonds of $4.4 billion; and (3) contingent convertible debt of $6.4 billion. The remaining balance consisted mainly of secured and unsecured debt obligations (including capital leases) owed by Old GM’s subsidiaries.

In connection with the Chapter 11 Proceedings, Old GM’s $4.5 billion secured revolving credit facility, $1.5 billion U.S. term loan and $125 million secured credit facility were paid in full on June 30, 2009.

At December 31, 2008 the non-current OPEB obligation of $28.9 billion represented the liability to provide postretirement medical, dental, legal service and life insurance to eligible U.S. and Canadian retirees and their eligible dependents.

At December 31, 2008 the total non-current Pensions obligation of $25.2 billion included the effect of actual losses on plan assets, the transfer of the Delphi pension liability and other curtailments and amendments.

At December 31, 2008 Other liabilities and deferred income taxes were $17.4 billion. Major components of Other liabilities included product warranty and recall campaigns, accrued payrolls and employee benefits, insurance reserves, Delphi contingent liabilities, postemployment benefits including facility idling reserves, and dealer and customer allowances, claims and discounts.

Further information on each of our businesses and geographic segments is subsequently discussed.

GM North America

(Dollars in millions)


	Successor			Predecessor
	July 10, 2009 Through December 31, 2009			January 1, 2009 Through July 9, 2009			Year Ended December 31, 2008			Year Ended December 31, 2007
Total net sales and revenue	$	32,426		$	24,191		$	86,187		$	112,448
Income (loss) attributable to stockholders before interest and income taxes	$	(4,820	)	$	(11,092	)	$	(12,203	)	$	1,876

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Vehicle Sales and Production Volume

The following tables summarize total production volume and industry sales of new motor vehicles and competitive position (in thousands):


	Combined GM and Old GM	Old GM
	Year Ended December 31, 2009	Year Ended December 31, 2008	Year Ended December 31, 2007
Production Volume (a)
Cars	727	1,543	1,526
Trucks	1,186	1,906	2,741

Total	1,913	3,449	4,267

(a)	Production volume represents the number of vehicles manufactured by our and Old GM’s assembly facilities and also includes vehicles produced by certain joint ventures.


	Year Ended December 31, 2009			Year Ended December 31, 2008			Year Ended December 31, 2007
	Industry	Combined GM and Old GM	Combined GM and Old GM as a % of Industry	Industry	Old GM	Old GM as a % of Industry	Industry	Old GM	Old GM as a % of Industry
Vehicle Sales (a)(b)(c)
Total GMNA	13,073	2,485	19.0%	16,567	3,565	21.5%	19,634	4,516	23.0%
Total U.S.	10,608	2,084	19.6%	13,503	2,981	22.1%	16,473	3,867	23.5%
U.S. – Cars	5,370	874	16.3%	6,756	1,257	18.6%	7,571	1,489	19.7%
U.S. – Trucks