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, 2010

¨	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 001-34960

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY

(Exact Name of Registrant 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)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code

(313) 556-5000

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:


Title of Each Class		Name of Each Exchange on which Registered
Common Stock		New York Stock Exchange/Toronto Stock Exchange
4.75% Series B Mandatory Convertible Junior Preferred Stock		New York Stock Exchange

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (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 (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No ¨

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 registrant’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. þ

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

The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant (assuming only for purposes of this computation that directors and executive officers may be affiliates) was approximately $55.2 billion on December 31, 2010

As of February 15, 2011 the number of shares outstanding of common stock was 1,560,743,059 shares.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement related to the Annual Stockholders Meeting to be filed subsequently are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.

INDEX


			Page
PART I
Item 1.	Business		1
Item 1A.	Risk Factors		26
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments		39
Item 2.	Properties		39
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings		40
Item 4.	Removed and Reserved		43
PART II
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities		44
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data		47
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations		49
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk		134
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data		142
	Consolidated Statements of Operations		142
	Consolidated Balance Sheets		143
	Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows		144
	Consolidated Statements of Equity (Deficit)		146
	Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements		148
	Note 1.	Nature of Operations	148
	Note 2.	Chapter 11 Proceedings and the 363 Sale	148
	Note 3.	Basis of Presentation	167
	Note 4.	Significant Accounting Policies	169
	Note 5.	Acquisition and Disposal of Businesses	185
	Note 6.	Finance Receivables, net	190
	Note 7.	Securitizations	192
	Note 8.	Marketable Securities	193
	Note 9.	Inventories	194
	Note 10.	Equipment on Operating Leases, net	194
	Note 11.	Equity in Net Assets of Nonconsolidated Affiliates	195
	Note 12.	Property, net	201
	Note 13.	Goodwill	202
	Note 14.	Intangible Assets, net	203
	Note 15.	Restricted Cash and Marketable Securities	204
	Note 16.	Other Assets	205
	Note 17.	Variable Interest Entities	206
	Note 18.	Accrued Liabilities, Other Liabilities and Deferred Income Taxes	211
	Note 19.	Short-Term and Long-Term Debt	212
	Note 20.	Pensions and Other Postretirement Benefits	220
	Note 21.	Derivative Financial Instruments and Risk Management	246
	Note 22.	Commitments and Contingencies	253
	Note 23.	Income Taxes	263
	Note 24.	Fair Value Measurements	269
	Note 25.	Restructuring and Other Initiatives	275
	Note 26.	Impairments	280
	Note 27.	Other Automotive Expenses, net	283
	Note 28.	Interest Income and Other Non-Operating Income, net	283
	Note 29.	Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit) and Noncontrolling Interests	283
	Note 30.	Earnings (Loss) Per Share	288
	Note 31.	Stock Incentive Plans	290
	Note 32.	Transactions with Ally Financial	293
	Note 33.	Transactions with MLC	297
	Note 34.	Supplementary Quarterly Financial Information (Unaudited)	299
	Note 35.	Segment Reporting	301


			Page
	Note 36.	Supplemental Information for Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows	308
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure		309
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures		309
Item 9B.	Other Information		310
PART III
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance		311
Item 11.	Executive Compensation		311
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters		311
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence		311
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services		311
PART IV
Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedule		312
Signatures			323

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

PART I

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 (2010 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 2010 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 an agreement with the Staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 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 (as subsequently defined), 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 2010 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.

Item 1. Business

Launch of the New General Motors

General Motors Company was formed by the UST in 2009, and prior to July 10, 2009, our business was operated by Old GM. On June 1, 2009, Old GM and three of its domestic direct and indirect subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 (the Chapter 11 Proceedings) of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Bankruptcy Court). On July 10, 2009, we, through certain of our subsidiaries, acquired substantially all of the assets and assumed certain liabilities of Old GM in connection with the 363 Sale closing.

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 assets that included Old GM’s strongest operations, and we believe we have a competitive operating cost structure, partly as a result of recent agreements with the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agriculture Implement Workers of America (UAW) and Canadian Auto Workers Union (CAW).

We have a vision to design, build and sell the world’s best vehicles. Our executive leadership and our employees are committed to:

•

Building our market share, revenue, earnings and cash flow;

•

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.

Public Offering

In November and December 2010 we consummated a public offering of 550 million shares of our common stock and 100 million shares of our Series B Preferred Stock and listed our common stock on the New York Stock Exchange and the Toronto Stock Exchange and listed our Series B Preferred Stock on the New York Stock Exchange. We received net proceeds of $4.9 billion from the offering of the Series B Preferred Stock.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

General

We develop, produce and market cars, trucks and parts worldwide. We also provide automotive financing services through General Motors Financial Company, Inc. (GM Financial).

Automotive

Our automotive operations meet the demands of our customers through our four automotive segments: GM North America (GMNA), GM Europe (GME), GM International Operations (GMIO) and GM South America (GMSA).

In the year ended December 31, 2009 we combined our vehicle sales data, market share data and production volume 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.

Our total worldwide vehicle sales were 8.4 million in the year ended December 31, 2010. Total combined GM and Old GM worldwide vehicle sales in the year ended December 31, 2009 were 7.5 million. Old GM’s total worldwide vehicle sales were 8.4 million in the year ended December 31, 2008. 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.

In the year ended December 31, 2010 we completed the sale of Saab Automobile AB (Saab) in February 2010 and the sale of Saab Automobile GB (Saab GB) in May 2010 and have completed the wind down of our Pontiac, Saturn and HUMMER brands.

GMNA primarily meets the demands of customers in North America with vehicles developed, manufactured and/or marketed under the following four 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, 2010 we had equity ownership stakes directly or indirectly in entities 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), FAW-GM Light Duty Commercial Vehicle Co., Ltd. (FAW-GM) and SAIC GM Investment Limited (HKJV). In 2011 SGMW plans to commence sales under the Baojun brand. In January 2011 GM Daewoo announced it will be changing its name to GM Korea and will sell most of its cars under the Chevrolet brand. 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. We sell vehicles to fleet customers directly or through our network of dealers. 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.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Automotive Financing

On October 1, 2010 we completed the acquisition of AmeriCredit Corp. (AmeriCredit) for cash of approximately $3.5 billion and changed its name to General Motors Financial Company, Inc.

GM Financial is a leading automotive finance company that has been operating since 1992. GM Financial purchases automobile finance contracts for new and used vehicles purchased by consumers primarily from franchised and select independent dealerships. GM Financial predominantly offers financing to consumers who are typically unable to obtain financing from more traditional sources. The typical borrower has experienced prior credit difficulties or has limited credit history and generally has a credit bureau score ranging from 500 through 700. GM Financial services its loan portfolio at regional centers using automated loan servicing and collection systems. Since GM Financial provides financing in a relatively high-risk market, it expects to sustain a higher level of credit losses than other more traditional sources of financing.

GM Financial finances its loan origination volume through the use of credit facilities and securitization trusts that issue asset-backed securities to investors. GM Financial retains an interest in these securitization trusts that are over collateralized, whereby more receivables are transferred to the securitization trusts than the amount of asset-backed securities issued by the securitization trusts, as well as the estimated future excess cash flows expected to be received by GM Financial over the life of the securitization. Excess cash flows result from the difference between the finance charges received from the obligors on the receivables and the interest paid to investors in the asset-backed securities, net of credit losses and expenses.

Excess cash flows in the securitization trusts are initially utilized to fund credit enhancement requirements in order to attain specific credit ratings for the asset-backed securities issued by the securitization trusts. Once targeted credit enhancement requirements are reached and maintained, excess cash flows are distributed to GM Financial or, in a securitization utilizing a senior subordinated structure, may be used to accelerate the repayment of certain subordinated securities. In addition to excess cash flows, GM Financial receives monthly base servicing fees and collects other fees, such as late charges, as servicer for securitization trusts.

In December 2010 GM Financial began offering a lease product in certain geographic areas through our franchised dealerships that targets consumers with prime credit bureau scores leasing new GM vehicles. GM Financial expects to begin offering a nationwide lease product targeting consumers with prime and sub-prime credit scores in 2011.

Competitive Position

Information in this 2010 10-K relating to our relative position in the global automotive industry is based upon the good faith estimates of management, and includes all sales by joint ventures on a total vehicle basis, not based on the percentage of ownership in the joint venture. Market share information in this 2010 10-K is based on vehicle sales volume.

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 December 31, 2010 our worldwide market share was 11.4%. Our vehicle sales volumes in the year ended December 31, 2010 are consistent with a gradual U.S. vehicle sales recovery from the negative economic effects of the U.S. recession first experienced by Old GM in the second half of 2008.

In the year ended December 31, 2009 combined GM and Old GM 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 the year ended December 31, 2008.

In the year ended December 31, 2008 Old GM’s worldwide market share was 12.3%. 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 escalating public

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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,
	2010		2009		2008
GM (a)		18.8%		19.7%		22.1%
Ford		16.7%		15.9%		14.7%
Toyota		15.0%		16.7%		16.5%
Honda		10.4%		10.8%		10.6%
Chrysler		9.2%		8.8%		10.8%
Nissan		7.7%		7.3%		7.0%
Hyundai/Kia		7.6%		6.9%		5.0%

(a)

Market share data in the year ended December 31, 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 year ended December 31, 2008 relates to Old GM.

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)(c)(d)(e) Years Ended December 31,
	2010						2009						2008
	Industry		GM		GM as a % of Industry		Industry		Combined GM and Old GM		Combined GM and Old GM as a % of Industry		Industry		Old GM		Old GM as a % of Industry
United States
Cars
Midsize		2,493		472		18.9%		2,288		518		22.7%		2,920		760		26.0%
Small		2,047		171		8.4%		2,051		202		9.8%		2,547		328		12.9%
Luxury		845		69		8.2%		778		69		8.8%		1,017		122		12.0%
Sport		263		94		36.0%		253		85		33.7%		272		48		17.7%

Total cars		5,648		807		14.3%		5,370		874		16.3%		6,756		1,257		18.6%

Trucks
Utilities		3,632		778		21.4%		3,071		642		20.9%		3,654		809		22.1%
Pick-ups		1,630		553		33.9%		1,404		487		34.7%		1,993		738		37.0%
Vans		678		74		10.9%		583		68		11.7%		841		151		17.9%
Medium Duty		189		4		1.9%		177		13		7.2%		259		26		10.0%

Total trucks		6,130		1,408		23.0%		5,236		1,210		23.1%		6,746		1,723		25.5%

Total United States		11,778		2,215		18.8%		10,607		2,084		19.7%		13,503		2,981		22.1%
Canada, Mexico and Other		2,666		410		15.4%		2,539		400		15.7%		3,065		585		19.1%

Total GMNA		14,444		2,625		18.2%		13,145		2,484		18.9%		16,567		3,565		21.5%
GME		18,952		1,662		8.8%		18,786		1,668		8.9%		21,968		2,043		9.3%
GMIO		35,072		3,077		8.8%		28,258		2,453		8.7%		24,886		1,832		7.4%
GMSA		5,160		1,026		19.9%		4,369		872		20.0%		4,449		920		20.7%

Total Worldwide		73,628		8,390		11.4%		64,559		7,477		11.6%		67,870		8,359		12.3%

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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

(b)	Our vehicle sales include Saab data through February 2010.

(c)	Vehicle sales data may include rounding differences.

(d)	Certain fleet sales that are accounted for as operating leases are included in vehicle sales at the time of delivery to the daily rental car companies.

(e)

GMNA vehicle sales primarily represent sales to the ultimate customer. GME, GMIO and GMSA vehicle sales primarily represent estimated sales to the ultimate customer. In countries where end customer data is not readily available other data sources, such as wholesale volumes, are used to estimate vehicle sales.


	Vehicle Sales (a)(b)(c)(d)(e) Years Ended December 31,
	2010						2009						2008
	Industry		GM		GM as a % of Industry		Industry		Combined GM and Old GM		Combined GM and Old GM as a % of Industry		Industry		Old GM		Old GM as a % of Industry
GMNA
United States		11,778		2,215		18.8%		10,607		2,084		19.7%		13,503		2,981		22.1%
Canada		1,583		247		15.6%		1,483		254		17.1%		1,674		359		21.4%
Mexico		848		156		18.3%		774		138		17.9%		1,071		212		19.8%
Other		235		7		3.2%		282		7		2.5%		320		13		4.2%

Total GMNA		14,444		2,625		18.2%		13,145		2,484		18.9%		16,567		3,565		21.5%

GME
United Kingdom		2,293		290		12.7%		2,223		287		12.9%		2,485		384		15.4%
Germany		3,199		269		8.4%		4,049		382		9.4%		3,425		300		8.8%
Italy		2,160		170		7.9%		2,359		189		8.0%		2,423		202		8.3%
Russia		1,987		159		8.0%		1,511		142		9.4%		3,024		338		11.2%
Uzbekistan		149		145		97.1%		107		103		95.8%		108		20		18.8%
France		2,709		123		4.6%		2,685		119		4.4%		2,574		114		4.4%
Spain		1,115		100		8.9%		1,075		94		8.7%		1,363		107		7.8%
Other		5,341		406		7.6%		4,777		353		7.4%		6,566		579		8.8%

Total GME		18,952		1,662		8.8%		18,786		1,668		8.9%		21,968		2,043		9.3%

GMIO (f)(g)
China		18,354		2,352		12.8%		13,745		1,826		13.3%		9,074		1,095		12.1%
Australia		1,036		133		12.8%		937		121		12.9%		1,012		133		13.1%
South Korea		1,556		127		8.1%		1,455		115		7.9%		1,215		117		9.7%
Middle East Operations		1,150		123		10.7%		1,053		117		11.1%		1,545		144		9.3%
India		3,016		110		3.7%		2,257		69		3.1%		1,971		66		3.3%
Egypt		249		68		27.2%		206		52		25.5%		262		60		23.1%
Other		9,712		164		1.7%		8,606		152		1.8%		9,807		217		2.2%

Total GMIO		35,072		3,077		8.8%		28,258		2,453		8.7%		24,886		1,832		7.4%

GMSA
Brazil		3,515		658		18.7%		3,141		596		19.0%		2,820		549		19.5%
Argentina		665		109		16.3%		517		79		15.2%		616		95		15.5%
Colombia		254		85		33.6%		185		67		36.1%		219		80		36.3%
Venezuela		125		51		40.6%		137		49		36.1%		272		90		33.2%
Other		600		123		20.4%		389		81		20.9%		522		105		20.2%

Total GMSA		5,160		1,026		19.9%		4,369		872		20.0%		4,449		920		20.7%

Total Worldwide		73,628		8,390		11.4%		64,559		7,477		11.6%		67,870		8,359		12.3%

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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

(b)	Our vehicle sales include Saab data through February 2010.

(c)	Vehicle sales data may include rounding differences.

(d)	Certain fleet sales that are accounted for as operating leases are included in vehicle sales at the time of delivery to the daily rental car companies.

(e)

(f)

Includes SGM joint venture vehicle sales in China of 1.0 million vehicles, SGMW and FAW-GM joint venture vehicle sales in China of 1.3 million vehicles and HKJV joint venture vehicle sales in India of 110,000 vehicles in the year ended December 31, 2010. Combined GM and Old GM SGM joint venture vehicle sales in China of 708,000 vehicles and combined GM and Old GM SGMW and FAW-GM joint venture vehicle sales in China of 1.1 million vehicles in the year ended December 31, 2009 and Old GM SGM joint venture vehicle sales in China of 432,000 vehicles and Old GM SGMW joint venture vehicle sales in China of 647,000 vehicles in the year ended December 31, 2008. We do not record revenue from our joint ventures’ vehicle sales.

(g)	The joint venture agreements with SGMW (44%) and FAW-GM (50%) allow for significant rights as a member as well as the contractual right to report SGMW and FAW-GM vehicle sales in China as part of our global market share.

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. In the accompanying tables fleet sales are presented as vehicle sales. A significant portion of the sales to daily rental car companies are recorded as operating leases under U.S. GAAP with no recognition of revenue at the date of initial delivery.

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,
	2010		2009		2008
	GM		Combined GM and Old GM		Old GM
GMNA		715		590		953
GME		534		540		769
GMIO		330		333		389
GMSA		217		177		198

Total fleet sales (a)(b)		1,796		1,640		2,309

Fleet sales as a percentage of total vehicle sales		21.4%		21.9%		27.6%

(a)	Fleet sales vary by segment and certain amounts are estimated.

(b)	Fleet sales data may include rounding differences.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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,
	2010		2009		2008
	GM		Combined GM and Old GM		Old GM
Daily rental sales		429		307		480
Other fleet sales		195		207		343

Total fleet sales (a)		624		514		823

Fleet sales as a percentage of total vehicle sales
Cars		36.9%		29.0%		34.8%
Trucks		23.2%		21.6%		22.4%
Total cars and trucks		28.2%		24.7%		27.6%

(a)	Fleet sales data may include rounding differences.

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 2011 we will continue to price vehicles competitively, including offering strategic and tactical incentives as required. We believe this strategy, coupled with sound inventory management, will continue to strengthen the reputation of our brands and result in competitive prices.

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 2010 the global automotive industry, particularly in the U.S., had not yet fully recovered from the negative economic factors experienced in 2008.

Relationship with Dealers

We market vehicles worldwide through a network of independent retail dealers and distributors. At December 31, 2010 there were 4,458 vehicle dealers in the U.S., 465 in Canada and 244 in Mexico and other Central American locations. Additionally, there were a total of 15,048 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,
	2010		2009		2008
GMNA		5,167		6,450		7,360
GME		7,859		8,422		8,732
GMIO		6,053		5,784		4,362
GMSA		1,136		1,166		1,148

Total Worldwide		20,215		21,822		21,602

CONFIDENTIAL

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 the section of this report entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Specific Management Initiatives — U.S. Dealer Reduction” for a further discussion on our U.S. dealer reduction.

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. Our dealers generally provide their customers access to credit or lease financing, vehicle insurance and extended service contracts provided by GM Financial, Ally Financial, Inc., formerly GMAC, Inc. (Ally Financial) 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
	Year Ended December 31, 2010		July 10, 2009 Through December 31, 2009		January 1, 2009 Through July 9, 2009		Year Ended December 31, 2008
Research and development expense	$	6,962	$	3,034	$	3,017	$	8,012

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;

•

Develop alternative fuel vehicles;

•

Invest significantly in our hybrid and electric technologies;

•

Invest significantly in plug-in electric vehicle technology; and

•

Continue development of hydrogen fuel cell technology.

CONFIDENTIAL

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 vehicle greenhouse gas emissions 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 2011 through 2016 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 and electric vehicle offerings; and (5) portfolio changes, including increasing car/crossover mix and dropping select larger vehicles in favor of smaller, more fuel efficient offerings.

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 13 models (2011 model year) obtaining 30 mpg or more in highway driving.

Alternative Fuel Vehicles

We have 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.

We currently offer 19 FlexFuel vehicles for the 2011 model year, estimated to be 40% of our U.S. vehicle sales, capable of operating on gasoline, E85 ethanol or any combination of the two. 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, assuming the appropriate infrastructure growth materializes. However, recent regulatory developments occurring in the fourth quarter of 2010 have altered our previous FlexFuel vehicle production goals beyond 2012. We are currently evaluating the effects of these regulatory developments.

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 supporting the development of biodiesel, a clean-burning alternative diesel fuel that is produced from renewable sources. In 2011 model year full-size pickups and vans, B20 capability is standard on our Duramax 6.6L turbo diesel engine. The Duramax diesel engine is available in the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra heavy-duty pickups and Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana full-size vans.

We have announced that Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) powered versions of the Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana full-size vans will be offered to fleet and commercial customers. We are currently accepting orders for the CNG cargo vans, and the LPG van cutaway models will begin production by the second quarter of 2011. The vans have specially designed engines for the gaseous fuels and come direct to the customer with the fully integrated and warranted dedicated gaseous fuel system in place.

Hybrid and Plug-In Electric Vehicles

We are investing significantly in multiple technologies offering increasing levels of vehicle electrification including hybrid, plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles with extended-range technology. We currently offer seven hybrid models. We continue to develop plug-in

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

hybrid electric vehicle technology (PHEV) which includes the Chevrolet Volt and Opel Ampera electric vehicles with extended range capabilities. We plan to invest heavily between 2011 and 2012 to support the expansion of our electrified vehicle offerings and in-house development and manufacturing capabilities of advanced batteries, electric motors and power control systems.

The GM Two-mode Hybrid system is offered with the automotive industry’s only hybrid full-size 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 our 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.

The Chevrolet Volt is an electric vehicle with extended range capability. For the first 25 to 50 miles, depending on terrain, driving technique, temperature and battery age, the Chevrolet Volt operates as a full-performance battery electric vehicle powered only by electricity. Once the battery is depleted, the Chevrolet Volt’s onboard engine generates the energy needed to power the vehicle over 300 additional miles on a full tank of premium fuel. Production of the 2011 Chevrolet Volt began in November 2010. The Chevrolet Volt arrived in dealerships in select U.S. geographic markets in December 2010, and we plan to have Chevrolet Volts available in all participating dealerships in the U.S. by the end of 2011. A second electric vehicle with extended range, the Opel Ampera, is 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 more than 40 years, and we are the only U.S. automobile manufacturer actively engaged in all elements of the fuel cell propulsion system development in-house. Our Chevrolet Equinox fuel cell electric vehicle demonstration programs, such as Project Driveway, are the largest in the world and have accumulated more than 1.7 million miles of real-world driving by consumers, celebrities, business partners and government agencies. More than 6,500 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. 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 D.C. 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 and the greater New York City area with 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 not approved such a program.

OnStar

Advancements in telematics (wireless voice and data) technology are demonstrated through our OnStar service. OnStar’s in-vehicle safety, security and communications service is available on more than 40 of our 2011 model year vehicles and currently serves 6 million subscribers in the U.S., Canada and China. In China, OnStar increased in-vehicle telematics services to more than 170,000 subscribers. OnStar’s key services include: Automatic Crash Response, Stolen Vehicle Assistance, Turn-by-Turn Navigation, OnStar Vehicle Diagnostics and Hands-Free Calling. In 2010 we offered OnStar eNav, a feature of Turn-by-Turn Navigation, available through Google Maps. OnStar subscribers are able to search for and identify destinations using Google Maps and send those destinations to their vehicles. They can then access the destinations whenever they choose and receive OnStar Turn-by-Turn directions to the destination from wherever they are. Also in 2010, Chevrolet and OnStar unveiled the automotive industry’s first

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

working smartphone application, which will allow Chevrolet Volt owners 24/7 connection and remote control of vehicle functions and OnStar features. OnStar’s Mobile Application allows drivers to communicate with their Chevrolet Volt from Motorola Droid, Apple iPhone and Blackberry Storm smartphones. It uses a real-time data connection to perform tasks from setting the charge time to unlocking the doors.

In 2009 OnStar developed an Injury Severity Prediction system based on the findings of a Center for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel which allows 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 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. We believe that 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. The system maximizes handling and braking by using a combination of systems and sensors including anti-lock braking systems (ABS), traction control, suspension and steering. Our Lane Departure Warning System and Side Blind Zone Alert Systems extend and enhance driver awareness and vision.

Product Development

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

Under our global vehicle architecture strategy and for each of our ten global architectures, we define a global architecture as 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 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 ten 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 midsize, crossover, and rear-wheel drive vehicles in North America. We are engineering most of these global architectures to enable various electric propulsion systems, rather than having unique architectures for hybrids, plug-in hybrids, extended-range electric and electric vehicles.

The ten global architectures are:


• Mini		• Midsize Truck
• Small		• Small Sport Utility Vehicle
• Compact		• Compact Sport Utility Vehicle
• Midsize		• Small Rear-Wheel Drive
• Midsize Crossover		• Large Rear-Wheel Drive

We plan to increase the volume of vehicles produced from common global architectures to more than 50% of our total volumes in 2015 from less than 17% today.

CONFIDENTIAL

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. 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 composed 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 by year end. In early 2010, our costs increased further as commodity prices increased faster than expected due to economic growth in China and speculative activity in the commodity markets. During the middle part of 2010 there was a slight leveling of commodity prices due to European sovereign debt issues and concerns over a slowdown in China, but commodity prices have returned to steady price increases during the last few months of 2010.

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 receipt with weekly disbursements.

Environmental and Regulatory Matters

Automotive Emissions Control

We are subject to laws and regulations that require us to control automotive emissions, including 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 with these emissions requirements. We believe that our vehicles meet the current 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 and possible fines. 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 current EPA and the CARB emission requirements are referred to as Tier 2 and Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) II. Fleet-wide compliance with the Tier 2 and LEV II standards must be achieved based on a sales-weighted fleet average. President Obama has

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

directed the EPA to review its vehicle emission standards, and if the EPA finds that more stringent emission regulations are necessary, to promulgate such regulations. The CARB is developing its next generation emission standards, LEV III, which will further increase the stringency of its emission standards. We expect the LEV III requirements to be adopted as early as the fourth quarter of 2011 and to be phased in beginning with the 2014 model year. Both the EPA and the CARB have enacted regulations to control the emissions of greenhouse gases. Since we believe these regulations are effectively a form of fuel economy requirement, they are discussed under “Automotive Fuel Economy.”

California law requires that 11% of 2011 model year 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. The requirement is based on a complex system of credits that vary in magnitude by vehicle type and model year. 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. Beginning in 2012, an additional portion of the ZEV requirement can be met with PHEVs that meet the partial ZEV requirements and certain other criteria. We are complying with the ZEV requirements using a variety of means, including producing vehicles certified to the partial ZEV requirements. CARB has also announced plans to adopt, as early as the fourth quarter of 2011, 2018 model year and later requirements for ZEVs and PHEVs to achieve greenhouse gas as well as criteria pollutant emission reductions to help achieve the state’s long-term greenhouse gas reduction goals.

The Clean Air Act permits states that have areas with air quality compliance issues to adopt the California car and light-duty truck emission standards in lieu of the federal requirements. Twelve states, including New York, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, Maryland and New Mexico, as well as the Province of Quebec, currently have these standards in effect, although New Mexico has waived its requirements through 2016 effective January 2011. Arizona has adopted the California standards effective beginning in the 2012 model year and Delaware has adopted those standards beginning in the 2014 model year. Additional states could also adopt the California standards in the future.

Advanced OBD systems, used to identify and diagnose problems with emission control systems, are required under U.S. federal, Canadian federal and California law. 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. California has adopted more stringent and technically challenging OBD requirements that take effect from the 2008 through 2013 model years, including new design requirements and corresponding enforcement procedures. We have implemented hardware and software changes to comply with these more stringent requirements.

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

Vehicles equipped with heavy-duty engines are also subject to stringent emission requirements, and could be recalled, or fines could be imposed against us, should testing or defect reporting identify a noncompliance with these emission requirements. For the 2011 model year, certain gasoline and diesel-powered Chevrolet Silverados, GMC Sierra Pickups, Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana Vans are classified as heavy-duty and subject to these requirements. We also certify heavy-duty engines for installation in other manufacturers’ products. The heavy-duty exhaust standards became more stringent in the 2010 model year. As permitted by EPA and CARB regulations, we are using a system of credits, referred to as Averaging Banking and Trading, to help meet these stringent standards. OBD requirements were first applied to heavy-duty vehicles beginning with the 2010 model year, which we are meeting with certain hardware and software changes.

Europe

In Europe, emissions are regulated by two different entities: the European Commission (EC) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN ECE). The EC imposes harmonized emission control requirements on vehicles sold in all 27 European

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Union (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 EC emission standards. The current EC requirements include type approval of preproduction testing of vehicles, testing of vehicles after assembly and the obligation to recall and repair vehicles that do not comply with emissions requirements. EC 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 Member States.

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, was applied in 2009, while stricter Euro 6 standards will apply beginning in 2014. The OBD requirements associated with these new standards will become more challenging as well. The new 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 we will need to implement technologies 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 mid-size diesel vehicles, which typically are under high cost pressure. Certain 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

In our international operations, our vehicles are subject to a broad range of vehicle emission laws and regulations. China has implemented European emission 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 2009 and Euro 4 standards came into effect nationwide in 2010 for new vehicle approvals and will come into effect beginning in 2011 for newly registered vehicles. Beijing is expected to require many elements of Euro 5 standards for newly registered vehicles beginning in 2012 with additional elements of Euro 5 standards being enforced beginning in 2014. Nationwide implementation of Euro 5 is expected in 2013 or 2014. South Korea has implemented the following: (1) CARB emission requirements based on a sales-weighted fleet average with different application timings and levels of non-methane organic gas (which is the sum of all organic air pollutants, excluding methane) targets for gasoline and LPG powered vehicles; (2) Euro 5 standards for diesel-powered vehicles; (3) CARB standards for gasoline-powered vehicles; and (4) EU regulations for diesel-powered vehicles for OBD and evaporative emissions. The senior representatives from each of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN Committee) agreed that the major ASEAN countries of Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and Singapore would implement Euro 4 standards for gasoline and diesel powertrains, with the exception of Singapore which already requires Euro 4 for diesel powertrains. In April 2010 most of the ASEAN countries decided to postpone Euro 4 beyond 2012 with the exception of Thailand. Since April 2010 India’s Bharat Stage IV emission standards have been required for new vehicle registrations in 13 major cities and Bharat Stage III emission standards are required throughout the rest of India. Starting in 2013 EU OBD II will be implemented for all Bharat Stage IV vehicles. Roadworthiness requirements in 13 major cities for Bharat Stage IV vehicles will commence in 2011. 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. In Russia, current emission regulations are equivalent to Euro 3 for cars and Euro 2 for commercial vehicles. The implementation of Euro 4 equivalent emission requirements for cars has been delayed to 2012. Euro 5 equivalent emission requirements for cars do not have an implementation date, but are expected to be implemented in 2015. Australia currently requires a Euro 4 equivalent emission standard and is currently considering the implementation of a Euro 5 equivalent emission standard.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

South America

In South America, 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. Brazil implemented national LEV standards, L5, which preceded Tier 2 standards in the U.S., for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles in 2009. L6 standards for light diesel vehicles are to be implemented in 2012, which mandate OBD requirements for light diesel vehicles in 2015. L6 standards for light gasoline vehicles are to be implemented in 2014 for new vehicles and 2015 for all models. Argentina implemented Euro 4 standards starting with new vehicle registrations in 2009 and is moving to Euro 5 standards in 2012 for new vehicles and 2014 for all models. Chile currently requires U.S. Tier 1 or Euro 3 standards for gasoline vehicles and U.S. Tier 2 Bin 8 or Euro 4 standards for diesel vehicles and has approved U.S. Tier 2 Bin 8 or Euro 4 standards for gasoline vehicles beginning in April 2011 and U.S. Tier 2 Bin 5 or Euro 5 standards for diesel vehicles beginning in September 2011. Other countries in the South America region either have adopted 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.

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. At December 31, 2010 our reserves for environmental liabilities were $195 million. The amount of current reserves is expected to be paid out over the periods of remediation for the applicable sites, which typically range from five to 30 years.

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


	Successor				Predecessor
	Year Ended December 31, 2010		July 10, 2009 Through December 31, 2009		January 1, 2009 Through July 9, 2009		Year Ended December 31, 2008
Site remediation expenses	$	19	$	3	$	34	$	94

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

Certain 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 total amount of costs or other damages for which we are potentially responsible in connection with all 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 manufacturing waste to landfills, by either recycling or creating energy from the waste. As part of our commitment to reduce the environmental effect resulting from our worldwide facilities, our goal was to convert half of our major global manufacturing operations to landfill-free facilities by 2010. In 2010 we achieved this

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

goal with 76 landfill-free facilities, which is 52% of our worldwide facilities. At our landfill-free facilities, over 96% of waste materials are recycled or reused and 3% is converted to energy at waste-to-energy facilities. We estimate that we recycled or reused over 1.9 million tons of waste materials and estimate that we converted 38,800 tons of waste materials to energy at waste-to-energy facilities in the year ended December 31, 2010. These numbers will increase as additional manufacturing sites reach landfill-free status.

We are continuing to implement our global energy strategy with a goal to increase our green power purchases. Our web-based data collection and management system is an integrated application designed to monitor and measure energy use as well as calculate the related carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions, including collecting and verifying energy, water, and other environmental data from facilities around the globe. We manage our greenhouse gas emissions using an integrated systems approach. This integrated systems approach includes a greenhouse gas reporting policy, global process to collect accurate data, internal and external targets and reporting progress against the established targets.

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. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) reporting is required for three separate fleets, domestically produced cars, imported cars and light-duty trucks. In 2010 car standards were fixed at 27.5 mpg while the light duty trucks standards were established using targets for various vehicle sizes and vehicle model sales volumes. The following table summarizes our estimated CAFE compliance standards and our projected compliance (in mpg):


	2010 Model Year (a)				2011 Model Year (b)(c)
	Standard		GM		Standard		GM
Domestic car		27.5		30.6		30.0		31.0
Import car		27.5		34.0		28.2		30.2
Light-duty truck		22.9		25.4		22.7		22.7

(a)	Reported in our Official 2010 Mid-Model Year Automotive Fuel Economy Report to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

(b)	Reported in our Official 2011 Pre-Model Year Automotive Fuel Economy Report to NHTSA.

(c)	Beginning in 2011 all three fleet’s standards are reformed (i.e., based on vehicle size and vehicle model sales volumes).

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. In April 2010 the EPA and the NHTSA issued a joint final rule to implement 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 apply to 2012 through 2016 model year passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles (collectively, light-duty vehicles) and will require an industry wide standard of 35.5 mpg by 2016. Our current product plan projects compliance with the federal programs through 2016.

Environment Canada, an agency established to preserve and enhance the quality of the natural environment and coordinate environmental policies and programs for the Canadian federal government, implemented vehicle greenhouse gas standards that were harmonized with the mandatory standards of the U.S. beginning with the 2011 model year. The Province of Quebec has indicated that it will align its vehicle greenhouse gas regulation to the Canadian federal government requirements once they are finalized.

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 in June 2009.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

CARB has agreed that compliance with the federal program is deemed to be compliance with the California program for 2012 through 2016 model years. California’s program to regulate vehicle greenhouse gases is separately in effect for the 2009 through 2011 model years. The following table summarizes 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		Standard		GM (a)
Passenger car and light-duty truck 1 fleet		323		297		301		295		267		291
Light–duty truck 2 + medium-duty passenger vehicle fleet		439		414		420		384		390		379

(a)	Our performance projections for the 2011 model year for passenger cars is projected to be more than the standard. We are still projecting compliance in 2011 due to the allowed use of credits earned in previous years.

Europe

In Europe, legislation was passed in 2009 to regulate vehicle CO₂ emissions beginning in 2012. Based on a target function of CO₂ to vehicle weight, each automobile manufacturer must meet a specific sales weighted fleet average target. This fleet average 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 Ampera by providing an additional incentive to reduce the CO₂ fleet average. Automobile manufacturers may gain credit of up to seven 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 FlexFuel 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 EC and EU 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 2009 the European 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 the weight of the vehicle with all standard equipment and fuel (vehicle curb weight). 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 in 2013 after an impact assessment. We are currently performing an assessment of the effect of the proposal on our fleet of light commercial vehicles. The proposal will now go through the legislative process with the European Parliament and European Council, during which we expect some modifications to be adopted.

An EC regulation has been adopted that will require low-rolling resistance tires, tire pressure monitoring systems and gear shift indicators by 2012. An additional EC regulation has been adopted that will require labeling of tires for noise, fuel efficiency and rolling resistance, affecting vehicles at the point of sale as well as the sale of tires in the aftermarket.

Seventeen EU Member States have introduced fuel consumption or 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 our international operations, we face new or increasingly more stringent fuel economy standards. In China, Phase 3 fuel economy standards are under development and will move from a vehicle pass-fail system to a curb-weight based, corporate fleet

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

average scheme. Phase 3 fuel economy standards are expected to increase by 15% or more from the current Phase 2 targets and implementation is expected to be phased in from 2012 with full compliance required by 2015. Some relief for certain vehicle types and vehicles with automatic transmissions will be applied through 2015. In 2016 there will be one common standard for vehicles with either a manual or automatic transmission. China is also considering proposals to increase annual vehicle taxes, and to scale the tax rates to more heavily tax larger displacement engines beginning in 2012. In Korea, new preliminary fuel economy/CO₂ targets for 2012 through 2015 and beyond were announced in September 2010 as part of the government’s low carbon/green growth strategy. These targets are based on each vehicle’s curb weight, but in general are set at levels more stringent than fuel economy/CO₂ targets in the U.S., but less stringent than fuel economy/CO₂ targets in Europe. The proposed standards will be phased-in beginning in 2012 and finishing 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. In January 2011 Korea announced the exemption level for compliance by small volume manufacturers as discussed in the Korea-U.S. and Korea-EU free trade agreement negotiations. Manufacturers with sales volumes of less than 4,500 units in 2009 will meet the small volume manufacturer’s exemption and will be subject to less stringent requirements. Korea is expected to finalize and promulgate the new fuel economy/CO₂ regulation in the first quarter of 2011. 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. India is expected to establish fuel economy norms based on weight and measured in CO₂ emissions that will become mandatory in 2015. The Indian government is considering establishing voluntary limits in 2012, mandatory limits in 2015 with a 12.4% decrease from 2012 values and a 13.0% drop from 2015 limits by 2020. In 2009 automobile manufacturers in India began to voluntarily declare the fuel economy of each vehicle at the point of sale. In South Africa, CO₂ emissions are not regulated, but a new CO₂ emission tax went into effect for all new passenger cars in September 2010 with the exception of double cabbed light commercial vehicles, for which implementation is delayed until March 2011.

South America

In Brazil, governmental bodies and the Brazilian automobile manufacturers association established 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 vehicle 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.

Chemical Regulations

North America

In the U.S., the EPA and several states have introduced regulations or legislation related to the selection and use of safer chemical alternatives, green chemistry and product stewardship initiatives as have several provinces in Canada. These initiatives will give broad regulatory authority over the use of certain chemical substances and potentially affect automobile manufacturers’ responsibilities for vehicle life-cycle, including chemical substance selection for product development and manufacturing. Although vehicles may not specifically be included in the regulations currently being developed, automotive sector effects are expected because substances that comprise components may be included. These emerging regulations will potentially lead to increases in cost and supply chain complexity. California’s “Safer Alternatives for Consumer Products” was the first of these regulations although implementation requirements have been delayed beyond 2010.

Europe

In 2007 the EU implemented its regulatory requirements to register, evaluate, authorize and restrict the use of chemical substances (REACH). This regulation requires chemical substances manufactured in or imported into the EU in quantities of one metric ton or more per year to be registered with the European Chemicals Agency before 2018. During REACH’s pre-registration phase, Old GM

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

and our suppliers registered those substances identified by the regulation. REACH is to be phased in over a 10 year period. During the implementation phase, REACH will require ongoing action from manufacturers and importers of pure chemical substances, chemical preparations (mixtures), and articles. This will affect us, as an original equipment manufacturer (OEM), as well as our suppliers and other suppliers in the supply chain. Under REACH, substances of very high concern may either require authorization for further use or may be restricted in the future. This could potentially increase the cost of certain alternative substances that are used to manufacture vehicles and parts or result in a supply chain disruption when a substance is no longer available to meet production timelines. Our research and development initiatives may be diverted to address future REACH requirements. In order to maintain compliance, we are continually monitoring the implementation of REACH and its effect on our suppliers and the automotive industry.

Safety

New motor vehicles and motor vehicle 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 the case of a vehicle defect that creates an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety or if a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment does not comply with a safety standard, the manufacturer is required to notify owners and provide a remedy. We are required to report certain information relating to certain customer complaints, warranty claims, field reports and notices and claims involving property damage, injuries and fatalities in the U.S. and claims involving fatalities outside the U.S., as well as information concerning safety recalls and other safety campaigns outside the U.S.

We are subject to certain safety standards and recall regulations in the markets outside the U.S. 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. Many 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 the resolution of these matters has not resulted in significant cost or other material adverse effects to us. 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.

Outside the U.S., noise regulations have been established by authorities at the national and supranational level (e.g., EC 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. In the U.S., the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act was signed into law in January 2011 which requires NHTSA to study and then issue rulemaking on the minimum safe level of sound for hybrid and electrical vehicles. In Japan, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport has issued guidelines on the performance and nature of any external audible pedestrian alert system, if fitted to a vehicle. The UN ECE is evaluating the use of a version of the Japanese guideline as an interim measure, pending further study. 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 are actively working on 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

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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 developing electrically powered vehicles, our use of biofuels in our expanded portfolio of FlexFuel vehicles and enhancements to conventional internal combustion engine technology which have contributed to the fuel efficiency of our vehicles. 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, CO₂and other emissions 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 requirements, which include higher CAFE standards and state CO₂requirements 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, for which we may be responsible, are not reasonably estimable and could be substantial. Violations of safety or emissions 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 (PPA), which govern the manner in which we fund and administer our pensions for our retired employees and their spouses. The PPA is designed, among other things, to more appropriately reflect the fair value of pension assets and liabilities in order to determine funding requirements. The Pension Relief Act of 2010 provides us with additional options to amortize any shortfall amortization base for U.S. hourly and salaried qualified pension plans over seven years with amortization starting two years after the election of this relief or 15 years. While we do not need to make an election at this time, we expect to evaluate these options for the 2010 and 2011 plan years in the future. We do not have any required contributions in 2011. If we decide to elect one of these options, it could provide us with the flexibility to defer and potentially reduce the size of any minimum funding requirements for future years. 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. 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.

Significant Transactions

Public Offering

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Purchase of Series A Preferred Stock and Contributions to Pension Plans

In December 2010 we used proceeds received from our Series B Preferred Stock offering along with $1.2 billion cash on hand to purchase 84 million shares of our Series A Preferred Stock from the UST for a purchase price of $2.1 billion and make a $4.0 billion cash contribution to our U.S. hourly and salaried pension plans. In January 2011 we contributed 61 million shares of our common stock to our U.S. hourly and salaried pension plans valued at $2.2 billion for funding purposes. Refer to the section of this report entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition — Specific Management Initiatives” for additional information about the purchase of Series A Preferred Stock and contributions to U.S. hourly and salaried pension plans.

Secured Revolving Credit Facility

In October 2010 we entered into a five year, $5.0 billion secured revolving credit facility. While we do not believe that we will be required to draw on the secured revolving credit facility to fund operating activities, the facility is expected to provide additional liquidity and financing flexibility. Refer to the section of this report entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition — Liquidity and Capital Resources — Secured Revolving Credit Facility” for additional information about the secured revolving credit facility.

Acquisition of AmeriCredit

On October 1, 2010 we completed the acquisition of AmeriCredit for cash of approximately $3.5 billion.

363 Sale

On July 10, 2009, we completed the acquisition of substantially all of the assets and assumed certain liabilities of Old GM and three of its domestic 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 (Purchase Agreement). Refer to the section of this report entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Chapter 11 Proceedings and the 363 Sale” for additional information about the 363 Sale.

In connection with the 363 Sale, we also entered into a secured note agreement, as amended (VEBA Note Agreement) with the UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust (New VEBA) and issued the notes thereunder (VEBA Notes) to the New VEBA in the principal amount of $2.5 billion on July 10, 2009. The VEBA Notes had an implied interest rate of 9.0% per annum and were scheduled to be repaid in three equal installments of $1.4 billion on July 15 of 2013, 2015 and 2017. In October 2010, we repaid in full the outstanding amount (together with accreted interest thereon) of the VEBA Notes of $2.8 billion.

Agreements with UST and EDC

On July 10, 2009 we entered into a secured credit agreement with the UST (as amended, UST Credit Agreement) and assumed debt of $7.1 billion Old GM incurred under the DIP Facility (as subsequently defined). Through our wholly-owned subsidiary General Motors of Canada (GMCL), we entered into an amended and restated loan agreement (Canadian Loan Agreement) with Export Development of Canada (EDC) and assumed a CAD $1.5 billion (equivalent to $1.3 billion when entered into) term loan maturing on July 10, 2015 (Canadian Loan). Proceeds of the DIP Facility of $16.4 billion were deposited in escrow, to be distributed to us at our request if certain conditions were met and returned to us after the UST Loans and the Canadian Loan were repaid in full. Immediately after entering into the UST Credit Agreement, we made a partial pre-payment due to the termination of the U.S. government sponsored warranty program, reducing the principal balance to $6.7 billion.

In April 2010 we used funds from our escrow account to repay in full the outstanding amount of the UST Loans of $4.7 billion and GMCL repaid in full the then-outstanding amount of the Canadian Loan of $1.1 billion. Both loans were repaid prior to maturity. Following our repayment of the UST Loans and the Canadian Loan, our remaining funds of $6.6 billion that were held in escrow

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

became unrestricted. Refer to the section of this report entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — UST Loans and Canadian Loan” for additional information about the UST Loans and Canadian Loan.

Agreement with Delphi Corporation

In July 2009, we entered into the Delphi Master Distribution Agreement (DMDA) with Delphi Corporation (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 and several third party investors agreed to acquire substantially all of Delphi’s remaining assets through New Delphi and certain excluded assets and liabilities have been retained by a Delphi entity 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 our consolidated financial statements. Refer to the section of this report entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Specific Management Initiatives — Resolution of Delphi Matters” for a description of the terms of the DMDA and related agreements.

Employees

At December 31, 2010 we employed 202,000 employees, of whom 135,000 (67%) were hourly employees and 67,000 (33%) were salaried employees. The following table summarizes worldwide employment (in thousands):


	Successor				Predecessor
	December 31, 2010		December 31, 2009		December 31, 2008
GMNA (a)		96		103		118
GME (b)		40		50		54
GMIO (c)		32		34		38
GMSA		31		28		32
GM Financial		3		—		—

Total Worldwide		202		215		242

U.S. — Salaried		28		26		30
U.S. — Hourly		49		51		62

(a)	Decrease in GMNA primarily relates to restructuring initiatives in the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009.

(b)	Decrease in GME primarily relates to the sale of Saab, employees located within Russia and Uzbekistan transferred from our GME segment to our GMIO segment and restructuring initiatives in Belgium, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom in the year ended December 31, 2010.

(c)	GMIO reflects a reduction of 2,400 employees due to the sale of GM India in the year ended December 31, 2010.

At December 31, 2010 49,000 of our U.S. employees (or 64%) were represented by unions, of which 48,000 employees were represented by the UAW. Many of our employees outside the U.S. were represented by various unions. At December 31, 2010, we had 400,000 U.S. hourly and 120,000 U.S. salaried retirees, surviving spouses and deferred vested participants.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Executive Officers of the Registrant

The names and ages as of February 28, 2011 of our executive officers, and their positions and offices with General Motors are as follows:


Name and (Age)		Positions and Offices
Daniel F. Akerson (62)		Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Stephen J. Girsky (48)		Vice Chairman, Corporate Strategy, Business Development, Global Product Planning, and Global Purchasing and Supply Chain
Christopher P. Liddell (52)		Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer
Thomas G. Stephens (62)		Vice Chairman and Global Chief Technology Officer
Jaime Ardila (55)		GM Vice President & President, South America
Timothy E. Lee (60)		GM Vice President & President, International Operations
David N. Reilly (61)		GM Vice President & President, Europe
Mark L. Reuss (47)		GM Vice President & President, North America
Mary T. Barra (49)		GM Senior Vice President, Global Product Development
Michael P. Millikin (62)		GM Senior Vice President and General Counsel
Daniel Ammann (38)		GM Vice President, Finance and Treasurer
Selim Bingol (50)		GM Vice President, Global Communications
Nicholas S. Cyprus (57)		GM Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
Joel Ewanick (50)		GM Vice President and Global Chief Marketing Officer
Terry S. Kline (49)		GM Vice President, Information Technology and Chief Information Officer

There are no family relationships, as defined in Item 401 of Regulation S-K, between any of the officers named above, and there is no arrangement or understanding between any of the officers named above and any other person pursuant to which he or she was selected as an officer. Each of the officers named above was elected by the Board of Directors or a committee of the Board to hold office until the next annual election of officers and until his or her successor is elected and qualified or until his or her earlier resignation or removal. The Board of Directors elects the officers immediately following each annual meeting of the stockholders and may appoint other officers between annual meetings.

Daniel F. Akerson was named Chief Executive Officer in September 2010 and Chairman in January 2011. He had been a member of our Board of Directors since July 2009 and served on the Finance and Risk Policy (Chair) and Audit Committees. Before joining GM, he was Managing Director and Head of Global Buyout of The Carlyle Group from July 2009 until August 2010 and Managing Director and Co-Head of the U.S. Buyout Fund from 2003 to 2009. Mr. Akerson previously served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of XO Communications, Inc. from 1999 to January 2003, Chairman of Nextel Communications from 1996 to 2001, and Chairman and Chief Executive Officer from 1996 to 1999.

Stephen J. Girsky was named Vice Chairman of Corporate Strategy, Business Development, Global Product Planning, and Global Purchasing and Supply Chain in February 2011. He had been Vice Chairman of Corporate Strategy and Business Development since March 2010. He had been a member of our Board of Directors since July 2009 and served on the Finance and Risk Policy and Public Policy Committees. Prior to joining GM, he served as Senior Advisor to the Office of the Chairman of our company from December 2009 to February 2010 and President of S. J. Girsky & Company an advisory firm, from January 2009 to March 1, 2010. From November 2008 to June 2009, Mr. Girsky was an advisor to the UAW. He served as President of Centerbridge Industrial Partners, LLC, an affiliate of Centerbridge Partners, L.P., a private investment firm, from 2006 to 2009. Prior to joining Centerbridge, Mr. Girsky was a special advisor to the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Old GM from 2005 to June 2006. Mr. Girsky also served as lead director of Dana Holding Corporation (2008 to 2009). He has been a member of the Supervisory Board of Adam Opel GmbH since January 2010.

Christopher P. Liddell joined GM as Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer in January 2010 and leads our financial and accounting operations on a global basis. Before joining GM, Liddell was CFO for Microsoft Corporation from May 2005 until December 2009, where he was responsible for leading their worldwide finance organization. Mr. Liddell had previously served as CFO at International Paper Company.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Thomas G. Stephens was named Vice Chairman and Global Chief Technology Officer in January 2011. He had been associated with Old GM since 1969. Mr. Stephens had been Vice Chairman, Global Product Operations since December 2009, Vice Chairman, Global Product Development from July 2009 to December 2009 and Vice Chairman, Global Product Development for Old GM since April 2009. In January 2007, Mr. Stephens was appointed Group Vice President Global Powertrain and Global Quality and became Executive Vice President in March 2008. He was named Group Vice President for Global Powertrain in July 2001.

Jaime Ardila was named GM Vice President & President, South America, effective July 2010. He had been associated with Old GM since 1984. He had served as President and Managing Director of GM Mercosur since November 2007, with responsibility for operations in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Bolivia, and Peru. Prior to this position, he was Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of GM Latin America, Africa and Middle East since March 2003.

Timothy E. Lee was named GM Vice President & President, International Operations in December 2009. He had been associated with Old GM since 1969. He had been Group Vice President, Global Manufacturing and Labor since October 2009. He was named GM North America Vice President, Manufacturing in January 2006. Mr. Lee became Vice President of Manufacturing of GM Europe, in 2002.

David N. Reilly was named GM Vice President & President, Europe in December 2009. He had been associated with Old GM since 1975. He had been Executive Vice President, GM International Operations since August 2009. He was appointed Group Vice President and President of GM Asia Pacific in July 2006 and had previously been President and Chief Executive Officer of GM Daewoo after leading our transition team in the formation of GM Daewoo beginning in January 2002. Mr. Reilly served as Vice President for Sales, Marketing, and Aftersales of GM Europe beginning in August 2001.

In December 2006 Mr. Reilly was charged with regard to certain alleged violations of South Korean labor laws. The criminal charges are based on the alleged illegal engagement of certain workers employed by an outsourcing agency in production activities at GM Daewoo, in which we own a majority interest. The charges were filed against Mr. Reilly in his capacity as the most senior GM executive in South Korea and the company’s Representative Director, who under South Korean law is the most senior member of management of a stock corporation, and is the person typically named as the individual respondent or defendant in any legal action brought against such company. These charges constitute a criminal offense under the laws of South Korea but would not constitute a criminal offense in the United States. Mr. Reilly filed a formal request for trial to defend against the charges and was acquitted on February 19, 2009. This judgment was subsequently overturned on December 23, 2010, and is currently under appeal.

Mark L. Reuss was named GM Vice President & President, North America in December 2009. He had been associated with Old GM since 1983. Before this appointment, he served briefly as Vice President of Engineering. He managed our operations in Australia and New Zealand as the President and Managing Director of GM Holden, Ltd., from February 2008 until July 2009. In October 2005, Reuss was appointed Executive Director of North America vehicle systems and architecture, and the following year, he was named Executive Director of global vehicle integration, safety, and virtual development. In June 2001 he was named Executive Director, Architecture Engineering and GM Performance Division.

Mary T. Barra was named GM Senior Vice President, Global Product Development in February 2011. She had been Vice President, Global Human Resources from July 2009 to December 2010 and associated with Old GM since 1980. Prior to this appointment she had been Vice President, Global Manufacturing Engineering since February 2008. She had been Executive Director, Vehicle Manufacturing Engineering since January 2005, with global responsibility for General Assembly; Controls, Conveyors, Robotics and Welding; Paint and Polymer, and Advanced Vehicle Development Centers; and Industrial Engineering, Global Manufacturing System Implementation, and Pre-Production Operations.

Michael P. Millikin was appointed GM Senior Vice President and General Counsel in February 2011, with overall global responsibility for the legal affairs of GM. He had been Vice President and General Counsel from July 2009 to January 2011 and associated with Old GM since 1977. Mr. Millikin was appointed Assistant General Counsel in June 2001 and became Associate General Counsel in June 2005. He is a member of the Board of Directors of GM Daewoo and the Supervisory Board of Adam Opel GmbH.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Daniel Ammann was named GM Vice President, Finance and Treasurer of General Motors Company in April 2010. Before joining GM, he was Managing Director and Head of Industrial Investment Banking for Morgan Stanley, a position he held since 2004. During his 11 years at Morgan Stanley, he was instrumental in many high profile assignments spanning a variety of technology, service, and manufacturing clients.

Selim Bingol was appointed GM Vice President, Global Communications in March 2010, with overall responsibility for our global communications. Most recently, he served as Senior Vice President and senior partner with Fleishman-Hillard, where he specialized as a senior communications strategist to large international clients across diverse industries. He was Senior Vice President-Corporate Communications at AT&T Corporation from December 2004 until August 2007.

Nicholas S. Cyprus was named GM Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer in August 2009. He had been associated with Old GM since December 2006, when he became Controller and Chief Accounting Officer. Prior to joining Old GM, he was Senior Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer for the Interpublic Group of Companies from May 2004 to March 2006. From 1999 to 2004, Mr. Cyprus was Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer at AT&T Corporation.

Joel Ewanick was named Global Chief Marketing Officer in December 2010 and became GM Vice President in February 2011. Working in close collaboration with the regional presidents, he has responsibility for our brands globally, ensuring consistent representation for all brands. He had served as Vice President U.S. Marketing since joining GM in May, 2010. He previously served as Vice President of Marketing for Hyundai Motor America since February 2007. Prior to Hyundai Mr. Ewanick had been Director of Brand Planning for The Richards Group since June 2004.

Terry S. Kline was named GM Vice President, Information Technology and Chief Information Officer in October 2009. He had been associated with Old GM since December 2000. Previously Mr. Kline was the Global Product Development Process Information Officer and was responsible for coordinating product development process re-engineering activities and the implementation of associated information systems across our business sectors. From December 2004 until December 2007, he served as the Chief Information Officer for GM Asia Pacific.

Segment Reporting Data

Operating segment data and principal geographic area data for the year ended December 31, 2010 (Successor); July 10, 2009 through December 31, 2009 (Successor); January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2009 (Predecessor); and the year ended December 31, 2008 (Predecessor) are summarized in Note 35 to our consolidated financial statements.

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 SEC.

In addition to the information about us and our subsidiaries contained in this Form 10-K, information about us can be found on our website, including information on our corporate governance principals. Our website, and information included in or linked to our website are not part of this 2010 Form 10-K. The public may read and copy the materials we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, 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.

* * * * * * *

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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.

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 on our and Old GM’s business in the U.S. since 2007 and globally since 2008. 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. Many of the economic and market conditions that drove the drop in vehicle sales, including declines in real estate values, unemployment, tightened credit markets, depressed consumer confidence and weak housing markets, continue to affect sales. Recent concerns over levels of sovereign indebtedness have contributed to a renewed tightening of credit markets in some of the markets in which we do business. Although vehicle sales began to recover in certain of our markets in the three months ended December 31, 2009 and the recovery has continued through December 31, 2010, the recovery in vehicle sales in certain of our markets, including North America, has been proceeding slowly and there is no assurance that this recovery in vehicle sales will continue or spread across all our markets. Further, sales volumes may again decline 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 change public perception of our company and products is essential to our ability to attract a sufficient number of consumers to consider our vehicles, particularly our new products, which is critical to our ability to achieve long-term profitability.

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 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, including with respect to the fuel efficiency of our products, as well as the perception of our company in light of Old GM’s bankruptcy and our status as a recipient of aid under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), will be critical to our long-term profitability. If we are unable to change public perception of our company and products, especially our new products, including cars and crossovers, our results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

Shortages of and volatility in the price of oil have caused and may have a material adverse effect on our business 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 increases in the price of oil in the U.S. or in our other markets or any sustained shortage of oil, including as a result of political instability in the Middle East and African nations, could 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.

The pace of introduction and market acceptance of new vehicles is important to our success, and the frequency of new vehicle introductions and vehicle improvements 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

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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, including models of smaller vehicles, 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 implement successfully improved technological innovations in design, engineering, and manufacturing, which requires extensive capital investment. Any capital expenditure cuts in these areas that were made in the past or 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 going forward, which may materially reduce demand for our vehicles.

Our future competitiveness and ability to achieve long-term profitability depends on our ability to control our costs, which requires us to successfully implement restructuring initiatives throughout our automotive operations.

We are continuing to implement a number of cost reduction and productivity improvement initiatives in our automotive operations, including labor modifications and substantial restructuring initiatives for our European operations. Our future competitiveness depends upon our continued success in implementing these restructuring initiatives throughout our automotive operations, especially in North America and Europe. 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.

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.

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. 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 increased vehicle prices. 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

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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.

We operate in a highly competitive industry that has excess manufacturing capacity and attempts by our competitors to sell more vehicles could have a significant negative effect on our vehicle pricing, market share, and operating results.

The global automotive industry is highly competitive, and overall manufacturing capacity in the industry exceeds demand. Many manufacturers have relatively high fixed labor costs as well as significant limitations on their ability to close facilities and reduce fixed costs. Our competitors may respond to these relatively high fixed costs by attempting to sell more vehicles by adding vehicle enhancements, providing subsidized financing or leasing programs, offering option package discounts or other marketing incentives, or reducing vehicle prices in certain markets. Manufacturers in lower cost countries such as China and India have emerged as competitors in key emerging markets and announced their intention of exporting their products to established markets as a bargain alternative to entry-level automobiles. These actions have had, and are expected to continue to have, a significant negative effect on our vehicle pricing, market share, and operating results, and present a significant risk to our ability to enhance our revenue per vehicle.

Our competitors may be able to benefit from the cost savings offered by industry consolidation or alliances.

Designing, manufacturing and selling vehicles is capital intensive and requires substantial investments in manufacturing, machinery, research and development, product design, engineering, technology and marketing in order to meet both consumer preferences and regulatory requirements. Large OEMs are able to benefit from economies of scale by leveraging their investments and activities on a global basis across brands and nameplates. If our competitors consolidate or enter into other strategic agreements such as alliances, they may be able to take better advantage of these economies of scale. We believe that competitors may be able to benefit from the cost savings offered by consolidation or alliances, which could adversely affect our competitiveness with respect to those competitors. Competitors could use consolidation or alliances as a means of enhancing their competitiveness or liquidity position, which could also materially adversely affect our business.

Our business plan and other obligations require substantial liquidity, and inadequate cash flow could materially adversely affect our financial condition and future business operations.

We will require substantial liquidity to support our business plan and meet other funding requirements. We expect total engineering and capital spending of $15.0 billion in 2011 as we continue to refresh and broaden our product portfolio, increase our sales, and develop advanced technologies, with continued substantial expenditures on engineering and capital spending in subsequent years. At December 31, 2010 we have debt maturities and capital lease obligations of $9.9 billion through 2015, which include GM Financial. We also anticipate continued expenditures to implement long-term cost savings and restructuring plans, including our Opel/Vauxhall restructuring plan. In addition to the foregoing liquidity needs, we also have minimum liquidity covenants in our secured revolving credit facility, which require us to maintain at least $4.0 billion in consolidated global liquidity and at least $2.0 billion in consolidated U.S. liquidity. Refer to “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources” for a further discussion of these liquidity requirements.

If our liquidity levels approach the minimum liquidity levels necessary to support our normal business operations, we may be forced to raise additional capital on terms that may not be favorable, curtail engineering and capital spending, and reduce research and development and other programs that are important to the future success of our business. A reduction in engineering and capital and research and development spending would negatively affect our ability to meet planned product launches and to refresh our product line-up at the pace contemplated in our business plan. If this were to happen, our future revenue and profitability could be negatively affected.

Although we believe we possess sufficient liquidity to operate our business, our ability to maintain adequate liquidity over the long-term will depend significantly on the volume, mix and quality of our vehicle sales and our ability to minimize operating expenses. Our liquidity needs are sensitive to changes in each of these and other factors.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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 (the Special Master), the form and timing of the compensation for our most highly paid executives is not competitive with that offered by other major corporations. Furthermore, while we have repaid in full our indebtedness under the UST Credit Agreement, the executive compensation and corporate governance provisions of Section 111 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), including the Interim Final Rule implementing Section 111 (the Interim Final Rule), will continue to apply to us for the period specified in the EESA and the Interim Final Rule. Certain of the covenants in the UST Credit Agreement will continue to apply to us until the earlier to occur of (1) us ceasing to be a recipient of Exceptional Financial Assistance, as determined pursuant to the Interim Final Rule or any successor or final rule, or (2) UST ceasing to own any direct or indirect equity interests in us. The effect of Section 111 of EESA, the Interim Final Rule and the covenants is to restrict the compensation that we can provide to our top executives and prohibit 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 continue to 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.

Our plan to reduce the number of our retail channels and brands and to consolidate our dealer network may reduce our total sales volume and our market share and not result in the cost savings we anticipate.

As part of our business plan we will focus our resources in the U.S. on four brands: Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC. We completed the sale of Saab in February 2010 and Saab GB in May 2010, and have completed the wind down of our Pontiac, Saturn and HUMMER brands. We have recently completed the federal arbitration process concerning dealer reinstatement and at December 31, 2010 we have reduced the total number of our U.S. dealerships to 4,500. We anticipate that this reduction in retail outlets, brands, and dealers will result in cost savings over time, but there is no assurance that we will realize all the savings expected. We also anticipate our sales volume and market share will increase over time, but it is also possible that our market share could decline in the short-term and beyond because of these reductions in brands and dealers which may adversely affect our results of operations.

Our business plan contemplates that we restructure our operations in various European countries, but we may not succeed in doing so, and our failure to restructure these operations in a cost-effective and non-disruptive manner could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Our business plan contemplates that we restructure our operations in various European countries, and we are actively working to accomplish this. 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. The restructuring of our European operations will require us to invest additional funds and require significant management attention. In September 2010 we committed up to $4.2 billion through an intercompany facility and equity commitments to fund this restructuring and Opel/Vauxhall’s ongoing cash requirements. 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, we may choose to, or the directors of the relevant entity may be compelled to, or creditors may force us to, seek relief for our various European operations 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.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Our U.S. defined benefit pension plans are currently underfunded, and our pension funding obligations could increase significantly due to a reduction in funded status as a result of a variety of factors, including weak performance of financial markets, declining interest rates, investment decisions that do not achieve adequate returns, and investment risk inherent in our investment portfolio.

Our future funding obligations for our U.S. defined benefit pension plans qualified with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) depend 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. A detailed description of the investment funds and strategies is shown in Note 20 to our consolidated financial statements, which also describes significant concentrations of risk to the plan investments. 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, the funded status subsequently deteriorated due to a combination of factors. Adverse equity and credit markets reduced the market value of plan assets, while the present value of pension liabilities rose significantly in response to declines in the discount rate, the effect of separation programs and increases in the level of pension benefits and number of beneficiaries. This increase in beneficiaries was partially due to the inclusion of certain Delphi hourly employees. As a result of these adverse factors, our U.S. defined benefit pension plans were underfunded on a U.S. GAAP basis by $12.4 billion at December 31, 2010.

The defined benefit pension plans are accounted for on an actuarial basis, which requires the selection of various assumptions, including an expected rate of return on plan assets and a discount rate. In the U.S., in the year ended December 31, 2010 interest rates on high quality corporate bonds decreased.

The next pension funding valuation to be prepared based on the requirements of the PPA will be as of October 1, 2010. In December 2010 we made a $4.0 billion cash contribution to our U.S. hourly and salaried pension plans and in January 2011 we contributed 61 million shares of our common stock to our U.S. hourly and salaried pension plans valued at $2.2 billion for funding purposes. The contributed shares qualify as a plan asset for funding purposes immediately, and will qualify as a plan asset for accounting purposes when certain restrictions are removed, which is expected in 2011. A hypothetical funding valuation at December 31, 2010, using the 3-Segment rate at May 31, 2010 for the funding valuation of the plan year beginning October 1, 2010 and assuming the December 31, 2010 Full Yield Curve funding interest rate for all future funding valuations projects contributions of $2.3 billion and $1.2 billion in 2015 and 2016. Our potential funding requirements are described in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Contractual Obligations and Other Long-Term Liabilities.”

If the total values of the assets held by our pension plans decline and/or the returns on such assets underperform our return assumptions, our pension expenses would generally increase and could materially adversely affect our financial position. Changes in interest rates that are not offset by contributions, asset returns and/or hedging activities could also increase our obligations under such plans. 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. At December 31, 2010 our non-U.S. defined benefit pension plans were underfunded on a U.S. GAAP basis by $9.8 billion.

Due to the complexity and magnitude of our investments, additional risks exist. Examples include significant changes in investment policy, insufficient market capacity to complete a particular investment strategy, and an inherent divergence in objectives between the ability to manage risk in the short term and inability to quickly rebalance illiquid and long-term investments.

If we are unable to meet our required funding obligations for our U.S. pension plans under the terms imposed by regulators at a given point in time, we would need to request a funding waiver from the IRS. If the waiver were granted, we would have the opportunity to make up the missed funding, with interest to the plan. Additional periods of missed funding could further reduce the plans’ funded status, resulting in limitations on plan amendments and lump sum payouts from the plans. Continued deterioration in the plans’ funded status could result in benefit accrual elimination. These actions could materially adversely affect our relations with our employees and their labor unions.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

If adequate financing on acceptable terms is not available through Ally Financial or other sources to our customers and dealers, distributors, and suppliers to enable them to continue their business relationships with us, our business could be materially adversely affected.

Our customers and dealers require financing to purchase a significant percentage of our global vehicle sales. Historically, Ally Financial has provided most of the financing for our and Old GM’s dealers and a significant amount of financing for our and Old GM’s customers. Due to recent conditions in credit markets, particularly later in 2008, retail customers and dealers experienced severe difficulty in accessing the credit markets. As a 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 adverse effect on Old GM vehicle sales overall because many of its competitors had captive financing subsidiaries that were better capitalized than Ally Financial during 2008 and 2009 and thus were able to offer consumers subsidized financing and leasing offers.

Similarly, the reduced availability of Ally Financial wholesale dealer financing (in the second half of 2008 and 2009), the increased cost of such financing, and the 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 Ally Financial, Ally Financial no longer is subject to contractual wholesale funding commitments or retail underwriting targets. In addition, Ally Financial’s credit rating has declined in recent years. This may negatively affect its access to funding and therefore its ability to provide adequate financing at competitive rates to our customers and dealers. A number of other factors could negatively affect Ally Financial’s business and financial condition and therefore its ability to provide adequate financing at competitive rates. These factors include regulations to which Ally Financial is subject as a result of its bank holding company status, disruptions in Ally Financial’s funding sources and access to credit markets, Ally Financial’s significant indebtedness, adverse conditions in the residential mortgage market and housing markets that have adversely affected Ally Financial because of its mortgage business, increases or decreases in interest rates, changes in currency exchange rates and fluctuations in valuations of investment securities held by Ally Financial.

Our failure to successfully develop our own captive financing unit, including through GM Financial, could leave us at a disadvantage to our competitors that have their own captive financing subsidiaries and that therefore may be able to offer consumers and dealers financing and leasing on better terms than our customers and dealers are able to obtain.

Many of our competitors operate and control their own captive financing subsidiaries. If any of our competitors with captive financing subsidiaries are able to continue to offer consumers and dealers financing and leasing on better terms than our customers and dealers are able to obtain, consumers may be more inclined to purchase our competitors’ vehicles and our competitors’ dealers may be better able to stock our competitors’ products.

On October 1, 2010 we completed our acquisition of AmeriCredit, which we subsequently renamed General Motors Financial Company, Inc. through which we offer leasing and sub-prime financing for our customers. Our failure to successfully develop our own captive financing unit, including through GM Financial, could result in our loss of customers to our competitors with their own captive financing subsidiaries and could adversely affect our dealers’ ability to stock our vehicles if they are not able to obtain necessary financing at competitive rates from other sources.

We intend to rely on our new captive financing unit, GM Financial, to support additional consumer leasing of our vehicles and additional sales of our vehicles to consumers requiring sub-prime vehicle financing, and GM Financial faces a number of business, economic and financial risks that could impair its access to capital and negatively affect its business and operations and its ability to provide leasing and sub-prime financing options to consumers to support additional sales of our vehicles.

GM Financial is subject to various risks that could negatively affect its business, operations and access to capital and therefore its ability to provide leasing and sub-prime financing options at competitive rates to consumers of our vehicles. Because we intend to rely on GM Financial to serve as an additional source of leasing and sub-prime financing options for consumers, any impairment of GM Financial’s ability to provide such leasing or sub-prime financing would negatively affect our efforts to expand our market penetration

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

among consumers who rely on leasing and sub-prime financing options to acquire new vehicles. The factors that could adversely affect GM Financial’s business and operations and impair its ability to provide leasing and sub-prime financing at competitive rates include:

•

The availability of borrowings under its credit facilities to finance its loan and lease origination activities pending securitization;

•

Its ability to transfer loan receivables to securitization trusts and sell securities in the asset-backed securities market to generate cash proceeds to repay its credit facilities and purchase additional loan receivables;

•

The performance of loans in its portfolio, which could be materially affected by delinquencies, defaults or prepayments;

•

Its ability to implement its strategy with respect to desired loan origination volume and effective use of credit risk management techniques and servicing strategies;

•

Its ability to effectively manage risks relating to sub-prime automobile receivables;

•

Wholesale auction values of used vehicles; and

•

Fluctuations in interest rates.

The above factors, alone or in combination, could negatively affect GM Financial’s business and operations and its ability to provide leasing and sub-prime financing options to consumers to support additional sales of our vehicles.

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

The UST owns 32.0% of our outstanding shares of common stock as of February 15, 2011. As a result of this stock ownership interest, the UST has the ability to exert significant influence, through its power to vote for the election of our directors, over various matters. To the extent the UST elects to exert such significant influence over us, its interests (as a government entity) may differ from those of our other stockholders and it may influence, through its ability to vote for the election of our directors, matters including:

•

The selection, 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 particular, the UST may have a greater interest in promoting U.S. economic growth and jobs than other stockholders of the Company. For example, while we have repaid in full our indebtedness under the UST Credit Agreement, a covenant that continues to apply until the earlier of December 31, 2014 or the UST has been paid in full the total amount of all UST invested capital requires that we use our commercially reasonable best efforts to ensure, subject to exceptions, that our manufacturing volume in the United States is consistent with specified benchmarks.

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 our business. These regulations could make it more difficult for us to compete with other companies that are not subject to similar regulations.

Our secured revolving credit facility as well as the UST Credit Agreement and the Canadian Loan Agreement contain significant covenants that may restrict our ability and the ability of our subsidiaries to take actions management believes are important to our long-term strategy.

Our secured revolving credit facility contains representations, warranties and covenants customary for facilities of its nature, including negative covenants restricting us from incurring liens, consummating mergers or sales of assets and incurring secured

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

indebtedness, and restricting us from making certain payments, in each case, subject to exceptions and limitations. Availability under the secured revolving credit facility is subject to borrowing base limitations. The secured revolving credit facility contains minimum liquidity covenants, which require us to maintain at least $4.0 billion in consolidated global liquidity and at least $2.0 billion in consolidated U.S. liquidity.

While we have repaid in full our indebtedness under the UST Credit Agreement, the executive compensation and corporate governance provisions of Section 111 of the EESA, including the Interim Final Rule, will continue to apply to us for the period specified in the EESA and the Interim Final Rule. Certain of the covenants in the UST Credit Agreement will continue to apply to us until the earlier to occur of (1) us ceasing to be a recipient of Exceptional Financial Assistance, as determined pursuant to the Interim Final Rule or any successor or final rule, or (2) UST ceasing to own any direct or indirect equity interests in us. The effect of Section 111 of EESA, the Interim Final Rule and the covenants is to restrict the compensation that we can provide to our top executives and prohibit certain types of compensation or benefits for any employees. Similarly, covenants in our wholly-owned subsidiary GMCL’s Canadian Loan Agreement with the EDC limit compensation and benefits for Canadian employees.

The UST Credit Agreement contains a covenant requiring us to use our commercially reasonable best efforts to ensure that our manufacturing volume conducted in the United States is consistent with at least 90% of the projected manufacturing level (projected manufacturing level for this purpose being 1,934,000 units in 2011, 1,998,000 units in 2012, 2,156,000 units in 2013 and 2,260,000 units in 2014), absent a material adverse change in our business or operating environment which would make the commitment non-economic. In the event that such a material adverse change occurs, the UST Credit Agreement provides that we will use commercially reasonable best efforts to ensure that the volume of United States manufacturing is the minimum variance from the projected manufacturing level that is consistent with good business judgment and the intent of the commitment. This covenant survives our repayment of the UST Loans and remains in effect through December 31, 2014 unless the UST receives total proceeds from debt repayments, dividends, interest, preferred stock redemptions and common stock sales equal to the total dollar amount of all UST invested capital.

UST invested capital totaled $49.5 billion, representing the cumulative amount of cash received by Old GM from the UST under the UST Loan Agreement and the DIP Facility, excluding $361 million which the UST loaned to Old GM under the warranty program and which was repaid on July 10, 2009. This balance also did not include amounts advanced under the UST Ally Financial Loan as the UST exercised its option to convert this loan into Ally Financial Preferred Membership Interests previously held by Old GM in May 2009. At December 31, 2010 the UST had received cumulative proceeds of $23.1 billion from debt repayments, interest payments, Series A Preferred Stock dividends, the Series A Preferred Stock redemption and proceeds from the sale of common stock. The UST’s invested capital less proceeds received totals $26.4 billion.

To the extent we fail to comply with any of the covenants in the UST Credit Agreement that continue to apply to us, the UST is entitled to seek specific performance and the appointment of a court-ordered monitor acceptable to the UST (at our sole expense) to ensure compliance with those covenants. Compliance with the manufacturing volume covenant could require us to increase production volumes in our U.S. plants, shift production from low-cost locations to the U.S. or refrain from shifting production from U.S. plants to low-cost locations.

The Canadian Loan Agreement and related agreements include certain covenants requiring GMCL to meet certain annual Canadian production volumes expressed as ratios to total overall production volumes in the U.S. and Canada and to overall production volumes in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) region. The targets cover vehicles and specified engine and transmission production in Canada. These agreements also include covenants on annual GMCL capital expenditures and research and development expenses. In the event a material adverse change occurs that makes the fulfillment of these covenants non-economic (other than a material adverse change caused by the actions or inactions of GMCL), there is an undertaking that the lender will consider adjustments to mitigate the business effect of the material adverse change. These covenants survive GMCL’s repayment of the loans and certain of the covenants have effect through December 31, 2016.

Compliance with the covenants contained in our secured revolving credit facility as well as the surviving provisions of the UST Credit Agreement and the Canadian Loan Agreement could restrict our ability to take actions that management believes are important to our

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

long-term strategy. If strategic transactions we wish to undertake are prohibited, our ability to execute our long-term strategy could be materially adversely affected. Furthermore, monitoring and certifying our compliance with the surviving provisions of the UST Credit Agreement and the Canadian Loan Agreement requires a high level of expense and management attention on a continuing basis.

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 plan to invest heavily in alternative fuel and advanced propulsion technologies between 2011 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, in November 2010 we began producing 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. However, 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 related costs and changes to our product lineup, 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. California is implementing AB 1493 which will require increased fuel economy. This California program has standards currently established for the 2009 model year through the 2016 model year. Fourteen additional states and the Province of Quebec have also adopted the California greenhouse gas standards.

In May 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 United States 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. 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. The EPA and the NHTSA, on behalf of DOT, issued their final rule to implement this new federal program in April 2010. We have committed to work with EPA, the NHTSA, 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

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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 on a profitable basis, or that our customers will purchase such vehicles in the quantities necessary for us to comply with these regulatory programs.

The EU passed legislation, effective in April 2009 to begin regulating vehicle CO₂ 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, 17 EU Member States have adopted some form of fuel consumption or 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 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. 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.

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 SGM. 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. 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. 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.

Our business in China is subject to aggressive competition and is sensitive to economic and market conditions.

Maintaining a strong position in the Chinese market is a key component of our global growth strategy. The automotive market in China is highly competitive, with competition from many of the largest global manufacturers and numerous smaller domestic manufacturers. As the size of the Chinese market continues to increase, we anticipate that additional competitors, both international and domestic, will seek to enter the Chinese market and that existing market participants will act aggressively to increase their market share. Increased competition may result in price reductions, reduced margins and our inability to gain or hold market share. In addition, our business in China is sensitive to economic and market conditions that drive sales volume in China. If we are unable to maintain our position in the Chinese market or if vehicle sales in China decrease or do not continue to increase, our business and financial results could be materially adversely affected.

Restrictions in our labor agreements could limit our ability to pursue or achieve cost savings through restructuring initiatives, and labor strikes, work stoppages, or similar difficulties could significantly disrupt our operations.

Substantially all of the hourly employees in our U.S., Canadian, and European automotive operations are represented by labor unions and are covered by collective bargaining agreements, which usually have a multi-year duration. Many of these agreements include provisions that limit our ability to realize cost savings from restructuring initiatives such as plant closings and reductions in workforce. Our current collective bargaining agreement with the UAW will expire in September 2011, and while the UAW has agreed to a commitment not to strike prior to 2015, any UAW strikes, threats of strikes, or other resistance in the future could materially adversely affect our business as well as impair our ability to implement further measures to reduce costs and improve production

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

efficiencies in furtherance of our North American initiatives. A lengthy strike by the UAW that involves all or a significant portion of our manufacturing facilities in the United States would have a material adverse effect on our operations and financial condition, particularly our liquidity.

Despite the formation of our new company, we continue to have indebtedness and other obligations. Our 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, including significant liabilities to our underfunded defined benefit pension plans. Our current and future indebtedness and other obligations could have several important consequences. For example, they 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;

•

Make it more difficult for us to satisfy our obligations;

•

Make us more vulnerable to adverse economic and industry conditions and adverse developments in our business;

•

Limit our ability to withstand competitive pressures;

•

Limit our ability to fund working capital, capital expenditures, and other general corporate purposes; 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 either 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 failure to comply with the covenants in the agreements governing our present and future indebtedness could materially adversely affect our financial condition and liquidity.

Several of the agreements governing our indebtedness, including our secured revolving credit facility and other loan facility agreements, contain covenants requiring us to take certain actions and negative covenants restricting our ability to take certain actions. In the past, we have failed to meet certain of these covenants, including by failing to provide financial statements in a timely manner and failing certain financial tests. The Chapter 11 Proceedings and the change in control as a result of the 363 Sale triggered technical defaults in certain loans for which we had assumed the obligations. A breach of any of the covenants in the agreements governing our indebtedness, if uncured, could lead to an event of default under any such agreements, which in some circumstances could give the lender the right to demand that we accelerate repayment of amounts due under the agreement. Therefore, in the event of any such breach, we may need to seek covenant waivers or amendments from the lenders or to seek alternative or additional sources of financing, and we cannot assure you that we would be able to obtain any such waivers or amendments or alternative or additional financing on acceptable terms, if at all. Refer to Note 19 to our consolidated financial statements for additional information on technical defaults and covenant violations. Any covenant breach or event of default could harm our credit rating and our ability to obtain additional financing on acceptable terms. The occurrence of any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and liquidity.

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, and our business and results of operations could be materially adversely affected if they are unsuccessful.

We have substantially changed our executive management team in the recent past. We have a new Chief Executive Officer who started on September 1, 2010 and a new Chief Financial Officer who started on January 1, 2010, both of whom have no prior outside

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

automotive industry experience. We have also promoted from within GM many new senior officers. 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.

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

Given the nature and global spread of our business, we have significant exposures to risks related to changes in foreign currency exchange rates, commodity prices, and interest rates, which can have material adverse effects on our business. For example, at times certain of our competitors have derived competitive advantage from relative weakness of the Japanese Yen through pricing advantages for vehicles and parts imported from Japan to markets with more robust currencies like the U.S. and Western Europe. Similarly, a significant strengthening of the Korean Won relative to the U.S. dollar or the Euro would affect the competitiveness of our Korean operations as well as that of certain Korean competitors. As yet another example, a relative weakness of the British Pound compared to the Euro has an adverse effect on our results of operations in Europe. In preparing the 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 operations.

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:

•

Economic downturns in foreign countries or geographic regions where we have significant operations, such as China;

•

Economic tensions between governments and changes in international trade and investment policies, including imposing restrictions on the repatriation of dividends, especially between the United States and China;

•

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;

•

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.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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.

The sale or availability for sale of substantial amounts of our common stock could cause our common stock price to decline or impair our ability to raise capital.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that large sales could occur, or the conversion of shares of our Series B Preferred Stock or the perception that conversion could occur, could depress the market price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of equity and equity-related securities. At February 15, 2011 there are 1,560,743,059 shares of common stock issued and outstanding. At February 15, 2011 MLC holds a warrant to acquire 136,363,636 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $10.00 per share, MLC holds another warrant to acquire 136,363,636 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $18.33 per share, and the UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust (New VEBA) holds a warrant to acquire 45,454,545 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $42.31 per share. Up to 151,520,000 shares of common stock, subject to anti-dilution, make-whole and other adjustments, will be issuable upon conversion of the shares of Series B Preferred Stock outstanding at February 15, 2011.

Of the 1,560,743,059 outstanding shares of common stock at February 15, 2011, the 549,700,000 shares of common stock sold in the November and December 2010 public offering are freely tradable without restriction or further registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), unless those shares are held by any of our “affiliates,” as that term is defined under Rule 144 of the Securities Act. Following the expiration of the applicable lock-up periods on May 13, 2011, the 950,300,000 outstanding shares of common stock held by the UST, Canada Holdings, the New VEBA and MLC at February 15, 2011 may be eligible for resale under Rule 144 under the Securities Act subject to applicable restrictions under Rule 144. In addition, pursuant to the October 15, 2009 Equity Registration Rights Agreement we entered into with the UST, Canada Holdings, the New VEBA, MLC, and our previous legal entity prior to our October 2009 holding company reorganization (which is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company) (Equity Registration Rights Agreement), we have granted each of the UST, Canada Holdings, the New VEBA and MLC the right to require us in certain circumstances to file registration statements under the Securities Act covering additional resales of our common stock and other equity securities (including the warrants) held by them and the right to participate in other registered offerings in certain circumstances. As restrictions on resale end or if these stockholders exercise their registration rights or otherwise sell their shares, the market price of our common stock could decline.

In particular, the UST, Canada Holdings, the New VEBA and MLC might sell a large number of the shares of our common stock and warrants to acquire our common stock that they hold, or, in the case of the New VEBA and MLC, exercise their warrants and then sell the underlying shares of our common stock. Further, MLC might distribute shares of our common stock and warrants to acquire our common stock that it holds to its numerous creditors and other stakeholders pursuant to a plan of reorganization confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court in the Chapter 11 Proceedings, and those creditors and other stakeholders might resell those shares and warrants. Such sales or distributions of a substantial number of shares of our common stock or warrants could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Furthermore, on January 13, 2011 we contributed 60,606,061 shares of our common stock to our U.S. hourly and salaried pension plans. The contributed shares qualify as a plan asset for funding purposes immediately, and will qualify as a plan asset for accounting purposes when certain restrictions are removed, which is expected in 2011. In connection with such contribution, we entered into a Registration Rights Agreement dated January 13, 2011 with sub-trusts established under the U.S. hourly and salaried pension plans (Pension Plan Registration Rights Agreement), whereby we granted the pension plans the right to require us in certain circumstances

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

to file registration statements under the Securities Act covering additional resales of those shares of our common stock held by them and the right to participate in other registered offerings in certain circumstances. If the pension plans exercise their registration rights or otherwise sell their shares, the market price of our common stock could decline.

We have no current plans to pay dividends on our common stock, and our ability to pay dividends on our common stock may be limited.

We have no current plans to commence payment of a dividend on our common stock. Our payment of dividends on our common stock in the future will be determined by our Board of Directors in its sole discretion and will depend on business conditions, our financial condition, earnings and liquidity, and other factors. So long as any share of our Series A Preferred Stock or Series B 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 and Series B Preferred Stock, subject to exceptions, such as dividends on our common stock payable solely in shares of our common stock. In addition, our secured revolving credit facility contains certain restrictions on our ability to pay dividends on our common stock, subject to exceptions such as dividends payable solely in shares of our common stock.

Any indentures and other financing agreements that we enter into in the future may limit our ability to pay cash dividends on our capital stock, including our common stock. In the event that any of our indentures or other financing agreements in the future restricts our ability to pay dividends in cash on our common stock, we may be unable to pay dividends in cash on our common stock unless we can refinance the amounts outstanding under those agreements.

In addition, under Delaware law, our Board of Directors may declare dividends on our capital stock only to the extent of our statutory “surplus” (which is defined as the amount equal to total assets minus total liabilities, in each case at fair market value, minus statutory capital), or if there is no such surplus, out of our net profits for the then current and/or immediately preceding fiscal year. Further, even if we are permitted under our contractual obligations and Delaware law to pay cash dividends on our common stock, we may not have sufficient cash to pay dividends in cash on our common stock.

* * * * * * *

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None

* * * * * * *

Item 2. Properties

Excluding our automotive financing operations, at December 31, 2010 we had 106 locations in 25 states and 89 cities or towns in the United States excluding dealerships. Of these locations, 40 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, 24 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. Leased properties are primarily composed 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.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

We have 17 locations in Canada, and assembly, manufacturing, distribution, office or warehousing operations in 61 other countries, including equity interests in associated companies which perform assembly, manufacturing or distribution operations. Leases for warehouses outside the United States have remaining lease terms ranging from one to 12 years, many of which contain options to extend or terminate the lease. 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.

GM Financial’s automotive financing and leasing operations lease facilities for administration and regional credit centers. GM Financial has 21 facilities located in the United States and two facilities located in Canada. GM Financial also owns a servicing facility, which is located in the United States and included in total facilities located in the United States.

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 80 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 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 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. The federal court actions were 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 potential liability in these matters was not assumed by General Motors Company as part of the 363 Sale, but GMCL remains subject to suit in all matters.

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

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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 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 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 July 2, 2009, the district court granted granted summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiffs did not appeal. As a result, the federal actions are concluded with respect to us.

In the California state court cases, the court certified a state-wide class after a class certification hearing on April 21, 2009. Defendants’ appeal to the appropriate appellate court was denied. Defendants filed other substantive motions for summary judgment, some of which were heard in January 2011 and others of which will be heard in March 2011 and at later dates. As a result, the Honda and Nissan entities have been dismissed. The disposition of GMCL’s motion for summary judgment remains undecided. In the Minnesota state court cases, the court granted summary judgment in the defendants’ favor on September 16, 2010. Plaintiffs did not appeal. A similar motion for summary judgment is under consideration by the court in the Arizona state court cases.

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. In December 2010 the plaintiffs/class counsel advised that they intend to file further evidence from class members. The court has allowed the plaintiffs to file additional evidence by January 31, 2011. The plaintiffs filed additional affidavit materials, and GMCL is in the process of reviewing these affidavits. A decision has not yet been made as to whether or not to cross-examine the affiants. The date for delivery of GMCL’s responding material is March 21, 2011. 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 was held in December 2010, and the decision on class certification was reserved. 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.

OnStar Analog Equipment Litigation

Our wholly-owned subsidiary OnStar Corporation (OnStar) 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,

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

misrepresentation and unfair trade practices. 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. On August 2, 2010 plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to add General Motors LLC, our subsidiary, as an additional defendant, which was denied by the court in an opinion dated January 25, 2011.

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 alleged that we infringed three U.S. patents related to “Internal Combustion Engine with Limited Temperature Cycle” by making and selling diesel engines. The plaintiff did not make 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., (DMAX) 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. 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 requested an injunction in both the case against DMAX and the case against General Motors LLC. The case was settled and an order dismissing the case was entered on November 5, 2010. The separate lawsuit against DMAX has also been dismissed.

Unintended Acceleration Class Actions

We were 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 2009 and 2010 model year Pontiac Vibes. The cases were consolidated in the multi-district proceeding pending in the Central District of California created to administer all cases in the Federal court system addressing Toyota unintended acceleration issues. 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. On August 2, 2010, a consolidated complaint was filed in the multi-district proceeding and we were omitted from the list of named defendants. It now appears that the claims asserted will not be further pursued against us and, absent future developments, we will discontinue reporting on this matter.

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. We have filed a motion in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York asserting that the UAW’s claim is barred by the bankruptcy court approved 2009 UAW Retiree Settlement Agreement and by other orders issued by the bankruptcy court that preclude additional GM contributions to the New VEBA. We also maintain that Delphi’s emergence from bankruptcy was not in the nature contemplated by the restructuring agreement and therefore, that condition to any payment remains unfulfilled. We removed this case to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in October 2010, seeking dismissal of the UAW’s U.S. District Court lawsuit. The UAW has contested whether the Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction and on November 3, 2010, the U.S. District Court issued a stay of further proceedings until the issue of Bankruptcy Court jurisdiction is decided.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

AmeriCredit Transaction Claims

On July 27, 2010 Robert Hatfield, Derivatively on behalf of AmeriCredit Corp v Clifton Morris, Jr. et al.was filed in the district court for Tarrant County, Texas. General Motors Holdings, LLC and General Motors Company (the GM Entities) are two of the named defendants. Among other allegations, the complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duty with regard to the proposed transaction between AmeriCredit and GM. The GM Entities are accused of aiding and abetting the alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the individual defendants (officers and directors of AmeriCredit). Among other relief, the complaint sought to enjoin the transaction from closing; however, no motion for an injunction was filed.

On July 28, 2010 Labourers Pension Fund of Eastern and Central Canada, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. AmeriCredit Corp, et al. was filed in the district court for Tarrant County, Texas. General Motors Company is one of the named defendants. The plaintiff sought class action status and alleged that AmeriCredit and the individual defendants (officers and directors of AmeriCredit) breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating and approving the proposed transaction between AmeriCredit and GM, and that GM aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. Among other relief, the complaint sought to enjoin both the transaction from closing as well as a shareholder vote on the proposed transaction; however, no motion for an injunction was filed. On January 4, 2011, plaintiffs filed a notice of nonsuit, dismissing its claims without prejudice.

On or about August 6, 2010, Carla Butler, Derivatively on behalf of AmeriCredit Corp v. Clifton Morris, Jr. et al. was filed in the district court for Tarrant County, Texas. General Motors Holdings, LLC and General Motors Company are among the named defendants. Like the previously filed Hatfield litigation related to the proposed AmeriCredit acquisition, the complaint initiating this case alleges that individual officers and directors of AmeriCredit breached their fiduciary duties to AmeriCredit shareholders. The GM Entities are accused of breaching a fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting the individual defendants in usurping a corporate opportunity. Among other relief, the complaint seeks to rescind the AmeriCredit transaction and sought to enjoin its consummation and also to award plaintiff costs and disbursements including attorneys’ and expert fees; however, no motion for an injunction was filed.

On September 1, 2010, Douglas Mogle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AmeriCredit Corp., et al. was filed in the district court for Tarrant County, Texas. General Motors Company is among the named defendants. This complaint is similar to the Labourers Pension Fund complaint discussed above. On November 17, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice of nonsuit, dismissing its claims without prejudice.

The Hatfield and Butler cases have been consolidated, and the plaintiffs have filed an amended consolidated complaint to include a claim for money damages. It is not possible to determine the likelihood of success or reasonably ascertain the amount of any damages, attorneys’ fees or costs that may be awarded.

Korean Labor Litigation

Commencing on or about September 29, 2010, current and former hourly employees of GM Daewoo, our majority-owned affiliate in the Republic of Korea, filed six separate group actions in the Incheon District Court in Incheon, Korea. The cases allege that GM Daewoo failed to include certain allowances in its calculation of Ordinary Wages due under the Presidential Decree of the Korean Labor Standards Act. GM Daewoo may receive additional claims by hourly employees in the future. Similar cases have been brought against other large employers in the Republic of Korea. This case is in its earliest stages and the scope of claims asserted may change. However, based on a preliminary analysis of the claims currently asserted, the allegations of plaintiffs if accepted in their entirety represent a claim of approximately 517 billion Korean Won, which is approximately $454 million.

* * * * * * *

Item 4. Removed and Reserved

* * * * * * *

CONFIDENTIAL

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

Shares of our common stock have only been publicly traded since November 18, 2010 when our common stock was listed and began trading on the New York Stock Exchange and the Toronto Stock Exchange. As a result our table below only provides data with respect to the fourth quarter for our common stock.

Quarterly price ranges of our common stock on the New York Stock Exchange, the principal market in which the stock is traded are as follows:


	Year Ended December 31, 2010
	High (a)		Low (a)
Quarter
First		N/A		N/A
Second		N/A		N/A
Third		N/A		N/A
Fourth	$	36.98	$	33.07

(a)	The quarterly price ranges for our common stock are based on high and low prices from intraday trades.

Holders

As of February 15, 2011 we had a total of 1.6 billion issued and outstanding shares of common stock and a total of 318 million shares of common stock for which warrants are initially exercisable by two warrant holders of record. As of February 15, 2011 there were 185 holders of record of our common stock.

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 or Series B 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 and Series B Preferred Stock, subject to exceptions, such as dividends on our common stock payable solely in shares of our common stock. Our secured revolving credit facility contains certain restrictions on our ability to pay dividends on our common stock, subject to exceptions, such as dividends payable solely in shares of 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 Series B Preferred Stock unless all accrued and unpaid dividends have been paid on our Series A Preferred Stock, subject to exceptions, such as dividends on our Series B Preferred Stock payable solely in shares of our common stock.

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. Our payment of dividends in the future will depend on business conditions, our financial condition, earnings, liquidity and capital requirements, the covenants in our new secured revolving credit facility, and other factors.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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 31 to our consolidated financial statements (number of securities in millions).

Plan Category

Number of Securities
To be Issued Upon
Exercise of
Outstanding
Options,
Warrants and
Rights

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)

—

(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 May 17, 2011, which is six months subsequent to our public offering. In limited situations certain executives could continue to settle their awards in cash due to tax considerations of select countries.

(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, 2010 all of our equity compensation plans were approved by security holders.

Repurchases of Securities

None of our issued common stock has been reacquired since its initial issuance on July 10, 2009.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

Sales of Unregistered Securities

On December 31, 2010, we awarded an aggregate of 238 thousand Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) to global executives pursuant to our Salary Stock Plan (GMSSP) and 223 thousand shares, of which 137 thousand shares are outstanding as of December 31, 2010, of Restricted Stock to global executives pursuant to our 2009 Long-Term Incentive Plan. The difference between the 223 thousand shares awarded and the 137 thousand shares outstanding was used to satisfy tax obligations relating to the awards. Each RSU under the GMSSP is the economic equivalent of one share of our common stock. The RSUs do not have an expiration or exercise date or carry a conversion or exercise price. The awards will be settled in twelve equal, quarterly installments beginning on December 31, 2011. Each RSU is fully vested and presents the right to receive one share of our common stock on the applicable settlement date. Under the GMSSP, the fair value of our common stock is the average of the high and low trading prices for our common stock as reported on the New York Stock Exchange, on which our common stock is listed, on the date of the transaction. The shares of Restricted Stock were fully vested upon grant but are subject to restrictions on transfer until December 31, 2013. The securities described in this paragraph were issued pursuant to written compensatory plans or arrangements with our employees in reliance on the exemption provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act.

Contribution of Common Stock to U.S. Hourly and Salaried Pension Plans

On January 13, 2011 we completed the previously announced voluntary contribution of 61 million shares of our common stock to U.S. hourly and salaried pension plans, valued at $2.2 billion for funding purposes. There were 41 million shares (valued at $1.5

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

billion) contributed to the hourly pension plan and 20 million shares (valued at $0.7 billion) to the salaried pension plan. This was a voluntary contribution above our required minimum funding of the pension plans. However, we expect that the contribution will improve the funded status of the pension plans and therefore improve our risk profile. The contributed shares qualify as a plan asset for funding purposes immediately, and will qualify as a plan asset for accounting purposes when certain transfer restrictions are removed, which is expected in 2011. The common stock was issued and contributed to the pension plan in an unregistered transaction in accordance with an exemption under Section 4(2) of the Securities Act.

Use of Proceeds

In the three months ended December 31, 2010 we completed a public offering of 550 million shares of our common stock at a price of $33.00 per share, or $18.1 billion, which shares of common stock were offered by the UST, Canada Holdings and the New VEBA, and 100 million shares of Series B Preferred Stock at a price of $50.00 per share, or $5.0 billion, which shares of Series B Preferred Stock were offered by us. The following table sets forth the amounts registered and sold by each selling stockholder, the aggregate offering price of the sales, underwriters discounts and net proceeds before expenses to the selling stockholders.


Selling Stockholder	Total Shares Sold		Aggregate Offering Price		Underwriters’ Discounts		Net Proceeds After Underwriters’ Discounts
UST		412,328,814	$	13,606,850,862	$	102,051,381	$	13,504,799,481
Canada Holdings		35,021,186	$	1,155,699,138	$	8,667,744	$	1,147,031,394
New VEBA		102,350,000	$	3,377,550,000	$	25,331,625	$	3,352,218,375

We registered and sold 100 million shares of Series B Preferred stock for an aggregate offering price of $5.0 billion which, after underwriters’ discounts of $138 million resulted in net proceeds to us of $4.9 billion. Each share of our Series B Preferred Stock is convertible at the option of the holder at any time prior to December 1, 2013 into a minimum of 1.2626 shares of our common stock, and each share of Series B Preferred Stock will mandatorily convert on December 1, 2013 into a number of shares of our common stock ranging from 1.2626 to 1.5152 shares depending on the applicable market value of our common stock. The conversion ratios for option and mandatory conversions are subject to anti-dilution, make-whole and other adjustments. This offering was effected on November 17, 2010 pursuant to a Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-168919), which the SEC declared effective on such date. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC acted as representatives of the several underwriters in the offering. We did not receive any of the proceeds from the sale of common stock, and we received net proceeds from the Series B Preferred Stock offering of $4.9 billion. We used these proceeds, along with $1.2 billion of cash on hand, to purchase our Series A Preferred Stock held by the UST in the amount of $2.1 billion and make a cash contribution to our U.S. hourly and salary pension plans in an amount of $4.0 billion.

We estimate that our expenses for the offerings, excluding underwriting discounts and commissions in connection with the sale of Series B Preferred Stock were $25.0 million, which does not reflect the agreement by the underwriters to reimburse us for a portion of our legal and road show costs and expenses in connection with the offering, up to a maximum aggregate amount of $3.0 million. No offering expenses were paid directly or indirectly by us to any of our directors or officers (or their associates) or persons owning 10% or more of any class of our equity securities or to any other affiliates.

* * * * * * *

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

(Dollars in millions except per share amounts)


	Successor						Predecessor
	Year Ended December 31, 2010 (a)			July 10, 2009 Through December 31, 2009 (a)(b)			January 1, 2009 Through July 9, 2009		Years Ended December 31,
	Year Ended December 31, 2010 (a)						January 1, 2009 Through July 9, 2009		2008			2007			2006
Income Statement Data:
Total net sales and revenue (c)(d)	$	135,592		$	57,474		$	47,115	$	148,979		$	179,984		$	204,467

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

Income (loss) from continuing operations (e)(f)	$	6,503		$	(3,786	)	$	109,003	$	(31,051	)	$	(42,685	)	$	(2,155	)
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax (g)		—			—			—		—			256			445
Gain on sale of discontinued operations, net of tax (g)		—			—			—		—			4,293			—

Net income (loss) (e)		6,503			(3,786	)		109,003		(31,051	)		(38,136	)		(1,710	)
Net (income) loss attributable to noncontrolling interests		(331	)		(511	)		115		108			(406	)		(324	)
Less: Cumulative dividends on and charge related to purchase of preferred stock (h)		1,504			131			—		—			—			—

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders (e)	$	4,668		$	(4,428	)	$	109,118	$	(30,943	)	$	(38,542	)	$	(2,034	)

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	$	3.11		$	(3.58	)	$	178.63	$	(53.47	)	$	(76.16	)	$	(4.39	)
Income from discontinued operations attributable to common stockholders (g)		—			—			—		—			8.04			0.79

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders	$	3.11		$	(3.58	)	$	178.63	$	(53.47	)	$	(68.12	)	$	(3.60	)

Diluted earnings (loss) per share:
Income (loss) from continuing operations attributable to common stockholders	$	2.89		$	(3.58	)	$	178.55	$	(53.47	)	$	(76.16	)	$	(4.39	)
Income from discontinued operations attributable to common stockholders (g)		—			—			—		—			8.04			0.79

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders	$	2.89		$	(3.58	)	$	178.55	$	(53.47	)	$	(68.12	)	$	(3.60	)

Cash dividends per common share	$	—		$	—		$	—	$	0.50		$	1.00		$	1.00
Balance Sheet Data (as of period end):
Total assets (d)(f)	$	138,898		$	136,295				$	91,039		$	148,846		$	185,995
Automotive notes and loans payable (i)(j)	$	4,630		$	15,783				$	45,938		$	43,578		$	47,476
GM Financial notes and loans payable (d)	$	7,032
Series A Preferred Stock (k)	$	5,536		$	6,998				$	—		$	—		$	—
Series B Preferred Stock (l)	$	4,855		$	—				$	—		$	—		$	—
Equity (deficit) (f)(m)(n)	$	37,159		$	21,957				$	(85,076	)	$	(35,152	)	$	(4,076	)

(a)	All applicable Successor share, per share and related information has been adjusted retroactively for the three-for-one stock split effected on November 1, 2010.

(b)

At July 10, 2009 we applied fresh-start reporting following the guidance in Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 852, “Reorganizations” (ASC 852). 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 any period after July 10, 2009 is not comparable to Old GM’s financial information.

(c)	In November 2006 Old GM sold a 51% controlling ownership interest in Ally Financial, resulting in a significant decrease in total consolidated net sales and revenue.

(d)	GM Financial was consolidated effective October 1, 2010.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

(e)

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 our consolidated financial statements for additional detail.

(f)	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.

(g)	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.

(h)	Includes a charge related to the purchase of Series A Preferred Stock of $677 million in the year ended December 31, 2010.

(i)	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.

(j)	In December 2010 GM Daewoo terminated a Korean Won 1.4 trillion (equivalent to $1.2 billion) credit facility following the repayment of the remaining $1.0 billion under the facility.

(k)	In December 2010 we purchased 84 million shares of our Series A Preferred Stock from the UST for a purchase price of $2.1 billion, which was equal to 102% of their aggregate liquidation amount.

(l)

Series B Preferred Stock was issued in a public offering in November and December 2010. The Series B Preferred Stock pays dividends at 4.75% and is convertible to common stock at the option of the holder until December 1, 2013 the date on which all outstanding shares of Series B Preferred Stock will be mandatorily converted into common stock based on pre-defined conversion ratios that adjust based on the share price of our common stock.

(m)	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” (ASC 715).

(n)	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 in accordance with ASC 740, “Income Taxes” (ASC 740).

* * * * * * *

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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

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, which on July 10, 2009 acquired substantially all of the assets and assumed certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation and changed its name to General Motors Company, is sometimes referred to in this management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations 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 management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations, 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, 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 Motors Liquidation Company (MLC), 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 management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations for the periods on or 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.

Presentation and Estimates

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 five segments, namely GMNA, GME, GMIO, GMSA and GM Financial.

In the year ended December 31, 2010 we changed our managerial and financial reporting structure so that certain entities geographically located within Russia and Uzbekistan were transferred from our GME segment to our GMIO segment, and certain entities geographically located in Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay were transferred from our GMIO segment to our newly created GMSA segment. We have retrospectively revised the segment presentation for all periods presented.

Change in Presentation of Financial Statements

In 2010 we changed the presentation of our consolidated balance sheet, consolidated statement of cash flows and certain footnotes to combine line items which were either of a related nature or not individually material. We have made corresponding reclassifications to the comparable information for all periods presented.

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.

On October 5, 2010 our Board of Directors recommended a three-for-one stock split on shares of our common stock, which was approved by our stockholders on November 1, 2010. The stock split was effected on November 1, 2010.

Each stockholder’s percentage ownership in us and proportional voting power remained unchanged after the stock split. All applicable share, per share and related information for periods on or subsequent to July 10, 2009 has been adjusted retroactively to give effect to the three-for-one stock split.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

On October 5, 2010 our Board of Directors recommended that we amend our Certificate of Incorporation to increase the number of shares of common stock that we are authorized to issue from 2.5 billion shares to 5.0 billion shares and to increase the number of preferred shares that we are authorized to issue from 1.0 billion shares to 2.0 billion shares. Our stockholders approved these amendments on November 1, 2010, and they were effected on November 1, 2010.

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

Our Company

Our company commenced operations on July 10, 2009 when we completed the acquisition of substantially all of the assets and assumption of certain liabilities of Old GM through a 363 Sale under the Bankruptcy Code. As a result of the 363 Sale and other recent restructuring and cost savings initiatives, we have improved our financial position and level of operational flexibility as compared to Old GM when it operated the business. We commenced operations upon completion of the 363 Sale with a total amount of debt and other liabilities at July 10, 2009 that was $92.7 billion less than Old GM’s total amount of debt and other liabilities at July 9, 2009. We reached a competitive labor agreement with our unions, restructured our dealer network and reduced and refocused our brand strategy in the U.S. to our four brands.

In November and December of 2010 we consummated a public offering of 550 million shares of our common stock and 100 million shares of Series B Preferred Stock and listed both of these securities on the New York Stock Exchange and the common stock on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Automotive

We are a leading global automotive company. Our vision is to design, build and sell the world’s best vehicles. We seek to distinguish our vehicles through superior design, quality, reliability, telematics (wireless voice and data) and infotainment and safety within their respective segments. Our business is diversified across products and geographic markets. With a global network of independent dealers we meet the local sales and service needs of our retail and fleet customers. Of our total 2010 vehicle sales volume, 73.6% was generated outside the United States, including 43.0% from emerging markets, such as Brazil, Russia, India and China (collectively BRIC), which have recently experienced the industry’s highest volume growth.

Our automotive business is organized into four geographically-based segments:

•

GMNA, with sales, manufacturing and distribution operations in the U.S., Canada and Mexico and distribution operations in Central America and the Caribbean, represented 31.3% of our total 2010 vehicle sales volume. In North America, we sell our vehicles through four brands — Chevrolet, GMC, Buick and Cadillac — which are manufactured at plants across the U.S., Canada and Mexico and imported from other GM regions. In 2010, GMNA had the largest market share of any competitor in this market at 18.2%.

•

GME has sales, manufacturing and distribution operations across Western and Central Europe. GME’s vehicle sales volume, which in addition to Western and Central Europe, includes Russia, the Commonwealth of Independent States and Eastern Europe represented 19.8% of our total 2010 vehicle sales volume. In Western and Central Europe, we sell our vehicles under

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

the Opel and Vauxhall (U.K. only) brands, which are manufactured in Europe, and under the Chevrolet brand, which is imported from South Korea where it is manufactured by GM Daewoo of which we own 70.1%. In 2010, GME had the number five market share in this market, at 8.8%.

•

GMIO, with sales, manufacturing and distribution operations in Asia-Pacific, Russia, the Commonwealth of Independent States, Eastern Europe, Africa and the Middle East, is our largest segment by vehicle sales volume. GMIO’s vehicle sales volume, which includes Asia-Pacific, Africa and the Middle East represented 36.7% of our total 2010 vehicle sales volume including sales through our joint ventures. In these regions, we sell our vehicles under the Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Daewoo, FAW, GMC, Holden, Isuzu, Jiefang, Opel and Wuling brands, and we plan to commence sales under the Baojun brand in 2011. In 2010, GMIO had the second largest market share for this market at 8.8% and the number one market share in China. Of GMIO’s vehicle sales volume 76.4% is from China in 2010. Our Chinese operations are primarily comprised of three joint ventures: SGM; of which we own 49%, SGMW; of which we own 44% and FAW-GM; of which we own 50%.

•

GMSA, with sales, manufacturing and distribution operations in Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela as well as sales activities in Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay represented 12.2% of our total 2010 vehicle sales volume. In South America, we sell our vehicles under the Chevrolet, Suzuki and Isuzu brands. In 2010 GMSA had the largest market share for this market at 19.9% and the number three market share in Brazil. Of GMSA’s vehicle sales volume 64.1% is from Brazil in 2010.

We offer a global vehicle portfolio of cars, crossovers and trucks. We are committed to leadership in vehicle design, quality, reliability, telematics and infotainment and safety, as well as to developing key energy efficiency, energy diversity and advanced propulsion technologies, including electric vehicles with range extending capabilities such as the new Chevrolet Volt.

Automotive Financing

On October 1, 2010 we completed the acquisition of AmeriCredit Corp. for cash of approximately $3.5 billion and changed its name to General Motors Financial Company, Inc.

GM Financial specializes in purchasing retail automobile installment sales contracts originated by franchised and select independent dealers in connection with the sale of used and new automobiles. GM Financial generates revenue and cash flows primarily through the purchase, retention, subsequent securitization and servicing of finance receivables. To fund the acquisition of receivables prior to securitization, GM Financial uses available cash and borrowings under its credit facilities. GM Financial earns finance charge income on the finance receivables and pays interest expense on borrowings under its credit facilities. GM Financial periodically transfers receivables to securitization trusts that issue asset-backed securities to investors. The securitization trusts are special purpose entities that are also variable interest entities that meet the requirements to be consolidated in the financial statements.

Our Strategy

Our vision is to design, build and sell the world’s best vehicles. The primary elements of our strategy to achieve this vision are to:

•

Deliver a product portfolio of the world’s best vehicles, allowing us to maximize sales under any market conditions;

•

Sell our vehicles globally by targeting developed markets, which are projected to have increases in vehicle demand as the global economy recovers, and further strengthening our position in high growth emerging markets;

•

Improve revenue realization and maintain a competitive cost structure to allow us to remain profitable at lower industry volumes and across the lifecycle of our product portfolio; and

•

Maintain a strong balance sheet by reducing financial leverage given the high operating leverage of our business model.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Our management team is focused on hiring new and promoting current talented employees who can bring new perspectives to our business in order to execute on our strategy as follows:

Deliver quality products. We intend to maintain a broad portfolio of vehicles so that we are positioned to meet global consumer preferences. We plan to do this in several ways.

•

Concentrate our design, engineering and marketing resources on fewer brands and architectures. We plan to increase the volume of vehicles produced from common global architectures to more than 50% of our total volumes in 2015 from less than 17% today. We expect that this initiative will result in greater investment per architecture and brand and will increase our product development and manufacturing flexibility, allowing us to maintain a steady schedule of important new product launches in the future. We believe our four-brand strategy in the U.S. will continue to enable us to allocate higher marketing expenditures per brand.

•

Develop products across vehicle segments in our global markets. We plan to develop vehicles in each of the key segments of the global markets in which we compete. For example, in September 2010 we introduced the Chevrolet Cruze in the U.S. small car segment, an important and growing segment where we have historically been under-represented.

•

Continued investment in a portfolio of technologies. We will continue to invest in technologies that support energy diversity and energy efficiency as well as in safety, telematics and infotainment technology. We are committed to advanced propulsion technologies and intend to offer a portfolio of fuel efficient alternatives that use energy sources such as petroleum, bio-fuels, hydrogen and electricity, including the new Chevrolet Volt. We are committed to increasing the fuel efficiency of our vehicles with internal combustion engines through features such as cylinder deactivation, direct injection, variable valve timing, turbo-charging with engine downsizing and six speed transmissions. For example, we expect the Chevrolet Cruze Eco to be capable of achieving an estimated 40 mpg on the highway with a traditional internal combustion engine. We are expanding our telematics and infotainment offerings and, as a result of our OnStar service and our partnerships with companies such as Google, are in a position to deliver safety, security, navigation and connectivity systems and features.

Sell our vehicles globally. We will continue to compete in the largest and fastest growing markets globally.

•

Broaden GMNA product portfolio. We plan to launch 13 new vehicles in GMNA across our four brands in 2011 and 2012, primarily in the growing car and crossover segments, where, in some cases, we are under-represented, and an additional 29 new vehicles between 2013 and 2014. Launched vehicles in 2010 included the Chevrolet Matiz, Spark, Spark Lite and Volt, Cadillac CTS Coupe and Buick Regal. We believe that we have achieved a more balanced portfolio in the U.S. market, where we maintained a sales volume mix of 36% from cars, 38% from trucks and 26% from crossovers in 2010 compared to 51% from trucks in 2006.

•

Refresh GME’s vehicle portfolio. To improve our product quality and product perception in Europe, by the start of 2012, we plan to have 80% of our Opel/Vauxhall carlines volume refreshed such that the model stylings are less than three years old. We have four product launches scheduled in 2011. As part of our planned rejuvenation of Chevrolet’s portfolio, which increasingly supplements our Opel/Vauxhall brands throughout Europe, we are moving the entire Chevrolet lineup to new global architectures.

•

Increase sales in GMIO, particularly in China. We plan to continue to execute our growth strategies in countries where we already hold strong positions, such as China, and to improve market share in other important markets, including South Korea, South Africa, Russia, India and the ASEAN region. We aim to launch 70 new vehicles throughout GMIO through 2012. We plan to enhance and strengthen our GMIO product portfolio through three strategies: (1) leveraging our global architectures; (2) pursuing local and regional solutions to meet specific market requirements; and (3) expanding our joint venture partner collaboration opportunities.

•

Increase sales in GMSA, particularly in Brazil. We plan to continue to execute our growth strategies in countries where we already hold strong positions, such as Brazil. We aim to launch 40 new vehicles throughout GMSA through 2011. We plan to

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

strengthen our GMSA product portfolio through three strategies: (1) leveraging our global architectures; (2) pursuing local and regional solutions to meet specific market requirements; and (3) expanding our joint venture partner collaboration opportunities.

•

Ensure competitive financing is available to our dealers and customers. We currently maintain multiple financing programs and arrangements with third parties for our wholesale and retail customers to utilize when purchasing or leasing our vehicles. Through our long-standing arrangements with Ally Financial and a variety of other worldwide, regional and local lenders, we provide our customers and dealers with access to financing alternatives. We plan to further expand the range of financing options available to our customers and dealers to help grow our vehicle sales through two specific objectives: (1) ensure certainty of availability of financing; and (2) competitive and transparent pricing for financing, for our dealers and customers. We expect GM Financial will offer increased availability of leasing and sub-prime financing for our customers in the United States and Canada throughout economic cycles. We also plan to use GM Financial to initiate targeted customer marketing initiatives to expand our vehicle sales.

Reduce breakeven levels through improved revenue realization and a competitive cost structure. In developed markets, we are improving our cost structure to become profitable at lower industry volumes.

•

Capitalize on cost structure improvement and maintain reduced incentive levels in GMNA. We plan to sustain the cost reduction and operating flexibility progress we have made as a result of our North American restructuring. Our current U.S. and Canadian hourly labor agreements provide the flexibility to utilize a lower tiered wage and benefit structure for new hires, part-time employees and temporary employees. We aim to increase our vehicle profitability by maintaining competitive incentive levels with our strengthened product portfolio and by actively managing our production levels through monitoring of our dealer inventory levels. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2010 and based on GMNA’s 2010 market share, GMNA’s earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) (EBIT is not an operating measure under U.S. GAAP — refer to “Reconciliation of Consolidated, Automotive and GM Financial Segment Results” for additional discussion) would have achieved breakeven at GMNA wholesale volume of approximately 2.3 million vehicles, consistent with an annual U.S. industry sales volume of approximately 9.5 to 10.0 million vehicles.

•

Execute on our Opel/Vauxhall restructuring plan. We expect our Opel/Vauxhall restructuring plan to lower our vehicle manufacturing costs. The plan includes manufacturing rationalization, headcount reduction, labor cost concessions from the remaining workforce and selling, general and administrative efficiency initiatives. Specifically, we have reached an agreement to reduce our European manufacturing capacity by 20% through, among other things, the closing of our Antwerp facility in Belgium and the rationalization of our powertrain operations in our Bochum and Kaiserslautern facilities in Germany. Additionally, we have reached an agreement with the labor unions in Europe to reduce labor costs by Euro 265 million per year. The objective of our restructuring, along with the refreshed product portfolio pipeline, is to restore the profitability of the GME business.

•

Enhance manufacturing flexibility. We primarily produce vehicles in locations where we sell them and we have significant manufacturing capacity in medium- and low-cost countries. We intend to maximize capacity utilization across our production footprint to meet demand without requiring significant additional capital investment. For example, we were able to leverage the benefit of a global architecture and start initial production for the U.S. of the Buick Regal 11 months ahead of schedule by temporarily shifting production from North America to Rüsselsheim, Germany.

Maintain a strong balance sheet. Given our business’s high operating leverage and the cyclical nature of our industry, we intend to minimize our financial leverage. We plan to use excess cash to repay debt and to make discretionary contributions to our U.S. pension plans. Based on this planned reduction in financial leverage and the anticipated benefits resulting from our operating strategy described above, we will aim to attain an investment grade credit rating over the long-term.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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. 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 continued to strain 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 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, through its wholly-owned subsidiary GMCL, 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 UST Loan Facility 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.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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

•

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 Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry (Auto Task Force) (Certification Deadline), the Auto Task Force 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 Auto Task Force 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 Auto Task Force 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.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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 Ally Financial 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.

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 of resources on four U.S. brands: Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC;

•

Acceleration of the resolution for Saab, HUMMER and Saturn and no planned future investment for Pontiac, which was phased out by the end of 2010;

•

Acceleration of the reduction in U.S. nameplates to 34 by 2010 — there were 34 nameplates at December 31, 2010;

•

A reduction in the number of U.S. dealers was targeted from 6,246 in 2008 to 3,605 in 2010 — we have completed the federal dealer arbitration process and reduced the number of U.S. dealers to 4,500 at December 31, 2010;

•

A reduction in the total number of plants in the U.S. to 34 by the end of 2010 and 31 by 2012 — there were 40 plants in the U.S. at December 31, 2010; 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 — through these actions, our special attrition programs and other U.S. hourly workforce reductions, we have reduced the number of U.S. hourly employees to 49,000 at December 31, 2010.

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.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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):


	Funding and Funding Commitments		Additional Notes Issued (a)		Total Obligation
Description of Funding Commitment
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 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 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.

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;

•

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

•

The issuance to MLC of 150 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 273 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 number of Adjustment Shares issuable is 30 million shares (subject to adjustment to take into account stock dividends, stock splits and other transactions). 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. In the period July 10, 2009 to December 31, 2009 we determined that it was probable that general unsecured claims allowed against MLC would ultimately exceed $35.0 billion by at least $2.0 billion. In the circumstance where expected general unsecured claims equal $37.0 billion, we would have been required to issue 8.6 million Adjustment Shares to

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

MLC as an adjustment to the purchase price. At December 31, 2009 we recorded a liability of $162 million included in Accrued liabilities. In the year ended December 31, 2010 the liability was adjusted quarterly based on available information. Based on information which became available in the three months ended December 31, 2010, we concluded it was no longer probable that general unsecured claims would exceed $35 billion and we reversed to income our previously recorded liability of $231 million for the contingently issuable Adjustment Shares.

Agreements with the UST, EDC and New VEBA

On July 10, 2009, we entered into the UST Credit Agreement and assumed debt of $7.1 billion Old GM incurred under the DIP Facility (UST Loans). Through our wholly-owned subsidiary GMCL, we entered into the Canadian Loan Agreement with EDC and assumed a CAD $1.5 billion (equivalent to $1.3 billion when entered into) term loan maturing on July 10, 2015. Proceeds of the DIP Facility of $16.4 billion were deposited in escrow, to be distributed to us at our request if certain conditions were met and returned to us after the UST Loans and the Canadian Loan were repaid in full. Immediately after entering into the UST Credit Agreement, we made a partial pre-payment due to the termination of the U.S. government sponsored warranty program, reducing the UST Loans principal balance to $6.7 billion. We also entered into the VEBA Note Agreement and issued the VEBA Notes to the New VEBA in the principal amount of $2.5 billion pursuant to the VEBA Note Agreement.

In December 2009 and March 2010 we made quarterly payments of $1.0 billion and $1.0 billion on the UST Loans and GMCL made quarterly payments of $192 million and $194 million on the Canadian Loan. In April 2010, we used funds from our escrow account to repay in full the outstanding amount of the UST Loans of $4.7 billion, and GMCL repaid in full the outstanding amount of the Canadian Loan of $1.1 billion. Both loans were repaid prior to maturity. On October 26, 2010 we repaid in full the outstanding amount (together with accreted interest thereon) of the VEBA Notes of $2.8 billion.

Refer to Note 19 to our consolidated financial statements 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 (shares in millions):


	Common Stock		Series A Preferred Stock
UST		912		84
Canada Holdings		175		16
New VEBA (a)		263		260
MLC (a)		150		—

		1,500		360

(a)	New VEBA also received a warrant to acquire 46 million shares of our common stock and MLC received two warrants, each to acquire 136 million shares of our common stock.

Preferred Stock

The shares of Series A Preferred Stock have a liquidation amount 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 or our Series B Preferred 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.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

The Series A Preferred Stock was previously classified as temporary equity because the holders of the Series A Preferred Stock, as a class, owned greater than 50% of our common stock and therefore had the ability to exert control, through its power to vote for the election of our directors, over various matters, which could have included compelling us to redeem the Series A Preferred Stock in 2014 or later. In December 2010 we purchased the 84 million shares of Series A Preferred Stock held by the UST. Since the remaining holders of our Series A Preferred Stock, Canada Holdings and the New VEBA, do not own a majority of our common stock and therefore do not have the ability to exert control, through the power to vote for the election of our directors, over various matters, including compelling us to redeem the Series A Preferred Stock when it becomes callable by us on or after December 31, 2014, our classification of the Series A Preferred Stock as temporary equity is no longer appropriate. Upon the purchase of the Series A Preferred Stock held by the UST, the Series A Preferred Stock held by Canada Holdings and the New VEBA was reclassified to permanent equity at its carrying amount of $5.5 billion. Refer to Note 29 to our consolidated financial statements for additional information on the purchase of shares of Series A Preferred Stock.

Warrants

The first tranche of warrants issued to MLC is exercisable at any time prior to July 10, 2016, with an exercise price of $10.00 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 $18.33 per share. The warrant issued to the New VEBA is exercisable at any time prior to December 31, 2015, with an exercise price of $42.31 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 Completion of the 363 Sale

We 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-age-65 benefits and placing a cap on pre-age-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

•

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

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

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Proceedings were recorded in Reorganization gains, net. Expenses and gains and losses directly related to the reorganization 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. 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.

Specific Management Initiatives

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

Repayment of Debt and Reduction of Financial Leverage

Purchase of Series A Preferred Stock from the UST

In December 2010 we purchased 84 million shares of Series A Preferred Stock, held by the UST, at a price equal to 102% of the aggregate liquidation amount, for $2.1 billion. The purchase of the UST’s Series A Preferred Stock resulted in a charge of $0.7 billion.

Contribution of Cash and Common Stock to U.S. Hourly and Salaried Pension Plans

In October 2010 we announced our intention to contribute $6.0 billion to our U.S. hourly and salaried pension plans, consisting of $4.0 billion of cash and $2.0 billion of our common stock. In December 2010 we made the $4.0 billion cash contribution to our U.S. hourly and salaried pension plans consisting of a $2.7 billion contribution to the U.S. hourly pension plan and a $1.3 billion contribution to the U.S. salaried pension plan. In January 2011 we contributed 61 million shares of our common stock to our U.S. hourly and salaried pension plans valued at $2.2 billion for funding purposes. We contributed 41 million shares of our common stock to the U.S. hourly pension plan and 20 million shares of our common stock to the U.S. salaried pension plan.

Repayment of GM Daewoo Credit Facility

In December 2010 GM Daewoo terminated its $1.2 billion credit facility following the repayment of the remaining $1.0 billion under the facility.

Repayment of VEBA Notes

On July 10, 2009 we entered into the VEBA Note Agreement and issued the VEBA Notes in the principal amount of $2.5 billion to the New VEBA. In October 2010 we repaid in full the outstanding amount (together with accreted interest thereon) of the VEBA Notes of $2.8 billion.

Repayment of UST Loans and Canadian Loan

Proceeds from the DIP Facility were necessary in order to provide sufficient capital for Old GM to operate pending the closing of the 363 Sale. 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 was to repay the outstanding balances from these loans prior to maturity. We also plan to use excess cash to repay debt and reduce our financial leverage.

In April 2010, we used funds from our escrow account (described below) to repay in full the then-outstanding amount of the UST Loans of $4.7 billion and GMCL repaid in full the then-outstanding amount of the Canadian Loan of $1.1 billion. Both loans were repaid prior to maturity.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

UST Escrow Funds

Proceeds of the DIP Facility of $16.4 billion were deposited in escrow. We 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. We released from escrow $2.4 billion in connection with two quarterly payments on the UST Loans and Canadian Loan and another $4.7 billion was released upon the repayment of the UST Loans. The remaining funds in the amount of $6.6 billion that were held in escrow became unrestricted and the availability of those funds was no longer subject to the conditions set forth in the UST Credit Agreement.

Repayment of German Revolving Bridge Facility

In May 2009 Old GM entered into a revolving bridge facility with the German federal 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.

Focus on Chinese Market

Our Chinese operations, which we established beginning in 1997, are composed of the following joint ventures: SGM, SGMW, FAW-GM, Pan Asia Technical Automotive Center Co., Ltd. (PATAC), Shanghai OnStar Telematics Co. Ltd. (Shanghai OnStar) and Shanghai Chengxin Used Car Operation and Management Co., Ltd. (Used Car JV), collectively referred to as China JVs. We view the Chinese market, the fastest growing global market by volume of vehicles sold, as important to our global growth strategy and are employing a multi-brand strategy, led by our Buick division, which we believe is a strong brand in China. In the coming years, we plan to increasingly leverage our global architectures to increase the number of nameplates under the Chevrolet brand in China. Sales and income of the joint ventures are not consolidated into our financial statements; rather, our proportionate share of the earnings of each joint venture is reflected as Equity income, net of tax.

SGM is a joint venture established by Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC) (51%) and us (49%) in 1997. SGM has interests in three other joint ventures in China — Shanghai GM (Shenyang) Norsom Motor Co., Ltd (SGM Norsom), Shanghai GM Dong Yue Motors Co., Ltd (SGM DY) and Shanghai GM Dong Yue Powertrain (SGM DYPT). These three joint ventures are jointly held by SGM (50%), SAIC (25%) and us (25%). The four joint ventures (SGM Group) are engaged in the production, import, and sale of a comprehensive range of products under the brands of Buick, Chevrolet, and Cadillac.

SGMW, of which we own 44%, SAIC owns 50.1% and certain Liuzhou investors own 5.9%, produces mini-commercial vehicles and passenger cars utilizing local architectures under the Wuling and Chevrolet brands. In 2010 we entered into an equity transfer agreement to purchase an additional 10% interest in SGMW from Liuzhou Wuling Motors Co., Ltd. and Liuzhou Mini Vehicles Factory, (together the Wuling Group) for $52 million in cash plus an agreement to provide technical services to the Wuling Group through 2013. Upon receiving regulatory approval in China, the transaction closed in November of 2010 increasing our ownership from 34% to 44% of the outstanding stock of SGMW. FAW-GM, of which we own 50% and China FAW Group Corporation (FAW) owns 50%, produces light commercial vehicles under the Jiefang brand and medium vans under the FAW brand. Our joint venture agreements allow for significant rights as a member as well as the contractual right to report SGMW and FAW-GM joint venture vehicle sales and production volume in China. SAIC, one of our joint venture partners, currently produces vehicles under its own brands for sale in the Chinese market. At present vehicles that SAIC produces primarily serve markets that are different from markets served by our joint ventures.

PATAC is our China-based engineering and technical joint venture with SAIC. Shanghai OnStar is our joint venture with SAIC that provides Chinese customers with a wide array of vehicle safety and information services. Used Car JV is our joint venture with SAIC that will cooperate with current distributors of SGM products in the establishment of dedicated used car sales and service facilities across China.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

The following table summarizes certain key operational and financial data for the China JVs (dollars in millions):


	Years Ended
	December 31, 2010			December 31, 2009
Total wholesale units		2,348,391			1,823,693
Market share		12.8	%		13.3	%
Total net sales and revenues	$	25,395		$	18,098
Net income	$	2,808		$	1,636

	December 31, 2010			December 31, 2009
Cash and cash equivalents	$	5,247		$	3,516
Debt	$	61		$	30

In November 2010 we and SAIC entered into a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would, if binding agreements are concluded by the parties, result in several strategic cooperation initiatives between us and SAIC. The initiatives covered by the MOU include:

•

Cooperation in the development of new energy vehicles, such as appropriate electric vehicle architectures and battery electric vehicle technical development;

•

Further expanding the role of PATAC in vehicle development, new technology development and participation in our global vehicle development process;

•

Sharing an additional vehicle architecture and powertrain application with SAIC in an effort to help reduce development costs and benefit from economies of scale;

•

Potential cooperation in providing access to our distribution network outside China for certain of SAIC’s MG branded products;

•

Providing training sources to assist a limited number of SAIC engineers with their professional development; and

•

Discussions to determine possible areas of cooperation in the development of future diesel engines.

We expect definitive agreements will be reached in the first half of 2011 for the initiatives not yet agreed to at December 31, 2010.

Development of Multiple Financing Sources and GM Financial

A significant percentage of our customers and dealers require financing to purchase our vehicles. Historically, Ally Financial has provided most of the financing for our dealers and a significant amount of financing for our customers in the U.S., Canada and various other markets around the world. We maintain other financing relationships, such as with U.S. Bank for U.S. leasing, GM Financial for sub-prime lending and a variety of local and regional financing sources around the world.

We expect GM Financial will allow us to complement our existing relationship with Ally Financial in order to provide a more complete range of financing options to our customers, specifically focusing on providing additional capabilities in leasing and sub-prime financing options. We also plan to use GM Financial for targeted customer marketing initiatives to expand our vehicle sales.

Secured Revolving Credit Facility

In October 2010 we entered into a five year, $5.0 billion secured revolving credit facility. While we do not believe the amounts available under the secured revolving credit facility will be needed to fund operating activities, the facility is expected to provide additional liquidity and financing flexibility. Refer to the section of this report entitled “— Liquidity and Capital Resources — Secured Revolving Credit Facility” for additional information about the secured revolving credit facility.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Opel/Vauxhall Restructuring Activities

In June 2010 the German federal government notified us of its decision not to provide loan guarantees to Opel/Vauxhall. As a result, we have decided to fund the requirements of Opel/Vauxhall internally, including any amounts necessary to fund the $1.4 billion in cash required to complete the European restructuring program. Opel/Vauxhall has subsequently withdrawn all applications for government loan guarantees from European governments.

Through September 2010 we committed up to a total of Euro 3.3 billion (equivalent to $4.2 billion when committed) to fund Opel/Vauxhall’s restructuring and ongoing cash requirements. This funding includes cumulative lending commitments combined into a Euro 2.6 billion intercompany facility and equity commitments of Euro 700 million.

We plan to continue to invest in capital, engineering and innovative fuel efficient powertrain technologies including an extended- range electric vehicle and battery electric vehicles. Our plan also includes aggressive capacity reductions including headcount reductions and the closing of our Antwerp, Belgium facility.

In the year ended December 31, 2010 GME recorded charges for 2010 restructuring programs of $81 million related to separation programs in the U.K. and Germany and an early retirement plan in Spain of $63 million, which will affect 1,200 employees.

In the year ended December 31, 2010 GME recorded charges of $527 million related to a separation plan associated with the closure of the Antwerp, Belgium facility. There were 2,600 employees affected, of which 1,300 separated in June 2010. In addition, GME and employee representatives entered into a Memorandum of Understanding whereby both parties cooperated in a working group, which also included the Flemish government, in order to find an outside investor to acquire and operate the facility. In October 2010 we announced that the search for an investor had been unsuccessful and the vehicle assembly operations in Antwerp, Belgium ceased at the end of 2010.

Increased GMNA Production Volume

The moderate improvement in the U.S. economy, resulting increase in U.S. industry vehicle sales and increase in demand for our products has resulted in increased production volumes for GMNA. In the year ended December 31, 2010 GMNA produced 2.8 million vehicles. This represents an increase of 46.8% compared to 1.9 million vehicles that combined GM and Old GM GMNA produced in the year ended December 31, 2009.

The following table summarizes GMNA’s quarterly production volume (in thousands):


	Three Months Ended December 31			Three Months Ended September 30			Three Months Ended June 30			Three Months Ended March 31
GMNA quarterly production volume 2010		703			707			731			668
GMNA quarterly production volume 2009		616			531	(a)		395	(b)		371	(b)
Total GMNA quarterly production volume year- over-year increase		14.1	%		33.1	%		85.1	%		80.1	%

(a)	Combined GM and Old GM GMNA production volume.

(b)	Old GM GMNA production volume.

Increased U.S. Vehicle Sales

GMNA dealers in the U.S. sold 2.2 million vehicles in the year ended December 31, 2010. This represents an increase of 131,000 vehicles (or 6.3%) from our and Old GM’s U.S. vehicle sales in the year ended December 31, 2009. This increase reflects our brand

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

rationalization strategy to focus our product engineering and design and marketing on our four brands. This strategy has resulted in increased consumer demand for certain products such as the Chevrolet Equinox, GMC Terrain, Buick LaCrosse and Cadillac SRX. These four brands accounted for 99.4% of our U.S. vehicle sales in the year ended December 31, 2010. The moderate improvement in the U.S. economy has contributed to a slow but steady improvement in U.S. industry vehicle sales and increased consumer confidence.

The continued increase in U.S. industry vehicle sales and the vehicle sales of our four brands is critical for us to maintain our worldwide profitability.

U.S. Dealer Reduction

We market vehicles worldwide through a network of independent retail dealers and distributors. 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, and over 1,800 U.S. retail dealers signed wind-down agreements effectively terminating their dealer agreements with us on October 31, 2010. Pursuant to legislation passed in December 2009 over 1,100 dealers filed for arbitration seeking reinstatement. In 2010 the arbitration process was resolved. As a result of the arbitration process we offered 332 dealers reinstatement in their entirety and 460 existing dealers reinstatement of certain brands. At December 31, 2010 there were 4,500 vehicle dealers in the U.S. compared to 5,600 at December 31, 2009.

Section 136 Loans

Section 136 of the EISA established 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. In January 2011 consistent with our strategy to maintain a strong balance sheet by minimizing our financial leverage, we withdrew our $14.4 billion loan application, under Section 136, to the U.S. Department of Energy.

Brand Rationalization

We have focused our resources in the U.S. on four brands. As a result, we completed the sale of Saab in February 2010 and the sale of Saab GB in May 2010 and have completed the wind down of our Pontiac, Saturn, and HUMMER brands.

Sale of Nexteer

On November 30, 2010 we completed the sale of Nexteer, a manufacturer of steering components and half-shafts, to Pacific Century Motors. The sale of Nexteer included the global steering business which was acquired in October 2009. The 2009 acquisition of Nexteer included 22 manufacturing facilities, six engineering facilities and 14 customer support centers located in North and South America, Europe and Asia. We received consideration of $426 million in cash and a $39 million promissory note in exchange for 100% of our ownership interest in Nexteer and recorded a gain of $60 million on the sale.

Resolution of Delphi Matters

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 several third party investors who held the Delphi Tranche DIP Facility (collectively, the Investors), agreed to acquire substantially all of Delphi’s remaining assets through New Delphi. Certain excluded assets and liabilities had been retained by a Delphi entity (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

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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, 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. 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 certain obligations relating to Delphi hourly employees 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.

Investment in Ally Financial

As part of the approval process for Ally Financial to obtain Bank Holding Company status in December 2008, Old GM agreed to reduce its ownership in Ally Financial to less than 10% of the voting and total equity of Ally Financial by December 24, 2011. At December 31, 2010 our equity ownership in Ally Financial was 9.9%.

In December 2010 the UST agreed to convert its optional conversion feature on the shares of mandatory convertible preferred securities held by the UST. Through this transaction, Ally Financial converted 110 million shares of preferred securities into 532 thousand shares of common stock. This action resulted in the dilution of our investment in Ally Financial common stock from 16.6% to 9.9%, of which 4.0% is held directly and 5.9% is held indirectly through an independent trust. Pursuant to previous commitments to reduce influence over and ownership in Ally Financial, the trustee, who is independent of us, has the sole authority to vote and is required to dispose of all Ally Financial common stock held in the trust by December 24, 2011. We can cause the trustee to return any Ally Financial common stock to us to hold directly, so long as our directly held voting and total common equity interests remain below 10%.

Special Attrition Programs, Labor Agreements and Benefit Plan Changes

During 2009 we and Old GM implemented various programs which reduced the hourly and salary workforce. Significant workforce reductions and settlements with various represented employee groups are discussed below.

2009 Special Attrition Programs

In 2009 Old GM announced special attrition programs for eligible UAW represented employees, offering cash and other incentives for individuals who elected to retire or voluntarily terminate employment.

Global Salaried Workforce Reductions

In 2009 U.S. salaried workforce reductions were accomplished primarily through a salaried retirement program or through a severance program funded from operating cash flows.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Delphi Benefit Guarantee Agreements

The Delphi Benefit Guarantee Agreements were affected by the settlement of the PBGC claims from the termination of the Delphi pension plan. We maintained the obligation to provide the difference between the pension benefits paid by the PBGC and those originally guaranteed by Old GM under the Delphi Benefit Guarantee Agreements.

U.S. Salaried Benefit Changes

U.S. salaried benefit changes reduced the salaried life benefits and a negative amendment to the U.S. salaried retiree healthcare program reduced coverage and increased cost sharing.

2009 UAW Retiree Settlement Agreement

In 2009 Old GM and the UAW agreed to a 2009 UAW Retiree Settlement Agreement which permanently shifted responsibility for providing retiree healthcare to the new plan funded by the New VEBA. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, we are released from UAW retiree healthcare claims incurred after December 31, 2009. All obligations of ours 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 healthcare plan and the New VEBA are limited to the terms of the settlement agreement.

At December 31, 2009 we accounted for the termination of our UAW hourly retiree medical plan and Mitigation Plan as a settlement. The resulting settlement loss of $2.6 billion recorded on December 31, 2009 represented the difference between the sum of the accrued other postretirement benefits (OPEB) liability of $10.6 billion and the existing internal VEBA assets of $12.6 billion, and $25.8 billion representing the fair value of the consideration transferred at December 31, 2009, including the contribution of the existing internal VEBA assets. Upon the settlement of the UAW hourly retiree medical plan at December 31, 2009 the VEBA Notes, Series A Preferred Stock, common stock, and warrants contributed to the New VEBA were recorded at fair value and classified as outstanding debt and equity instruments.

Prior to December 31, 2009 the 260 million shares of Series A Preferred Stock issued to the New VEBA were not considered outstanding for accounting purposes due to the terms of the revised settlement agreement with the UAW. As a result, $105 million of the $146 million of dividends paid on September 15, 2009 and $147 million of the $203 million of dividends paid on December 15, 2009 were recorded as employer contributions resulting in a reduction of Postretirement benefits other than pensions.

IUE-CWA and USW Settlement Agreement

In September 2009 we entered into a settlement agreement with MLC, The International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers — Communication Workers of America (IUE-CWA) and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW). The approved settlement agreement resulted in remeasurements of the U.S. hourly defined benefit pension plan, the non-UAW hourly retiree healthcare plan and the U.S. hourly life plan to reflect the terms of the agreement. 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 healthcare and life insurance. The remeasurement of these plans resulted in a decrease in a contingent liability accrual and an offsetting increase in the projected benefit obligation (PBO) or accumulated postretirement benefit obligation (APBO) of the benefit plan.

2009 CAW Agreement

In March 2009 Old GM announced that the members of the CAW had ratified an agreement intended to reduce costs in Canada through introducing co-payments for healthcare benefits, increasing employee healthcare cost sharing, freezing pension benefits and

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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 and those governments agreed to the terms of a loan agreement, approved the GMCL viability plan and provided funding to GMCL. The Canadian hourly defined benefit pension plan was remeasured in June 2009.

The CAW hourly retiree healthcare plan and the CAW retiree life plan were also remeasured in June 2009. Additionally, as a result of the termination of employees from the former Oshawa, Ontario truck facility, GMCL recorded a curtailment gain associated with the CAW hourly retiree healthcare plan.

In June 2009 GMCL and the CAW agreed to the terms of an independent Health Care Trust (HCT) to provide retiree healthcare benefits to certain active and retired employees and it will be implemented when certain preconditions are achieved. Certain of the preconditions have not been achieved and the HCT is not yet implemented at December 31, 2010. 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 January 1, 2010 through the HCT implementation date less the cost of benefits paid for claims incurred by covered employees during this period. GMCL will provide a 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 CAD $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 healthcare benefits to CAW active and retired employees bound by the class action process, and we will account for the related termination of CAW hourly retiree healthcare benefits as a settlement, based upon the difference between the fair value of the notes and cash contributed and the healthcare plan obligation at the settlement date. As a result of the conditions precedent to this agreement not having yet been achieved, there was no accounting recognition for the healthcare trust at December 31, 2010.

Venezuelan Exchange Regulations

Our Venezuelan subsidiaries changed their functional currency from Bolivar Fuerte (the BsF), the local currency, to the U.S. Dollar, our reporting currency, on January 1, 2010 because of the hyperinflationary status of the Venezuelan economy. Pursuant to the official devaluation of the Venezuelan currency and establishment of the dual fixed exchange rates (essential rate of BsF 2.60 to $1.00 and nonessential rate of BsF 4.30 to $1.00) in January 2010, we remeasured the BsF denominated monetary assets and liabilities held by our Venezuelan subsidiaries at the nonessential rate of 4.30 BsF to $1.00. The remeasurement resulted in a charge of $25 million recorded in Automotive cost of sales in the the year ended December 31, 2010. In the year ended December 31, 2010 all BsF denominated transactions have been remeasured at the nonessential rate of 4.30 BsF to $1.00.

In June 2010 the Venezuelan government introduced additional foreign currency exchange control regulations, which imposed restrictions on the use of the parallel foreign currency exchange market, thereby making it more difficult to convert BsF to U.S. Dollars. We periodically accessed the parallel exchange market, which historically enabled entities to obtain foreign currency for transactions that could not be processed by the Commission for the Administration of Currency Exchange (CADIVI). The restrictions on the foreign currency exchange market could affect our Venezuelan subsidiaries’ ability to pay non-BsF denominated obligations that do not qualify to be processed by CADIVI at the official exchange rates as well as our ability to benefit from those operations.

In December 2010 another official devaluation of the Venezuelan currency was announced that eliminated the essential rate effective January 1, 2011. The devaluation did not have an effect on the 2010 consolidated financial statements, however, it will affect results of operations in subsequent years because our Venezuelan subsidiaries will no longer realize gains that result from favorable foreign currency exchanges processed by CADIVI at the essential rate.

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 for any period after July 10, 2009 is not comparable to Old GM’s financial information. Therefore, we did not

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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. For the purpose of the following discussion, 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 our 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, 2010 and 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, sales of parts and accessories and GM Financial’s loan purchasing and servicing activities.

Automotive 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 costs, and separation and impairment charges. Prior to our application of fresh-start reporting on July 10, 2009, Automotive 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.

Automotive 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 non-income based state and local taxes.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Consolidated Results of Operations

(Dollars in Millions)


	Successor						Predecessor
	Year Ended December 31, 2010			July 10, 2009 Through December 31, 2009			January 1, 2009 Through July 9, 2009			Year Ended December 31, 2008
Net sales and revenue
Automotive sales	$	135,142		$	57,329		$	46,787		$	147,732
GM Financial and other revenue		281			—			—			—
Other automotive revenue		169			145			328			1,247

Total net sales and revenue		135,592			57,474			47,115			148,979

Costs and expenses
Automotive cost of sales		118,792			56,381			55,814			149,257
GM Financial operating expenses and other		152			—			—			—
Automotive selling, general and administrative expense		11,446			6,006			6,161			14,253
Other automotive expenses, net		118			15			1,235			6,699

Total costs and expenses		130,508			62,402			63,210			170,209

Operating income (loss)		5,084			(4,928	)		(16,095	)		(21,230	)
Equity in income (loss) of and disposition of interest in Ally Financial		—			—			1,380			(6,183	)
Automotive interest expense		(1,098	)		(694	)		(5,428	)		(2,525	)
Interest income and other non-operating income, net		1,555			440			852			424
Gain (loss) on extinguishment of debt		196			(101	)		(1,088	)		43
Reorganization gains, net		—			—			128,155			—

Income (loss) before income taxes and equity income		5,737			(5,283	)		107,776			(29,471	)
Income tax expense (benefit)		672			(1,000	)		(1,166	)		1,766
Equity income, net of tax		1,438			497			61			186

Net income (loss)		6,503			(3,786	)		109,003			(31,051	)
Net (income) loss attributable to noncontrolling interests		(331	)		(511	)		115			108

Net income (loss) attributable to stockholders		6,172			(4,297	)		109,118			(30,943	)
Less: Cumulative dividends on and charge related to purchase of preferred stock (a)		1,504			131			—			—

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders	$	4,668		$	(4,428	)	$	109,118		$	(30,943	)

(a)	Includes charge related to the purchase of Series A Preferred Stock of $677 million in the year ended December 31, 2010.

Production and Vehicle Sales Volume

Management believes that production volume and vehicle sales data provide meaningful information regarding our automotive operating results. Production volumes manufactured by our assembly facilities are generally aligned with current period net sales and revenue, as we generally recognize revenue upon the release of the vehicle to the carrier responsible for transporting it to a dealer, which is shortly after the completion of production. Vehicle sales data, which includes retail and fleet sales, does not correlate directly to the revenue we recognize during the period. However, vehicle sales data is indicative of the underlying demand for our vehicles, and is the basis for our market share.

CONFIDENTIAL

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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


	GM		Combined GM and Old GM		Old GM
	Year Ended December 31, 2010		Year Ended December 31, 2009		Year Ended December 31, 2008
Production Volume (a)
GMNA		2,809		1,913		3,449
GME		1,234		1,106		1,495
GMIO (b)		3,745		2,677		2,335
GMSA		926		807		865

Worldwide		8,714		6,503		8,144

(a)	Production volume includes vehicles produced by certain joint ventures.

(b)	The joint venture agreements with SGMW (44%) and FAW-GM (50%) allow for significant rights as a member as well as the contractual right to report SGMW and FAW-GM joint venture production in China.


	Year Ended December 31, 2010				Year Ended December 31, 2009				Year Ended December 31, 2008
	GM		GM as a % of Industry		Combined GM and Old GM		Combined GM and Old GM as a % of Industry		Old GM		Old GM as a % of Industry
Vehicle Sales (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)
GMNA		2,625		18.2%		2,484		18.9%		3,565		21.5%
GME		1,662		8.8%		1,668		8.9%		2,043		9.3%
GMIO (f)(g)		3,077		8.8%		2,453		8.7%		1,832