If I can go a meta layer above this subthread and explain the 2 different conversations happening:
- the gp (maxerickson) comment was responding to "2008 GM nearly went under", and it's correct (not technicality) that the old_company (with its own assets-liabilities) did go under. Not "nearly", but completely went under. A new_company was created as different legal entity with a clean slate to pick and choose assets-liabilities.[1]
- the other replies (Aloha, wil421) are more philosphical "Ship of Theseus"[2] type of arguments
All 3 (maxerickson, Aloha, wil421) can simultaneously be right because they are all emphasizing different aspects of what "General Motors" means. It can be either "GM the assets&liabilities" or "GM the brand, the public perception".
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/business/11primer.html
I was also arguing that the bankruptcy was immaterial to GM's moral obligation to 'share the wealth' when times are good.
It's sort of a technicality, but it's an important one.
Did they rehire everyone and start their plants from scratch when the legal entity changed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reor...
The new company had ~23,000 less people (I think many of those jobs were sold to other companies).
Corporate reorganizations under bankrupcy law do happen, but they are rare, newsworthy, and very disruptive to workers (at a minimum, their pension and health benefits are renegotiated). Shareholders being wiped out is not normal, and retirement funds -- or really, the stock market at all -- would not work if it was.