GM has used its U.S. government-sponsored bankruptcy process to slash dealerships and retail franchise obligations it says have cost it about $2 billion annually to support.

From what I've read about Chrysler and GM, dealership closings have been highly political where some of the more profitable dealerships are the ones being closed down because they have a history of supporting republican candidates. So the $2 billion dollar argument does not really hold water if what I have read is true.

If those profitable dealership do not want to enter into a new agreement with Obama Motors, that is their right. If the court does not agree the companies are free from Obama Motors, the courts will clearly appear to be acting in violation of law and common sense. If they do not tell Obama Motors they can NOT close down these profitable dealerships under non-competition agreements, the integrity of the court will be in question. In other words, they can tell these dealerships they will not be able to sell Obama Vehicles but they can not tell these dealerships they can't sell used cars or small shop cars from new start up companies. When Obama Motors breaks their franchise agreement, those dealerships no longer have to abide by any repressive agreements if they so choose not to enter into a new agreement that is not to their liking.

That is my opinion based on some things I have read and heard. I have not seen a copy of the agreements that the dealerships have refused to sign.

Article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090707/bs_nm/us_gm_dealers;_ylt=Avu_1b5UpM8...