Chrysler Corporation LLC did NOT own any rights to things of Kaiser-Frazer Corporation, Kaiser-Frazer Sales Corporation or any other entitity relating to Kaiser-Frazer. Chrysler denied ownership of these groups back in the fall of 1995 according to information from Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Chon. The law firm also states
Chrysler filed the denial in response to the legal action by the EPA to assess the various tennants of the Willow Run Industrial Complex for the cost of cleaning up Willow Creek and land in the area of this facility. The EPA specifucally assessed damages to Chrysler because of the enviornmental damage done by Kaiser-Frazer Corporation and/or its subsiduraries between September 1945 and the acquisition of the facility by General Motors in the fall of 1953. The EPA stated that Chrysler acquired the liability when it purchased American Motors Corporation in 1985 in a "lock stock & barrel" deal. Instead of buying certain assets and assuming only certain liability Chrysler got everything AMC had including things relating to Kaiser-Jeep Corporation and its successor company of Willys Motors, Incorporated which was formed in 1953 when a division of Kaiser-Frazer Corporation--the Kaiser Manufacturing Corporation--acquired certain assets and assumed certain liabilities relative to the Willys-Overland Motors Corporation. Chrysler did not have to be a tenant in order to be financially responsible.
The core of this was a 1956 transaction when Willys Motors, Incorporated (previously the Kaiser Manufacturing Corporation division of Kaiser-Frazer Corporation) purchased any remaining assets of Kaiser-Frazer Corporation. The EPA argued that in this transaction, Willys Motors, Incorporation also assumed all liabilities past, present or future relative to Kaiser-Frazer Corporation. A Federal Court heard arguments from both side and reviewed all the exhibts and evidence presented. The court ruled that Chrysler is not the successor in interest of Kaiser-Frazer Corporation. As such, it could not be held financially responsible for the clean-up costs, also noting that there were no enviornmental type lawsuits filed against Kaiser-Frazer Corporation as of 1956 so the EPA argument about past, present or future liabilities was not valid.
See also Chrysler Corp. v. Ford Motor Company--F. Supp--1997 WL487058 (Eastern District,m Michigan, 1997) in WestLaw.
also
October 1997 Edition of Michigan Enviornmental Coimpliance, a monthly newsletter written by Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn and published by M. Lee Smith Publishers, Brentwood TN.
Chrysler Corporation or any of its successor firms (and there were several after this point) could not lay claim to things Kaiser-Frazer unless they also accepted financial responsibillity for Kaiser-Frazer Corporation actions. Anything relating to Willys or Jeep branded products as well as the Kaiser-Darrin Sports Car and the 1955 Kaiser Manhattan or other products carrying a Willys-Overland or Willys Motors Corporation manufacturing tag are separate from the court's decision as far as I understand it.
