The Auto Bailout Accident Victims Recovery Act of 2025 revives a specific takings case filed July 9, 2015 (Campbell v. United States) and removes any statute-of-limitations barrier for plaintiffs covered by that complaint.
It directs the United States to pay ‘‘just compensation’’ to eligible plaintiffs — a lump sum tied to each claimant’s allowed bankruptcy claim, multiplied and topped with interest and court-approved counsel fees, and to do so under the federal payment authority in 31 U.S.C. §1304.
This is a narrow, document-driven remedy: eligibility depends on a claimant having filed a proof of claim in the In re Motors Liquidation Company bankruptcy and having asserted death or personal-injury damages tied to GM vehicles or component parts manufactured, sold, or delivered on or before June 1, 2009. The bill fixes the payout math (2.5× the allowed claim from the final claims register filed June 3, 2021, plus 3.5% compounded quarterly interest from July 10, 2009, and attorney fees) and imposes a 60‑day settlement-submission trigger for the Attorney General, creating a defined — and potentially sizable — fiscal exposure for the federal government.
At a Glance
What It Does
Removes statute-of-limitations barriers for the takings suit filed July 9, 2015 (Campbell) and requires the United States to resolve eligible claims by paying a statutory ‘‘just compensation’’ computed from the allowed bankruptcy claim. Payments are to be made under 31 U.S.C. §1304, and the Attorney General must explain to Congress if a settlement is not submitted to the court within 60 days after enactment.
Who It Affects
Individuals (plaintiffs, class members, putative class members) who filed proofs of claim in the Motors Liquidation Company bankruptcy alleging death or personal-injury from GM vehicles or parts manufactured, sold, or delivered on or before June 1, 2009; counsel for those claimants; and federal agencies (DOJ, Treasury) responsible for negotiating and making the payments.
Why It Matters
Instead of reopening broad litigation, the bill codifies a single remedial pathway tied to a specific complaint and to the bankruptcy claims register, sets a concrete multiplier and interest rate for awards, and uses the Judgment Fund mechanism — all of which create a predictable but potentially large federal payout and a precedent for resolving bailout-era tort claims by statute.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This bill targets one existing case — Campbell v. United States, the takings complaint filed July 9, 2015 — and strips away statute-of-limitations defenses that would otherwise bar recovery.
It confines relief to persons represented in that complaint who also filed proofs of claim in the Motors Liquidation Company bankruptcy and whose claims allege death or personal injury tied to GM vehicles or component parts manufactured, sold, or delivered by GM on or before June 1, 2009.
For each eligible claimant the statute prescribes a formula for ‘‘just compensation.’' The baseline is the claimant’s ‘‘allowed amount’’ recorded on the final claims register for the bankruptcy (the register filed June 3, 2021). The bill requires the government to pay 2.5 times that allowed amount, plus pre-set interest from the date of the government’s acquisition (July 10, 2009) at 3.5% annually compounded quarterly, and also to cover reasonable court-approved attorneys’ fees and litigation costs.
The text specifies payments be made pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §1304, i.e., through the federal judgment-payment mechanism.Procedurally, the statute pushes the parties toward settlement: if there’s no settlement agreement submitted to the court within 60 days after the law takes effect, the Attorney General must report to Congress explaining why negotiations failed. The bill also bars any offsets against the statutory payment, meaning the specified amounts are intended to be paid ‘‘without offset of any kind.’'The measure is tightly circumscribed by time and text: it only applies to claims and claimants identified in the Campbell complaint and to proofs on file in the MLC bankruptcy, and it anchors recovery to figures already recorded on the final claims register rather than permitting fresh damage litigation or re-scoring of claims.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute eliminates statute-of-limitations defenses for the takings action filed July 9, 2015 (Campbell v. United States) and any eligible civil action that arises from that filing.
An ‘‘eligible claimant’’ must have filed a proof of claim in In re Motors Liquidation Company (No. 09–50026) asserting death or personal-injury damages tied to GM vehicles or components manufactured, sold, or delivered on or before June 1, 2009.
The compensation formula is a lump sum equal to (a) 2.5 times the claimant’s ‘‘allowed amount’’ on the final claims register filed June 3, 2021, plus (b) interest from July 10, 2009 at 3.5% per year compounded quarterly, plus (c) reasonable court-approved attorneys’ fees and costs, paid without offset.
Payments are to be made by the United States under 31 U.S.C. §1304 (the federal payment/judgment mechanism), creating an explicit federal obligation to resolve eligible claims.
If no settlement agreement is submitted to the presiding court within 60 days after enactment, the Attorney General must report to Congress explaining why a settlement has not been reached with counsel of record.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This single sentence gives the act its public name: the Auto Bailout Accident Victims Recovery Act of 2025. It has no operative effect beyond labeling the statute for citation and signage.
Waiver of statute-of-limitations for eligible actions
This subsection declares that any eligible civil action arising from the filing of the identified complaint is ‘‘not subject to any statute of limitations.’' Practically, that removes temporal defenses that could otherwise dispose of claims tied to the Campbell complaint and forces the government to address the merits or negotiate settlement instead of prevailing on procedural grounds.
Mandatory just-compensation payment and payment route
Subsection (b) requires the United States to pay ‘‘just compensation’’ to eligible claimants and specifies that payments shall be made pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §1304. The subsection does not delegate calculation discretion; instead it cross-references the statutory definition of ‘‘just compensation’’ in Section 3(4), which fixes the multiplier, the interest rate and compounding, the reference date for interest (July 10, 2009), and inclusion of reasonable court-approved fees and costs. Using §1304 means payments are routed through the federal judgment-payment process rather than through ad-hoc appropriations.
Settlement timing and Attorney General reporting
If parties do not submit a settlement agreement to the court handling the eligible complaint within 60 days after enactment, the Attorney General must send Congress a report explaining why settlement was not reached. This puts a short statutory deadline on settlement submission and creates a congressional oversight hook to press DOJ and Treasury to conclude agreements quickly or justify delay.
Definitions and the compensation formula
Section 3 narrows who can recover and how much they receive. It defines ‘‘eligible claim,’' ‘‘eligible claimant,’' and ‘‘eligible complaint’’ by reference to the Campbell filing and to the proofs of claim filed in the Motors Liquidation Company bankruptcy. It also defines ‘‘just compensation’’ as a precise arithmetic formula (2.5× allowed claim from the final claims register filed June 3, 2021, plus 3.5% compounded quarterly interest from July 10, 2009, plus reasonable court-approved fees and costs). That creates predictable award math but ties recovery to the bankruptcy’s allowed-claim numbers rather than to traditional tort damages or fresh evidentiary determinations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Eligible plaintiffs and class/putative class members who filed proofs in the MLC bankruptcy — they receive a statutory lump-sum payment computed as 2.5× their allowed bankruptcy claim plus compounded interest and attorneys’ fees, which may exceed prior bankruptcy distributions and avoids protracted litigation risk.
- Counsel of record for eligible claimants — the statute expressly pays reasonable court‑approved fees and costs, securing fee recovery without extended fee litigation over entitlement.
- Claimants whose allowed amounts are already recorded on the final claims register — anchoring awards to that register converts an administrative bankruptcy figure into a predictable baseline for settlement, reducing uncertainty for those claimants about future litigation outcomes.
Who Bears the Cost
- The United States Treasury/federal government — the statute imposes direct monetary obligations payable under 31 U.S.C. §1304 and therefore creates a budgetary liability for the federal government and, indirectly, taxpayers.
- Department of Justice and Treasury officials — they must negotiate settlements, process payments through the Judgment Fund mechanism, respond to the 60‑day reporting requirement when needed, and defend any implementation disputes.
- Federal courts and clerkships handling settlement approvals and fee petitions — courts will need to approve fee amounts and may see expedited settlement filings, creating added docket and review work in short order.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill seeks to make affected accident victims whole and avoid lengthy litigation by prescribing a definitive compensation formula and payment route, but it does so at the cost of creating a significant, tangible fiscal obligation for the federal government and by substituting a standardized statutory payout for individualized damage assessment — a trade-off between administrative finality and precise, case‑by‑case justice.
The bill converts bankruptcy claim figures into constitutional‑takings awards by fixing a multiplier and interest rate rather than allowing individualized tort damage adjudication. That simplifies administration but raises questions about fairness and double recovery: claimants who already received bankruptcy distributions might obtain additional federal payments under this formula, and the statute’s ‘‘without offset of any kind’’ language forecloses reducing awards by prior recoveries unless other mechanisms operate outside the text.
Tying awards to the ‘‘final claims register’’ (the June 3, 2021 filing) gives a clear baseline, but disputes could arise about what constitutes the ‘‘allowed amount’’ for claimants whose claims were adjusted, disallowed, or appealed in bankruptcy before that register was finalized.
Implementation will also pose operational challenges. Routing payments through 31 U.S.C. §1304 (the Judgment Fund mechanism) provides an established legal path for federal payments, but DOJ and Treasury must still negotiate settlement agreements, secure court approvals, and manage potentially large lump-sum transfers.
The fixed 3.5% compounded quarterly interest rate and the 2.5× multiplier are arbitrary policy choices that may over- or under-compensate in relation to actual tort damages; they create political and actuarial questions about proportionality and precedent. Finally, the measure’s narrowly textual eligibility (limited to Campbell claimants who filed proofs in the MLC bankruptcy and to injuries tied to vehicles/components on or before June 1, 2009) avoids a broad reopening of other bailout-era claims but may leave similarly situated victims who missed the bankruptcy window without remedy, raising equity concerns.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.