I got my information through news articles. Shortly after the Obama administration took office, they set up the Auto Industry Task Force, which was to work with GM and Chrysler to get them through the reorganization / bankruptcy process. GM gave this task force its first proposal and it largely kept the company intact. The task force was not impressed and at the end of March 2009 sent the company back to the drawing board. At the next meeting, GM had to justify the existence of the divisions it intended to keep. Buick and GMC were specifically questioned by the task force. GM argued successfully that while Buick did not sell particularly well domestically, it was one of the company’s most popular brands internationally. Many foreigners in the emerging markets look at American brands as luxury items and Buick fills this role in GM’s car lineup. GMC was also questioned as the task force made the same comment as the poster I responded to. GMC trucks are essentially the same as Chevrolet, so why keep two divisions that make the same vehicles. GM as I pointed out provided the task force with sales data that, while the vehicles are essentially the same, people who buy GMC will for the most part not consider Chevrolet. GMC is looked at as more of a premium vehicle and Chevrolet does not necessarily have this reputation. Contractors were specifically mentioned in the article as individuals who as a group prefer GMC over Chevrolet. I do not know how aggressively the task force pursued the matter of closing GMC with GM, but it was a matter that they broached at least according to a couple of news articles I read. You are correct that GM was mismanaged for a long time. This was noted by members of the task force. They were surprised at how poor the talent was in GM’s accounting and finance divisions.