Opponents of General Motors Corp.'s plan to sell the bulk of itself to a new government-controlled company face a noon deadline to file appeals and find a way to get the sale halted.

But with their options dwindling and time running out, it's increasingly likely that U.S. Judge Robert Gerber's order approving the sale will go through at noon Eastern, paving the way for the automaker's speedy exit from Chapter 11.

GM's lawyers are working to get documents ready to close the sale quickly if the deadline passes and the sale is legally allowed to go through.

"We'll do it as quickly as possible," GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson said Thursday morning.

The sale is the centerpiece of Detroit-based GM's government-endorsed plan to emerge from court oversight. Once it becomes final, the automaker will be largely free to emerge from bankruptcy protection.

Gerber issued a ruling approving the sale late Sunday, but gave its objectors a four-day window to file appeals. The ruling followed a three-day hearing the week before during which attorneys for several groups including argued against its approval.

Some of the most vocal objectors included groups of people with product-related claims against the automaker. Under the current sale plan, liability for claims related to incidents that occurred before GM's bankruptcy filing won't carry over to "new GM."

That means that those people who claim they were injured as a result of a defective GM product before June 1 will be forced to seek compensation from "old GM," the collection of assets and liabilities leftover from the sale, where they will have to fight with the company's other creditors for a share of what's left.

One of the product liability groups filed papers to appeal Gerber's ruling and asked that the appeal be sent directly to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals for action.

The bankruptcy judge overseeing the Chrysler case had given approval for the company's most valuable assets, such as plants, dealerships and contracts, to become part of a new company in which Fiat would hold a significant stake.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in an order issued late Monday, granted a request for a delay of that approval sought by Indiana state pension funds, which had argued that they and other lenders deserved better treatment by the bankruptcy court.

No reason for the delay was given in the order, and there were no details about how quickly the issue could be resolved by the nation's highest court.

The separate requests, which moved the legal battle to the nation's highest court, were filed after a U.S. appeals court in New York approved Chrysler's sale to a group led by Fiat, a union-aligned trust and the U.S. and Canadian governments.

The Chrysler case could set a precedent for General Motors Corp, which is using a similar quick sale strategy in its bankruptcy in New York.

The appeals court late on Friday stayed the closing of the sale until Monday afternoon, giving the pension funds and other opponents time over the weekend to ask the Supreme Court to block the sale while they appeal.

The three state pension funds, which hold about $42 million of Chrysler's $6.9 billion in secured loans, argued the sale unlawfully rewarded unsecured creditors such as the union ahead of secured lenders.

"The need for the court to review the profound issues presented by Chrysler's novel bankruptcy sale far outweighs the cost of delaying" a sale, lawyers for the pension funds and the Indiana attorney general said in seeking an immediate stay.

The pension and construction funds also argued the U.S. government, which kept Chrysler afloat with emergency loans before the automaker's bankruptcy and financed its Chapter 11 filing, overstepped its legal authority by using bailout funds Congress intended for banks.

"The public is watching and needs to see that, particularly, when the system is under stress, the rule of law will be honored and an independent judiciary will properly scrutinize the actions of the massively powerful executive branch," the lawyers said.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said higher trading revenues at big banks helped the industry earn a $7.6 billion profit in the January-March period, compared with a record loss of $36.9 billion in the fourth quarter. The profit was 61 percent below the $19.3 billion earned in the year-ago period and followed the first quarterly loss in 18 years.

U.S. banks and thrifts set aside $60.9 billion in the first quarter to cover potential loan losses, up from $36.2 billion a year earlier.

The number of troubled banks jumped to 305, the highest number since 1994 during the savings and loan crisis, from 252 in the fourth quarter, according to the FDIC.

Thirty-six federally-insured institutions already have failed and been shut down by regulators this year, extending a wave of collapses that began in 2008. This year's tally compares with 25 in all of 2008 and three in 2007.

The failures sliced the amount in the deposit insurance fund to $13 billion in the first quarter, the lowest level since 1993. That compares with $17.3 billion a year earlier.

"Troubled loans continue to accumulate" and the costs to banks from soured loans "are weighing heavily on the industry's performance," FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said. "Nevertheless, compared to a year ago, we see some positives."

The justices agreed to review a ruling by a U.S. appeals court that upheld the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which set up the private sector Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

A conservative activist group called the Free Enterprise Fund and a small Nevada accounting firm appealed to the Supreme Court in arguing that the law violated constitutional requirements on separation of powers because it failed to allow adequate control of the board by the U.S. president.

The board polices the U.S. audit industry, including the Big Four firms that review the books of major corporations: Ernst & Young LLP, KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deloitte & Touche LLP.

A board spokeswoman said: "We remain confident that the PCAOB's structure is constitutional and look forward to our opportunity to demonstrate that in the Supreme Court."

As Congress and the president talk about ending so-called abuses in the credit card industry like sudden rate hikes and late fees, Brady Dougan is in Connecticut courts fighting claims that he owes his ex-wife nearly $1 million for being 12 days tardy with a $7.5 million divorce-related payment.

The 49-year-old chief executive, who lives in Greenwich, suffered a blow in his legal case Wednesday, when the state Appellate Court ruled 2-1 that he must abide by the late payment penalty terms in his 2005 divorce agreement with Tomoko Hamada Dougan.

Retired state Supreme Court Justice David Borden, sitting on the Appellate Court for Dougan v. Dougan, wrote that Brady Dougan is a "highly educated and financially sophisticated" person who "wants to avoid the obligation that he knowingly undertook."

Supreme Court Justice C. Ian McLachlan, appointed to the high court in January, voted with Borden in the appellate ruling. He noted that at the time of the divorce agreement, Brady Dougan's estate was worth nearly $80 million and it appeared he could have made the $7.5 million payment soon after signing the deal.

The Appellate Court overturned a Superior Court decision and sent the case back to the lower court to decide how much Dougan should pay his ex-wife.

It was not clear if Dougan planned to appeal to the state Supreme Court. A message was left Thursday with his attorney, Gary Cohen.