So what is the lawsuit all about?
August 6, 2012 in News
After having read through the complaint handed in by Spyker this morning and talking to a number of sources a clear picture has risen about the key aspects of this lawsuit.
There was a contract between Saab and GM Global Technology Operations, Inc. (“GTO”) called the ATLA (Automotive Technology License Agreement) in which the rights to various GM automobile platforms and other GM intellectual property used in the manufacture of certain Saab vehicles. Under the terms of the ATLA, GTO granted to Saab a non-exclusive, non- transferable, worldwide, royalty-free license to GM intellectual property necessary for the manufacture, assembly and service of Saab 9-5 and 9-3 models identified in exhibits to the ATLA (the “Licensed Vehicles”).
The purpose of the license was to permit Saab to make and assemble the Licensed Vehicles containing GM technology. In the ATLA, Saab needed the written approval if it wanted to use any of the GM controlled technology in any other way than what was initially stated during the purchase of Saab, ie to produce cars in Trollhättan, Sweden.
As we know, Saab entered into financial difficulties during the spring of 2011 and sought different solutions with different Chinese partners. GM was aware and informed regarding Saab’s attempts to find new funding and did not state that they were in opposition to any such deals made by Saab and its Chinese partners. However all of the deals prior to December 16th included some kind of approval by GM since it involved ownership in Saab and in such access to GM technology by other parties than Spyker, which was controlled under the ATLA contract. GM did not accept any breach of the ATLA contract and did not offer any approval for new owners into Saab Automobile or Spyker.
Under the Saab Vehicle Supply Agreement, which was signed when Spyker purchased Saab from GM. GM had agreed to supply components and manufacture the Saab 9-4X for Saab through December 2014. And neither GM nor Saab could cancel this agreement for convenience. Even so GM, through Mr. Cain, threatened that GM would not continue to provide Saab with GM components or manufacture the Saab 9-4X if Saab entered the Framework Agreement.
The Framework Agreement is an agreement made between Youngman and Spyker (SWAN at the time) on December 16th, in which Youngman would loan €200 million in order for Saab to restart production of all its models and that loan would only be converted into an equity interest in Saab after Saab ceased using GM technology in its vehicles.
Since GM decided to publicly announce the halt of any cooperation on one of Saab’s key products, the 9-4X if the Framework agreement was put in practice, Youngman feared that Saab could not live up to its business-plan in such rightly so, backed out of the Framework deal and Saab in such entered into bankruptcy on the 19th of December.
KEY ISSUES:
- Framework Agreement, NO GM involvement
- GM threatening to halt cooperation on the 9-4x even though they had no rights to do so
- Youngman backing out because of GM’s threats to halt cooperation if the Framework agreement was put in effect.
- GM caused the bankruptcy of Saab Automobile.
CoolCombi said on August 6, 2012
Keep calm and Saab on!
Steve Parsons said on August 6, 2012
Hope they have good luck with this! Any “kick in pants” GM gets over their handling of SAAB will make me smile!
JTMav said on August 6, 2012
Unfortunately the legal system here in the US is in an incredible backlog and my guess is this will take many years to sort out. My bet is GM’s extensive legal team can outlast VM’s lawyers and will use the clock to their full advantage. The suit makes sense if the facts above are correct but I would be very surprised if this ever makes it in front of a judge/jury.
JTMav
Liam Kenney said on August 6, 2012
So, if they win this….what if Spyker got Saab back? because the way this is written it seems Spyker still wants their part in Saab….
Tim said on August 6, 2012
That money is not even close to the amount required to buy and restart operations for Saab…
terry9000k said on August 6, 2012
.
It’s still over 40 times what they put down 1st time round though…..
Remdu67 said on August 6, 2012
This time TimR, I think you turn a bit your nose up, don’t you? I really wish that the “future-could be-maybe if gods are good” partners of NEVS could raise this money into Saab or THN at least. For now we have rumors and a guizmo business plan, nothing more…
Tim said on August 6, 2012
3 billion USD is not even close to what is required over a 5 year period if you want to restart Saab into what it was just prior to the bankruptcy… nothing nose up about that…
Why do you think there are so few auto-start-ups in the world, because simply, nobody can afford it…
Peter, Sweden said on August 7, 2012
I would love to see an analysis about that exact issue: how much would it take to restart “the real” SAAB today? How much money had to be spent on what? It’d make for an interesting article
Tim said on August 7, 2012
Pretty simple math really, check how much people worked at Saab prior to the bankruptcy, add an extra 20% because thats about the amount they were missing. The cost per person is about 75’000 Euro per year, take that times 5 (for five years), 500 million Euro to develop each model (times 5 for five models over the next five years) and you’re off to a pretty good start… then you’ll need to buy tools, parts, facilities and most of all, technology which would probably cost about the same as all the rest have cost up until that point. =)
Remdu67 said on August 7, 2012
OK 3MM$ is not that high to restart operations in “Saab”‘s situation today. We came accross this number when we read the “bill” made by Saab admin a few weeks ago. But it still math
BUT NEVS and his ghost (sorry) partners are still far to invest as much in THN or Saab. That was my (sad) point.
Tim said on August 7, 2012
You make a valid point but you should look at it from the NEVS perspective.
They are simply not interested in reviving any former glory of Saab because they know they could never afford it and frankly, the idea of Saab didn’t work.
They need a fresh new start with new products and to do that they have to start over with the only product they feel Saab had that could sell in todays economy, the 9-3 ePower. Once that products is a secure source of income, they will introduce the next one and take it from there…
All of this will be done over a very long period of time with easy nice steps…
scand said on August 7, 2012
For precisely all the cost reasons you outline above, for Saab not ever restarting, and I believe you are completely correct, at the end of the day, NEVS is in the same economic boat and faces the same challenges.
Ignoring for a moment whether or not there is a market large enough for electric vehicles, manufacturing labor costs in Sweden are significantly higher than anywhere else, except Norway.
A
RS said on August 7, 2012
Tim, please don’t make statements like these; “…frankly, the idea of Saab didn’t work.”
Why did people -as you say later on this thread- work 18 h days last year to save the company if all that was just a pipe dream? Many now successful companies have been in huge trouble at some point.
The problem with SAAB wasn’t the idea to build Swedish cars but that the good ideas were never executed mostly due to lack of financing and/or willingness by the owner(s).
Just remind yourself what they had cooking under Spyker before the money ran out.
Angelo V. said on August 7, 2012
In the business world and in society, sometimes “bad” ideas work very well and sometimes, good ones fail. Much of the time, it all goes back to how these ideas are promoted to the masses. In the case of Saab, they were positioned poorly—-competing with the wrong crowd, and the advertising was simply awful—-totally ineffective. Two things would have helped Saab: 1) Decontenting their lowest priced models further and selling them for thousands less (including selling a model line that itself would price lower than the 9-3) and #2, understanding the power of advertising/marketing and being more strategic with how they represented their cars. They blew it. It doesn’t mean the idea was totally bad—-just excecuted in a way that was doomed to failure.
Gatelaw said on August 8, 2012
The Point I Think TimR was trying to make is that NEVS doesn’t have the money to finance those good ideas you are writing about. And frankly no-one is obviously willing to part with those amounts that are required to run a company like Saab Automobile the way it was. Especially not in these times. That’s what “//…the idea of Saab didn’t work.” means. It didn’t work because no-one was willing to fork out all of the necessary cash.
saabserb said on August 8, 2012
Back from vacation and I see this news. My comment and one question: Whoever wins there will be neither better nor worse for the Trollhattan factory (named NEVS or SAAB, we will see that). Also these 10% in case Spyker wins, which SAAB gets them? SAAB AB or NEVS or someone else? But anyway it would be extremely good feeling to see GM counting money and transferring them to a bank account on one of the islands
.
Question to Tim: In your comment (that is actually below this one) you say this, quotation: “Regarding NEVS, there is a lot more to them than we can ever imagine! =)”. In my world it means much more then the “All of this will be done over a very long period of time with easy nice steps”. So, you probably have a lots of insider information that you can not share with us right now but can we at least hope that the Trollhattan factory will be in three shift production anytime soon, or we will have to look at the craft “10 cars per day” workshop for a number of years to come?
Gatelaw said on August 8, 2012
Saab Automobile will get the 10%. Saab AB’s only involvement with Saab Automobile or Spyker was only about the Saab-name and logo.
Angelo V. said on August 6, 2012
Tim: We’ve had our differences on many Saab issues here, but let me tell you something: In this post, you took an extremely complicated mess—-which I would argue was impossible to sort out—-and explained it in very plain and easy to understand terms. Remarkable writing. I think it’s far easier to take something simple and make it complicated—-than it is to take something complicated and simplify it! Great job on this. Hey—-since I thought it was impossible and you nailed it—–maybe this should give me some new hope that what I think is impossible with NEVS owning Saab can ALSO be accomplished!!!!
Tim said on August 6, 2012
Thank you! =)
Regarding NEVS, there is a lot more to them than we can ever imagine! =)
dcpattie said on August 6, 2012
But how will the lawsuit impact the sale and more importantly, them gaining rights to the Saab name? Could we have Spyker/Saab suing GM and NEVS Saab making cars at the same time.
I read today that Muller still has rights to the Saab name.
Tim said on August 7, 2012
It will have no effect on the sale nor the Saab name.
Gatelaw said on August 8, 2012
If the law suit is successful, the money would be paid to Spyker as the former owner of Saab Automobile. And some of that money would go to the “old” Saab Automobile, that is to say to the bankruptcy estate handled by the receivers Hans Bergqvist and Anne-Marie Pouteaux. Maybe a small amount would also go to the active part of Saab that is being acquired by NEVS, but this is only speculation. What is known is that NEVS have given Spyker the go-ahead on their behalf as part of the law suit (this is found in the complaint).
However, if the law suit is successful it won’t affect the bankruptcy estate in any other way than a bit of cash flowing in and that money will be used to pay off debts of the bankruptcy estate.
baas900i said on August 7, 2012
@ Tim R “Regarding NEVS, there is a lot more to them than we can ever imagine! =)” ….so you know a lot more but currently cannot disclose? jason p has also made similiar remarks….
Chris Ivory said on August 6, 2012
Any idea where the proceedings will take place?
Methos said on August 6, 2012
According to this article: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/update-spyker-files-lawsuit-against-gm-over-saab-automobile-20120806-00559 , “Spyker filed the claim in the US District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan.”
And kudos on your screen-name Zaphod! Always appreciate a Douglas Adams reference.:)
Jake said on August 6, 2012
Anything to see GM sweat a little bit is a great thing. They had it coming to them, after all.
dezzer said on August 6, 2012
I’m just winding up GM over this on facebook…..anyone care to join me?
Tim said on August 6, 2012
No thanx…
bpsorrel said on August 6, 2012
Not the best idea….
dezzer said on August 6, 2012
i dont think they will be coming knocking on my door somehow !
Tim said on August 6, 2012
Well, thats not the point… the thing about bashing GM on their facebook page is something I think is pretty childish behavior and not something I want to be associated with…
GM’s dealings with Saab is only the fault of the management and not the workers and products of GM. Its the managers who needs to be put into the spotlight, the rest of the company has done nothing wrong!
Angelo V. said on August 6, 2012
Tim: Are you familiar with what has happened at my college alma mater, Penn State University? The people who need to be put in the spotlight have been put in the spotlight. However, there are many others at Penn State who are suffering because of what they did. The football team and coaches, students, fans, small businesses in that area, alumni—-all of us are paying the price because of the actions of others 10-15 years ago—-something none of us were involved with. But I guess it’s guilt by association. Fact is, eveyone afiliated with the college is suffering because of this and I believe everyone affiliated with GM should suffer for what they did too.
Tim said on August 6, 2012
Sorry I have no idea of what happens at a University on the other side of the world.. =)
I’m just very skeptical towards “fans” doing anything to influence GM. I know we’d like to think that we have some sort of power but in reality, what we’ve done has had marginal impact at best. What I’d like to do is to promote any future product that comes out (if its worthy) and in that way do my part. But other than that I doubt anyone is really interested.
You as a consumer take a risk when buying a product, the risk is that the company which made that product will go bankrupt and any contract you had with them is in such a case canceled. Thats life… I know my Saab’s work perfectly even though I lost warranty on two of my cars, in the end, I don’t really care about that,… thats why I have insurance that covers most of the stuff anyway…
Angelo V. said on August 6, 2012
I hear you. But I liken it to “The Scarlet Letter.” We might not “get” anything from bashing GM on their FB page. But it is nice to paint a bright red letter on them (This time, we’ll make it a big “F” for Failures—- or F…… for something else I won’t write here.).
Jeff said on August 7, 2012
I think all that Tim is saying is at a certain point, all the GM bashing from Saab fans begins to appear a tad…fanatical, and in turn actually makes Saab and its brand supporters look juvenile.
Angelo V. said on August 7, 2012
Jeff: I think civil disobedience appears “juvenile” most of the time. The opressed sometimes look juvenile when they struggle against Goliath. I’m okay with it in this case. This is General Morons we’re talking about.
dezzer said on August 6, 2012
I have always rated FB as a bit of fun, if you choose to think its childish, so be it but its my way of letting off steam as it was……33 years of Saab ownership and 23 saab’s later, i think i’m entitled !!!!
Tim said on August 6, 2012
23 Saabs entitled you to some great driving on the road… but thats about it… =)
Angelo V. said on August 6, 2012
I went on GM’s FB page and linked to the lawsuit story. I’m ready for more. GM—-the arrogant S.O.B.s, need to hear from us.
dezzer said on August 6, 2012
you tell em mate !!!!
MeanSabean said on August 7, 2012
+100
E. Boon said on August 6, 2012
In your dreams Victor. And you damn well know it. Even if GM did do anything illegal, it will take ages. And since Skyper is not that profitable, you won’t have sufficient funding. The bookkeepers of GM versus the artist VM. To bad there never was a true car builder in the play.
Eric said on August 6, 2012
Quite the pessimist aren’t you??
I sense no faith in you as to Spyker possibly winning this lawsuit on behalf of SAAB & Saab fans the world over.
E. Boon said on August 7, 2012
Correct. An artist (like VM) makes reality look more nicer. VM never made any profit with Spyper. VM’s virtue is finding investers willing to invest in his ideas. Yesterday in an interview on the Dutch radio Victor explained his latest trick: An investor willing to pay for the lawsuit in return for a % of the amount. I can see how this relates to VM’s usuall businesses. Can’t see how SAAB would benefit. A revival, a production start-up? Come on! This is about businessman VM not about SAAB anymore.
scand said on August 7, 2012
The number I saw thrown out there was that the proceeds would be split 90 percent to Spyker, 10 percent to Saab.
So doing this ‘ on behalf of saab’ ? Hardly.
When VM says “we” , as in ” we have been working on this since the bankrupcy”. Who is he referring to exactly? All his board bailed back in January, so of those left who had direct involvement, it is really only him.
His third party investor, by definition,is only doing it for their own financial reward: they couldn’t care less about saabs carcass.
VM is convinced he is right of course, just like he was convinced he was right about many other things along the path.
Is this all mainly a face saving exercise? A one man grudge match? A money grab?
Given the tiny size of Skyker, even if he gets a few $ million out of it at the end, which is a fraction of what he is sueing for, he can still then claim “he won”
Maybe that’s all he really wants at the end of the day.
Rune said on August 7, 2012
Ad hominem works better than discussing the topic at hand?
Angelo V. said on August 8, 2012
If the third party investor, by definition, is only doing if for their own financial reward (no arguments from me on that) then I would say there’s reason to believe they can win the case. No one with that type of money is accustomed to throwing it away—-nor are they stupid. I’m sure this third party investor has reviewed the claim and believes in it enough to “invest” a rather large sum of money. I love it.
davidgmills said on August 9, 2012
Regarding funding a lawsuit in the US. In the US, many cases are taken on contingency which means the law firm involved does much or all of the funding of the case. Lawyers get paid if they win and don’t if they lose. Saab has the backing of a very large firm that has offices in DC and New York, Dallas and four or five other cities. It can finance this case. It will probably make a huge amount of money if it wins and probably get little more than nothing if it loses.
I don’t think GM can win this case just by out-spending Saab on legal fees.
Keith said on August 9, 2012
You’re suggesting you think the “investor” is the law firm itself?
JH said on August 6, 2012
Thanks for the great summary, Tim!
I really hope Spyker will be successful with this, at least it will be a nail in the eye for GM (Gangster Motors).
Peter Gilbert said on August 6, 2012
…Remember last year all the money Youngman sank into SAAB to pay the workers. I wonder when they will sue too?
terry9000k said on August 6, 2012
.
One of the key issues here will be how bad was Saab’s financial position [regarding unpaid Invoices] at certain points during 2010/2011.
GM could make that a big play of this in their defence, ie; Saab was going down anyway…etc’.
Tim said on August 6, 2012
Well that doesn’t really matter. The lawsuit only questions weather GM acted in an inappropriate way when claiming that they would kill off the 9-4x because of the Framework Agreement with Youngman.
The rest is not relevant to this lawsuit.
In all likelyhood I doubt that this will ever go to court since the case is pretty clear. I’ve spoken to people with great insight and GM did the wrong thing. It will probably be a settlement long before this goes to court
terry9000k said on August 6, 2012
.
It does matter, when GM enter a defence.
If VM is serious about the $3 Bn dollars, it will go to the wire on time.
At that point Saab’s financial position becomes very relevant when accessing damages agreeable to settle.
Gatelaw said on August 8, 2012
As far as this law suit goes it isn’t an issue that Saab was running out of cash. The issue is that the deal with Youngman and Pang Da would have saved Saab (i.e. pursuing the Framework Agreement), but GM acted against the deal by threatening to not produce the 9-4X in defiance of the contract with Saab. This action was the actual reason for Saab Automobile going bankrupt. GM is being sued for damages due to them ignoring to follow a contract. Pacta Sunt Servanda is a lawyer term (latin) meaning a deal must be honored. Most legal systems are centered around deals, which is why the breaking of a deal means you can sue for damages caused by a deal not being honored.
Gatelaw said on August 8, 2012
As GM stated in media it will use all of its means to fight the complaint. I interpret that as GM not putting a settlement on the table at all, which means court.
Angelo V. said on August 6, 2012
If someone murders a terminal cancer patient—-it is still murder.
terry9000k said on August 6, 2012
Put this comment into a financial situation & there you have my argument & the answer.
ie; Saab was going down anyway
Angelo V. said on August 6, 2012
I wonder if the same investor who is backing this lawsuit might also help us bring a class action suit against General Moochers? IMO, GM’s filthy business practices have DIRECTLY led to lost resale value on Saabs—-that have impacted tens of thousands of owners, many of them GM era owners. GM’s filthy business practices have also DIRECTLY led to loss of warranty coverage for owners of many 2010/2011 Saab cars. Hopefully, a judge would find in favor of the class—-and force GM to pick up the warranties on the Spyker era cars. Parts availability has also suffered, probably indirectly, because of the arrogant little hitlers at GM. It’s time for us to be made whole.
Tim said on August 6, 2012
That would only be something thats valid in the US, nothing to do with the rest of the world…
terry9000k said on August 6, 2012
.
Previous Judgements in other countries are very quoted & used in other places.
Also, a class action in the US, by owners could probably we joined by owners from other countries, at the invitation of the Litigants, acting on behalf of…… [etc].
Angelo V. said on August 6, 2012
Citizens of other countries routinely file lawsuits in the U.S. against U.S. organizations. I would love to see the world sue General Moochers.
Tim said on August 6, 2012
only when they have something to gain from it… we’ve got nothing to gain?…
terry9000k said on August 6, 2012
Lost warranties comes to mind & I am sure there are a few etc’s…..
Tim said on August 6, 2012
Today its almost only the US which has that problem, most other countries have found solutions for the warranty issue. Sadly SAAB Parts have not been able to move fast enough in the US about that issue…
Gatelaw said on August 8, 2012
If the law suit against GM is successful, it would mean that the court have recognized that GM was at fault when braking a deal made, and thereby causing Saab Automobile to go bankrupt. This would open the door for a class action against GM. To file a class action now, before the GM complaint is settled, would pose a difficult task to prove that GM is directly responsible for the bankruptcy due to foul play.
scand said on August 6, 2012
Lol. Have you seen any class action that nets those members of the class anything other than a few scraps ?!
I have (unwittingly, along with many other people, Im sure) been involved in a few. In one, the lawyers made $30 million, and my share of the proceeds was $1.34 !!
in another, – where it was against VW/ Audi due to leaky sunroofs – the resolution was a free addendum page to insert into the owners manual, saying I should service the sunroof every 40 000 miles. The lawyers undoubtedly got many Millions, in fees.
So go ahead with your class action – you may be lucky if you get a voucher for $200 “towards the purchase of your next GM vehicle”. !
Angelo V. said on August 6, 2012
Actually, I’d love a public apology from General Morons—-and no other compensation needed.
terry9000k said on August 6, 2012
Don’t tell VM and all the Saab employees + suppliers that.
Your loses are minimal in comparison….
Angelo V. said on August 7, 2012
Exactly. They are the ones that deserve a settlement. But I’d love to see GM apologize to the rest of us for being such morons/hypocrites.
scand said on August 6, 2012
Some observations.
1. The need for a 3rd party investor to fund the legal fees may indicate that the law firm isnt willing to do it on a contingency basis. Which may mean they dont think its a dead cert for success. It could also mean that its likely to be too much in legal outlays until a resolution for them to bank roll it on a contingency basis. If they are simply billing on an hourly basis… then there isnt much incentive for them to be economical anyway. A billable hour is a billable hour, so who cares….
2. A jury trial , in Michigan – home of GM – where the plaintiff is from outside of the US ? That may be a less than level playing field.
3. Battling obscure corporate law, in front of a jury? Most will be asleep within minutes, and most wont have a clue who is legally wrong.
Muller may be betting on his charm to appeal to the peanut gallery more than the faceless operatives on the other side of the argument. It may work when he is preaching to the choir, but again – what is the chance of finding a jury in Michigan that is not directly or indirectly linked to someone in GM, or its suppliers.
Will make for entertaining theatre though!
(and the Lawyers will make some $$$)
Angelo V. said on August 6, 2012
“A jury trial , in Michigan – home of GM – where the plaintiff is from outside of the US ? That may be a less than level playing field.” In the spirit of “Keep your friends close but your enemies closer” please realize that many, many millions of Americans detest General Moochers for a wide variety of reasons. Locally, people in Michigan/Detroit hate General Morons as well. If anything, GM might get a more “fair” trial overseas!
terry9000k said on August 6, 2012
Michigan/Detroit are ghost towns [employment wise] partly because of the likes of GM….
They might file to have it heard elsewhere because of this….
derek said on August 6, 2012
Because the lawsuit will not result in production of new Saab 9-3 or 9-5 cars, I am not too excited. More likely, GM will settle with Spyker. Spyker will be a little money, nothing near $3B. If I had to guess, GM will pay Spyker’s legal cost and maybe Spyker will get $20M at most.
terry9000k said on August 6, 2012
.
I am sure that VM knows exactly at what point he will say settle…
If GM pisses him off enough, he might just want to take it all the way to the wire…
Christof Rytz said on August 6, 2012
Hope that Spyker can win this lawsuit and GM will be punished for it’s incompetence.
scand said on August 6, 2012
breaking news … Spykers shares up 75% !!
to 0.07 eur.
Hans H said on August 6, 2012
I just hope GM goes down in flames. That’s all.
Angelo V. said on August 7, 2012
GM is busy continuing to make mis-steps and poor business decisions. Their stock is in the tank and they still owe billions to U.S. taxpayers. The Chevy Volt is a complete failure by just about any measure. They hardly need help in going down in flames. When they are on death’s doorstep again—-I hope next time, no one in the federal government of the U.S. squanders anymore of our hard earned money on the stinkbomb that is Government Moochers.
Keith said on August 7, 2012
GM just announced a 1.5 billion quarterly profit, but please don’t let that get in the way of your narrative.
Spyker paid 74 million of borrowed money to purchase Saab, and then lost hundreds of millions (number, anyone?) in the 2 years to follow. Prior to purchasing Saab, Spyker only managed to lose tens of millions while making a few dozen cars. Clearly from this record Spyker was on the edge of taking over the world with automotive excellence. Surely this will be clear to any reasonable court of law, and the 3 billion will be promptly awarded.
Hans H said on August 7, 2012
The fact that GM is making a profit does:
A) NOT make them my favourites
B) NOT mean that they are doing anything right, lottowinners are alos making profit.
C) NOT mean anything for Opel right now.
D) NOT alter their history either.
GM. Down in flames. Thats it.
Angelo V. said on August 7, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/general-motors-2q-profit-falls-41-percent-as-european-losses-cut-into-north-american-earnings/2012/08/02/gJQA2zyQRX_story.html
Keith: If you want to believe in fairy tales, go right ahead. Facts are stubborn—-GM is in deep doo-doo. Their amazing “profits” were “made” on the backs of taxpayers like me—-they received a gift of billions and billions of dollars—-ummm….not a gift, a LOAN that they’ve paid back in stock that is plummeting like the Titanic. Their leadership is awful—-maybe not as horrific as it was a few years ago, but still pathetic. If I had a lousy business and it was infused with billions in free money, I could “succeed” too for a few years, coasting. They do have some good products—but they are still poorly run and sloppy. Please see the Washington Post article for details. August 2, so it’s recent. There are some interesting tidbits in there.
Keith said on August 7, 2012
I stand corrected. GM had a lousy quarter, in which they had a 1.5 billion dollar profit.
The 1.5 billion dollar profit was realized mostly on the modest back of Angelo, and perhaps supported slightly by GM selling 4.67 million vehicles in the first half of 2012.
Angelo V. said on August 7, 2012
Yep, and Wall Street is LOVING them, right?
Angelo V. said on August 7, 2012
Also Keith, their profit is down 41% from last year and their market share is dropping like a rock in all four of the regions where they do business. In other words, their competition is slamming them. They performed well on the billions and billions they heisted from our treasury—but that is running it’s course. When they’re back on an even playing field, we’ll see much worse than we’re seeing now. Do you not understand that they were given more than a little boost——they were showered with money and that helps hide a lot of issues.
TTJr said on August 6, 2012
This lawsuit feels like it always have been against GM, just gave more fuel to the information rumors I have heard a lot off.
Belfast_Saab said on August 6, 2012
So does this mean SU have been unfairly criticising Youngman for faili g to seal the deal, when in fact, as I suspect they acted in good faith but had to react to GM duplicitous actions?
terry9000k said on August 6, 2012
+ +
Angelo V. said on August 7, 2012
I don’t think there’s any doubt that the uncertainty of the investment environment (caused by GM’s questionable business practices) affected Youngman’s access to money that might have been made available to them if things seemed more “in order and definitive.” Investors are never 100% certain of a positive outcome—-but in this case, the way GM was posturing, I think it cast too big a doubt on the viability of the business. Youngman wasn’t going to be doing it independently (paying). But I think they had a realistic chance of getting support and backing if GM had handled this differently.
Tim said on August 6, 2012
Not really, its one thing if YM had the willingness to pay or if they had the ability to pay.
I am still convinced that they did not have the money required to what they claimed they wanted to do.
But this thing does not take in to considerment if YM had the ability or not, it just deals with the fact that GM did something it was not allowed to do, the rest, nobody, except for perhaps MR Pang and God knows…
terry9000k said on August 7, 2012
YM and Pangda put their money where their mouths were…..
10/10 for that.
scand said on August 7, 2012
In recent months you have been fairly assertive that Youngman didnt have the means to financially close the deal. As you are as close as anyone to what was going on, that assertion cant be ‘just a hunch’ on your part.
Therefore, if this ever did get to a ‘sling the mud’ fest in court, one line of defence GM could use, would be that Saab was going to fail at that point, regardless of what they may have said, that YM simply hadnt delivered on any financial promise throughout last fall, and at that point they trot out exhibit A : a Mr G Lofalk, who must be revelling in the thought of possibly having a bash at his old nemesis.
All juicy stuff.
Tim said on August 7, 2012
That could very well turn out to be the case…
The problem for me and the other guys at SU has always been that we’re not able to prove the things we’re stating. We could, we do have access to a lot of documents which proves the things we’re saying, but we would be killing ourselves in the eyes of our sources if we ever made them public.
We are also unable to control the outcome of what posting these documents could cause, so we decided simply to keep them to ourselves.
terry9000k said on August 7, 2012
.
And of course you could be Sued [Big Time] if you print inaccurate suggestions, statements etc’.
Tim said on August 7, 2012
If YM ever wanted to prove us wrong, they had their chance, still do… but its not worth the time for them to do so. What good will it do for them? They are out of the race anyway…
terry9000k said on August 7, 2012
.
Mr G Lofalk will, I feel, stay very silent on this subject.
His own position in this matter brought some disrepute to light, from what has been said on this site [and others] previously.
And honestly if any of the past comments were in any way untrue & baseless, he would have stopped things being said, before now…..
Keith said on August 6, 2012
If any GM’s actions to prevent Saab’s deal with Youngman were illegal, why is Spyker only now pursuing the matter? If there were really a case one would think it would have been pursued when negotiations with Youngman were still ongoing.
The identity of the 3rd party investor may become pertinent. VM is certainly skilled at coming up with new investment $ for his schemes. One hopes no embezzled Lithuanian bank funds are involved.
Tim said on August 7, 2012
I was very close to the process in the autumn and I know for a fact that the guys at Saab were working 18 hour days and thats no joke. Many nights were spent sleeping at the office… Back then there was simply no chance to prepare for a legal action.
This lawsuit has taken 6 months to prepare!
terry9000k said on August 7, 2012
I am with you on this one Tim.
Beyond all the hard work, travelling all over the world, moneu worries like most people never ever experience & the sheer shock wave this sort of thing creates is mind dumming.
I have been involved with Businesses that have failed & if the owners were worth their salts, they usually had their heart & Soul exposed to the very existence of their businesses. Employees fight for the very right to be employed by the Companies they work for.
Please believe me, how hard it really is, when the faith is drained away & everything is taken away.
You loose most normal thoughts for some considerable time,
……………..THEN, just as now, something in those extraordinary minds, click & it’s into the next gear again.
I would also point out, I refer to smaller businesses, nothing the size of Saab, but the process & reactions are just the same.
terry9000k said on August 7, 2012
Careful what you imply…..
terry9000k said on August 7, 2012
.
According to the BBC news channel in London, UK:
GM has stated the claim is ‘baseless’.
Markac said on August 7, 2012
ABC news here in Oz says the same. But I guess GM is hardly going to say that Spyker’s claims are valid as that would be admitting it’s actions were wrong.
Hans H said on August 7, 2012
Would you expect GM to say anything else?
Angelo V. said on August 7, 2012
Yes, sort of like GM’s claims about the Chevy Volt being a bridge to the future…baseless.
Allan B said on August 7, 2012
“Yes, sort of like GM’s claims about the Chevy Volt being a bridge to the future…baseless.”
Sometimes, Angelo, your ripostes are sharper than a Billy Wilder rom-com.
sandycapp said on August 7, 2012
Come on guys, get real. While I’m delighted to see someone taking a poke at GM, it is monumentally irrelevant how strong Spyker’scase is. An American defendant, in an American court, with a foreign plaintiff. There is not the remotest possibility of Spyker winning this.
74StingSaab said on August 7, 2012
I’d have to disagree, respectfully. A lot of Americans are rather sick of GM right now because of the bailout.
mike saunders said on August 7, 2012
I seriously doubt that any of the “Americans rather sick of GM right now” are included in the estimated two million jobs saved by the bailout…
This is a last-ditch Hail Mary pass from Spyker. Good luck….
Angelo V. said on August 7, 2012
Two million jobs saved because GM mooched billions of dollars from taxpayers? Where did you get that stat about two million saved? From the DNC or from GM? If the same fortune had been spent saving thousands of smaller businesses that fell during the global recession, more jobs would have been saved than the number at GM. Further, there wouldn’t have been a quid pro quo to turn corporations over to labor, as in the case of GM—-in return for political support. The list of nastiness in the bailout is a mile long, but that’s neither here nor there. I truly do believe Spyker can get a fair trial against GM in the U.S. If they lose, it will be because they couldn’t prove their case. Frankly, I agree with those here who say this will be settled without a trial. GM is flush with taxpayer money—-they can buy their way out of it.
74StingSaab said on August 8, 2012
two million “saved or created” jobs…. two million people VS the US taxpaying population who most felt GM should have gone bankrupt.
aeroo said on August 7, 2012
Rather than paraphrase all the above here is a different view , the smartest ‘cujones’ in business can sometimes lose to sheer desperation…. read on
No idea on what to order.. all menu is in Spanish.
At that moment a waiter pass and serves the table just besides his and the plate-meal looks fantastic.
So, he asks the waiter: What meal is this one?
the waiter answers: Well senor, it is our house most famous meal; “Los cujones del Toro” (in English: the Bulls Nuts)…
He looks amazed and ask the guys at the table.. is it good? and the guys, “Senor, es una maravilha” (It is fantastic, sir!)
He calls the waiter and asks for the same, but the waiter tells him that it is only served one meal a day, since there is only a single “Bull Fight” a day.. if he would like, he could book for tomorrow..
So, he makes the booking for next day.
He returns to the restaurant next night, and it is served the ordered meal..
He eats to the last drop, and calls the waiter.
Look mate, the meal was fantastic, but I think “Los cujones” where a bit small today..
the waiter replies: Si senor, sometimes during the Bull Fight the “Toro”(Bull) Wins…
E. Boon said on August 7, 2012
At first VM blamed Guy Lofalk for all calling him the Trojan Horse in reality working for the Swedisch government, screwing up the China talks by also talking to Geely etc. etc. (See all the interviews).
Today he has his eye on GM only because he thinks he himself can get some money out of it. Has nothing to do with love for SAAB.
Victor has learned from another Dutch businessman (Joep van den Nieuwenhuyzen, and more a tycoon than Victor) that claims can be an interesting income source. Wenn following Joep, the next step is setting-up a separate legal entity called Saab-Claim and listing this company on the stock exchange.
Come on SAAB fans, forget about VM. He’s history as far as it concerns SAAB. Maybe someday new SAAB’s will be made again, but cross your fingers this time a true carmaker will own the brandrights and that this carmaker will know how to nourish and to cherish the SAAB brand for what it is: good driving cars, a little away from the mainstream in design, priced just a few % under BMW so affordable for die hard SAAB fans and attractive to new buyers as well, both resulting in the right volume to run a SAAB factory.
Allan B said on August 7, 2012
The VM saga is fascinating, irrespective of its bearing on the future of Saab under NEVS or whomever.
There may be some truth in the idea that VM has been nursing a plan B of taking someone to court to make some money out of Saab post-bankrupcty knowing in advance that the company was doomed to fail, as I suspected it too, but the people who worked with VM at Saab will tell you he worked his nuts off around the clock for weeks and months to make Saab a going concern. That makes me think, on balance, that he only went for this option after putting his heart and soul into Plan A.
When VM gave his press conference at the bankruptcy, he seemed to me to be hesitant and guarded when asked about his views on GM. I think he must have harboured bad blood towards GM at that point, but needed to keep his powder dry on that until he worked out what his options were. Also, it could be that he only subsequently was able to piece together all the evidence that made it clear it was not just Lofalk’s meddling that made GM stick a spanner in the works. Plus he must have been tired and emotionally frayed as anyone would have been at that time.
While I remain fascinated by the Victor Muller saga, I look forward to NEVS being able to create a ground-breaking new product, and I am relieved that at least some people around here share that view. If for whatever reason NEVS don’t close the deal, or do close it and fail to make their new cars a success after five years, then we can cross that river when we come to it. Perhaps by making pontoons out of old Saabs.
Gatelaw said on August 8, 2012
This law suit is about the consequences of the damages GM caused for not honoring a deal. Honoring deals is the very basis of a working civilization, and breaking them must have consequence. This is almost sacramental in business.
E. Boon said on August 8, 2012
Business ethics or contract breach or law breaking? When you are as big as GM, ethics are unfortunately of less importance for your companie’s existence. In court business ethics are not the subject.
Douglas Brown said on August 7, 2012
Sounds like a good argument, but it will be interesting to see how crooked GM’s attornies are. They will twist it out of shape in their favor. That’s corporate america for ya!
davidgmills said on August 7, 2012
I have said this many times. This is not a case I would take on some contingency if I were Spyker’s lawyers. GM had the right to refuse approval. GM exercised that right. Exercising that right might have cost Spyker a boat load of money. But if GM had the right to approve or not, and chose not to, it is not a breach of contract even if it cost Spyker lots of money.
Now the right to approve something or not certainly has limitations. Clues as to what those limitations are in this case would be in the agreement between Spyker and GM. The whole case will hinge on whether the denial of approval was justifiable. GM might get out of this one on a motion to dismiss if it is clear to a judge GM had the legal right to do what GM did.
davidgmills said on August 7, 2012
Another defense of GM concerns Youngman’s ability to come up with the 200 million Euro. If the fact finder believes that Youngman could not have performed its contract, the fact finder could conclude that Spyker suffered no real harm.
Youngman will be portrayed by GM as a deadbeat. Having a contract with a deadbeat in order to claim you have been damaged is considered almost a fraud on the court. Youngman didn’t ever produce the money to buy Saab and has a history of looking like a deadbeat. Plus, the Chinese government might have had to approve the Spyker/Youngman deal, so there would be another contingency, that would make the Spyker/Youngman contract highly contingent. GM will be seeking all kinds of discovery about Youngman’s ability to perform and about Chinese government approval. Look for the Chinese government to be on GM’s side since GM is highly invested in China with other Chinese companies.
Lots of people on this board hate GM. It shows with some of these posts. Lots of emotion and not much analysis.
terry9000k said on August 7, 2012
Re; Youngman didn’t ever produce the money
But they did put millions of Euros in Saab.
It would be a smack in the face to alot of people, if it is proved YM could have proformed in the contract…….
davidgmills said on August 7, 2012
Millions is not 200 million.
terry9000k said on August 7, 2012
IN: YM 20 mil + Pangda 70m +
They were the only one’s with the Guts to gamble….anf more if they succeeded [but that's the question].
Unlike anyone else.
JerseySaab said on August 8, 2012
There are many reasons to dislike GM.
The company has a long history of incompetent management and bad behavior, and has been rewarded for its incompetence and bad intent with a generous bailout at taxpayer expense.
For many people these are reasons enough. The Saab fiasco is practically the sour icing on a stale, bitter cake.
davidgmills said on August 7, 2012
At least Saab has a very good law firm representing them:
http://www.pattonboggs.com/
Gatelaw said on August 8, 2012
You’re missing the key fact here: the deal was that GM produce the 9-4X until december 2014. No party had the right to end this deal lightly. As far as the NG 9-3 and 9-5 goes, they (and the 9-4X) weren’t affected by the contracts that required GM’s approval as Youngman would become part owner after the Phoenix platform was fully developed. In other words, the agreement with youngman was designed so they would lend Saab Automobile Money until Saab had developed the ability to build cars without GM parts.
Obviously Saab Automobile never got the chance to stand on its own legs as GM in breach of contract threatened to not produce the 9-4X and thereby haulting/stopping the entire package.
Keith said on August 8, 2012
No one showed me the documents, but I’ll make a wild guess that in order for GM to produce the 9-4X until 2014, there was this sticky little requirement that Spyker had to pay GM for the cars being provided. Vendors get difficult when you don’t pay them.
RS said on August 8, 2012
It probably would have been easier to pay GM what was owed had they been able to continue with the support of YM. By stopping the deal GM also wiped out over $300 million worth of shares in SWAN which doesn’t make much business sense to me in itself.
Were they really considering SAAB to be such a threat for future business? Highest compliment to the Saab engineers I guess.
Gatelaw said on August 8, 2012
GM has made a strong point out of the importance of the Chinese automobile market, and any competition there is a threat to GM’s earnings. Even if it’s over 150,000 or so Saabs annually. Think about it…if the 150,000 Saabs means GM sells 150,000 less vehicles, that would be noticeable financial blow.
RS said on August 9, 2012
Gatelaw, your are wrongly assuming that every Saab sold decreases GM’s volume by the same number. That would be the case if only two manufacturers existed in the marketplace. My assessment is that only 10-15 % max of the former Saab customers will go to GM vehicles so the gain in sales must be only one or two days worth of production. On the other hand Saab paid license fees for every car built so with 100-150.000 Saabs rolling out GM could have made a lot of more money for the next few years. Especially the 9-4X they even assembled. Again that 300 million in preferred shares could have been cashed in later on. Now they get nothing.
David hit the nail on the head the with antitrust comment. If it can be shown that the very complex contracts between the tiny Spyker and the gigantic GM gave Detroit the opportunity to jerk Spyker like a puppet on strings under certain conditions. That by itself could be devastating to GM’s case even though that’s not what they were directly sued for.
Finishing off THN production is a major benefit to Opel in Europe -or so they think- and there are big plans for the brand in China.
It will be interesting to see how the court looks at the whole arrangement with GM’s right to veto what SWAN could and could not do with Saab.
After all every investor basically had to be “approved” by GM which in return the Swedish Government referred to time and time again.
Angelo V. said on August 7, 2012
In U.S. courts, a woman sued McDonalds because they served coffee that was hot and she spilled it on her lap. The funny thing is that most of the time, no matter where you buy coffee, or even if you make it at home—-it’s hot. That’s considered desireable unless you’re ordering iced coffee. So the coffee was hot and she drove away. SHE spilled the coffee on HER lap, in HER car, away from McDonalds. She sued—-and she won a large settlement. I’m here to tell you that Spyker can win. They might not get 3 billion. But they can win. If their lawyers play the game better than GM’s lawyers (which might not be difficult if GM’s attorneys are anything like GM’s management), Spyker could fetch a healthy little out of court settlement, which is probably what they really want. I’m glad to see this and I wish every company and every individual who has been wronged by General Morons had the capacity to sue them—or a benefactor like Spyker has to foot the legal bills to go after them. They are a nasty bunch of moochers in my opinion, arrogant as the day is long.
Keith said on August 7, 2012
Angelo – consider switching to decaf.
terry9000k said on August 7, 2012
A Large Scotch might help too!!.
Angelo V. said on August 8, 2012
If I have to switch to decaf, there’s no point in drinking coffee. As for scotch—-single malt will do. And if I really do have a belt or two, my comments about GM are probably going to be denied by the moderators.
davidgmills said on August 7, 2012
Angelo you are spouting the typical libertarian BS about the McDonald’s case.
Not only do you have most of the important facts of the case missing — for example the coffee being heated to 180 degrees F instead of 160 F (which means she had third degree burns within three seconds instead of thirty seconds) the final results of the McDonalds case, after appellate review left her with a few hundred thousand dollars. Her surgeries alone were $50,000 or more, because she had to have skin grafts on her vagina. McDonalds had over 700 complaints about serving coffee that was too hot.
But secondly, a personal injury case is nothing comparable to a business tort case.
A far better comparison case would be Penzoil v. Texaco, in which Penzoil in a tortious interference with a contract lawsuit (similar to this one), got a jury verdict against Texaco for 10 billion dollars and ultimately settled for 3-4 billion after appellate review.
But there is even a big difference between a tortious interference with a contract case (Penzoil) and a tortious interference with a business expectancy case (SAAB).
Angelo V. said on August 8, 2012
My point wasn’t to compare the two cases—-just to point out the fact that at times, surprising outcomes exist in U.S. courtrooms, hearing cases that sometimes considered frivilous by some. In the McDonald’s case—-it was late night fodder—–it was a joke that someone could sue and win because coffee was served hot. For the record, I agree that at the time of that event, McDonald’s coffee was annoyingly hot. What I heard from a franchisee is that many, many customers of McDonalds coffee were Foreman’s and other “bosses” of offices and work crews. They often bought half a dozen cups of coffee to bring somewhere—-in those pop out boxes/trays that hold four cups. McDonalds thought they were doing something to please their customers by making hotter coffee—-that would still be hot when it was delivered somewhere. Frankly, I didn’t like it—–I wouldn’t be able to even drink it for the first 8-10 minutes of a 15 minute ride. They’ve cooled it down now I guess. But the fact remains that if the clumsy lummox didn’t spill it on herself, there wouldn’t have been a lawsuit. I wonder how that lady does in the cell phone age? I’d hate to be on the same road as she does more multi-tasking.
davidgmills said on August 7, 2012
I have now read most of the complaint and there are some interesting things about it.
It starts off sounding like the case was going to be a case for monopoly, and I thought that would be truly interesting, as I had not expected that. But after having mentioned GM’s intent to monopolize the auto market in China, monopolization does not turn out to be Saab’s basis for the claim after all. I suspect there is no claim for international monopoly as there would be for a US monopoly, hence no claim for monopolistic practices. (Interesting question would be whether there is some kind of anti-monopoly treaty under the Hague Convention that could be used between Sweden, Denmark and the US. But GM is accused of monopolizing in China, not in one of these three countries, so I doubt it, and maybe that was something the lawyers looked at and decided would not work either).
Saab is suing GM for Tortious Interference with a Business Expectancy. Tortious Interference with a Contract is a well known legal claim (see Penzoil v. Texaco and my post below). But Tortious Interference with a Business Expectancy is a much lesser known legal claim. The difference is that in one you need an actual contract to interfere with and in the other you need to expectancy of a contract or substantial business relationship. When you don’t have a contract, your damages are even less certain than when you have a contract that establishes entitlement to certain things or funds. So I would consider interference with a business expectancy to be a lesser quality claim than interference with a contract.
Color me not impressed with the claim, but who knows? I also found it odd (suspicious) that the actual claim itself is only a few paragraphs long — about one page out of 27. The rest is interesting preamble.
Clearly GM interefered, so the question will be is whether its interference is legally excused or legally justified based on its contract with Saab. If Saab wins, then this case will be up there with the Penzoil v. Texaco case in terms of legal significance.
davidgmills said on August 7, 2012
Pennzoil v. Texaco was a case in which the jury decided Pennzoil had an agreement with Getty Oil to purchase Getty. A memorandum of agreement had been signed by Pennzoil and Getty although all the final documents had not been executed. Texaco then “interfered” with this agreement and offered to buy Getty for a higher price. Texaco claimed that there was no executed contract between Getty and Pennzoil and thus no interference with a contract. But the jury found that all of the important elements of a contract between Pennzoil and Getty had been agreed upon therefore concluded that Texaco interfered. The jury awarded Penzoil over $10 Billion dollars and the case later settled for $3 billion after Texaco filed for bankruptcy.
Saab’s case is not quite like Pennzoil’s, though there are some interesting similarities.
davidgmills said on August 7, 2012
Forgot to mention that Getty was bought by Texaco after Texaco offered to buy Getty for a higher price.
RS said on August 7, 2012
I wouldn’t be surprised if GM in their arrogance have flat out and heavily breached contracts between them and Spyker? After all Saab Automobile went bankrupt the very next day that they said ‘No’ to the last draft/proposal between SWAN and YM.
GM basically got off the hook and after Saab gone what’s the worst thing that could happen? VM would try to sue them, but that must have seemed pretty unlikely also since he and SWAN would probably be as broke as Saab after December 19th, 2011…
Fast forward to August 2012. Victor and Spyker are live and kicking. If even Holmqvist have seen documents and emails that don’t add up they could have a case stronger than expected.
Angelo V. said on August 8, 2012
David: Are anti-trust laws very similar from nation to nation, or very different? Also, in a court of law, are the sizes of the respective corporations considered or is it strictly how the laws apply? I ask because in a case like Standard Oil—-it seems as though they were viewed as a “bully” and sympathy was given to the small Mom and Pops that they steamrolled over. But literally, did they do anything illegal, or were new laws created to stop them because they were “too big?” You hear people accuse Wal-Mart of this too, though I don’t see what they are doing wrong.
Gatelaw said on August 8, 2012
The act itself doesn’t have to be criminal, but cause damage to a person or company when a contract is breached. The size isn’t relevant, just wether or not a contract was honored or not.
davidgmills said on August 8, 2012
The anti-trust laws were designed to break up the big corporations that used their economic power to run smaller businesses out of business. Unfortunately, breaking up these big corporations like Standard Oil and AT&T didn’t last very long or work as intended. When Standard Oil was broken up into about 7 companies, they were all still owned by the Rockefellers so it just became a cartel. Same thing essentially happened when AT&T split up into all the “MaBells” (about 12 companies as I recall).
Both are essentially back together.
Probably the best thing to do rather than split these companies up is to ensure small companies get more help and assistance in staying alive when the bigs are trying to put them out of business. Of course some might think this is just affirmative action by another name and complain. But there needs to be a way to ensure that small businesses are not driven out of business by the large businesses.
Angelo V. said on August 8, 2012
Is there any morsel of that having happened to Muller’s Saab by GM, or are we comparing apples and oranges? I can’t speak to the legal technicalities—-but it just seems as though GM sold off the division, then killed it when it was in someone else’s hands, for fear of competition from the tiny concern.
davidgmills said on August 9, 2012
A really interesting case would have been the allegation that GM did not want any competition from Saab in the US and Europe and that in order to stifle competition in the US and Europe, it refused to permit Saab to have Chinese financial backing. I could see a very potential case under US law for those allegations.
It might be a much better claim than the one Saab chose, which is the claim of interference with a business expectancy. It might even get Saab around GM’s “approval” defense, because exercising rights of approval might be deemed anti-competitive and thus illegal.
You have long established federal anti-monopoly statutes to rely upon and the potential for treble damages. Haven’t looked at the anti-monopoly statutes in a long time. Many years ago I was involved in several cases under the Bank Tying Act which is the anti-monopoly (also called antitrust) law applicable to banks, so I know a little bit about the anti-monopoly (anti-trust) laws. If you can prove your case, these claims are killers because of the treble damages you can get on top of actual damages. In addition, antitrust laws have some pretty good laws about what kinds of actual damages you can get. Antitrust laws are highly recognized by the legal community and are no way “novel.” I would consider the claim of interference with a business expectancy to be in the “novel” class.
Using both claims might really work well as they seem to fit each otehr and you might be able to get into evidence some facts that you would not otherwise.
I would love to see GM get hit with an antitrust suit and lose. That would wake up the legal community in a hurry.