BMW Has No Case Claims Saab Parts

In an article on Just Auto today Saab Parts insists BMW has no case following their lawsuit against the parts company. This echo’s what Saab Parts had initially stated when the lawsuit was brought forward.

BMW’s case surrounds parts and components ordered by Saab before the bankruptcy and centers around 1.6L turbo engines to have been used on future Saab models.

BMW is seeking US $3.3 million for goods delivered yet Saab Parts has stated time and again that no goods were delivered to them. To an outsider like myself looking at this it would simply appear that BMW had delivered goods to Saab, Saab went into bankruptcy making it impossible to get their money. Then they figured Saab Parts was the way to go because they were outside the bankruptcy. What is unclear to me is how they would think they have a case when there is clearly nothing showing that Saab Parts had ever received any goods. Saab Parts is not Saab Cars and the companies had been set up individually.

“We are still of the opinion they [BMW] have no case,” Saab Automobile Parts CEO, Lennart Stal, told just-auto from Sweden. “We have received the documentation from the legal side from BMW and we are reviewing that.

“According to Swedish law, we have 21 days…so we now have two weeks to give an answer.”

Based on what Lennart Stal is quoted saying here, Saab parts is of the opinion that there is no case with BMW’s lawsuit and this falls in line with an email between myself an Tim Colbeck who had said he felt I was on the right track with my views on the lawsuit.

Every company has its team of lawyers and obviously BMW and their lawyers feel they have reason to sue and one cannot fault them for wanting to be paid if they delivered goods. On the other hand, Saab Parts as its own company separate from Saab Automobiles has a very valid point and if they were never a part of the goods that are claimed to have been delivered, why should they be responsible?

It has always been my way of understanding and I may be wrong, but when Spyker bought Saab and needed the EIB loans, they secured them through the NDO with Saab Parts being collateral. This was done well before BMW entered the picture with any kind of agreements for parts or engines. One would assume BMW at that time knew they were taking a risk not being paid on delivery. When Saab entered bankruptcy and Saab Parts was taken by the NDO, again in my mind, Saab Parts became a new company of sorts and one that I think would be very difficult for BMW to get money from. If Saab Parts did not order or receive the said goods, why should the NDO or Saab Parts pay?

I know we have lawyers who read us here and please note I am not a lawyer, I do not study corporate law or Swedish law but I just don’t see how the NDO wouldn’t be protected by these claims.

17 thoughts on “BMW Has No Case Claims Saab Parts”

  1. IIRC there were 3-4 companies set up autumn 2009 in preparation for the EIB loans. Saab Parts were one and worth the most as collateral for SNDO, but I think also some real estate company were used as collateral. Powertrain was (is?) a GM company of some sort, right? Then there were the Tools company, which there were some issues about a few months ago. They were supposed to be kept a debt free company for some reason, but SNDO claimed they were not that at time of bankruptcy due to collecting debts from the other companies. If BMW go after Parts it’s because there may be some unclear writing in the contracts (Parts may be co-signatures or something). But if the claims are valid in the end is another question. Going after a company that is more or less controlled by the Swedish state is one of the more stupid and time-consuming things to do. The Swedish law-firm representing BMW probably knows that, and is already laughing on their way to the bank…

  2. “We have received the documentation from the legal side from BMW and we are reviewing that.
    “According to Swedish law, we have 21 days…so we now have two weeks to give an answer.”

    Their still reading it:-

  3. Wouldn’t there be some sort of proof of delivery? Also, if there is a technicality at play—-such as the parts were not ORDERED by Saab Parts—-but if for some reason, Saab Parts has posession of any of these engines—-people will be called to court to be questioned. Where are the parts now? Do we know?

    • I have no idea where the parts may be but I doubt they were ordered by Saab Parts in the first place and there really would in my mind need to be proof of delivery.

  4. The question will be can Saab Parts be considered a responsible party. It will be something for the lawyers to fight over. It also opens the door for everyone else, too, if BMW wins.

  5. Of course Saab Parts is going to say ‘BMW has no case’! Every defendant in the world, when sued, says that. ( as GM did, with Spyker)

    Given you are only reporting one sides early rebuttal, I just think it is way too early to form an opinion as to the veracity of the claim.

    Nobody has the facts yet.

    ( ps. Anyone tried to call BMW for their side yet? In the unlikely event that they would talk, it would be interesting to hear what their legal argument is .)

    • I’m not ready at all to say BMW doesn’t have a case. See Hans’ question above—-depending on the answer or answers, this could be in a completely different light legally.

  6. “We are still of the opinion they [BMW] have no case,” Saab Automobile Parts CEO, Lennart Stal, told just-auto from Sweden.
    Words matter. In this case, the word “still” has me perplexed. Why? Because it means Stal is open to the possibility of changing his position depending on what is exposed. “Still” implies that things can change. It’s also a word that covers him—-somewhat non-commital. One word is a window into the possibility that there is more here than meets the eye.

    • I have stayed out of this subject, as I said what needed to be said in the link to the last post, But reading the link there is an interesting part here;

      Saab Automobile got their supplies, but did not pay a penny under it, despite repeated reminders during 2011.
      When Saab Automobile filed for bankruptcy the debt had grown to 2.6 million.
      -” There are bills that are not paid, simply. It’s about the agreement signed between Saab Automobile, Saab Parts and BMW for development and delivery of spare parts, says BMW’s legal representative in Sweden, Susanna Norelid.

      >>>>According to BMW was Saab Parts and Saab Automobile under the agreement are responsible for different parts of the agreement. However, because Saab Automobile now gone bankrupt, Saab Parts severally liable for the entire contract, according to BMW<<<<.

      – Both parties have signed the agreement and because Saab Automobile bankruptcy one turns to the other party says Norelid''.

      The key of course is what the contract actually says.

  7. Morally speaking, SAAB and BMW had an agreement. BMW sent SAAB parts and SAAB took those parts without paying for them. SAAB went into bankruptcy and BMW has not been paid or gotten their parts back. Who has them and why didn’t they get returned?
    Its still wrong either way.

    • Bankruptcy generally protects businesses from owing debt. There was a large craft store chain in my area, “MJ Designs.” A friend of mine—-a tiny little business importing beads/gems from the Far East, used to supply MJ Designs with these items. When MJ Designs went bankrupt, they owed my friend a considerable amount of money—-thousands of dollars. She couldn’t collect. To add insult to injury—-when they reopened under bankruptcy protection—-the beads/gems she had provided them with were on their shelves, being sold—-but they didn’t have to pay her for them. They ended up going out of business again. Regarding these engines—-it depends who is in possession of them—-and the legal standing of that entity. It is entirely possible that BMW has a case.

Comments are closed.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.