Spyker’s US$3bln lawsuit accusing General Motors of trying to bankrupt SAAB has been dismissed by a US federal court judge who said GM had the right to block the sale of a company using its technology.
This quote was everywhere yesterday and was not too surprising. Some of us thought there was a case when looking at the big picture but the US District Court Judge Gershwin Drain looking at everything before him ruled otherwise and granted the motion to dismiss the matter.
General Motors had a contractual right to approve or disapprove the proposed transaction.
He also stated that the deal Spyker had reached to purchase Saab had given GM the right to stop changes in ownership and that GM’s statements voicing its opposition to the Youngman deal were not made with malice or to intentionally harm Saab.
GM’s lawyer, Kathryn Kirmayer, called Spyker’s deal with Youngman where they would eventually take a 70% ownership in Saab, “sketchy in many respects”.
Spyker’s lawyer Ben Chew, had said that Spyker and Youngman had reached the framework of a deal that would have allowed the assembly of Saab vehicles without the use of GM technology and platforms. They had also agreed to loan Saab 200m Euro which would have kept the company moving.
Spyker has not said if it will appeal the decision and at this point with everything that has happened, it’s hard to say what the right move would be. Reuters had spoke to Victor Muller who said “we will be awaiting the written order and then we will assess”.
It is very hard to look at things from where most of us sit and think that GM’s actions and words were not made to intentionally harm Saab. It is beyond most of us to not think that it was very deliberate and direct. That all being said, if GM did in fact act within the agreement and within the laws that govern them, as crappy as their actions were….. maybe it is best to move on from this whole mess and focus on the future.
The future for Victor and Spyker looks to be promising with a beautiful new car set to be produced and a partnership that was formed through the Saab trials. For Saab/NEVS, we have not even scratched the surface of what they can be or where they are headed. We know now that turbo engines are not just the DNA of the past but will be a part of the future.
It may be time to forget about GM and look forward, I say forget as most will never forgive.
I presume that this was decided on a Motion for Summary Judgment. Does anyone have access to the decision? Please post if you do. Thanks
In the article I read, I think the Judge promised a more detailed description of the decision at a later date.
Judge Drain’s opinion/order has not been published by the Court (although the Minute Entry for the June 10, 2013 hearing confirms that GM’s Motion to Dismiss was granted).
I will post the opinion/order when it is published – Saab Automobile v. General Motors Co., 4:12-cv-13432, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit).
Detroit Judge…very predictable outcome.
Agreed.
Agree with you and indeed hope the Spyker shares will once start rising again.
However it is good this case has been ruled; nothing else expected but it was definitively a good try.
Focus on the future, as you say Jason. It is in the best interest of NEVS, Saab ,and possible future American sales to drop the issue. As Obama said of Russia, let’s reboot the relationship.
Chris: Where are you getting the statistic that well over 50% happen to like GM and their products? Go to Google or Bing and find a graph showing GM’s market share from 1970-2012 (or the latest year you can find). That does tell a story about whether people are liking GM products more—-or less. Also, NEVS isn’t suing GM. No worries there. It’s Saab’s FORMER owner involved in the litigation.
I consider GM to mean Generally Mediocre… I wouldnt think of buying one – just all nasty plastic built for the middle of the road buyer
Angelo, People should allowed to post comments here without fear of your constant trolling. To sit there with a straight face and declare that you hope and believe that millions of American will develop a very negative attitude towards GM, and somehow that will improve sales of NEVS cars is totally nuts. NEVS must move forward and reject the past, the corporate past. No one needs to be reminded of Saab’s trials and failures. Please try to be less confrontation. thank you.
Chris: Do you consider it trolling if someone else (or others, plural) express condemnation of GM—-and then you write a comment telling us to put it all in the past? I think the words were “Drop the issue.” Is that confrontational? I didn’t think so—-and was just continuing the converastion. As Sylvester “Sly” Stone once said “Different Strokes For Different Folks.”
…and so on and so on and scooby dooby doo-by.
No. It light not be trolling, bit it’s geting pretty boring Sven someone always pics on everything that doesn’t fit.
I have stopped commenting, but felt Chris was right on tvist one.
I feed up by your constant bashing on the ones you don’t agree with and your obvious lack of understanding for the ones not speeking english as à native language.
That’s it. Keep on bashing Angelo, you are good at it.
I’m out.
Show me some evidence of lack of understanding of people who don’t speak English as a native language. In fact, I think just the opposite is true—-I only speak English and I admire people who speak more than one language and I think I’ve posted that sentiment here before, more than once. As well, if there is any “bashing” going on, by me, it’s a reaction to others who might be obnoxious or arrogant in disagreeing with me. I am civil and do not “pick on” people unless I’m mistreated in the first place.
As a point of interest many SAAB owners did not know that she used to owned by GM when she was and many never even knew that a new 9-5 even came out in 2010. Many have any inkling that there is now a NEVS. “Low information care buyers!”
“GM’s attorney, Kathryn Kirmayer, said on Monday that Spyker bought Saab knowing GM had the right to veto any change of ownership. “GM would have said absolutely no way” to a rival like Ford Motor Co buying Saab, she said.”
Hey Kat, we all know why too: Any rival buying Saab and making them profitable would expose GM for the complete buffoons they are.
lol, I sometimes wish we had a like button.
@ JasonPowell, me too !! 🙂
I always viewed the Chinese solution as a total Hail Mary attempt. VM knew that GM had veto power, I just wished he looked elsewhere for funding. Or maybe he did and all roads lead back to China?
It seems that way. He had looked a lot of places and it seemed only the Chinese had money they wanted to invest.
It was a case of poor timing or maybe he was a victim of poor timing. There would be more money today, in 2013, then there was 2 years ago.
Yes, the timing couldn’t have been much worse. Too bad.
Having won legally doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the winner being ethical or moral. Often the opposite is the case.
Very true. I guess the “Detroit Judge” was in the 20% of people living there who like GM—-while the rest despise them.
Jason: Without hearing the depositions/testimony, we can’t have any idea how we would have ruled—-there are too many variables. If GM obstructed the sale,even if there was a plan NOT to use GM technology—it’s possible that laws were compromised or broken by GM. They are not saints. And having a judge from the city where they are based—-where they employ such a large percentage of the workforce—in a city that frankly, is in serious financial trouble, with outrageously high unemployment—might have weighed on the judge in the ruling.
You’re right, you’d have to IMAGINE that there truly was no case. You couldn’t possibly KNOW, unless you had privy to every document the judge did. Judges get things wrong. And in this case, the home field couldn’t have been more stacked against one party, could it? And seriously, LOL, you believe part of GM’s motivation for the sale was customer sentiment? When has that EVER mattered to General Motors? Answer: NEVER. Seriously.
sorry yes Rune, I mixed that up, it was the EIB who messed up the Antonov bit. That whole part of the story is still very confusing because the EIB loan was safe because of the NDO and I still can’t see what they had to lose in all of this.
I agree that Saab would need to sell the 9-3 between 25-30K. They would also need to improve the car to at least the Ford Focus ST and 2014 VW GTI level in terms of quality and content. That’s no gimmie.
For fleetowners the 9-3 should have been priced slightly (just a tiny bit) under the Audi A4. The 9-5 slightly under the BMW 5. This would have created some volume in the SAAB customer mix and machines running in order to cover costs. Private customers would have created the profit margin.
Yes, definitely on target with that comment EB.
And they should push for a long warranty – not that anyone will be there to honor it.
Not going after you Jason – this is for the parent company, NEVS. This has never been about service at the local level.
ok, sounded as if you were questioning wether we would be there or not and that is something that we are a little sensitive about because most of us could be somewhere else. Like Tim Colbeck at SPNA, we choose to be there for our customers who are more like our friends and rather than give up or run away, we are going through this with all of you and feel a sense of responsibility to ensure you are looked after.
We’ve already tried to move Saab up market and that failed in spectacular fashion. No one was willing to pay 50k+ for the NG 9-5, Saab can’t afford to make the same mistake.
The NG9-5’s level of marketing was close to nill. Reducing the price of the product would not do much to fix that. Many of those who saw the car and could afford it, bought one. I’d be surprised if many bought a more expensive (and inferior) Beamer instead.
NEVS needs to convince enough buyers that there is value associated with owning a good driving car produced in smaller quantities, i.e. people who feel that owning a less common car that they like is something in the plus column when evaluating a car’s value. A big plus that more than offsets any deficiency of something like the quality of the dashboard plastics.
Yes, but the real question becomes “How much is too much?” I believe that charging $30,000 plus for a 9-3, is in fact charging a premium over something like a Volkswagen. I could see charging up to a $5000.00 premium for the things you are advocating—exclusivity offsetting less content and perhaps cheaper plastics—-but when it climbs to having to pay $10,000 for exclusivity—-a less common car—–prospective customers bow out. That’s why Saab went out of business—-or at least it’s one plausible explanation, one reason.
have you looked at what sedan $30k gets you new these days ? i just ran a quick new car scan withing 50 miles of me on Cars.com, with the parameters of between $30 and 31K, sedan.
You get; Honda Accords, Toyota Camrys, , Kia Optima’s, Hyundai Sonatas, Nissan Altimas, VW Passats, Ford Fusions, Chevy malibus, for the most part. None are exactly premium vehicles. All thoroughly mainstream vehicles.
The premium sedan segment essentially starts at $30k in the US.
Scand: Every car you listed—-are they all considerably larger/more interior volume than a 9-3? The Acura ILX starts at $26,900. Couldn’t Saab sell in the same ballpark with Acura? If NEVS can’t deliver that, it’s over before it begins.
Maybe if they have somewhere near the same volume as Honda/Acura and they don’t build the cars in Sweden. More likely the cars will be priced higher.
C-H-I-N-A. Eventually, to compete, they are going to need to build some of these cars in China. Others here have made the comment—-it makes almost no sense at all to build cars in Sweden and sell them in China. They must be planning for a Chinese factory. They might have to sell at a very, very modest profit for a few years in order to make this work. If they come out of the gate with an overpriced car, they’re sunk.
If NEVS can build a 9-3 that people want and can make money selling it for $30k they will have revolutionized automobile manufacturing/distribution.
Also, if NEVS’ primary product is to be a 9-3 premium EV, it will be difficult to market the EV version as a premium car if the same car with an ICE is placed in the mainstream family sedan price range.
Seb, sorry but my experience first hand tells me you are wrong. I have a 9-3 TX and through twisty country roads particularly in the wet it is faster and more sure footed than my friends BMW (E90) 335i. While the 9-3 is far from perfect it is not a POS, unless you think top end BMWs are too.
The front wheel drive argument is becoming a non-issue with most premium manufacturers offering AWD. Heck, my 2011 NG 9-5 has AWD and is one of the reasons I purchased it.
Baver: That is true—-but in many cases, don’t you have to pay extra to get AWD from the others? For example, BMW—–aren’t they RWD (at this point in time, about to change though)—–and to get AWD, it’s an expensive option? WIth Saab, their least expensive car has FWD that is more than capable in most climates. I guess I was really angling this at comparing them to BMW. I own one of each and love them both, though I’d rather walk in the snow than drive my BMW!
Yes, usually it is an option, but one that more and more people are going for. In my neck of the woods, most new BMWs I see are X-Drive. Same with Volvo. The new BMW X1 is standard front wheel drive, as is its 1-series sedans.
To my surprise the press in Scandinavia slammed the handling of the X1 when the conditions weren’t perfect.
If NEVS ever produces a turbo Saab they should make the entry car a rock solid, ultra safe FWD that eats snow for breakfast and won’t break down after 3 years because they had to save money on parts in order to be price competitive against VW.
I believe Saabers would appreciate this more than anything. It would also be the best way to rebuild brand reputation and resale value in the future.
Yes Kathryn, 70% ownership by a company that actually gave a $hit about the brand/product could be considered “sketchy”, seeing as when GM had 100% for nearly 20 years, you would call that……gross mismanagement?? Bankruptcy/bailout of the parent company would be WHAT exactly?
And Cadillacs, Audis or ANY German cars FTM STILL DONT DO what Saabs did.
Ahhh…these are the times I wish there was a giant “LIKE” button to press!
+1
I won’t even buy a late-model Saab anymore; too much cheap GM stuff; even the newest 9-5 has written GM all over it…. 🙁
So happy to be driving a 9000 2.3T…!
I have noted this before, but my 2007 9-5 built in the GM era has been totally trouble free. Sure, the leather is cheap compared to what was in my 9000s, but I have owned at least one of every SAAB model (except the Sonnet) starting with a 60’s 2 stroke and this 9-5 has set the bar in terms of dependability.
3cyl: Same with my GM era 2004 9-5. It’s low mileage but it’s also almost 9 years old—-and has had remarkable reliability. If you look at Consumer Reports data—-some of the GM years were the most reliable Saabs.
forget GM and look forward
That’s right Jason 😉
I hope the future will be good
Forget all about GM; buy a 9000; 0% GM 🙂
(unless you buy a nonturbo V6 that is…)
What is VM up to? They apparently did a very thorough analysis before filing the trial. Would they have done that if there was a clause in the contract stating something like “GM has to approve any sale of Saab or a stake in it to a third party” or something like that? And now, everything is so clear? Weird.
Called it. The outcome was inevitable. I am surprised that Spyker’s lawyers didn’t at least try to squeeze a nuisance value settlement out of GM, as GM would have gladly thrown millions of dollars in order to buy out early.
Say what you will about GM’s cars, but GM has always had the best lawyers in the business. The best.
GM has the best lawyers. VM the best fantasy to sell. Both didn’t understand …. what SAAB was about. Today SAAB r.i.p.
you cant even squeeze a nuisance value settlement out of them if the case was a non starter in the first place! It will be interesting to see if he appeals, because its now even more of an uphill climb and long shot than he already had up to this point.
Looking forward to what? NEVS takes ages to come out with all that matters: cars to sell.
GM, VM, NEVS…. I had rather seen BMW
Indeed. NEVS appears to look like a government led by old grey haired men at the end of their career.
But that was beyond any logical reasoning. BMW has quite a number of front wheel drive projects going on for years in Munich (as I was told), and they have all the competences to do this in house. Why should they buy Saab? They have been burned by Rover, and the Quandt family has apparently decided that they will not buy any more companies.
The only imaginable interest might have been in the factory to build Minis. This capacity problem has now been solved by using the plant in Genk, BE, iirc.
Also, BMW profit margins are reported to be relatively high. Unless they can price SAABs at a comparable profit margin, it is counter productive financially to dilute their financial ratios.
Mini = frontwheel drive, compact, style icon, customers that are prepared to pay extra for something out of the ordinary.
Saab = frontwheel drive, style icon, customers that are prepared to pay extra for something out of the ordinary.
With SAAB BMW would have got not only dy hard SAAB customers but also part of the AUDI and Volvo market share. Scandinavian design + German technique. Count me in!
And if an entry level Saab, a 4 door hatch just slightly larger than a Mini—-could be brought in at or near Mini money—we’d have a hit on our hands. I hope NEVS is thinking this way. My fear is that their eyes or on the same thing Muller’s were—-the big enchilada to “compete” against BMW—-and if that’s the case, they’ll have heir behind handed to them. Fight for VW customers, mini customers, Mazda, etc.—-at the lower end—build a base that way and graduate these buyers to the more expensive, more exclusive, more profitable cars later.