Spyker Slaps GM With $3 Billion Lawsuit
By Greg Migliore
Spyker, the Dutch supercar firm and owner of Saab, hit General Motors with a $3 billion lawsuit Monday, claiming GM forced Saab into bankruptcy and interfered with a potential deal with Chinese investors that could have saved the company.
Spyker is suing on behalf of Saab, assuming legal costs in exchange for a significant proportion of any potential award. Saab went into bankruptcy in December 2011.
The lawsuit also says GM interference prevented an agreement with Chinese investor Zhejiang Youngman Lotus Automobile Co. Ltd., which would have allowed Saab to restructure. In court papers, Spyker said GM's motivation was to avoid competition with Saab in the Chinese market.
GM owned all or part of Saab from 1990 until 2010, before selling it to Spyker. Saab is now in receivership. A GM spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a statement, Spyker CEO Victor Muller said: “Ever since we were forced to file for Saab Automobile's bankruptcy in December of last year, we have worked relentlessly on the preparation for this lawsuit which seeks to compensate Spyker and Saab for the massive damages we have incurred as a result of GM's unlawful actions.
“We owe it to our stakeholders and ourselves that justice is done, and we will pursue this lawsuit with the same tenacity and perseverance that we had when we tirelessly worked to save Saab Automobile, until GM destroyed those efforts and deliberately drove Saab Automobile into bankruptcy.”
Content provided by Autoweek.
Get more Car News from Autoweek.
Get the latest Car Reviews from Autoweek.
It's amazing how many people walk around with the lights off in their heads...
The very first line in this story states..."Spyker, the Dutch supercar firm and owner of Saab"
Then... right exactly below this it states... "Spyker is suing on behalf of Saab, assuming legal costs in exchange for a significant proportion of any potential award. Saab went into bankruptcy in December 2011"
????
The first line contradicts the second, and the second contradicts the first...!!!
And then the last line is completely laughable... "we will pursue this lawsuit with the same tenacity and perseverance that we had when we tirelessly worked to save Saab Automobile"...
So... it's safe to assume that they will ..."LOSE"... this lawsuit... because they will put into this lawsuit as much as they did to ..."SAVE"... Saab... and... "STILL LOST" ....!!!
This whole article is a big smelly fart...!
Saab was a good company, weird, but good. They actually cared about safety before most anyone else really did. (Footnote: see Top Gear uk's "Tribute to Saab" from this years past series. In one segment they drop a BMW and a Sabb upside down from a crane. The BMW roof completely collapses but the Saab stays solid!)
Also, Volvo used to run over station wagons with monster trucks in 1980's ads (before Ford took them over.) Safety and longivety was pretty much just a Swedish thing back then.
I guess my main point here is to fill in the gaps of this crappy article by autoweek.
Saab and Volvo were bought by GM and Ford repectively, their reputations were shot by the american quality standards. GM said "Build your new Saab on the cavalier and only change the badges." Ford told Volvo "base your new car on the taurus" Neither Swedish company was good at following those orders but all the buying public saw from that point on was the badge engineering.
Ford did the same thing to Jaguar and Aston Martin but with slightly better results, The Aston Martin DB 7 and Jaguar xk xk8 and xkr were built on the 20 year old (at the time) Jaguar XJS platform, the X-Type was a Ford Mondeo and the S-type was a Lincolin LS. Ford sold off all three companies to India during the auto bailouts.
GM closed Saturn, Saab, Pontiac, Oldsmobile (2004), Hummer, Daewoo, and cut ties with Suzuki. I am assuming that they may consolidate global brands Opel Vauxall Alpheon and Holden under one name, (something chineese) since many are mostly badge engineered.
My other point is that its a sue-happy world. Spyker threw out the new GM based Saabs before they were ready and they got hit with recalls and reliability issues. Is this GM's fault? NOPE!
If it had been a craigslist ad, it would have said: "61 year old Saab company for sale, needs work, as-is, no warranty. Best offer over $50.00 Owner moving to China."
IF the autoweek reporter had done a full story, instead of this hack-job reporting, it would also be mentioned that Spyker was selling a GM patented platfform and that Spyker owned the company but was building Saabs on the platform under license from GM. They had no legal right to sell GM patents to a chineese investor or anyone else. Since China does not recognise international copyright or patent laws, it would not have been in GM's best interest to give those patents away, which is why GM blocked their chineese patnership.
One final point, Spyker had the opportunity to sell the company for a small profit before and after bankruptcy to India and China.
The Saab company was recently sold to National Electric Vehicle Sweden (NEVS), a chineese/Japanese company. The 9-3, 9-4 and 9-5 platforms are still GM patents.The Saab Automobile brand name is controlled by Saab AB and not currently licensed to NEVS Spyker or GM.
Lets see if I got this right ... GM owned Saab .. .in 2010, Stryker decided that Saab was a good buy ... less than 2 years later, Saab files bankruptcy Soooo .. Either Stryker was completely stupid for not doing the research that would show them that Saab was failing ... or ... Saab was NOT failing and Stryker ran it into the ground in less than 2 years ... In any event, they want GM to pay for their folly ...
I don't like GM and have not bought their product in over 30 years. But fair is fair ... Eat it Stryker!
It is about time that they had the guts to do this, just maybe it will result in the resurrection of Saab. GM couldn't let Saab be because the cars lasted too long; I just got out of one with a quarter of a million miles and no major repair. It had a minor problem with the engine and will need coolant, but I gave it to my daughter to use a third car instead of renting one. I bought a "transition" Saab that I hope will take me through until they do build them again, but the problem is that GM and the bankruptcy destroyed the dealer network. My Saab dealer is now selling FIATS!!!!
EXPLORE NEW CARS
MORE ON MSN AUTOS
‘Eleanor’ Mustang sells for $1M'Gone in 60 Seconds' movie car driven by Nicolas Cage has a new home.
ABOUT EXHAUST NOTES
Cars are cool, and here at MSN Autos we love everything about them, but we also know they're more than simply speed and style: a car is an essential tool, a much-needed accessory to help you get through your day-to-day life. What you drive is also one of the most important investments you can make, so we'll help you navigate your way through the car buying and ownership experiences. We strive to be your daily destination for news, notes, tips and tricks from across the automotive world. So whether it's through original content from our world-class journalists or the latest buzz from the far corners of the Web, Exhaust Notes helps you make sense of your automotive world.
Have a story idea? Tip us off at exhaustnotes@live.com.
