Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Saab Owner Sues GM For £1.9bn  
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7550 posts, RR: 4
Posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2975 times:

Great news I hope they win, GM did all they could to screw up Saab.

Quote:
Saab and Spyker, the Dutch company that owned the Swedish car maker, have filed a $3bn (£1.9bn) action against General Motors. The figure is based on the projected 2016 value of Saab, three years after the planned launch of the all-new 9-3 models.

Filed at the United States District Court for Eastern Michigan, it states: "This lawsuit seeks redress for the unlawful actions of General Motors Company (GM) to avoid competition with Saab in the Chinese market. GM’s actions had the direct and intended result of driving Saab Automobile AB (Saab) into bankruptcy by tortuously interfering with a transaction with Chinese investors that would have permitted Saab to restructure and remain a solvent, going concern."

Rest of the article here

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3634 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2886 times:

I can't think there are many people who ever thought that the projected value of Saab in 2016 would eve rhave been anything other than zero.
Spyker were a specialist car manufacturer making around 50 cars a year, playing with the big boys like GM was only ever going to end in tears.
They suited GM though, as it would have been very bad PR for GM to close Saab down themselves. GM were always going to protect their intellectual properties, quite why Spyker thought differently is a mystery. GM's pockets will be a lot deeper than Spykers and they will grind the case along until Spyker run out of money.


User currently offlinesccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5555 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2762 times:

China is GM's fastest growing market, a market in which they are very successful. GM had veto power over the sale, based upon the extensive use of GM hardware (suspension, transmission, engines) in Saab automobiles. Donating their intellectual property to a competitor is no way to run a business.

This lawsuit is crafted of the finest gossamer, and will fail.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7550 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2701 times:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 1):
Spyker were a specialist car manufacturer making around 50 cars a year, playing with the big boys like GM was only ever going to end in tears

Spyker was sold to finance the Saab deal, they had nothing to do with it.

[Edited 2012-08-08 23:14:30]

User currently offlinesignol From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2007, 3015 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 2669 times:

I thought you meant, a guy bought a car and is now suing for 1.9b !

signol



Flights booked: none :(
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3634 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2639 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 3):
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 1):Spyker were a specialist car manufacturer making around 50 cars a year, playing with the big boys like GM was only ever going to end in tears
Spyker was sold to finance the Saab deal, they had nothing to do with it.

As the quoted article repeatedly mentions Spyker, and Spykers website specifically mentions that they are taking legal action against GM I'm not convinced you are correct.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7550 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2636 times:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 5):
As the quoted article repeatedly mentions Spyker, and Spykers website specifically mentions that they are taking legal action against GM I'm not convinced you are correct.

There was once one Spyker, now there are two.


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2255 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2602 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 3):
Spyker was sold to finance the Saab deal, they had nothing to do with it.

No it wasn't. It was going to be sold but the deal fell through. It is still owned by Spyker NV (formally named Swedish Automobile until April). So yes, Spyker is still (weakly) connected to Saab.

Besides, even if they were sold, it was Spyker's owners who bought Saab. It is fair game to look at Spyker's (pitiful) performance in determining if Saab really ever had a shot after being sold.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8629 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2588 times:

Saab would have had a shot if GM let a Chinese entity buy them (effectively, giving a Chinese entity access to 2011-era GM technology). GM would not be enthusiastic about that. They preferred European buyers with some Western IPR protections.

Then again, Ford sold Volvo to a Chinese group and Volvo survives today (and this is to Ford's credit). I think it is disgusting Saab wasn't handled better.


User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2579 times:

Quoting signol (Reply 4):
I thought you meant, a guy bought a car and is now suing for 1.9b !

Same here!

And depending on how it turned out I was going to pick up a used Saturn and take my chances.


User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3068 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2563 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Thread starter):
GM did all they could to screw up Saab.

I thought SAAB was circling the drain when GM bought them, and GM threw good money after bad by keeping SAAB on artificial life support for many years until SAAB was bought by Spyker.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 2):
This lawsuit is crafted of the finest gossamer, and will fail.

Agreed.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 8):
Then again, Ford sold Volvo to a Chinese group and Volvo survives today (and this is to Ford's credit). I think it is disgusting Saab wasn't handled better.

In the big picture, I think both purchases were bad investments to begin with. In the late 80s/early 90s, both GM and Ford were flush with cash and spending money foolishly by buying or introducing brands they didn't need: Ford bought Jaguar (why?), Volvo (if I recall correctly, to keep Renault from acquiring them; In retrospect it probably would have worked out better for everyone involved if Renault had acquired Volvo instead), and apparently in a drunken stupor, Aston Martin (the biggest "why?" of all) while GM introduced Saturn and bought SAAB, using money that would have been much better spent updating the five (six if you count GMC) brands they already had.

No offense intended to fans of SAABs, Volvos, Jaguars, Aston Martins, or Saturns, but where was the business case for these purchases in the first place?



Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6722 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2550 times:

There may be grounds for some money but 3bn is ridiculous. PSA Peugeot Citroën is not even valued that high currently and it's a far bigger manufacturer with plants everywhere (except North America).


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8629 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2538 times:

Quoting TSS (Reply 10):
No offense intended to fans of SAABs, Volvos, Jaguars, Aston Martins, or Saturns, but where was the business case for these purchases in the first place?

There wasn't one. But those were good brands. The brand part was good. There just wasn't any brain talent to manage them.

Audi, VW and Porsche were just as weak in the early 1990s... they were pitiful basket cases. Now look at them. Muscle-bound, profitable titans. All these brands had good potential, but it requires good mgmt and corporate structure to realize a brand's potential. The Germans even made Bentley and Rolls profitable.


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2255 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2524 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 12):
There wasn't one. But those were good brands. The brand part was good. There just wasn't any brain talent to manage them.

The biggest problem with most of those brands were that they were in horrible shape when they were purchased (Saturn obviously not included), especially Jaguar and Saab, and it took a lot more than what was expected to turn them around. Ford didn't do too bad with Jaguar and Aston Martin, and much of their current success can be attributed to them.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 12):
The Germans even made Bentley and Rolls profitable.

You have to be careful with an RR comparison, as BMW effectively created a new company using the RR licensing it received from the other RR (The engine maker). The old RR was sold to VW but they only retained the rights to the Bentley brand.

[Edited 2012-08-09 10:33:51]

User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7550 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2506 times:

Quoting TSS (Reply 10):
Ford bought Jaguar (why?)

They wanted a premium brand to compete with the Germans and Lexus, Lincoln wasn't good enough Jag for 2.5 billion and Land Rover for 3.3 billions were than answer, bunch of twits, sold them just as they became profitable for 2.3 billion plus a 600 million injection into the company pension plan.

Quoting TSS (Reply 10):
Volvo (if I recall correctly, to keep Renault from acquiring them; In retrospect it probably would have worked out better for everyone involved if Renault had acquired Volvo instead)

Not true, Ford bought Volvo for it's safety technology, they also bought Volvo because they thought they could turn them into a luxury brand. On a side note Volvo AB own Renault trucks.

Quoting TSS (Reply 10):
and apparently in a drunken stupor, Aston Martin (the biggest "why?" of all)

Ford almost bought Ferrari once, I guess it was an ego thing buying Aston.


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2255 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2501 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 14):
Ford almost bought Ferrari once, I guess it was an ego thing buying Aston.

It was probably more to better compete with GM, who at the time owned Lotus, and Chrysler, who at the time owned Lamborghini and part of Maserati. Ford lost Alfa Romeo to Fiat and Aston Martin was in need of cash.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8629 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2498 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 13):
The biggest problem with most of those brands were that they were in horrible shape

Pretty true, but I would highlight Audi. In 1991 or so, Audi was selling far less than Saab in the USA. Volkswagen was known as a shitbox builder.


Today, Audi is a peer of Mercedes-Benz... VW is considered above Toyota... Another brand that rises & falls periodically is Chrysler.


User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3068 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2498 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 14):
Quoting TSS (Reply 10):
Volvo (if I recall correctly, to keep Renault from acquiring them; In retrospect it probably would have worked out better for everyone involved if Renault had acquired Volvo instead)

Not true, Ford bought Volvo for it's safety technology

In the past Volvo made a point of advertising how they specifically did not file exclusive patents on their safety technology so that all car manufacturers could take advantage of said technologies to make cars safer as a group. Had Volvo reversed this policy at the time Ford bought them?

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 14):
they also bought Volvo because they thought they could turn them into a luxury brand.

Bad idea, in my opinion. Volvo excelled at building comfortable, capable, and supremely conservative cars targeted at the middle class/mid-price segment. This made Volvo the European equivalent of Mercury or Buick, one of which Ford already owned.



Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2255 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2494 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 16):

Pretty true, but I would highlight Audi. In 1991 or so, Audi was selling far less than Saab in the USA. Volkswagen was known as a shitbox builder.


Today, Audi is a peer of Mercedes-Benz... VW is considered above Toyota... Another brand that rises & falls periodically is Chrysler.

True, but that is in the US only. Audi/VW sales remained relatively healthy in Europe and elsewhere during the time which helped the company turn around their American operations. Compare that to Jaguar or Saab, who were generally basket cases world wide.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15778 posts, RR: 27
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2465 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 15):
It was probably more to better compete with GM, who at the time owned Lotus, and Chrysler, who at the time owned Lamborghini and part of Maserati.

Unless there was a second time, the time Ford almost bought Ferrari was in the early 1960s, when Lamborghini was just starting out.

Then Enzo got mad over something about how much he would control racing, cut off the talks, and the GT40 was born.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2255 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2460 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 19):
Unless there was a second time, the time Ford almost bought Ferrari was in the early 1960s, when Lamborghini was just starting out.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was talking about when Ford bought a majority of Aston Martin in 1987.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7550 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2368 times:

Quoting TSS (Reply 17):
Had Volvo reversed this policy at the time Ford bought them?

At the time Volvo also had the best crash testing laboratory in the industry, Ford wanted access to this knowledge. Buying Volvo made Fords better safer cars.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26593 posts, RR: 75
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2160 times:

Quoting TSS (Reply 10):
I thought SAAB was circling the drain when GM bought them, and GM threw good money after bad by keeping SAAB on artificial life support for many years until SAAB was bought by Spyker.

SAAB was a mildly profitable, niche car maker. GM tried to do too much with them. Ford let Volvo maintain a great deal with autonomy, which is why it stayed ok.

Quoting TSS (Reply 10):
Ford bought Jaguar (why?), Volvo (if I recall correctly, to keep Renault from acquiring them; In retrospect it probably would have worked out better for everyone involved if Renault had acquired Volvo instead), and apparently in a drunken stupor, Aston Martin (the biggest "why?" of all)

Ford bought Jaguar because it was a strong marque that needed a cash infusion and needed pretty much the only thing that Ford was doing reliably at the time - new electrical systems. Jag built beautiful engines and had fantastic design, which trickled down into Ford products. Visteon, Ford's electronics division, is and was known for its high reliability. It was actually a really good match.

Volvo was for a lot of reasons. I think Volvo should have remained niche and together with Volvo AB.

Aston was a d!@k waiving contest with Chrysler, who bought Lambo around the same time. Its not like Ford ever really used Aston technology in their cars.

Quoting Polot (Reply 13):
You have to be careful with an RR comparison, as BMW effectively created a new company using the RR licensing it received from the other RR (The engine maker). The old RR was sold to VW but they only retained the rights to the Bentley brand.

Well, not really. Rolls-Royce plc controlled the RR name the whole time. VW wanted the name, which was considered the most valuable part of the deal, but RR plc decided to license the name to BMW - who had already been working with them. VW tried to claim later that they only wanted Bentley, which had more models and was always higher volume, but really was trying to save face and keep from getting completely screwed by BMW, who could have shut down the whole thing by pulling their engine support.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 14):
They wanted a premium brand to compete with the Germans and Lexus, Lincoln wasn't good enough Jag for 2.5 billion and Land Rover for 3.3 billions were than answer, bunch of twits, sold them just as they became profitable for 2.3 billion plus a 600 million injection into the company pension plan.

Ford was bleeding cash and needed to sell what it could. Land Rover was a sweetheart deal for BMW, that bought Rover Group specifically for Land Rover and MINI. They dumped the rest of Rover, and its massive debt, to the Phoenix Consortium for a nominal figure (one pound, as I recall), then flipped Land Rover to Ford, with a deal to supply engines for several years. They then created a monster niche brand in MINI.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 21):
At the time Volvo also had the best crash testing laboratory in the industry, Ford wanted access to this knowledge. Buying Volvo made Fords better safer cars.

No question. Volvo also had a very strong niche following. Same as SAAB. Ford did a better job of recognizing this and not screwing up a good thing.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineB727 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 521 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1867 times:

I can add that we owned pre-GM saabs and had great luck with them. It seemed their product changed after GM got there hands into it. Look at the Saab 97 nothing but a trailblazer with leather interior.
We have since switched to Volvo. Great cars, pricey to fix, but most of that is done in my own garage. My fear is the Chinese company that bought Volvo, will do the same thing that GM did to Saab. I think Saab is (was) a great car. We had a few that ran well past 200K.
We will see how the Volvos hold up.

Just ny 2 cents.


B727
Glenn


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Inmate Sues Govt For Not Preventing His Escapes posted Fri Jan 4 2008 04:57:31 by Airlinelover
Man Sues McDonald's For 10m posted Sat Aug 11 2007 14:20:24 by PAHS200
Judge Sues Drycleaners For $65 Million posted Thu May 3 2007 15:54:20 by Levent
Toyota Overtakes GM For 1st Time posted Tue Apr 24 2007 13:01:30 by Dtwclipper
Senators Owner Plays Santa For Troops posted Sun Apr 1 2007 23:02:48 by SKYSERVICE_330
Man Sues CBS For Janet Jackson Boob And Looses! posted Fri May 28 2004 16:21:12 by QIguy24
Federal Prosecutor Sues Ashcroft For Mismanagement posted Tue Feb 17 2004 19:28:05 by B747-437B
Sex Offender Sues For Right To Attend Church posted Sun Jun 20 2010 22:33:48 by EA CO AS
Pour Out An Absolut For Saab Auto (1947-2009) posted Sun Dec 13 2009 12:52:47 by N328KF
GM Keeps Saab posted Tue Nov 24 2009 09:45:17 by Greaser