Jump to content

  •  

Latest Reviews


Not This Again: Spyker Sues GM Over Saab Sale

Saab Spyker General Motors Court

William Maley
Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com
August 6, 2012

Former Saab owner Spyker has filled a $3 billion lawsuit against General Motors for its actions of blocking the sale of Saab to Chinese automotive firm, Youngman Automotive.

"This lawsuit seeks redress for the unlawful actions GM took to avoid competition with Saab Automobile in the Chinese market," Spyker said in a statement.

"GM's actions had the direct and intended objective of driving Saab Automobile into bankruptcy, a result of GM's tortiously interfering with a transaction between Saab Automobile, Spyker and Chinese investor Youngman that would have permitted Saab Automobile to restructure and remain a solvent, going concern."

"It is hard to believe. We have no comment until we see the lawsuit," GM Spokesman James Cain told Reuters.

GM might not have seen the lawsuit, but we have. The suit filled in U.S. District Court for the eastern district of Michigan alleges that GM prevented the reorganization of Saab even after agreements were put in place that no GM technology went to Saab's Chinese partners. Saab's Phoenix platform, which was developed separately from GM, was going to be sold to China. The lawsuit further alleges that GM even torpedoed an 11th hour agreement that would have prevented any near term participation of Youngman until after Saab's use of GM technology had passed.

Source: Reuters

Spyker's Statement and Filing is on Page 2

William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at william.maley@cheersandgears.com or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.






  • 0


34 Comments

Two words for Spyker from GM: Drop dead.
    • 0
  • Quote
Spyker! Spyker! Spyker! Spyker!

Looks like I picked the wrong week to file bankruptcy.
    • -1
  • Quote
Interesting, but seems like grasping at straws.
    • -1
  • Quote
I would be surprised if this actually goes anywhere. GM exercised their right and this is the end result. Grow up spyker
    • 0
  • Quote

I would be surprised if this actually goes anywhere. GM exercised their right and this is the end result. Grow up spyker


That is the whole thrust of the lawsuit. Spyker alleges that the deal with Youngman was structured in such a way that GM no longer had the right to interfere.
    • 2
  • Quote
honestly, they both need to grow up. this is old hat. somebody--whoever ends up with Saab--needs to just liquidate them and be done with it. I think that unfortunately, Saab is long past saving. not exactly the best scenario, but it's proably best for everybody. what else can be done, honestly? It seems as though Saab has changed hands--or almost changed hands-- so many times, it's hard to keep track. and every next owner knows that if they try to save it, Saab is just going to drag them down with it.
    • 0
  • Quote
In the olden days when GM had a lot of money and power, they would have squashed Spyker like a bug.
    • -1
  • Quote

I would be surprised if this actually goes anywhere. GM exercised their right and this is the end result. Grow up spyker



Agree with you there, sir!

In the olden days when GM had a lot of money and power, they would have squashed Spyker like a bug.



Hopefully, they do so now....
    • -1
  • Quote
It would have been very nice if GM in its entirety had been allowed to die. In reality, this suit seems reasonable. GM is focusing only on the Chinese market at this time as this is where their profits are being made. Their American cars, with the exception of a few buicks that are Opel clones, are junk. The Volt is a joke that is being propped up by government purchases and loss-leading leases. They can not run Opel because their attitude about giving the customer the lowest quality product they will accept has made their vehicles less desirable than those made by the VW group companies. Ford is doing a good job, they have quality, competitive products, both here and abroad, they treated Volvo, Aston Martin and Land Rover well when they were sold, and they are pushing forward. GM used threats and the media to squash Saab's deal with the Chinese that was perfectly within the bounds of their technology licensing agreements with GM. GM, apparently, even threatened to stop producing the SUV made for Saab in their plant under contract.

This entire issue is even more absurd when one considers that GM has very little technology worth stealing. GM's technology is dated, it is not an innovative company, it is simply a dinosaur run by dinosaurs who still have the misguided belief that the American car industry, and the country as a whole, is a leader and on top.

I had to laugh. In a conversation with friends recently, no-one had owned a GM vehicle. No-one had friends that had GM vehicles. Several had distant family members in the midwest that still drove GM cars, but the family members were old, and being from the midwest, conservative and backwards thinking. Many had Hondas and Toyotas, a few had Fords, there were a few Jeeps, many BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Volvo drivers, a few Saabs, but nothing from GM. The opinions of the group were that Cadillacs were tacky and driven by old people, drug dealers and people striving to attract attention to themselves. Buicks were for middle class people who were disappointed with their lives and needed tacky chrome trim to show that they were not poor, and Chevrolets were rental cars. police cars, and a brand favored by white trash. The trucks and SUVs were for tradesmen, people with large families (Suburban) and rednecks. GM had lost any credibility with successful people from 25-45. The subject of the Volt brought a chuckle. The typical response was "Why buy a Volt when we could buy a Prius?"
    • -5
  • Quote
I guess Victor Muller is shooting a shotgun with a 6-inch barrell on Cheers and Gears?

The Question like - "Why buy a Volt when we could buy a Prius?" makes your enlightened statmement as ignorant as the GM owners you are ranting about. Oh does Prius not have any subsidy from government both US and Japanese?
    • 0
  • Quote

I guess Victor Muller is shooting a shotgun with a 6-inch barrell on Cheers and Gears?

The Question like - "Why buy a Volt when we could buy a Prius?" makes your enlightened statmement as ignorant as the GM owners you are ranting about. Oh and I guess Prius does not have any subsidy from government both US and Japanese?

Someone is trolling...wonder if it's smk's alter ego...
    • 0
  • Quote
Honestly, Victor Muller should be nullified by GM. Court should call the $3B lawsuit as frivolous and throw it out of the window. When SAAB was worth less than tenth of the price how can he claim that much money? We need to see GM's side. I hope Ackerson and company knew what they were doing when they made those calls for denying the takeover.

And whoever his financial backers are, they just like before, will lose money of their shirts and skirts.
    • 0
  • Quote

many BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Volvo drivers, a few Saabs, but nothing from GM. The opinions of the group were that Cadillacs were tacky and driven by old people, drug dealers and people striving to attract attention to themselves. Buicks were for middle class people who were disappointed with their lives and needed tacky chrome trim to show that they were not poor, and Chevrolets were rental cars. police cars, and a brand favored by white trash. The trucks and SUVs were for tradesmen, people with large families (Suburban) and rednecks. GM had lost any credibility with successful people from 25-45. The subject of the Volt brought a chuckle. The typical response was "Why buy a Volt when we could buy a Prius?"


"A few Saabs but nothing from GM".... uh.. what? Unless they're driving a 25+ year old Saab, they're driving something from GM.

but, your anecdotal evidence from inside your bubble is just that.
    • 0
  • Quote
In my demographic bubble of people I know personally IRL (well-educated people 25-45 working in the software industry, primarily developers, a few management types) in the Phoenix and Denver metro areas, I know very few GM owners...for mainstream brands, most have Honda, Toyota, some Nissan, VW, and Hyundai products, and for premium brands, Acura, BMW, Mercedes, Infiniti, and Volvo..a few Jeep owners.

I do personally know very few people out of this sample that are GM owners--one couple has a TrailBlazer and a Rendezvous, the other has his-and-hers Escalades (a regular one and an EXT--they previously had a BMW X5 and a Merc ML), another guy has a 4th gen Camaro Z-28 convertible and a Silverado, another has a '69 Chevelle and is looking at buying a new Camaro 1LE.

Anecdotal, to be sure, but troubling considering the preponderance of Camrys, Civics, Corollas, and Priuses in my circle of friends and colleagues.
    • 1
  • Quote
Moltar,

GM's problem is perception. The person above gives a good cross-section of ignorance that GM has to deal with. Honestly critics like these need to be taken with heart by GM and worked on. That is where marketing should be effective and concentrated. GM is not doing a good job with marketing.

With his token we can say the same about the brands his cohorts own.

Honda and Toyota - bought by clueless, vanilla public who are still stuck in reading their bible on appliances - Consumer Reports. And by younger kids who want to rice those vehicles.

BMW, Mercedes, Audi - owned by deuchebags and strippers, a herd at higher level.

Volvo - owned by old cadavers who want to keep their skeletons safe.
    • 0
  • Quote

Moltar,


Honda and Toyota - bought by clueless, vanilla public who are still stuck in reading their bible on appliances - Consumer Reports. And by younger kids who want to rice those vehicles.

BMW, Mercedes, Audi - owned by deuchebags and strippers, a herd at higher level.

Volvo - owned by old cadavers who want to keep their skeletons safe.

Those are stereotypes also, though....I know some DB BMW/MB/Audi owners, but most I know are good people..hard working tech professionals..same w/ the Prius drivers.
    • 0
  • Quote


Moltar,


Honda and Toyota - bought by clueless, vanilla public who are still stuck in reading their bible on appliances - Consumer Reports. And by younger kids who want to rice those vehicles.

BMW, Mercedes, Audi - owned by deuchebags and strippers, a herd at higher level.

Volvo - owned by old cadavers who want to keep their skeletons safe.

Those are stereotypes also, though....I know some DB BMW/MB/Audi owners, but most I know are good people..hard working tech professionals..same w/ the Prius drivers.


I agree, "Observing and Reporting" was making stereotypes of GM owners. I just wanted to point out that same can be said of car brands his cohorts own.
    • 0
  • Quote

In my demographic bubble of people I know personally IRL (well-educated people 25-45 working in the software industry, primarily developers, a few management types) in the Phoenix and Denver metro areas, I know very few GM owners...for mainstream brands, most have Honda, Toyota, some Nissan, VW, and Hyundai products, and for premium brands, Acura, BMW, Mercedes, Infiniti, and Volvo..a few Jeep owners.

I do personally know very few people out of this sample that are GM owners--one couple has a TrailBlazer and a Rendezvous, the other has his-and-hers Escalades (a regular one and an EXT--they previously had a BMW X5 and a Merc ML), another guy has a 4th gen Camaro Z-28 convertible and a Silverado, another has a '69 Chevelle and is looking at buying a new Camaro 1LE.

Anecdotal, to be sure, but troubling considering the preponderance of Camrys, Civics, Corollas, and Priuses in my circle of friends and colleagues.


def more domestically oriented around me at work. One Mini-Cooper (that is turning into a reliability nightmare) and the rest domestics. My boss in Houston just bought a CTS over the weekend.
Off the top of my head the people who sit closest to me:
LeSabre
Mustang/Focus Hatch
Mini Cooper
Commander (on their second one)
Durango
Harley Davidson
    • 0
  • Quote
In my current company (which is a consulting company w/ only 12 people):
Grand Cherokee ('00) (moi)
Grand Cherokee ('02) and current-gen Chevy Tahoe (sales VP)
VW CC (my boss/CEO)
Acura TL (current gen, co-CEO)
VW Jetta (1997 or so)
Honda Civic hybrid
Honda Civic (2003 or so)
Hyundai Sonata (previous gen)
Toyota Tacoma (this guy also has a Cessna and '71 Chevelle project car)
Toyota Prius
Honda Accord (about a 2000 or so)
VW Golf GTI and Mercedes Sprinter camper

This company has a much lower percentage of Toyotas that other larger places I've worked over the last 15 years...
    • 1
  • Quote
"GM's problem is perception. The person above gives a good cross-section of ignorance that GM has to deal with. Honestly critics like these need to be taken with heart by GM and worked on. That is where marketing should be effective and concentrated. GM is not doing a good job with marketing."


It has little to do with marketing and more to do with product.

How about simply making appealing products that don't feel and look cheap, and don't feature over-the-top styling and lackluster fit and finish? I have no animosity towards American cars, or any particular love for many of the foreign brands, but I know that every vehicle from GM's core group of vehicles that I have driven or ridden in has been a disappointment on many levels. Some had good engines, some had good styling, some had ok interiors, rarely did they posses all three things. Some examples are below:

Rentals:
Chevy Malibu: OK styling, wheezing engine, cheap plastics inside. An Accord is so much better it is amazing!
Camaro: OK styling, cheap interior, decent engine (the V6-the V8 is fun but old-fashioned)
Cadillac DTS: Cheap Cheap Cheap interior, poor ride quality, engine sounded like a powerboat,
Chevrolet Traverse: Nice styling, nice interior with the exception of many plastic details that were cheap, storage compartments whose latches did not work, poor alignment of panels, and fabric that felt as though it came off a dead mouse. Reasonably smooth engine. Why would a person buy this over a Pilot or Highlander??

GM vehicles test driven while shopping for recent car purchases.

Buick LaCrosse-Excellent styling with the exception of the excessive plasticized chrome (which was rough and uneven on the edge of many surfaces. Good engine, nice interior with too much bling. Cheap fake wood, shiny surfaces that reflected off the windshield. It wants to compete with Acura and Lexus, it even comes close, but it is so far away in the details.

Cadillac SRX: TOO MUCH CHROME ON THE INSIDE. 3.6 engine lacked oomph and sounded rough, instruments difficult to read. many squeaks and rattles. Audi Q5, Lexus RX do it better for the same money. Electronics in the Cadillac were also about 5 years out of date.

GMs halo cars are cheap and fun. The corvette handles well, has lots of power and is inexpensive compared with its rivals. It may have leather that came from a plastic factory and fit and finish that leaves much to be desired, but it is fun and can be a reachable dream for an average person. It is not as well made as a Porsche, but it is viable and a good mid-life crisis car for Joe the Plumber.

The Camaro is much the same-good cheap fun. Not something you would want to drive everyday, filled with antique engines and engineering, a throwback to the late 60s, but great at doing smoky burnouts on deserted country roads. It doesn't have to compete with anything other than the Chrysler and Ford equivalents because they are the only cars occupying this class.
    • -1
  • Quote
I agree, "Observing and Reporting" was making stereotypes of GM owners. I just wanted to point out that same can be said of car brands his cohorts own.

I was not trying to be rude, this is what came up in a lively conversation, in all fairness it was over dinner at a restaurant/pub and was very animated.
    • 0
  • Quote
The reason to buy a Traverse over a highlander or pilot is room room room without any sacrifice in fuel economy or power.

There is nothing "ancient" about the Camaro V8. If you're talking about it not having DOHC, DOHC has been around longer than pushrod/ohv.
    • 0
  • Quote
So a Toyota Corrolla with a 4-speed automatic transmission and no platform update since 2003 is a complete package?

The mahogany-tinted high-gloss wood looks like it came from a downmarket furniture store, and what's with the old Mercedes-style shift gate for the shift lever? And we nearly called an anthropologist when we spied the ES 350's cassette tape player. Sure, Lexus drivers are known enthusiasts of books on tape, but does Mark Levinson know it's still there?


That is the high quality and completely packaged Lexus for you.

Or Honda with its 5-speed transmission, no direct injection engines and design that will put GM's 90s design blandness to shame is a complete package? The quality of my 2005 TSX is better than the new TSX. But yes, they are cars that people buy.

How about the howlers from Nissan - Sentra and Versa. Are they complete packages as well?

BMW's fit and finish is nothing short of glaringly deficient. The plastics of my 2005 BMW 330i are terrible, the upholstery is peeling off, leather is blemished. The TSX and my 98 Lumina look better in shape than the BMW. The car has had electrical gremlins and also seen all its windows motors replaced. That is indeed a quality product! Have you heard of BMW's HFPF problem? The F30 has no design theme, the plastics look cheap and the interior is virtually unchanged since 1990s. At least Bangle had balls to be creative and polarizing.

And as for the Corvette and the stereotypes you are adding to the car - the ignorance is similar to the one in your comment about Prius and Volts. Yes Porsche may put clubbed baby seal leather in its anemic 320 odd hp Boxter S but then it clubs the customer $85k for that car. For half that price you can get the 370Z and club the Boxter if you are willing to forget the 85% quality at 105% performance. If I was shelling $200k on a Panamera Turbo S, I will expect the car to have clubbed baby Panda leather sewn by Matthias Muller with his own hands.

I still stand by my statement that GM lacks in perception game that Japanese and Germans have mastered and now Koreans are mastering. The GM products except for a few are vastly better than the perception you have. Is there a room for improvement? Sure, but they are not howlers as you claim to be.

I agree, "Observing and Reporting" was making stereotypes of GM owners. I just wanted to point out that same can be said of car brands his cohorts own.

I was not trying to be rude, this is what came up in a lively conversation, in all fairness it was over dinner at a restaurant/pub and was very animated.


Neither was I. What I mentioned about those brands also came casually in a lively conversation with informed automobile enthusiasts.
    • 0
  • Quote
if you value room over quality then it is perfect. If that is the only criteria why not buy an AWD minivan? My mind was made up when the storage console door fell off of a vehicle with less than 1,000 miles. UAW Quality!
    • 0
  • Quote

if you value room over quality then it is perfect. If that is the only criteria why not buy an AWD minivan? My mind was made up when the storage console door fell off of a vehicle with less than 1,000 miles. UAW Quality!


As the owner of a Mazda Miata and MINI Cooper S, I have to disagree. I love sporty cars, and will be buying another car next year. I think the new Focus ST stands a pretty good chance, and I would say that it would ahve better build quality than a new MX5 or MINI Cooper S.

Test drove a New 13 Mustang before we bought the Cooper S for my wife to drive, fit and finish on the Mustang was much better than even modern BMW products.

And while I like the new FRS/BRZ, park one next to a Verano or Focus ST, the American/UAW cars are better built, I think.

Still doesn't mean I won't end up with a world rally blue BRZ or a Candy White GTI in the driveway next spring....But the American cars are there, quality wise.

Rentals:
Chevy Malibu: OK styling, wheezing engine, cheap plastics inside. An Accord is so much better it is amazing!
Camaro: OK styling, cheap interior, decent engine (the V6-the V8 is fun but old-fashioned)
Cadillac DTS: Cheap Cheap Cheap interior, poor ride quality, engine sounded like a powerboat,
Chevrolet Traverse: Nice styling, nice interior with the exception of many plastic details that were cheap, storage compartments whose latches did not work, poor alignment of panels, and fabric that felt as though it came off a dead mouse. Reasonably smooth engine.


GMs halo cars are cheap and fun. The corvette handles well, has lots of power and is inexpensive compared with its rivals. It may have leather that came from a plastic factory and fit and finish that leaves much to be desired, but it is fun and can be a reachable dream for an average person. It is not as well made as a Porsche, but it is viable and a good mid-life crisis car for Joe the Plumber.

The Camaro is much the same-good cheap fun. Not something you would want to drive everyday, filled with antique engines and engineering, a throwback to the late 60s, but great at doing smoky burnouts on deserted country roads. It doesn't have to compete with anything other than the Chrysler and Ford equivalents because they are the only cars occupying this class.


And see here I honestly disagree with you, and I own 3 Imported cars and two Chevrolet's...

I tend to think Porsche cars have real issues as well, and I know a bunch of the Porsche guys. I've done corner work and worked as a race official for Porsche Club of America races, and autocrossed with the Porsche guys. Interior quality issues and build quality issues are very real here also. While I like Porsches (look at how many I've posted in the car pics thread I started) they have issues also.

And my wife really didn't like the quality of the Accord or Civic when we test drove them...she really, really didn't liek the Civic SI.

Again, I'm from central Ohio which is "Honda Country." I know a lot of people that work at Honda, both on the line and in engeneering and development. Honda has at least as many issues as GM, seriously I think.
    • 0
  • Quote

or Sign In