• Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0

    Not This Again: Spyker Sues GM Over Saab Sale



    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.


    SPYKER FILES A THREE BILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS

    Zeewolde, the Netherlands, 6 August 2012 -- Spyker N.V. ("Spyker") announced that it has filed a complaint against General Motors Company ("GM") in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan today at 08.00 AM EST. Spyker filed the complaint in its own right and on behalf of its 100 percent subsidiary Saab Automobile A.B., which was declared bankrupt on December 19, 2011.

    This lawsuit seeks redress for the unlawful actions GM took to avoid competition with Saab Automobile in the Chinese market. 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. The monetary value of the claim amounts to US$ 3 billion (three billion US dollars).

    Since Saab Automobile is in receivership and hence incapable to contribute to the costs of litigation, Spyker and Saab Automobile have entered into an agreement pursuant to which Spyker will bear the costs of such litigation in exchange for a very substantial share of Saab Automobile's award when the proceedings are successful. Spyker has secured the financial backing required to see the lawsuit through to the end from a third party investor.

    Victor R. Muller, Spyker's Chief Executive Officer 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."

    The Complaint, as filed this morning at 08.00 EST, is attached to this Press Release.

    1


    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0


    User Feedback




    Spyker! Spyker! Spyker! Spyker!

    Looks like I picked the wrong week to file bankruptcy.

    Edited by Oldsmoboi
    Can't hotlink to that picture apparently.
    -1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

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

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    "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

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Edited by A Horse With No Name
    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor




  • Popular Stories

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Carguy
      Carguy
      (47 years old)
    2. Elitedragon27
      Elitedragon27
      (30 years old)
  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      This morning, General Motors announced that it would be investing $1 billion into their manufacturing operations in the U.S. The investment will go towards “new vehicle, advanced technology and component projects,” that will create or retain 1,500 jobs. GM also announced that it would create at least 5,000 more jobs in the U.S. for various parts of their business, and insource the production of axles for their next-generation of full-size trucks to create 450 jobs.
      Announcements on where the investments will go will be announced at a later date.
       
      “As the U.S. manufacturing base increases its competitiveness, we are able to further increase our investment, resulting in more jobs for America and better results for our owners. The U.S. is our home market and we are committed to growth that is good for our employees, dealers, and suppliers and supports our continued effort to drive shareholder value,” said GM Chairman and CEO Mary Barra in a statement.
      This news comes on the heels of comments made by President-elect Donald Trump on possibly imposing a 35 percent tariff on vehicles built in Mexico. According to NBC News, various General Motors officials stress these moves were months, and some years in the making.
      Source: General Motors, NBC News
      Press Release is on Page 2


      GM Announces 7,000 U.S. Jobs, Builds Off Strong Track Record
      Investing Additional $1 Billion in U.S. Manufacturing Moves Axle Jobs to U.S. from Mexico More than 5,000 New Jobs in Key Growth Areas    DETROIT – General Motors today announced that it will invest an additional $1 billion in U.S. manufacturing operations. These investments follow $2.9 billion announced in 2016 and more than $21 billion GM has invested in its U.S. operations since 2009.
      The new investments cover multiple new vehicle, advanced technology and component projects. A combination of 1,500 new and retained jobs are tied to the new investments. Details of individual projects will be announced throughout the year.
      The company also announced it will begin work on insourcing axle production for its next generation full-size pickup trucks, including work previously done in Mexico, to operations in Michigan, creating 450 U.S. jobs.
      “As the U.S. manufacturing base increases its competitiveness, we are able to further increase our investment, resulting in more jobs for America and better results for our owners,”  said GM Chairman and CEO Mary Barra. “The U.S. is our home market and we are committed to growth that is good for our employees, dealers, and suppliers and supports our continued effort to drive shareholder value.”
      GM’s announcement is part of the company’s increased focus on overall efficiency over the last four years. With a strategy to streamline and simplify its operations and grow its business, GM has created 25,000 jobs in the U.S. − approximately 19,000 engineering, IT and professional jobs and 6,000 hourly manufacturing jobs – and added nearly $3 billion in annual wages and benefits to the U.S. economy over that period. At the same time, GM reduced more than 15,000 positions outside the U.S., bringing most of those jobs to America. During that period, the company moved from 90 percent of its IT work being outsourced to an insourced U.S.-based model.
      “We will continue our commitment to driving a more efficient business,” said Barra, “as shown by our insourcing of more than 6,000 IT jobs that were formerly outside the U.S., streamlining our engineering operations from seven to three, with the core engineering center being in Warren, Michigan, and building on our momentum at GM Financial and in advanced technologies.  These moves, and others, are expected to result in more than 5,000 new jobs in the U.S. over the next few years.”
      GM has also been facilitating its supplier base to do the same. The company has been executing a strategy to create supplier parks adjacent to its U.S. manufacturing sites (already accomplished at GM’s Fairfax Assembly Plant in Kansas, Spring Hill Assembly Plant in Tennessee, Fort Wayne Assembly Plant in Indiana, and Lordstown Assembly Plant in Ohio), and will continue to expand this effort. Supplier parks locating near assembly plants result in significant savings from reduced transportation costs, higher quality communications and continuous improvement activities as suppliers are located closer to the final assembly location.
      In addition, GM is confirming that another supplier has committed to make components for GM’s next-generation full size pick-up trucks in Michigan, moving 100 supplier jobs from Mexico to the U.S.

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      This morning, General Motors announced that it would be investing $1 billion into their manufacturing operations in the U.S. The investment will go towards “new vehicle, advanced technology and component projects,” that will create or retain 1,500 jobs. GM also announced that it would create at least 5,000 more jobs in the U.S. for various parts of their business, and insource the production of axles for their next-generation of full-size trucks to create 450 jobs.
      Announcements on where the investments will go will be announced at a later date.
       
      “As the U.S. manufacturing base increases its competitiveness, we are able to further increase our investment, resulting in more jobs for America and better results for our owners. The U.S. is our home market and we are committed to growth that is good for our employees, dealers, and suppliers and supports our continued effort to drive shareholder value,” said GM Chairman and CEO Mary Barra in a statement.
      This news comes on the heels of comments made by President-elect Donald Trump on possibly imposing a 35 percent tariff on vehicles built in Mexico. According to NBC News, various General Motors officials stress these moves were months, and some years in the making.
      Source: General Motors, NBC News
      Press Release is on Page 2


      GM Announces 7,000 U.S. Jobs, Builds Off Strong Track Record
      Investing Additional $1 Billion in U.S. Manufacturing Moves Axle Jobs to U.S. from Mexico More than 5,000 New Jobs in Key Growth Areas    DETROIT – General Motors today announced that it will invest an additional $1 billion in U.S. manufacturing operations. These investments follow $2.9 billion announced in 2016 and more than $21 billion GM has invested in its U.S. operations since 2009.
      The new investments cover multiple new vehicle, advanced technology and component projects. A combination of 1,500 new and retained jobs are tied to the new investments. Details of individual projects will be announced throughout the year.
      The company also announced it will begin work on insourcing axle production for its next generation full-size pickup trucks, including work previously done in Mexico, to operations in Michigan, creating 450 U.S. jobs.
      “As the U.S. manufacturing base increases its competitiveness, we are able to further increase our investment, resulting in more jobs for America and better results for our owners,”  said GM Chairman and CEO Mary Barra. “The U.S. is our home market and we are committed to growth that is good for our employees, dealers, and suppliers and supports our continued effort to drive shareholder value.”
      GM’s announcement is part of the company’s increased focus on overall efficiency over the last four years. With a strategy to streamline and simplify its operations and grow its business, GM has created 25,000 jobs in the U.S. − approximately 19,000 engineering, IT and professional jobs and 6,000 hourly manufacturing jobs – and added nearly $3 billion in annual wages and benefits to the U.S. economy over that period. At the same time, GM reduced more than 15,000 positions outside the U.S., bringing most of those jobs to America. During that period, the company moved from 90 percent of its IT work being outsourced to an insourced U.S.-based model.
      “We will continue our commitment to driving a more efficient business,” said Barra, “as shown by our insourcing of more than 6,000 IT jobs that were formerly outside the U.S., streamlining our engineering operations from seven to three, with the core engineering center being in Warren, Michigan, and building on our momentum at GM Financial and in advanced technologies.  These moves, and others, are expected to result in more than 5,000 new jobs in the U.S. over the next few years.”
      GM has also been facilitating its supplier base to do the same. The company has been executing a strategy to create supplier parks adjacent to its U.S. manufacturing sites (already accomplished at GM’s Fairfax Assembly Plant in Kansas, Spring Hill Assembly Plant in Tennessee, Fort Wayne Assembly Plant in Indiana, and Lordstown Assembly Plant in Ohio), and will continue to expand this effort. Supplier parks locating near assembly plants result in significant savings from reduced transportation costs, higher quality communications and continuous improvement activities as suppliers are located closer to the final assembly location.
      In addition, GM is confirming that another supplier has committed to make components for GM’s next-generation full size pick-up trucks in Michigan, moving 100 supplier jobs from Mexico to the U.S.
    • By William Maley
      China has fined General Motors $29 million for monopolistic pricing according to Reuters. This ends speculation that we first brought to light last week. The fine is due to GM setting minimum prices on certain Buick, Cadillac, and Chevrolet models.
      "GM fully respects local laws and regulations wherever we operate. We will provide full support to our joint venture in China to ensure that all responsive and appropriate actions are taken with respect to this matter," GM said in a email statement.
      It was speculated that the fine is due to comments made by president-elect Donald Trump about the U.S. possibly recognizing Taiwan. But sources tell Reuters that the investigation was already underway before Trump's comments. This is possibly a move by China to protect their companies. 
      Source: Reuters

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      China has fined General Motors $29 million for monopolistic pricing according to Reuters. This ends speculation that we first brought to light last week. The fine is due to GM setting minimum prices on certain Buick, Cadillac, and Chevrolet models.
      "GM fully respects local laws and regulations wherever we operate. We will provide full support to our joint venture in China to ensure that all responsive and appropriate actions are taken with respect to this matter," GM said in a email statement.
      It was speculated that the fine is due to comments made by president-elect Donald Trump about the U.S. possibly recognizing Taiwan. But sources tell Reuters that the investigation was already underway before Trump's comments. This is possibly a move by China to protect their companies. 
      Source: Reuters
    • By William Maley
      General Motors is dialing back on production as it currently has too many vehicles in inventory. The Detroit News reports that General Motors at the end of November had 874,000 vehicles sitting around - a number that hasn't been seen since the 2008 financial crisis. Compared to the same time last year, the number of vehicles has increased by 182,000 units. More worrying is that compared to October, the number of unsold vehicles rose by 40,000.
      Despite strong sales, more consumers are going with crossovers, SUVs, and pickup trucks. GM even increased incentives on a number of models to help relieve this glut, all to no avail.
      According to Autodata, this is amount of passenger vehicles GM had sitting,
      110 day-supply of the Cadillac CT6 119 day-supply of the Cadillac ATS 121 day-supply of the Chevrolet Cruze 132 day-supply of the Cadillac CTS 168 day supply of the Buick LaCrosse 170 day-supply of the Chevrolet Corvette and Spark 177 day-supply of the Chevrolet Camaro Because of this, General Motors is cutting back on production at some of their plants. As we reported last month , GM is cutting a shift at their Lansing Grand River plant in Michigan (home to Cadillac ATS, CTS, and Chevrolet Camaro) and a shift at Lordstown, Ohio plant (home to the Chevrolet Cruze). General Motors will also be shutting down five plants according to Reuters in January. The plants include,
      Detroit-Hamtramck (Three weeks) Fairfax, KS (Three weeks) Lansing Grand River (Two weeks) Lordstown, OH (One week) Bowling Green, KY (One week) Source: The Detroit News, Reuters

      View full article
  • Recent Status Updates

    • Drew Dowdell

      It might not be VW's scandal that kills diesel, it might be Mazda. What if you could get diesel like fuel economy from a gasoline engine and none of the diesel emissions issues? Mazda just might have the solution. HCCI is a type of gas engine that can run in certain situations with the spark plugs off, making for very efficient operation.
      · 0 replies
    • regfootball

      THERE IS BIG INCENTIVES ON CHEVY CRUZE RIGHT NOW
      · 0 replies
    • FordCosworth

      Who thinks lending more money to a country that will NEVER be able to repay its existing loans is solid idea? Oh , right the EU of course ...
      · 0 replies
  • Who's Online (See full list)