2003 Saab 9-3 Arc Sedan 4-door 2.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM denies Spyker claims in $3B Saab lawsuit

Reuters reports General Motors has dismissed claims by Spyker outlined in a $3 billion lawsuit. Spyker alleged GM deliberately bankrupted Saab by preventing a deal with Chinese investor Zhejiang Youngman Lotus. GM, meanwhile, filed a response with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan saying that as the former owner of Saab, GM had the legal right to approve the deal with Youngman. But Spyker's lawsuit claimed GM's refusal to approve the deal with Youngman stemmed from the fact that the American automaker didn't want to create a competitor in China.
GM has said the issue stemmed more from the fact that it would stop licensing its technology to Saab or stop building vehicles for the manufacturer in the event it was bought by Youngman. Since Saab built its own platform that didn't use any GM tech, Spyker says that argument is meritless.
The lawsuit has Spyker seeking $3 billion in compensatory damages, though that number could swell with interest, punitive damages and legal fees, as well. Victor Muller, Spyker chief executive, has said the lawsuit is being funded by an anonymous third party. That party will share in any settlement. Youngman has refused to comment on whether or not it's footing the legal bill.

Spyker files $3 billion lawsuit against General Motors over Saab's demise

"Smack." That's the sound of Spyker's process server dropping a big ol' pile of legal documents on the doorstep of The Renaissance Center, home of General Motors - or wherever GM's attorneys live during business hours. Contained therein is a Complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and demanding a jury trial, that seeks $3 billion in damages due to "the unlawful actions GM took to avoid competition with Saab Automobile in the Chinese market." Spyker accuses GM of "tortiously interfering" with Saab's business relationship with Chinese automaker Zhejiang Youngman Lotus Automobile (Youngman), actions that Spyker CEO Victor Muller (above) said "deliberately drove Saab Automobile into bankruptcy."
(From Wikipedia: "Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships.")
The interference in question specifically refers to the very last potential deal, called the Framework Agreement, that Spyker worked out with Youngman. With lots of GM engineering embedded into the 9-4X and 9-5, The General had the right to approve any Saab partnership that would involve the transfer of GM intellectual property. Spyker had been rebuffed over every previous deal with a Chinese firm, including two bids by Youngman, due to GM concerns over its IP getting into Chinese hands and having to face Chinese-market competitors using its technology. The Complaint alleges that the Framework Agreement would have put a firewall around all GM IP - Youngman would only work on Saab's Phoenix platform, said to be just about free of GM tech, and would have no access to 9-3, 9-4X or 9-5 technology until after Saab ceased all ties to GM.

Saab owners NEVS denied creditor protection by Swedish court

The story of Saab is practically a Greek tragedy at this point. The quirky Swedish automaker that was once known as a pioneer of affordable turbocharging has been followed by years of news that just seemed to keep getting worse. At this point, maybe the brand name should be allowed to fade away into the ether and be remembered for the good times that it gave us.
Saab's latest predicament is that its parent National Electric Vehicle Sweden (or NEVS) has been denied protection from its creditors by the Swedish courts. According to Reuters, the judges called the business' financing plan "vague and completely undocumented." A company spokesperson told Reuters that it plans to appeal.
Seemingly in reaction to the court's decision, NEVS posted a press release on its website announcing that the company had applied "for a reorganization to create more time for the ongoing negotiations." The automaker continues to claim that it's negotiating with two global automakers to sell a portion of the company, possibly Mahindra, but the process is taking longer than it originally predicted. It seems a distinct possibility that this reorganization attempt is simply a way to buy extra time.