2011 Volkswagen Gti-apr Stage 1-carbon Fiber Intake-sunroof-interlogos Interior on 2040-cars

Auto blog

German judge 'inclined to dismiss' hedge fund lawsuit against Porsche

Last year, around two dozen investors, including hedge funds, leveled a 1.4 billion euro ($1.95 billion at the time) lawsuit against Porsche in connection with the automaker's attempted takeover of Volkswagen in 2008. The Stuttgart Regional Court dismissed the case. Around 19 of those plaintiffs are heading back to court to appeal the ruling and still hope to get 1.2 billion euros ($1.4 billion). However, according to one German judge, the chances for success aren't any better this time around. "On balance it's our view that we consider the lawsuit, or the appeal, to be unpromising for several reasons," Gerhard Ruf, a judge in Stuttgart, said to Reuters. "We are inclined to dismiss the case." The court's ruling on the appeal will be announced on March 26. The investors' case hinges on Porsche's strategy surrounding the botched takeover. The sports car maker said that it wasn't trying to control VW, when in fact it was. These hedge funds had bet against Volkswagen stock, but the share price surged when Porsche's plan inevitably came to light. Investors have sued the sports car company multiple times since then in attempts to recoup billions of dollars. However, none of the lawsuits have been successful, whether attempted in the US or Germany. Former Porsche CEO Wendelin Wiedeking and and CFO Holger Haerter might still stand trial for the alleged stock manipulation, though. News Source: ReutersImage Credit: Matthias Rietschel / AP Photo Government/Legal Porsche Volkswagen lawsuit hedge funds porsche lawsuit

Scott Pruitt unfiltered: EPA administrator talks climate science, car emissions

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt gave Reuters a wide-ranging interview on Monday at his office in Washington, discussing issues from climate science to automobile emissions. The following is a full transcript of the interview: REUTERS: You have said the EPA will focus on a "Back to Basics" approach under your leadership. What does this mean for how EPA enforces polluters? You have been critical of the idea of regulation by enforcement. PRUITT: I think what I'm speaking about, there is a consent decree approach to enforcement, where you use judicial proceedings to actually engage in regulation. Enforcement should be about existing regulations that you're actually enforcing against someone who may be violating that, very much in the prosecutorial manner. As attorney general [in Oklahoma], I lived that. There was a grand jury that I led. Being a prosecutor, I understand very much the importance of prioritization, of enforcing the rule of law, of addressing bad actors. That's something we are going to do in a meaningful way across the broad spectrum of cases, whether it is in the office of air or the Superfund area, or otherwise. REUTERS: Do you want to see states play a bigger role in enforcing polluters, even though some have less of a capacity to do so – financially and personnel wise? PRUITT: I think the state's role is really, when you look at this office working with states, it should be how do we assist, how do we engage in compliance and assistance with states. The office [at EPA that deals with enforcement] is called OECA, the Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Assistance, so those are the tools we have in the toolbox to achieve better outcomes. So what we ought to be doing is working proactively with state DEQs [Departments of Environmental Quality] to get their state implementation plans [for federal regulations] timely submitted, provide assistance and technical support, drive a draft of state implementation plans, and then actually work with them on how to achieve through those plans better outcomes and air and water quality. As far as enforcement is concerned, we will actually work with states. We actually did that recently with Colorado. There was an oil and gas company that was emitting some 3,000 tons, is that what it was, it was quite a bit of ... it was an ozone case. In any event, we joined with Colorado in that prosecution. So sometimes states will do it, sometimes we will join with them.

Defying Trump, major automakers finalize California emissions deal

WASHINGTON — The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and major automakers on Monday confirmed they had finalized binding agreements to cut vehicle emissions in the state, defying the Trump administration's push for weaker curbs on tailpipe pollution. The agreements with carmakers Ford Motor Co, Volkswagen AG, Honda Motor Co and BMW AG were first announced in July 2019 as voluntary measures prompting anger from U.S. President Donald Trump. A month later, the Justice Department opened an antitrust probe into the agreements. The government ended the investigation without action. The Trump administration in March finalized a rollback of U.S. vehicle emissions standards to require 1.5% annual increases in efficiency through 2026. That is far weaker than the 5% annual increases in the discarded rules adopted under President Barack Obama. The 50-page California agreements, which extend through 2026, are less onerous than the standards finalized by the Obama administration but tougher than the Trump administration standards. The automakers have also agreed to electric vehicle commitments. Volvo Cars, owned by China's Geely Holdings, said in March it planned to join the automakers agreeing to the California requirements. It has also finalized its agreement. The settlement agreements say California and automakers agreed to resolve "potential legal disputes concerning the authority of CARB" and other states that have adopted California's standards. In May, a group of 23 U.S. states led by California and some major cities, challenged the Trump vehicle emissions rule. Other major automakers like General Motors Co, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV and Toyota Motor Corp did not join the California agreement. Those companies also sided with the Trump administration in a separate lawsuit over whether the federal government can strip California of the right to set zero emission vehicle requirements. Ford said the "final agreement will reduce emissions in our vehicles at a more stringent rate, support and incentivize the production of electrified products, and create regulatory certainty." BMW said "by setting these long-term, predictable, and achievable standards, we have the regulatory certainty that is necessary for long-term planning that will not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions but ultimately benefit consumers as well."