1966 Vw Beetle - Fully Customized on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Porsche again staring down another $1.8B in hedge fund lawsuits

The sequence of events from 2007 that began with Porsche's secret attempt to take over Volkswagen, and instead lead to Porsche being taken over by VW, continues to instigate lawsuits against the Stuttgart sports car manufacturer. A group of hedge funds that suffered over $1 billion in losses sued the car company in New York. Porsche had publicly stated it wasn't trying to buy VW, the hedge funds in question were shorting VW stock, and when Porsche's actual intentions were revealed, the stock shot up and the hedge funds took a beating.
The case was thrown out over the issue of jurisdiction, then appealed, only to see another suit filed on top of that. After that, most of the hedge funds withdrew their claims in New York and Porsche offered a 90-day window to refile in Germany where it is already fighting a number of other suits over the same issue. The hedge funds accepted the offer, refiling in Stuttgart for $1.8 billion in damages. According to Bloomberg, Porsche hasn't commented on the refiling, but as the same plaintiffs are involved, it's safe to assume that the carmaker still feels the case is "unsubstantiated and without merit." It has fared alright so far even in German courts, with two lesser cases against it thrown out last year.

Carmakers say they 'can't meet' Euro 6 emissions targets

UPDATE: A previous version of this story listed Euro 6 requirements in kilograms per kilometer. This was incorrect. The correct unit is grams of NOx per kilometer, or g/km. The story has been edited accordingly. Well, the timing of this is not good. In the midst of Volkswagen's emissions cheating scandal, the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) is claiming it won't be able to hit the stringent Euro 6 nitrogen oxide standards currently slated for the end of the decade. Currently, European legislators are set to begin requiring tougher emissions standards by 2017. Standards would be ramped up until 2020, when all new cars sold across the pond would be required to emit just 0.080 kilograms of nitrogen oxide per kilometer. That's too tough for automakers, though. Citing an "EU insider," AutoExpress reports that automakers are asking for conformity factors, which is a fancy way of saying they want easier standards. The automakers are requesting a conformity factor of 2.75 from 2017 to 2020, and a factor of 1.7 in 2020. What that means is that by 2020, new diesels would be allowed to emit 1.7 times the 0.080 g/km standard, or 0.136 g/km. While that might not be all that bad, if automakers were granted the 2.75 conformity factor, new diesels from 2017 wouldn't even be eligible for today's Euro 5 classification, AE claims. Far and away the most astonishing thing here though, is the way the ACEA is viewing the VW diesel scandal. According to AE, the EU insider said automakers across the pond think there's "a US conspiracy against European diesels." Yep. Volkswagen installed software on millions of vehicles to cheat emissions tests and it's somehow an American conspiracy. That makes loads of sense. To put it simply, automakers don't think their diesels will be able to hit European standards, so they're asking for a break. Whether European legislators go along with it remains to be seen. Related Video:

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.