Spyker files a three billion dollar lawsuit against General Motors

[amzamz]

... somebody doesn't like Spyker: "The inability to save the Saab brand shows why Spyker has never been more than a low production race car builder and with their crushing failure resulting in company bankruptcy – this massive lawsuit seems like nothing more than a desperate final effort to save their own company after making some very poor business decisions." (source)

[OnTheLam]

One cannot be sued for defamation in the US for anything said in a legal pleading.

One practical consequence of this is that pleadings are often soul-suckingly mean-spirited.

[IVR007]

For those that are interested, Spyker's response to GM's notion to dismiss can be found here: http://wtrns.fr/m52absC132TCWSM. Note: it will only be available for 4 more weeks.

In its opposition filed Friday 9 November, 2012 Spyker substantiates its argument that the carefully crafted Framework Agreement would - contrary to GM's knowingly false media statements at the time - neither have triggered a change of control of Saab Automobile (therefore not requiring GM's consent) nor would have caused a transfer of GM proprietary automotive technology (the 'Opposition').

On the contrary, the Framework Agreement would have provided Saab Automobile with a necessary, immediate infusion of cash, which would have permitted it to successfully reorganize WITHOUT Youngman taking any stake in Saab Automobile. Moreover GM's technology was completely firewalled and Youngman would have had NO access thereto in any way.

[IVR007]

In other news: the United States District Court Eastern District of Michigan appealed both parties to appear on February 19 for oral argument on GM's notion to dismiss.

Published: 08:00 CET 06-12-2012 /Thomson Reuters /Source: Spyker N.V. /XAMS: SPYKR /ISIN: NL0010125050
Spyker N.V.: COURT SETS DATE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IN GM CASE

Zeewolde, the Netherlands, 6 December 2012 -- Spyker N.V. ("Spyker") announces that the United States District Court Eastern District of Michigan (the "Court") has issued a Notice to General Motors Company ("GM"), Spyker and its subsidiary Saab Automobile AB to appear for oral argument on GM's Motion to Dismiss. The hearing is scheduled for February 19, 2013.

On 6 August 2012 Spyker in its own right and on behalf of its 100% subsidiary Saab Automobile AB ("Saab Automobile") filed a 3 USD billion complaint against GM in the Court (the 'Complaint').

In response GM filed a Motion to Dismiss on 28 September 2012, in which GM asserted that an agreement (the so-called "Framework Agreement"), which Spyker, Saab Automobile and Zhejiang Youngman Lotus Automobile Co., Ltd. ("Youngman") had drafted, would cause a change of control of Saab Automobile or would cause transfer of GM proprietary automotive technology to Youngman.

In its opposition filed Friday 9 November, 2012 Spyker substantiates its argument that the carefully crafted Framework Agreement would -contrary to GM's knowingly false media statements at the time- neither have triggered a change of control of Saab Automobile (therefore not requiring GM's consent) nor would have caused a transfer of GM proprietary automotive technology (the 'Opposition'). On the contrary, the Framework Agreement would have provided Saab Automobile with a necessary, immediate infusion of cash, which would have permitted it to successfully reorganize WITHOUT Youngman taking any stake in Saab Automobile. Moreover GM's technology was completely firewalled and Youngman would have had NO access thereto in any way. In the Opposition Spyker further substantiates that a long course of dealings made clear that GM under no circumstances would accept a competitor in the Chinese market.

GM's assertion that Spyker and Saab Automobile have failed to state a cause of action is predicated upon GM's misapplication of relevant law, misinterpretation of certain contracts and disregard of key factual allegations in the Complaint. Accordingly, Spyker and Saab Automobile are of the opinion that the Court should deny GM's Motion to Dismiss.

As a consequence of GM's tortious interference, Saab Automobile was forced to enter into liquidation on December 19th, 2011.

[OnTheLam]

These are all factual issues that should go before a jury for fact-finding. Hence, this lawsuit is unlikely to be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage, which technically should only address whether the pleadings state a proper legal claim for relief. The court is supposed to assume that all facts pleaded in the complaint are true at this stage of the case. So, this motion goes to the quality of the pleading itself, not the underlying facts of the case.

Of course, having said that, the most important fact in any case (as a practical matter) is, who is your judge? They are human beings and sometimes known to make up their minds about a case early on, even when they aren't technically supposed to!

[amzamz]

General Motors Wins Dismissal of Suit Brought by Spyker

(source)

[OnTheLam]

Home-towned.

[IVR007]

Spyker Continues With Venator After $3 Billion GM Suit Dismissed - Forbes

[IVR007]

Presser

Published: 16:07 CEST 20-06-2013 /Thomson Reuters /Source: Spyker N.V. /XAMS: SPYKR /ISIN: NL0010363529

Spyker N.V. : Spyker shall appeal the District Court's ruling in favour of GM in response to GM's motion to dismiss

Zeewolde, The Netherlands, 20 June 2013 - Spyker N.V. ("Spyker") announces that it shall appeal the ruling of the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on General Motors' ("GM") Motion to Dismiss (in response to Spyker and Saab Automobile AB's claim for tortuous interference filed in August 2012), which ruling was in favour of defendant GM. Spyker's decision to appeal was taken following careful review of The Court's Memorandum Opinion dated June 18th, 2013.

[panoz1]

This is where the Spyker Motto comes from
__________________
The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do

[IVR007]

The appeals court also ruled in favour of GM...

Reuters.com | U.S. appeals court rules for GM over Spyker's Saab sale