2002 Saab 9-3 Convertible No Reserve! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Mahindra buying majority stake in NEVS, Saab saved again?

National Electric Vehicle Sweden (NEVS), owner of Saab, might not be dead yet, because the company is reportedly close to having a new owner with deeper pockets in near future. The declaration comes from the business's latest request to prolong its reorganization and includes the claim that NEVS has a signed letter of intent from an unnamed Asian automaker to take majority ownership of the beleaguered brand. While NEVS doesn't specifically name this potential, future owner in its filing, Automotive News Europe cites a SaabsUnited story proclaiming that the suitor is none other than Indian automaker Mahindra and Mahindra, a development that would confirm months of rumors. The Swedish automaker is reportedly just waiting for the majority investment to be finalized before making an official announcement, and the whole purchase could be complete by February. NEVS also claims that it's still negotiating with a separate, unnamed Asian automaker on a joint venture to co-develop new vehicles. Assuming the deal goes through, the new owner could regain the rights to the Saab brand, too. According to ANE, negotiations are underway with the Saab AB aerospace business to be able to use the trademark again. NEVS lost that right when it filed for reorganization. Mahindra has shown interest in owning Saab for quite some time. It was reportedly among the final three bidders for the brand in 2012, and the Indian automaker was allegedly eyeing a stake in NEVS as far back as June. Scroll down to read the brief press release from NEVS about the extended reorganization, and the full document can be viewed in PDF format, here. Nevs applies for prolonged reorganization Monday, December 01, 2014 National Electric Vehicle Sweden, Nevs, has today submitted an application to the District Court in Vanersborg, requesting that the company reorganisation shall continue for an additional time period of three months. The administrator Lars Eric Gustafsson expresses the rationale for why Nevs should be granted an extended reorganization in this enclosed statement.

Are orphan cars better deals?

Most folks don't know a Saturn Aura from an Oldsmobile Aurora. Those of you who are immersed in the labyrinth of automobilia know that both cars were testaments to the mediocrity that was pre-bankruptcy General Motors, and that both brands are now long gone. But everybody else? Not so much. By the same token, there are some excellent cars and trucks that don't raise an eyebrow simply because they were sold under brands that are no longer being marketed. Orphan brands no longer get any marketing love, and because of that they can be alarmingly cheap. Case in point, take a look at how a 2010 Saturn Outlook compares with its siblings, the GMC Acadia and Buick Enclave. According to the Manheim Market Report, the Saturn will sell at a wholesale auto auction for around $3,500 less than the comparably equipped Buick or GMC. Part of the reason for this price gap is that most large independent dealerships, such as Carmax, make it a point to avoid buying cars with orphaned badges. Right now if you go to Carmax's site, you'll find that there are more models from Toyota's Scion sub-brand than Mercury, Saab, Pontiac, Hummer, and Saturn combined. This despite the fact that these brands collectively sold in the millions over the last ten years while Scion has rarely been able to realize a six-figure annual sales figure for most of its history. That is the brutal truth of today's car market. When the chips are down, used-car shoppers are nearly as conservative as their new-car-buying counterparts. Unfamiliarity breeds contempt. Contempt leads to fear. Fear leads to anger, and pretty soon you wind up with an older, beat-up Mazda MX-5 in your driveway instead of looking up a newer Pontiac Solstice or Saturn Sky. There are tons of other reasons why orphan cars have trouble selling in today's market. Worries about the cost of repair and the availability of parts hang over the industry's lost toys like a cloud of dust over Pigpen. Yet any common diagnostic repair database, such as Alldata, will have a complete framework for your car's repair and maintenance, and everyone from junkyards to auto parts stores to eBay and Amazon stock tens of thousands of parts. This makes some orphan cars mindblowingly awesome deals if you're willing to shop in the bargain bins of the used-car market. Consider a Suzuki Kizashi with a manual transmission. No, really.

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.