2004 Saab 9-5 Arc Wagon Looks/runs Good Needs Some Minor Work No Reserve on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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's Victor Muller wanted to nix Griffin, return to airplane emblem

According to Just-Auto.com Victor Muller wasn't a fan of the Saab Griffin logo. The executive was quoted as saying he wanted to "abolish" the Griffin logo and return to the airplane emblem. Muller made it clear that if he'd had his way, the propeller would have replaced the Griffin across the Saab lineup long ago.
National Electric Vehicle Sweden, the company that recently bought Saab, was forced to abandon the Griffin logo due to the fact that the emblem is still used by truck manufacturer Scania. The manufacturer is reportedly concerned about potential Chinese counterfeiting - NEVS is owned by Youngman, a Chinese automaker - though it's unclear how that relationship would lead to illegal copies.
Either way, NEVS has said the loss of the Griffin logo isn't that important to the company so long as it can continue to build on the Saab name. Muller, meanwhile, said he wishes NEVS luck in the company's electric-vehicle endeavor, but that he doesn't understand its new business model.

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.