Back in 2010, you may recall that General Motors sold the majority of its stake in Swedish automaker Saab to Spyker, who ultimately failed in reinvigorating the brand.
As Reuters reports, General Motors continued to license its intellectual property to Swedish carmaker Saab, and retained the right to revoke those privileges if Spyker attempted to sell the Saab brand without its consent.
That didn’t stop Spyker from trying.
A sale to Chinese company Zhejiang Youngman Lotus Automobile Co. was attempted late in 2011, to which General Motors objected, leading to a $3 billion lawsuit against the American corporation.
Now, finally, General Motors can put that fiasco behind them. As Reuters reports, a US Appeals Court ruled in General Motors’ favor. Circuit Judge Eugene Siler wrote that the American automaker had no malicious intent, but “legitimate business concerns” with regard to the proposed sale of Saab, and a desire to protect its own intellectual property.
Furthermore, even if both the district court, and later this court of appeals, had been persuaded that General Motors acted unlawfully, Siler wrote that at most, this would be indicative of a misunderstanding of the Saab brand sales terms, and nothing more criminal or vindictive than that.
Saab was bought out of bankruptcy by another Chinese firm back in 2012, and recently began seeking new funding in Sweden.
Comments
GM would be to take it again. Swedes can also be a lot of good advice on the construction of the car. VAG as the total purchases of auto manufacturers. It is not easy but it is very important and can be of great benefit in the future.
and I already feel that the new staff and the new rulers have been more successful than GM, and I still see a great future. I believe that there could be very useful to get gm
I am not so sure.
They had a great engineering staff but they were like Lotus was with GM the engineers were great but the product was not so much.
Saab is an oddity and generally they are best left alone to their own devices. They are a low volume make and will always remain a low volume make and that is so very difficult to do today unless you have a dance partner and so few people want to touch them.
I agree that if GM had gotten them today things would be much different but back then GM did not sabotage them. The truth is GM did to them just what GM was doing to itself. I would rather call it suicide or for Saab assisted suicide.
I think Saab would be better suited to become an auto engineering arm and sell their services like Lotus, Porsche and other MFG as that is where the real money is.
“The truth is GM did to them just what GM was doing to itself”. Pretty much my understanding of it. Perhaps if GM hadn’t touched them at all they would be thriving. I laugh when I read people’s comments about Ford’s supposed mismanagement of its former European PAG brands as I think about Saab’s experience with GM straight away.
GM’s full buyout of Saab was really just a ‘me too’ response to Ford’s PAG. The money they invested in it would have been better spent elsewhere.
I couldn’t disagree more…That”me too”attitude toward the purchase led to the complete four cylinder portfolio that GM currently relies on in their very popular Ecotec platform.
In this era there was a lot of companies staggering under high cost of development. They either had to partner with a larger company of they had to sell out.
Jag. Rolls, Aston, Rover, Bentley, Saab, Lambo, and others were all companies of small scale that left them with too little cash flow to develop new models and engines let alone new platforms. This made them cheap easy pickings for the larger MFG to pick up some big names cheap. They had hoped it would help build image in other markets for them.
In the case of Saab I think the engineering was what was of interest to GM and also the fact it was ties to a Euro company that would help their image in Europe or so they thought. GM also had history with Saab sharing a platform with them and Alfa.
Saab was going to have to go with someone to survive as they could not do it on their own. The real trick was to trust Saab and give them the money they needed to run themselves and that is where GM failed. Saab is that odd family that seem weird but they know what they want and know what they need. They are never going to be a high volume car but as a cult brand they can survive if you leave them to their strange ways.
I do agree GM did get some help on the Turbo Eco from them. The casting of the block is all Saab. But GM also got a lot of help from Lotus engineering [not the car company the engineering company]. They did the oiling and sodium valves and some other things that have made this a great engine.
The only way Saab works for China is if they can sell it locally in China as it will not work else where for the same reasons it failed for GM. They will not have the same odd people designing the same odd car people loved because it was different and innovative.
I really believe GM did not know how to run them or what to do with them. But then again they had no clue as what to so with Pontiac either so why would we expect them to know how to deal with Saab.
Either way Saab was doomed unless someone had bought them, Gave them the funding and said build us a car. Few companies would have done that I am sorry to say. VW may have been their best owner but they did not want or need them.
There was one interesting issue about denying the Chinese access to the 2010 Saab 9-5 property rights. The 2012 Roewe 950 uses the LaCrosse platform and powertrains as did the Saab 9-5. So why did GM allow SAIC and Roewe (an SAIC subsidiary) access but deny Saab’s Chinese partners? Maybe it was a case the GM is already partnered with SAIC and can exert some influence. It would be interesting to know if this issue was raised in court.
I dare say that previous directors and management have created a lot of crap GM. as I understand, and I am now reading. preguste directors, management and strategies are already a lot of things to a lot of new and very improved and achieved success.
Pre-managers probably be quite a lot and caused a serious mess. surely this is also due to be lost, and many others in difficult situations.
while all this may be very useful for me as well, because the whole thing has been completely reworked and fully re-opened. and we are honest in a very short time has already achieved mega success and the company has improved.
previous leaders did not understand what it is your business and engaged in some kind of his thing. The current leaders know what your business is a matter dealt with in accordance with the GM and may have small drifts, however, is generally a pretty good job, it seems contradictory.