Porsche, fraud, bankruptcy & litigation: an update
Discussion
A year ago Porsche needed emergency cash from VW. Now it seems that Porsche would have been bankrupt as early as Q4 2008 but for a certain short squeeze event which some of you applauded.
New allegations have emerged and the litigation's been extended. Damages may reach US$10bn.
You should read the last four paragraphs of the quote below. I sincerely hope that the usual suspects will allow a sensible discussion on the issues.
It looks like Porsche was running out of money in 2008, less than one year after its best sales figures (IIRC). It would thus probably not have traded its way out of the global recession and is struggling to get out of the nadirs in the UK and US. None of this is good.
This matter affects us all (think engine/component reliability, warranties, even the viability of some UK OPCs), thanks to a leadership some of you often applauded for being the most profitable car company in the world. There are lots of implications of course and I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts.
It'll be interesting to see if the allegations are substantiated, and if Porsche doesn't settle. I thought that they were looking to settle but.......... In any event, this matter (or thread) will certainly be updated in mid-June.
New allegations have emerged and the litigation's been extended. Damages may reach US$10bn.
You should read the last four paragraphs of the quote below. I sincerely hope that the usual suspects will allow a sensible discussion on the issues.
It looks like Porsche was running out of money in 2008, less than one year after its best sales figures (IIRC). It would thus probably not have traded its way out of the global recession and is struggling to get out of the nadirs in the UK and US. None of this is good.
Investors.com said:
Eighteen investment funds today joined the lawsuit against Porsche Automobil Holding SE ("Porsche SE") and two of its former executives, Wendelin Wiedeking and Holger Haerter, asserting fraud and securities manipulation in relation to Porsche SE's failed 2008 attempt to take over Volkswagen AG ("VW"). With the addition of the new plaintiffs, the funds -- now 35 in number -- seek to recover more than US$2 billion dollars in losses suffered after Porsche SE triggered what The New York Times called "a short squeeze of historic proportions."
The Amended Complaint, filed this morning in Manhattan federal court, explains in greater detail how Porsche SE manipulated the price of VW stock as it secretly cornered the market in VW shares. According to the Amended Complaint, Porsche SE hid that it was cornering the market in VW's freely traded shares by repeatedly issuing misleading statements about its activities and by spreading purchases of call options around to several counterparties to avoid detection of its increasing control.
......................
The new allegations include that:
-- Less than a week before Porsche SE revealed the truth -- that it had amassed control of more than 74 percent of VW's shares -- it conducted phone calls with investment advisors in New York during which Porsche SE sought to reassure the New York-based investment advisors that it was nowhere near 75 percent control. Among the false statements Porsche SE made was that although it would acquire a simple majority of VW shares, "going to 75% is not on the agenda." Porsche SE told another fund that it would stop acquiring shares after achieving 50-55% control.
-- Porsche SE admitted to at least one plaintiff that it was spreading its options trades around to multiple counterparties to avoid detection.
-- Porsche SE's fraudulent strategy deliberately targeted short sellers. In order to secretly obtain 75 percent ownership in VW, Porsche needed short sellers to borrow stock from owners who would not or could not sell the stock themselves and then to sell it to Porsche or Porsche's call-option counterparties. Without the additional supply created by short sellers, Porsche could never have gained control of 75 percent.
-- Porsche SE financed its call-option strategy in part through selling put options. As the price of VW declined in the third week of October 2008, Porsche SE's liability on the puts it had sold threatened to force the company into bankruptcy. It avoided this threat by forcing the price of VW up, which it accomplished by announcing its call-option position on October 26, triggering the squeeze.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.a...
Since the 27th of April, truncated versions of the above have appeared on Bloomberg, FT, Reuters, and the WSJ, amongst others.The Amended Complaint, filed this morning in Manhattan federal court, explains in greater detail how Porsche SE manipulated the price of VW stock as it secretly cornered the market in VW shares. According to the Amended Complaint, Porsche SE hid that it was cornering the market in VW's freely traded shares by repeatedly issuing misleading statements about its activities and by spreading purchases of call options around to several counterparties to avoid detection of its increasing control.
......................
The new allegations include that:
-- Less than a week before Porsche SE revealed the truth -- that it had amassed control of more than 74 percent of VW's shares -- it conducted phone calls with investment advisors in New York during which Porsche SE sought to reassure the New York-based investment advisors that it was nowhere near 75 percent control. Among the false statements Porsche SE made was that although it would acquire a simple majority of VW shares, "going to 75% is not on the agenda." Porsche SE told another fund that it would stop acquiring shares after achieving 50-55% control.
-- Porsche SE admitted to at least one plaintiff that it was spreading its options trades around to multiple counterparties to avoid detection.
-- Porsche SE's fraudulent strategy deliberately targeted short sellers. In order to secretly obtain 75 percent ownership in VW, Porsche needed short sellers to borrow stock from owners who would not or could not sell the stock themselves and then to sell it to Porsche or Porsche's call-option counterparties. Without the additional supply created by short sellers, Porsche could never have gained control of 75 percent.
-- Porsche SE financed its call-option strategy in part through selling put options. As the price of VW declined in the third week of October 2008, Porsche SE's liability on the puts it had sold threatened to force the company into bankruptcy. It avoided this threat by forcing the price of VW up, which it accomplished by announcing its call-option position on October 26, triggering the squeeze.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.a...
This matter affects us all (think engine/component reliability, warranties, even the viability of some UK OPCs), thanks to a leadership some of you often applauded for being the most profitable car company in the world. There are lots of implications of course and I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts.
It'll be interesting to see if the allegations are substantiated, and if Porsche doesn't settle. I thought that they were looking to settle but.......... In any event, this matter (or thread) will certainly be updated in mid-June.
Edited by bcnrml on Wednesday 5th May 16:50
bcnrml said:
<snip>
This matter affects us all
Er, no, it affects anyone who owns a Porsche. You don't, you're just a troll.This matter affects us all
Edited by bcnrml on Wednesday 5th May 16:50
Troll feeding this way, ladies and gents, give generously of your time. Poor old troll's got nothing else to live for...
It's classic repetitive compulsive behaviour. God only knows what the psychological trauma which gave rise to this particular obsession was, but it must have been something pretty horrific. I suspect that in this case a lack of human interaction in a more meaningful way than by trolling probably exacerbates the condition, as this could result in a fairly destructive need-satisfaction-shame cycle. Poor chap, got to feel sorry for him really.
Actually, it's not as easy as ignoring a thread since you persistently spout the same crap on many threads.
On many forums I'm on there is an "Ignore" list where you never see the posts by people on your ignore list. You are the primary reason I wish this one did. You are a complete waste of time.
On many forums I'm on there is an "Ignore" list where you never see the posts by people on your ignore list. You are the primary reason I wish this one did. You are a complete waste of time.
Edited by davek_964 on Wednesday 5th May 18:03
Well then, for the avoidance of doubt and in case you hadn't got it previously, I will post content on here whenever I wish, consistent with the forum's rules.
If you don't like any of it, exercise your many options, including complaining. I don't mind that either.
PH carried a news item on this subject earlier this year, on the Porsche News section. Did any of you objecting to this update dare to complain to the owners, editors and indeed the original author? I suspect not. I said I'd update this matter and I have and I will.
So to davek_964, et al, I repeat. If you do not like reading negative facts about Porsche and the implications, don't read this thread or any of of the links that I refer to when I post said facts. Your world of Porsche is fine and all's well. Enjoy it. I don't mind at all.
Utterly ridiculous. A premium auto manufacturer is accused of securities fraud and sued, and some of you act as though the source of your information is the person guilty of making the allegations, or of perpetrating the alleged acts which jeopardised the firm and likely affected the ownership experience. Presumably every time the FT or WSJ report this they're concocting nightmares!
If you don't like any of it, exercise your many options, including complaining. I don't mind that either.
PH carried a news item on this subject earlier this year, on the Porsche News section. Did any of you objecting to this update dare to complain to the owners, editors and indeed the original author? I suspect not. I said I'd update this matter and I have and I will.
So to davek_964, et al, I repeat. If you do not like reading negative facts about Porsche and the implications, don't read this thread or any of of the links that I refer to when I post said facts. Your world of Porsche is fine and all's well. Enjoy it. I don't mind at all.
Utterly ridiculous. A premium auto manufacturer is accused of securities fraud and sued, and some of you act as though the source of your information is the person guilty of making the allegations, or of perpetrating the alleged acts which jeopardised the firm and likely affected the ownership experience. Presumably every time the FT or WSJ report this they're concocting nightmares!
Edited by bcnrml on Wednesday 5th May 18:14
Actually, for once, I'm going to jump to bcnrml's defence...
Leave the poor guy alone...
Just think about it for a moment, with a mind that obsessed with the demise of Porsche, just think what dreadful acts he might be perpetrating if he didn't spend all his time spouting this rubbish on here...
He fits the psychological profile of somebody far more sinister than 'keyboard warrior'
Leave the poor guy alone...
Just think about it for a moment, with a mind that obsessed with the demise of Porsche, just think what dreadful acts he might be perpetrating if he didn't spend all his time spouting this rubbish on here...
He fits the psychological profile of somebody far more sinister than 'keyboard warrior'
bcnrml said:
Well then, for the avoidance of doubt and in case you hadn't got it previously, I will post content on here whenever I wish, consistent with the forum's rules.
If you don't like any of it, exercise your many options, including complaining. I don't mind that either.
PH carried a news item on this subject earlier this year, on the Porsche News section. Did any of you objecting to this update dare to complain to the owners, editors and indeed the original author? I suspect not. I said I'd update this matter and I have and I will.
So to davek_964, et al, I repeat. If you do not like reading negative facts about Porsche and the implications, don't read this thread or any of of the links that I refer to when I post said facts. Your world of Porsche is fine and all's well. Enjoy it. I don't mind at all.
Utterly ridiculous. A premium auto manufacturer is accused of securities fraud and sued, and some of you act as though the source of your information is the person guilty of making the allegations, or of perpetrating the alleged acts which jeopardised the firm and likely affected the ownership experience. Presumably every time the FT or WSJ report this they're concocting nightmares!
I - and I suspect most people - don't have a problem with negative comments about Porsche. I have a few myself - for instance, I think the terms of their used warranty are pretty unacceptable.If you don't like any of it, exercise your many options, including complaining. I don't mind that either.
PH carried a news item on this subject earlier this year, on the Porsche News section. Did any of you objecting to this update dare to complain to the owners, editors and indeed the original author? I suspect not. I said I'd update this matter and I have and I will.
So to davek_964, et al, I repeat. If you do not like reading negative facts about Porsche and the implications, don't read this thread or any of of the links that I refer to when I post said facts. Your world of Porsche is fine and all's well. Enjoy it. I don't mind at all.
Utterly ridiculous. A premium auto manufacturer is accused of securities fraud and sued, and some of you act as though the source of your information is the person guilty of making the allegations, or of perpetrating the alleged acts which jeopardised the firm and likely affected the ownership experience. Presumably every time the FT or WSJ report this they're concocting nightmares!
Edited by bcnrml on Wednesday 5th May 18:14
On the other hand, I do have a problem with somebody who only posts negative comments, doesn't even own one of the cars and never offers anything constructive at all. What are you really trying to achieve? That's rhetorical by the way, since I really don't care.
bcnrml said:
It looks like Porsche was running out of money in 2008, less than one year after its best sales figures (IIRC). It would thus probably not have traded its way out of the global recession and is struggling to get out of the nadirs in the UK and US. None of this is good.
Unbelievable bad management. Instead of embarking on a David and Goliath attempt at acquiring V.W. imagine if they had reinvested in production methods and quality control. The company would probably be emerging from a recession with a rock solid reputation. Rather than one that seems to be crumbling by the day. Another round of law suits won't help this regardless of outcome.Edited by bcnrml on Wednesday 5th May 16:50
davek_964 said:
bcnrml said:
Well then, for the avoidance of doubt and in case you hadn't got it previously, I will post content on here whenever I wish, consistent with the forum's rules.
If you don't like any of it, exercise your many options, including complaining. I don't mind that either.
PH carried a news item on this subject earlier this year, on the Porsche News section. Did any of you objecting to this update dare to complain to the owners, editors and indeed the original author? I suspect not. I said I'd update this matter and I have and I will.
So to davek_964, et al, I repeat. If you do not like reading negative facts about Porsche and the implications, don't read this thread or any of of the links that I refer to when I post said facts. Your world of Porsche is fine and all's well. Enjoy it. I don't mind at all.
Utterly ridiculous. A premium auto manufacturer is accused of securities fraud and sued, and some of you act as though the source of your information is the person guilty of making the allegations, or of perpetrating the alleged acts which jeopardised the firm and likely affected the ownership experience. Presumably every time the FT or WSJ report this they're concocting nightmares!
I - and I suspect most people - don't have a problem with negative comments about Porsche. I have a few myself - for instance, I think the terms of their used warranty are pretty unacceptable.If you don't like any of it, exercise your many options, including complaining. I don't mind that either.
PH carried a news item on this subject earlier this year, on the Porsche News section. Did any of you objecting to this update dare to complain to the owners, editors and indeed the original author? I suspect not. I said I'd update this matter and I have and I will.
So to davek_964, et al, I repeat. If you do not like reading negative facts about Porsche and the implications, don't read this thread or any of of the links that I refer to when I post said facts. Your world of Porsche is fine and all's well. Enjoy it. I don't mind at all.
Utterly ridiculous. A premium auto manufacturer is accused of securities fraud and sued, and some of you act as though the source of your information is the person guilty of making the allegations, or of perpetrating the alleged acts which jeopardised the firm and likely affected the ownership experience. Presumably every time the FT or WSJ report this they're concocting nightmares!
Edited by bcnrml on Wednesday 5th May 18:14
On the other hand, I do have a problem with somebody who only posts negative comments, doesn't even own one of the cars and never offers anything constructive at all. What are you really trying to achieve? That's rhetorical by the way, since I really don't care.
First, and IIRC, people such as Flemke and I have stated repeatedly on here that it shouldn't matter what material items a person possesses as such information shouldn't affect anyone's perceptions of the value of their contributions to this debate or indeed society. You disagree with that? If not, why raise it as an issue (indeed assumption)?
Second, you're wrong in the assumption in the latter part of your third sentence. But you'll never ever know because I will never ever answer any question about what I own (car, house, money, sand, whatever). It's not your business.
Third, I provide a good deal of helpful advice to people on here, and argue the tenaciously sometimes on matters of principle to the benefit of people on here (and I've had emails corroborating that). I also post facts, unlike the opinionated and potty mouthed drivel that was often the case when I first joined PH. That makes my posts useful, even if you and others (especially Porsche) don't like them.
Finally, if you don't care, why bother? I post only with respect to what interests me. Why not just leave this thread alone? And that's no rhetorical question.
911wise said:
bcnrml said:
It looks like Porsche was running out of money in 2008, less than one year after its best sales figures (IIRC). It would thus probably not have traded its way out of the global recession and is struggling to get out of the nadirs in the UK and US. None of this is good.
Unbelievable bad management. Instead of embarking on a David and Goliath attempt at acquiring V.W. imagine if they had reinvested in production methods and quality control. The company would probably be emerging from a recession with a rock solid reputation. Rather than one that seems to be crumbling by the day. Another round of law suits won't help this regardless of outcome.Edited by bcnrml on Wednesday 5th May 16:50
WHO'S NICKED MY POPCORN SMILEYkVA said:
Actually, for once, I'm going to jump to bcnrml's defence...
Leave the poor guy alone...
Just think about it for a moment, with a mind that obsessed with the demise of Porsche, just think what dreadful acts he might be perpetrating if he didn't spend all his time spouting this rubbish on here...
He fits the psychological profile of somebody far more sinister than 'keyboard warrior'
Well, that is the dilemma, isn't it - do you respond, and provide the poor fellow with the human contact he so obviously craves, despite the rather bizarre manner in which he seeks it, or do you ignore it in the hope that one day he finds the mental strength and moral fortitutde to find a more productive and constructive way of engaging with others? I suppose it's the usual short term v. long term dichotomy - pander to the short term obsession, and all you do is reinforce the underlying problems which lead to the obsession in the first place. Act with the long term in mind, and you deprive the poor chap of the responses he is so obviously desparate for. Leave the poor guy alone...
Just think about it for a moment, with a mind that obsessed with the demise of Porsche, just think what dreadful acts he might be perpetrating if he didn't spend all his time spouting this rubbish on here...
He fits the psychological profile of somebody far more sinister than 'keyboard warrior'
DJB321 said:
kVA said:
Actually, for once, I'm going to jump to bcnrml's defence...
Leave the poor guy alone...
Just think about it for a moment, with a mind that obsessed with the demise of Porsche, just think what dreadful acts he might be perpetrating if he didn't spend all his time spouting this rubbish on here...
He fits the psychological profile of somebody far more sinister than 'keyboard warrior'
Well, that is the dilemma, isn't it - do you respond, and provide the poor fellow with the human contact he so obviously craves, despite the rather bizarre manner in which he seeks it, or do you ignore it in the hope that one day he finds the mental strength and moral fortitutde to find a more productive and constructive way of engaging with others? I suppose it's the usual short term v. long term dichotomy - pander to the short term obsession, and all you do is reinforce the underlying problems which lead to the obsession in the first place. Act with the long term in mind, and you deprive the poor chap of the responses he is so obviously desparate for. Leave the poor guy alone...
Just think about it for a moment, with a mind that obsessed with the demise of Porsche, just think what dreadful acts he might be perpetrating if he didn't spend all his time spouting this rubbish on here...
He fits the psychological profile of somebody far more sinister than 'keyboard warrior'
But he didn't buy it - didn't like the 'customer service' at the OPC apparently
(I think that's another word for discount, by the way) 
Oops - I sound like a stalker now!
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff