AutoGuide News Blog
The AutoGuide News Blog is your source for breaking stories from the auto industry. Delivering news immediately, the AutoGuide Blog is constantly updated with the latest information, photos and video from manufacturers, auto shows, the aftermarket and professional racing.
Former Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone will avoid jail time because of a technicality in Germany that allows defendants to end a trail for a fee.
It might be time to start saying “buh-bye” to Italian automotive design house Bertone.
Your New Year’s Day hangover is nothing compared to the headache Porsche is currently threatened with. A group of unnamed investors are suing the company for about 2.6 billion dollars over the company’s failed Volkswagen takeover attempt in 2008.
Official details are scarce in the case, but according to OTS newswire as of late Friday, the lawsuit was filed in the district court of Stuttgart, Germany. Additionally, according to a story published by Reuters with sources close to the case suggests the plaintiffs are Elliott Associates, L.P., Elliott International, L.P., The Liverpool Limited Partnership, Perry Partners L.P., Perry Partners International, Inc., DE Shaw Valence International Inc., and York Capital Management Europe (UK) Advisors, LLP.
A statement from the investors explains the suit, though Porsche is insisting the claims are unjustified.
“Porsche gained control over the price of VW common stock as it secretly built enormous derivative positions covering almost all of VW’s freely traded shares, then triggered a massive short squeeze, and finally released billions of euros worth of shares into the short squeeze for its own profit,” said the statement.
Meanwhile, Porsche spokesperson Frank Gaube rejected the notion of the suit calling it unjustified.
Volkswagen is wary of the situation as well. Porsche incurred about $13 billion in debt as a result of their failed 2008 takeover attempt, but lawsuits upheld the merger that happened a year later between the two companies. Volkswagen just seems to be waiting and hoping to avoid the maelstrom of investor anger spawned by the debacle.
[Source: Automotive News]
The Supreme Court will rule on whether or not law enforcement officers need a warrant in order to track a suspect’s vehicle with a GPS device.
This case is based on Antoine Jones, whose vehicle was being tracked for a month without his consent or consent from the justice department. The police are arguing that tracking should not require a warrant because the location of a vehicle on public streets is public knowledge. The others are arguing that this type of surveillance is an unjust invasion of privacy. However, Jones was caught selling cocaine when his vehicle was being monitored.
Lower courts have agreed with Jones’ attorneys regarding privacy, however there is a precedent for allowing evidence to be obtained through warrantless GPS tracking.
The jury deliberated for two hours in a court on Long Island before voting in Toyota’s favor. The court case, which began on Monday, is the first one related to Toyota’s acceleration problems since the widespread recalls began in 2009.
The plaintiff, a doctor from Brooklyn, argued that the crash was caused by the design of either the floor mats or the electronic throttle system. Toyota countered that he simply pressed the gas pedal by mistake. Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle refused to admit evidence related to the throttle system.
The plaintiff and his lawyers have not yet decided whether they are seeking an appeal.
This is the first case Toyota has defended in a long, long list of lawsuits filed relating to the unintended-acceleration issues. Thousands of owners are seeking damages related to vehicle damages, personal injuries, and even widespread depreciation. But for the company’s lawyers, this early victory for them is a good start.
Nobody in their right mind could ever confuse the Ford F-150 pickup truck with the Ferrari F150 Formula 1 car. But Ford’s lawyers seem to disagree, and have asked a U.S. court for an injunction against Ferrari and their use of the name.
Ferrari claims that the F150 moniker is intended to honor the 150th anniversary of Italy’s unification. So far, neither side has commented but we’ll be watching to see what unfolds.