10/8/15 11:47 AM

Analysts at UBS and Societe Generale have put a price tag of between €32 billion and €35 billion

Who can dispute world class auditors like that in 140 characters or less?

But it sounds like the fix they have in mind is more than a firmware burn. More along the lines of refurbishing vehicles to actually conform to advertising claims.

Lets see: 35,000,000,000/11,000,000 = 35,000/11

So €3000 per car with the remainder to pay the lawyers?

Weighted heavy on the US clean air regulations, light in the third world, as noted above?

I can see it now, Zambia passing retroactive clean air regs narrowed to certain model year TDI VW's.

Like I said, who's going to dispute those auditors.

Sorry guys, making light of the situation just because it is so far out of bounds and it completely underscores how wrong the tea party libertarians are. It's like they live in some fairy land with corporate pixies giving stuff away. My ex-sister-in-law was an anarchist. Every demonstration of anarchy I've ever seen was of chaos and destruction. Be careful what you vote for! ;^)

10/8/15 4:56 PM

I'd love to respond to your point, but frankly I'm not sure I know what it is. If it is that the estimate is way high, and VW will and should have to pay much less, I disagree.

Today we learned that the US head of VW knew about the problem 18 months before it was disclosed. And a snippet of the congressional hearing I saw had the question "How do you consider yourself a member of the human race when you intentionally poison the environment?" Fair question. Auto emissions shorten lives due to cancer and other problems. That's why there are limits.

Any fix will leave the car a POS, which the buyers were defrauded into buying. Fraud is much different than negligence. And the exposure to punitive damages is exponential.

I am not a trial lawyer, and I would pay $ to argue this before a jury. Shooting fish in a barrel.

My guess is that VW will pay out their a$$ to settle the class actions because they cannot let this get close to a jury. And that leaves fines and clear criminal liability.

10/8/15 6:00 PM

I think my point was this is a game of international whack-a-mole.

Then I went off on a tangent. (guffaw)

Your fraud observation is the best approach I've read (or heard.)

Dimes to dollars the Congressman you quoted is in the house minority.

10/9/15 3:52 PM

"Consumer Reports staff manipulated each car’s computer, putting it into “dyno” or test mode, and then unplugged rear-wheel sensors before conducting road tests that measured acceleration and fuel economy.

On the 2011 Jetta SportWagen TDI, the acceleration time to 60 mph increased from 9.9 seconds to 10.5 seconds, while fuel economy dropped from 50 mpg highway, to 46 mpg, an 8 percent decline.

On the 2015 Jetta TDI, acceleration was about the same, 9.1 seconds in cheat mode and 9.2 seconds with the emissions system functioning. But fuel economy took a hit, dropping from 53 mpg to 50, a 5.7 percent decline."

Full Story:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUPnAA_Y3XI

If you had a VW Diesel would you bring it in for the recall fix when available?

10/9/15 3:56 PM

Does this make it less of a fraud than if it was 15-20%? I ask semi rhetorically, and not with any legal distinction.

10/9/15 4:50 PM

Rep. Welch read a statement from one of his constituents to Peter Horn, VW of America Group President.

"Volkswagen is the Lance Armstrong of the automotive industry."

10/9/15 5:42 PM

NM

10/9/15 5:54 PM

quote:

---

Does this make it less of a fraud than if it was 15-20%?

---

10/9/15 7:38 PM

"But it does make it a more stupid one! (big risk, small reward)"


I admit to expecting a much larger percent. And not believing that minute one just yet...

10/9/15 8:22 PM

I dunno, but I expect there will be different results and ways of measuring the performance and fuel economy hits. Another analysis said the biggest performance hit was low end power and torque, which I believe are the performance attributes seen desirable in "sporty" diesels. So 0-60 time may not be the best measure. Anyway, as April suggests, if there are not significant differences, why would they bother taking the risk?

Another element of fraud is selling cars that ostensibly comply with emissions laws. I think ultimately the biggest punishment will be for intentionally flouting pollution laws, not simply compensating buyers for diminished quality/value.

I don't think stupidity is a defense to either fraud or intentional violation of pollution laws.

10/10/15 2:57 PM

Something to think about, most modern cars go into a limp mode when they have multiple sensor failures. The car on the dyno saw every sensor on the back end fail and it went into a limp mode. My Tahoe has done it once when it blew off a radiator hose an pegged the temp sensor. It saved the motor no doubt.

My point, I would bet it was something that VW just stumbled on then started building the car to pass the test.

Like I mentioned early in the thread, GM did it years ago. They exploited the test. I feel in both cases the companies met the law as it was tested but did not meet the intent.

"Know the rules intimately so you know how to cheat more effectively."

10/10/15 3:50 PM

I don't know how the law reads, but. I would be amazed if it has that big a loophole in it. I haven't heard anyone, even VW, claim that they complied with the letter of the law. If they did, I don't see how they would have liability. However they started off by setting aside 7 billion and everyone agrees that is inadequate. Their stock has lost a third of its value, their Chairman is gone, and they are trying to raise cash so their credit rating won't be trashed. If they complied with the law, don't you think we would have heard that from them? Or from anyone?

10/10/15 7:15 PM

I only watched a few minutes of the congressional testimony but one of the interrogators said something like "you need to be honest with your consumers, stockholders, insurers and set aside ten times that much."

He was talking buyback.

I almost think the congressman was glad to finally grill a corporate exec from another country. They've had enough practice grilling the local talent.

Looking at the upcoming CSPAN rerun coverage, Sunday the 11th 4-6:30, something to watch between downs of the Patriots and Cowboys!!!

10/11/15 8:32 AM

There are so many possible causes of action here (and so many potential plaintiffs--and, well, perhaps defendants, too) that I think this is going to end with VW singing "I fought the law and the law won."

I would not be surprised to see VW left as a (diesel)-smoking crater.

10/11/15 1:20 PM

I don't know what the consumer law is in the US. but here in Australia (and also in New Zealand) it has what is called the consumer guarantee, which in this situation would seem to allow a consumer who has purchased a car due to false representations to return it for a refund or obtain damages for the reduction in value.

https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/consumer-guarantees

And an article exploring how this might apply to Volkswagen and their cars is here: https://theconversation.com/explainer-can-i-get-a-refund-for-my-emissions-cheating-volkswagen-48815

10/11/15 2:59 PM

Different set of circumstances, but the Hyudnai/ Kia issue that occurred a few years ago could provide soem reference points related to fines and consumer liabilities:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/11/03/kia-hyundai-mpg-epa/18410431/

10/13/15 7:44 AM

I found the Economist letter to the editor, extracted from the current issue to be rather provocative.

----

In 1998 America’s Environmental Protection Agency reached a $1 billion settlement with heavy-duty diesel-engine manufacturers over their use of precisely the same software approach as VW. There were literally hundreds of articles discussing this use of engine- controller software in technical, popular and engineering-news journals. Media reports show that officials from the EPA were present at a meeting in 1994 at which an EPA staff member discussed control strategies based on the test cycle. This demonstrates that at the very least the EPA had notice that electronic engine-controllers were being programmed to detect tests as early as 1994. It is impossible for any competent regulator to have been unaware of what was going on with other diesel engines after 1998.

You called for criminal prosecutions of executives that engage in this sort of behaviour. When will you start to hold regulators to the same standard?

ANDREW MORRISS
Dean
Texas A&M School of Law
Fort Worth, Texas

10/14/15 4:20 AM

One would think that after that, a more stringent testing regime would be in order...

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/b1ab9f485b098972852562e7004dc686/93e9e651adeed6b7852566a60069ad2e