[ad_1]
* Judge suggests some claims may be required
* VW share price fell after US authorities jumped
* The case represents 1,670 complaints against VW
* VW denies wrongdoing in regulatory disclosure (adds details of court statement)
BRAUNSCHWEIG, Germany, Sept 10 (Reuters) – Investors sued Volkswagen on Monday for 9.2 billion euros in compensation for the diesel emissions scandal. prescribed time.
Shareholders representing 1,670 claims are claiming damages for the scandal, which broke out in September 2015 and cost Volkswagen (VW) 27.4 billion euros in penalties and fines so far.
It is likely that only part of the claims will be taken into account because of the statute of limitations, Judge President Christian Jaede told the Braunschweig Higher Regional Court at the beginning of the proceedings, without giving any figures.
The case is so complicated that the court does not want to stop, with many legal issues to clarify, said Jaede. The court has not yet established a detailed timetable for proceedings in a case that could end up in a higher court.
The plaintiffs claim that VW has failed to inform investors of the financial impact of the scandal, which was made public only after the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a "Notice of Violation" on September 18, 2015.
The plaintiffs argued that if investors became aware of VW's criminal activities in rigging the emissions tests, they might have sold shares earlier or would not have made any purchases.
VW's shares lost up to 37% of their value in the days following the authorities' disclosure of illegal pollution levels emitted by VW diesel cars.
Who knew what, when?
"VW should have told the market that they cheated and generated billions worth of risks," said Andreas Tilp, plaintiffs' lawyer.
"We believe that VW should have told the market, by June 2008, that it could not manufacture the technology it needed in the United States."
VW's decision between 2005 and 2007 to install cheat software in diesel cars was illegal, but it's not clear that this was taken to keep investors in the dark, said the judge. Jaede.
However, Tilp said VW should have made public that it could not comply with US emissions standards by legal means, adding that if the court did not see it in this way, it would limit the case of the complainants.
VW has admitted systematic emission fraud, but denies any wrongdoing in regulatory disclosure.
"This case focuses on whether Volkswagen has met its disclosure obligations to shareholders and capital markets," said VW lawyer Markus Pfueller. "We are convinced that this is the case."
In the Jaede case, one of the challenges is that it covers many incidents dating back to 2005, with claims before July 9, 2012 potentially invalid because of the statute of limitations, the court said. in a summary of the procedures.
However, the results of a study on VW diesel engines commissioned by the International Clean Transportation Council (ICCT) and investigations conducted by US regulators from May 2014 could constitute inside information, the court said.
Jaede said the critical point was the beginning of 2014, when he said that VW employees had learned that tests in the US had shown that its diesel cars emit much more toxic nitrous oxide than in the United States. laboratories.
There is also the question of who, within VW, knew what and when the information would actually have had an impact on the stock price had it been made public and, if so, how should the damage be done? to be calculated.
VW's board of directors did not consider it necessary to inform investors before September 2015 because other car manufacturers had entered into an EPA breach agreement, and that VW was in the process of talks to reach an agreement.
He added that board members at the time, including current CEO Herbert Diess and President Hans Dieter Poetsch, had not violated the disclosure rules.
The plaintiffs, including the fund management company Deka, allege that directors below the level of the board of directors, including division heads, were aware early on that there was deliberate fraud and systematic.
The company was therefore aware of the criminal activities and investors should have been warned earlier, according to the plaintiffs.
(1 dollar = 0.8648 euros)
(Report by Ilona Wissenbach and Jan Schwartz, edited by Emma Thomasson, edited by Mark Potter)
Source link
