www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49878247
30Bn Euros so far in settling US claims, 500K cars bought back + retro-fitting costs
450K at say £2000 is a lot of money - even for VW
Mind you BP's Gulf of Mexico explosion & oil spills cost £62Bn
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 30 Sep 19 at 12:48
|
>> Mind you BP's Gulf of Mexico explosion & oil spills cost £62Bn
Wasn't some of that covered by insurance, and some pushed out to sub contractors?
Dont think VW can offset criminal activity against insurance
|
>>Dont think VW can offset criminal activity against insurance
You'd be surprised. Much depends I think, but criminal behaviour of their employees is perhaps what would save the company coffers.
|
>> >>Dont think VW can offset criminal activity against insurance
>>
>> You'd be surprised. Much depends I think, but criminal behaviour of their employees is perhaps
>> what would save the company coffers.
Prosecutors have and are going after senior management, does that have a bearing on insurance?
|
God it's complicated;
If an employee does something on purpose that the company could not be expected to know about or prevent, then the company may not be liable. That might be even more provable if the act was not only against company procedures it was against the law.
On the other hand if the company enabled, acknowledged, facilitated or even knew of that act then it'll make it even worse if the act is illegal.
However if it was a deliberate illegal act of employee(s) working outside the company direction and the company was not party to it, then even if they are responsible for putting it right, they may not be punished for it going wrong.
Insurance is probably going to depend on there being liability but not a deliberate company act. A criminal act by an individual employee may put it into that category.
In the case of BP there were determined to be failings implicit in company policies. e.g. maintenance.
However I think the lawsuit is about "misleading" information? Big word "misleading", could mean many things.
As I understand it this particular case is to establish the legal position as regards liability and actual loss. And that will be considering exactly this area.
Essentially, did the company act deliberately and dishonestly? AND has actual and material loss/damage been suffered?
Actual claims for compensation are a whole 'nother thing and will be some way down the line I expect. Say 2 - 3 years for this case, 1 - 2 years for the actual claims, uless VW tries some kind of out of court settlement.
I doubt they would, I think the US has only cost them $2bn or so because there really isn't that much in the way of actual loss for most people. I think FB said "450K at say £2000 is a lot of money" Well it isn't. It;s less than a billion.
The other case at the moment is not connected directly to the scandal but to the communication relating to the impact of that scandal on the company's finances and is being brought by investors. - didn't announce quickly enough, didn't explain how bad it could be.
tl:dr -> NAFC, maybe.
They could avoid *company* 'guilt' for the act and pay only compensation for the impact, which would then be a liability potentially covered by insurance.
But if I could answer with any competence they wouldn't need a court case. I'd be cheaper.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 30 Sep 19 at 16:16
|
>>covered by insurance, and some pushed out to sub contractors?
Very little of the total was insurance and the sub-contractors ducked most of the claims.
BP sold assets (oilfields, pipelines etc) and coughed for roughly 90% of the £62BN - BP set the explosion in place by not following the correct processes & procedures.
Cutting corners eg cutting back on maintenance in refineries were a trademark of BP under John Browne, now Lord Browne of xxxxx. It certainly caught up with BP when selling assets like refineries as due diligence by the buyer knocked back the asking price.
|
>> BP set the explosion in place by not following the correct processes & procedures.
>>
>> Cutting corners eg cutting back on maintenance in refineries were a trademark of BP under
>> John Browne, now Lord Browne of xxxxx. It certainly caught up with BP when selling
>> assets like refineries as due diligence by the buyer knocked back the asking price.
And whats even weirder is that I did some work in BP in london offices and computer facilities, and the local H&S was rigorous and prohibitive, "comes from a safety culture in dangerous oilfield and production facilities" they said. That was 2008/9, Deepwater Horizon was the following year.
|
>> 30Bn Euros so far in settling US claims, 500K cars bought back + retro-fitting costs
>>
I'm not aware they've retrofitted emissions stuff to any cars - I know that was the plan, but last I saw there were vast areas filled with cars. Don't know what they intend to do with them.
I'd certainly be happy to grab a couple of £K from VW - I quite like the cars and for our family, they've had just the right car on several occasions - but the company, and its dealers, are hateful.
|
Did they know?
The story is that Mercedes looked at the VW engines and wondered how they could meet the stated emission standards without all of the kit that they had put in to their cars to do the same.
I suspect VW's management were fully aware of what was going on.
|
Volkswagen - 450,000 German VW Diesel owners head to the courts - Zero
