Porsche 2012 Annual Report Download - page 40

appeal. Porsche SE continues to consider the
actions to be inadmissible and the claims to be
without merit. The original total of 46 plaintiffs
brought action for damages against Porsche SE
and against former members of the management
board of Porsche SE and alleged damages of more
than 2.5 billion US dollars in aggregate. The actions
were dismissed in December 2010 in the first in-
stance. 32 plaintiffs appealed that decision. For the
twelve plaintiffs who have now withdrawn their
appeal, the action for damages against Porsche SE
that has been pending before the Regional Court of
Braunschweig since the end of 2011, remains unaf-
fected by the withdrawal of the appeal. In this
action the plaintiffs last alleged an overall damage
of about 1.8 billion euro, though it remained unclear
to what extent the alleged damage was comprised
of damage already asserted before the U.S. Court.
Porsche SE considers the claim to be without mer-
it. We refer to the corresponding reporting in the
section “Subsequent events” in this management
report.
Two claims for damages were filed with a New
York State Court (court of first instance) on 18 Feb-
ruary 2011 and 15 March 2011. In their complaints,
the plaintiffs asserted claims for common law fraud
and unjust enrichment on the basis of allegations
similar to those made in their complaints before the
United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York. The plaintiffs claimed to have lost at
least 1.4 billion US dollars. Porsche SE’s motion to
dismiss the complaints and for summary judgment
was denied on 6 August 2012. Porsche SE ap-
pealed this decision to the New York Supreme
Court Appellate Division for the First Department
and also moved to stay discovery in New York State
Court pending a decision on Porsche’s appeal.
Porsche’s motion to stay discovery pending the
appeal was granted on 9 October 2012 and on 27
December 2012 the New York Supreme Court Ap-
pellate Division for the First Department reversed
the decision of the lower court and dismissed the
complaints. Plaintiffs filed a motion to reargue or in
the alternative leave to appeal on 10 January 2013.
On 31 January 2013, the parties entered into a
stipulation under which Porsche SE agreed not to
raise any statute-of-limitations defense against the
plaintiffs’ claims, provided these are filed before a
court in Germany within 90 days and provided these
claims were not already statute-barred when the
plaintiffs first filed their actions in the USA. Irrespec-
tive of this, Porsche SE considers the claims filed to
be without merit. Under the settlement, the plaintiffs
withdrew their petition for a second hearing or,
alternatively, an appeal. The parties consented to
entry of a final judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ com-
plaints against Porsche SE in the New York State
Court in their entirety. We refer to the corresponding
reporting in the section “Subsequent events” in this
management report.
In 2009, 2010 and 2011, market participants in
Germany applied for conciliatory proceedings
against Porsche SE and in part against Volkswagen
AG with regard to the assertion of claims for dam-
ages on the basis of alleged breaches of statutory
capital market regulations in connection with the
acquisition of a shareholding in Volkswagen AG.
Various market participants have filed further appli-
cations for conciliatory proceedings against Por-
sche SE based on the same claims; the company
received these applications in January, February
and November 2012. Some of the new applications
are also directed against Volkswagen AG and in one
case against Porsche AG. All of the claims alleged
in conciliatory proceedings relate to alleged lost
profits or alleged losses incurred estimated by the
market participants to total approximately 3.3 billion
euro. Porsche SE considers the allegations to be
without merit and has not taken part in the concilia-
tory proceedings.
In January 2011, an individual filed a claim for
damages against Porsche SE and another defend-
ant in the amount of approximately 3 million euro.
The plaintiff claimed to have entered into options
relating to shares in Volkswagen AG in 2008 on the
basis of inaccurate information and the omission
of information as well as market manipulation by
Porsche SE and to have incurred losses from the-
se options due to the share price development in
2The company
Group management report
236