Porsche 2012 Annual Report Download - page 122

Porsche SE considers the allegations to be without
merit and has not taken part in the conciliatory
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
2008 in the amount claimed. On 27 June 2012 a
hearing took place. By decision of 19 September
2012 the Regional Court of Braunschweig dis-
missed the claim. The plaintiff did not appeal the
judgment. Thus, the judgment has become final
and binding.
In October 2011, ARFB Anlegerschutz UG
(haftungsbeschränkt), Berlin, brought an action
before the Regional Court of Braunschweig
against Porsche SE and Volkswagen AG based on
claims for damages allegedly assigned to it by 41
investment funds, insurance companies and other
companies in the amount of approximately
1.1 billion euro. Some of the 41 companies are
also applicants in the aforementioned conciliatory
proceedings. Four of the companies are hedge
funds that have also filed claims against Porsche
SE before a US Federal Court that were dis-
missed. In December 2011, this claim was ex-
tended to include the alleged claims for damages
filed by ARFB Anlegerschutz UG (haftungs-
beschränkt) on behalf of another 24 entities for an
allegedly assigned right in the amount of approx-
imately 700 million euro. Two of these other com-
panies are hedge funds that have also filed claims
against Porsche SE before a US Federal Court
that were dismissed. In connection with the
extension of the claim in December 2011, ARFB
Anlegerschutz UG (haftungsbeschränkt) also partly
withdrew its original action to the extent that
alleged claims for damages of an investment fund
in the amount of approximately 4.5 million euro
arising from an allegedly assigned right are no
longer upheld. In addition, ARFB Anlegerschutz
UG (haftungsbeschränkt) filed another action
against the company at the Regional Court of
Braunschweig in December 2011, asserting al-
leged claims for damages on behalf of another
five companies, again from the alleged assigned
right, for a total of approximately 351 million euro.
The plaintiff alleges that, in 2008, on the basis of
inaccurate information and the omission of infor-
mation as well as market manipulation by Porsche
SE, the companies behind the complaints either
failed to participate in price increases of shares in
Volkswagen AG and, hence, lost profits or entered
into derivatives relating to shares in Volkswagen
AG and incurred losses from these transactions
due to the share price development in the amount
claimed. Porsche SE considers the alleged claims
to be without merit and has responded by filing
motions to dismiss. On Porsche SE’s petitions for
providing security for the costs of the proceedings
filed in both proceedings hearings took place on
27 June 2012. After Porsche SE and the plaintiff
agreed on security for the costs of the first in-
stance of both proceedings, the Regional Court of
Braunschweig postponed the decision on Porsche
SE’s remaining petitions until the end of the first
instance. A trial date for hearing the case has
been set for 17 April 2013 in both proceedings.
In December 2011, a total of seven plaintiffs
filed a complaint against Porsche SE at the
Stuttgart Regional Court and asserted claims for
damages against the company in the total amount
of some 2 billion euro, based on allegations of
market manipulation and inaccurate information in
connection with the acquisition of a shareholding
in Volkswagen AG in 2008. Six of the plaintiffs are
hedge funds that have also filed claims against
Porsche SE before a US Federal Court that were
dismissed. The Regional Court of Stuttgart re-
ferred the action to the Regional Court of Braun-
schweig. Porsche SE considers the alleged claims
to be without merit and has responded by filing a
motion to dismiss. With their reply, four of the
plaintiffs partially withdrew their action in the
2The company
Group management report
2118