Porsche 2012 Annual Report Download - page 143

In early March 2013, 12 plaintiffs, of the most
recent total of 32 plaintiffs in the appellate pro-
ceeding, withdrew their appeal before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with
Porsche SE’s consent. The effectiveness of the
withdrawal of the appeal is subject to its ac-
ceptance by the court. The appellate proceeding
concerning the remaining 20 plaintiffs remains
unaffected by the withdrawal of the 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 instance. 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who have now withdrawn their appeal, the action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 Braun-
schweig since the end of 2011, remains unaffected
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 dam-
age already asserted before the U.S. Court.
Porsche SE considers the claim to be without merit.
Subsequent events
On 27 December 2012, the Court of Appeals of
the New York State Supreme Court overruled the
decision of the court of first instance and dismissed
the claims for damages brought before this court. On
10 January 2013, the total of 26 plaintiffs responded
by filing a petition for a second hearing or, alterna-
tively, an appeal. 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 pro-
vided these claims were not already statute-barred
when the plaintiffs first filed their actions in the USA.
Irrespective of this, Porsche SE considers the claims
filed to be without merit. Under the settlement, the
plaintiffs withdrew their motion to reargue or in the
alternative leave to 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.
In February 2013, it became known that the
Stuttgart public prosecutor had launched investi-
gations against all members of the supervisory
board of Porsche SE from 2008 and a former
employee in connection with the allegation of
jointly aiding and abetting violation of the prohibi-
tion on market manipulation by omission.
139