gnat

The only thing I've seen that would impact this actually written down is that they have to hit a certain percentage (we found that has climbed to 85% right?). That doesn't force Porsche to not sell them, but it's a good incentive for them to not do so as that is a chunk of cars that they can be damn sure get fixed.

It also behoves Porsche to hang onto them until the fix is applied to lessen their risk profile if there are issues with the fix.

So I haven't seen anything that could actually prevent them from selling them as soon as the deal is finalized, but I do see very good reasons that they wouldn't want to. As I said previously, IF they did I would expect some ironclad legal agreements that the buyer would have to sign stating that it will get the fix applied outside of the vehicle being totaled before the fix is available.

They've kinda already done that though given that they've left us the loop hole of skipping the fix altogether, yet still getting at least some of the money.

If it was really about fixing these "dirty" vehicles that loop hole wouldn't be there.

As far as the priority of fixes goes, as with all things legal, if it's not written down then it doesn't exist. So the court may WANT Porsche to fix the already sold Cayennes first, but without it being written in the settlement then there is nothing binding Porsche and they get to choose so long as they can meet the timelines set forth in the agreement.

stronbl

Deleted.

RobC4sX51

2015 & 2016 are the facelift models

PJ Cayenne

No way those CDs are going anywhere without a compliant fix. Good question if PCNA decides to fix their own cars before ours. Truthfully, I'm in no rush to have mine fixed. Motivation may increase towards the end of the 6 year warranty and after a test drive in a fixed Gen 2.1,

visitador

Was that in the interview with the lead attorney or in the transcript? I recall somewhere that it was expected VW to behave towards the 3.0 in the same way as the 2.0, that is, deal with existing owners first before their own inventory.

PJ Cayenne

I don't recall reading about the disposition of the unsold inventory. If you think about it though, regardless of if they fix their cars first, or ours, without compliance- no sale.

Mallens

PJ Cayenne: You are correct, without an approved repair, they can't be sold or exported.

Approved repair, what does that mean? If they can be brought into compliance or not, as long as the repair is approved by EPA/CARB (which could be a reduced emissions repair) we don't have any remedy than to take the repair or opt out. This is important distinction because if I was VAG, I would be shooting for this much less lofty goal than an approved emission complaint repair if that is too difficult to achieve. Also, why the $500 payment for reduced performance as a result of the repair? This is most likely because VAG knows that for them to get these cars into compliance, the vehicles will be impacted in one way or another that will degrade their performance.

jbse39

When I bought my 14 CD a few weeks ago, dealer specifically mentioned that they have 15 or 16 CDs in their inventory they CANNOT sell as new or CPO at the moment. FWIW, they said they can only sell when PCNA has approved fix.

gnat

Ugh. I wasn't clear or people are misunderstanding.

I don't expect PCNA to sell unfixed vehicles mainly because it opens them up to more liability.

What I said is that I don't see how it is explicitly barred by the settlement and I can see a path they could use to get these cars off their books after the fix has been approved, but before it can actually be applied.

Again, don't think they will. Just see how they could manage it.

Mallens

DOES ANYONE HAVE A COPY OF THE NADA Values as of Sept 2015? Would like to confirm that the following paragraph adequately address CD options?

When I called NADA about the value of my car and went online, saw that many of the Porsche options were not available to show the value of my car, a 2014 CD.

When I brought this up to the attorney, they responded that they understand and allowances would be made to address NADA lack of information.

Reading this in the amended decree:

"22. Options Adjustments. The options adjustments to Base Clean Trade and Base Clean Retail Values made to derive the Vehicle Clean Trade and Vehicle Clean Retail Values for MY 2013-2015 Eligible Vehicles are based only on Volkswagen, Audi, or Porsche OEM-installed options that are valued in the September 2015 NADA Used Car Guide or, for some MY 2015 vehicle options, later editions of the NADA Used Car Guide, using the NADA “Clean Trade-In” and “Clean Retail” values of those"
"options, respectively."

PJ Cayenne

Yes, correct, they aren't selling the new vehicles because they would just add customers to the Class and the Feds would jail someone for continuing to sell the cars. All that being said, if there is no timely fix, only a partial fix, we'd get the buyback, but what would they do with the unsold inventory? Can't be sold as compliant. Maybe they could pay a large fine and offer them for sale. Just guessing???

Mallens

PJ, that is part of the problem here. It would make sense that if it was only a partial fix, you would expect a buyback, but that isn't the case. As long as CARB/EPA ok the repair (even if it doesn't bring them into compliance), they can still proceed with the recall and repair without having to give us an option of a buyback.

Worst case, it is just a reduced emission repair that gets approval and really messes with the performance of the vehicles. Best we can do at that point is return to the court for ask for additional remedies that weren't include in the decree (why was this left out? make no sense unless you are VAG). Then maybe we get something, you can bet VAG will fight it to the end and try to avoid having to give up anything more.

Mallens

Here is my correspondence asking about this specifically this morning:

The answer to your question is yes:
we can move for a buyback and/or other appropriate remedies ( more money etc) if there is timely regulator approval, but reduced performance beyond the metrics.

Elizabeth Cabraser
LIEFF CABRASER
ecabraser@lchb.com<mailto:ecabraser@lchb.com>
mobile:415-806-2100

On Feb 27, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Michael wrote:

Elizabeth,

If you could answer another concern I have, I would appreciate it.

If defendants submit in a timely manner and get EPA/CARB approval for a reduced emission modification, what will happen then? What happens if the performance is reduced beyond what is covered by the $500 payment a 3% reduction? Is there any language in the decree that covers this area, like triggering a buyback or something to us owners that don’t accept keeping a vehicle that clearly wasn’t what we thought we were buying? Any degradation in the vehicles performance or other adverse effects will also lower it’s marketability, again, placing us in a difficult situation.

Seems like this is a huge win for the defendants, all things considered.

In your last email you wrote:

"In terms of overall environmental impact, they determined instead to allow and require an emissions complaint repair effort to proceed first , as more environmentally responsible.”

How could NOT removing these cars from the road be the most environmentally responsible thing to do? Wouldn’t we be replacing them with cars that we found later that are emission’s compliant? If defendants took the cars, held them until they could repair them to make them compliant, they could cycle them back into the market as emissions compliant vehicles.

Still hard to see where the shift in strategy from the 2.0L settlement to the now 3.0L went from VAG carrying the burden of their actions, to now the burden being distributed among VAG and the owners that purchased their product that they misrepresented to us.

If there was a clear end in sight, I may feel differently. The fact that we get to wait another year, maybe more, is very unsettling.

stronbl

There are references to this in the DOJ 2nd Partial Consent Decree - you can search the PDF for it. But see Part IV - Partial Injunctive Relief, sections 9-16. That should answer most of it.

Also recall the dealers class action was approved at the time of the 2.0L case - it was the 2.0L case that had them concerned they we not getting compensated for new inventory or used TDI inventory. In the dealers settlement there are also references to the forbidding of sales until an approved emissions fix. There is only a weak reference to the 3.0L case - essentially it enjoins the 3.0L case to the 2.0L case if an agreement is approved for 3.0L. I suspect they may need to modify their original settlement for 3.0L but who knows.

DenverDiesel

So the previous owner of my 14 CD was a lease. That payout is substantially less than a first owner would get. I am technically the ??? First or second owner ??

Will I get the full compensation a first owner would get? Lawyers?