It's double or even triple spaced text, plus it is a transcript of a conversation. Should take no more than 20 minutes.

 

The 3.0 is first mentioned on page 108 with no requirement of anything.

 

None was expected. The judge had previously stated that he was expecting an update on that in early November. He reiterated that he is expecting an update.

 

Read through it pretty quickly.

The thing that stands out is that the value of the buyback is frozen at September 2015 values whether you trade it in after the deal is made, or you run it all the way until the 2018 deadline.

 

Please stop your dismissive comments.

 

Here is an example of one of the plaintiffs who are competing for VW funding.
http://www.swenergy.org/huge-vw-sett...ement#Comments

I admit to be part of the Renewables Movement, and I support SWEEP (from the article), but this is misplaced IMO. Just opportunistic.
Electric vehicles require energy that is produced elsewhere - usually by coal in environmentally sensitive areas. Not ready for prime time yet. Diesel is a better alternative, at least until 2050.

No matter, they must be satisfied before any aggrieved owner is compensated. Seems backwards to me.

 

Oops - I got ahead of an article in the sometimes regarded NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/bu...es-breyer.html

From the article,

 

Don't understand what you mean by this? Are you trying to say that these payouts to various agencies for "environmental damages" must be made before any individual owners are compensated?

If that is what you are saying, that is false. The judge has stated that as soon as the program is implemented, and he expects to implement it next week unless he sees something compelling in the objections he has gotten on file, that the program is to be immediately implemented, and that the owners are to be paid no later than 90 days within submittal of a claim, if not sooner. He did ask for patience as the program gets rolling, however it was quite clear that the goal is to get the program rolling ASAP.

If that's not what you meant, I would like to understand what you did.

 

Reading the transcript last night, the Judge is definitely enjoying the spotlight. But I don't really care as long as he is pushing for the plaintiffs to the max.

I say that coming from a big corporate background, and not at all being one to say "I'm tired of these big corporations". VW is getting what they deserve. Usually in most of these cases, people are trying to do the right thing, but a mistake is made (sometimes unknowingly, sometimes knowingly) and there was no ill intent. Although most people don't want to think this way, even huge national corporations are made up of individual people trying to do a job, and not looking out the window each morning saying "how can I screw someone today".

In this case, multiple parties at VW did just that and they deserve what they are getting. Having said that, they appear to have quickly reached the decision to roll over and pay up, which is the ONLY way that they can emerge from this mess with any kind of hope of regaining any kind of goodwill in the US again. Yes, I know, that they didn't initially head in that direction, but it didn't take much prompting or prodding to get them to go that way. Not compared to what other large corporations have done in the past.

 

I was saying that all the other parties must be satisfied before the Court approves the settlement process. Not the timing of the payouts.
Of course, they won't be completely satisfied with their spoils, but they must have their "day in court."

As far as getting the program rolling ASAP, I hope he gives guidance - or more - to the Regulators, to approve a reasonable fix. Otherwise Owners are still held hostage.

 

I read the full transcript yesterday and found it a good read. The following are my observations/opinions from that read.

Most interesting was the "objections" to the settlement. It was a varied group, all who felt they were unfairly compensated in some manner from the settlement terms, if approved as is. I personally thought there were only a couple reasonable arguments but in the end as expected the settlement teams from PSC, VAG, US Gov, CA Gov all refuted the arguments and asked the judge to approve as is. Judge said on or before next Tuesday (Oct 25th) he'll make the decision. My money is he will preserve 99% of the as is proposal and any deviation will be very minor as not to require any further concurrence from each side that cannot be given immediately. The 2.0L case is nearing an end assuming no injunction on appeal. But it is a solid class settlement case and very doubtful any appeal will be granted (IMO). Can't appeal just because you don't like it - have to have a legal error, demonstrated collusion between parties, or that the class was not reasonably served, or some other technical legal bits.

The compensation procedure was again, well laid out and verified by both sides with US Gov & CA Gov endorsing. What will be interesting IMO is how much a precedent this will set regarding 3.0L case. Fundamental difference is in the remedy - if the sides agree there is a technical solution that does not impact original vehicle characteristics, again IMO, there will be minimum cash compensation i.e. toward a buy-back. The sticky part will be if they also tie it to the 85% rule from FTC/DOJ settlement, or create there own 85% rule. If the former, the numbers from 2.0L could overwhelm the 3.0L and not move the needle and thus no additional money penalty for VAG. Hopefully they will settle on a 3.0L specific remedy target percentage (could even be a higher percentage since there are considerably less 3.0L vehicles). I think this is what we'll be finding out on Nov 3rd - is there an agreed technical solution to the 3.0L case. If not, then we're back to the judge re-directing (enforcing) his earlier ruling to enter settlement negotiations between PSC and VAG. That could drag on quite a bit more, although the judge did make it clear no one was to plan Christmas vacation unless it was in NorCal - book your hotel rooms now. .

 

Now I understand what you're saying. Thanks for clarifying.

I think you would gain some greater understanding by reading the transcript. CARB, FTC, EPA, etc. all were there and spoke in unison for support of the settlement. They are having their day in court now. They are all in support of the agreement as currently proposed.

Once this judge approves the settlement, that's it. No more input from the govenment, at all. No more regulators having their say. Once he approves, then the machine for the buybacks / payouts begins. And as he said, he's likely to approve it this month.

 

Actually first mention was on bottom of page 28 / top of page 29. Foreshadowing the Nov 3rd meeting.

 

It was interesting reading, wasn't it. Reading transcripts of people speaking is always a little jarring to me. You never think about how you speak until you read it in print....

In any event, I agree, this will be interesting to see how it parlays into the 3.0 Liter settlement. I guess it depends on how much of a technical difference VAG can convince the government there is between the two cases. And with our cars running a full urea injection system, there are definitely some major technical differences.

Note, that in the 2 liter case, that whether you elect for a buyback, or you elect to keep your car and have the fix applied (and let's set aside that for now, there is no fix approved), you still got compensated money. From $5k to about $7,500 if I recall correctly. And that $7,500 was on a newer car with an MSRP of about $35k (again, going by memory from the tables published earlier so please don't quote me on exact figures).

Judging by what the judge (ha) has said in his dialog, I would expect that there would be a similar cash payout, regardless of a buyback / fix scenario. I would also suppose that the judge would be inclined to require VAG to have a buyback scenario. One of the things he spoke about, and the VAG parties spoke about, was choice. You can either keep and fix, or have it bought back. I can't imagine that we won't be given the same choice, even if the fix is in hand immediately. I could be completely wrong, but having read the last two transcripts in their entirety, that's the sense I get where the parties (judge, VAG and the regulators) are coming from.

Remember, the judge has said multiple times his goal is to get the polluting vehicles off the road (not running or fixed) as soon as possible, and also get the plaintiffs made whole as soon as possible. He has cited the speed of the resolution more than once, and in this particular hearing, has cited that the need for a speedy resolution outweighed the need to do things that might make the settlement "fair" for every individual buyer. Those things would be individual appraisals of vehicles, compensation for aftermarket add ons, etc.

My guess would be that the following happens.

1. We get some amount of cash as compensation for diminished value due to the whole thing. That cash is also supposed to cover variances in the value due to items listed in the last paragraph above.

2. We get a choice between buyback and take a fix.

3. VAG has a fix for the 3 liter long before they have one for the 2 liter.

We shall see.

 

Of course, if you don't like the settlement, you can always opt out of the class and initiate your own lawsuit to get more money.

(Or, realistically, give more to a lawyer)