Porsche SE says top German court rules out €5.4 billion damages claim
Porsche SE says the Federal Court's decision is binding on lower courts and leaves plaintiffs with no valid claim.
Published
Porsche SE said Germany's Federal Court has ruled in a way that is binding on courts handling the underlying case, and that plaintiffs have no valid claim to damages of €5.4 billion.
The claim stems from a model case brought under Germany's capital markets litigation rules, in which about 40 plaintiffs, mostly US hedge funds, sought roughly €5.4 billion plus interest over Porsche SE's build-up of its stake in Volkswagen in 2008, according to a Porsche SE press release. The plaintiffs alleged market manipulation and inaccurate disclosure, with some claims also citing antitrust violations, the release said.
The Higher Regional Court of Celle rejected the plaintiffs' claims on September 30, 2022, finding that Porsche SE's statements at the time about building its VW stake were accurate, according to the same release. Reuters reported at the time that the plaintiffs, who accused Porsche's management of concealing its intentions toward Volkswagen, were expected to appeal that ruling. Bloomberg identified the plaintiffs as hedge funds and other institutional and private investors who said they lost money trading VW stock during Porsche's failed 2008 takeover attempt. Gulf News, citing a Porsche Holding statement, named some of the hedge funds involved in a related €1.2 billion strand of the litigation as Viking Global Equities, Glenhill Capital and David Einhorn's Greenlight Capital.
The Federal Court's decision extends that 2022 outcome by making it binding on the lower courts still handling the case. For Porsche AG's listed sports car unit, known as P911, the effect is indirect: the ruling removes a legal overhang from its parent, Porsche SE, rather than any direct claim against the operating business, which was never named as a defendant. With the parent's exposure now more clearly capped, the ruling closes off a major source of legal uncertainty at the SE level rather than merely narrowing it.