Daimler CEO Dieter Zetsche Seems to be very sure when he spoke on 26 September 2015 in an interview on the topic of the hour: the diesel scandal. Not ten days earlier, the US Department of Justice had made public that the VW group with defeat devices manipulated the emission levels of diesel vehicles and thus offended against American law. Whether he could be sure that no overzealous engineer had manipulated to make an engine look better in the consumption test, the Daimler boss was asked.
Zetsche’s answer was clear: “A defeat device, that is, a function that restricts the effectiveness of the exhaust aftertreatment inadmissible, is not used at Mercedes-Benz.” He personally is involved in all development projects.
These statements could for Zetsche and Daimler now become a problem , A small shareholder of the car company represented by the Tübingen law firm Tilp demands damages because he considers it proven that Zetsche did not tell the truth at the time. A corresponding complaint he filed now with the regional court Stuttgart. Just two weeks ago, the Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) had announced that it would order the recall of 238,000 Daimler vehicles in Germany because they contained prohibited defeat devices. Across Europe even 774,000 cars were affected. Daimler followed the KBA order, but filed an objection.
The shareholder appeals to the recall in the complaint. Daimler had known that some diesel models contained defeat devices and the Group could be punished for it, but did not inform the capital market about it. On the contrary, Daimler has always rejected allegations of manipulation in its annual reports since 2015. “This ongoing misinformation has caused investors a loss,” said Axel Wegner, lawyer at the law firm Tilp, the SPIEGEL. “We see billions in risk for Daimler.”
Higher financial burdens from the diesel affair
In the period in which models were sold with manipulated exhaust gas purification – according to Wegner’s presentation at least since the beginning of 2014 – the course was unnaturally high. If investors had known about the fraud and the possible financial consequences for the Group, the price would have been lower, new shareholders would have bought cheaper. An indication of this was the price slide, which would have suffered not only the VW but also the Daimler share, after the manipulation at VW in September 2015 had become public.
A few days ago, the law firm Rotter had filed a claim for damages against Daimler on behalf of a customer. Thousands of shareholders filed a lawsuit against the VW Group after the diesel fraud became public knowledge. Whether they can enforce their claims is clarified in two model procedures in Braunschweig and Stuttgart. The law firm Tilp, which represents the model plaintiff in Braunschweig, is also aiming for such a model procedure against Daimler. Soon, more than ten additional lawsuits will be filed, easily exceeding the threshold required for a model trial.
Daimler has always rejected the allegations made by the shareholders. Overall, however, the Group faces higher financial burdens from the diesel affair. On Wednesday evening, Daimler had for this year his profit goal cashed and justified this, inter alia, with the costs of the recall ordered by the KBA.
In its most recent quarterly report, the company also highlights risks from regulatory investigations in the US and possible claims for damages in connection with the diesel affair.