First draft
Edit: new thread
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=463716
Here is my first draft. Please let me know what you think (constructive criticism) and please correct the spelling in grammar. I'm terrible at those.
I object to the settlement proposed for the case of VOLKSWAGEN “CLEAN DIESEL” MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC).
Under the proposed settlement, as an original owner, I have the options of:
1. Having my vehicle brought into EPA compliance through some fix that has yet to be determined and receive a lump sum settlement payment.
2. Sell my vehicle to Volkswagen for NADA Clean trade value plus 20% plus $2983.73 plus a milage modifier that may be negative or positive.
3. Opt out of the proposed settlement.
Option 1 is not a viable option as it, by Volkswagen’s own testimony, will reduce power and fuel efficiency. No amount of money turns a vehicle modified in this way back into the car that we paid for in good faith.
Option 2 is an unfair judgement for the following reasons:
I. Clean retail value and not clean trade value should be used for compensating owners.
a. We are not trading in the vehicle but rather are selling it back as a retail transaction.
b. In my state of NJ and others, there are tax savings related to trade ins.
c. There is precedent (e.g. Toyota’s buyback of Tacoma trucks) with relation to using retail values instead of trade in values.
d. Using retail values would remove any tax ambiguity from state to state.
II. Not all options are listed in NADA values.
a. Using a 2010 Golf as an example, there is no listing for the cold weather package or HID headlamps.
III. The milage modifier should be thrown out.
a. The number of miles that we drove our cars have no bearing on the initial fraud perpetrated by Volkswagen.
b. Having money taken off of the settlement because you drove the vehicle further than average is contrary to the nature of the fraud. The more miles you drove the car, the more you polluted the air where you live, work, and shop.
IV. The penalty award for fraud (20% plus $2983.73) should be simplified.
a. Adding an arbitrary dollar amount plus 20% may help owners of older vehicles, but hinders owners of newer vehicles who see a higher initial drop in value.
b. All owners should get the same compensation for the fraud perpetrated. The year your vehicle was manufactured has no bearing on the fraud and should have no bearing on compensation.
Option 3 would happen if the settlement is not amended. I, and others, may file individual lawsuits.
I would not have purchased my vehicle if I knew it polluted up to 40x over EPA mandates. Not only for moral reasons, but legal reasons. My car was sold to me in violation of the law. Volkswagen’s benefit of the bargain in this systematic fraud case is actually the full price of the car. It could be argued that the damages portion should be MSRP, dealer invoice, or full purchase price. This was systemic fraud on an unprecedented scale. Damages in my state and others is trebled in cases of systemic fraud.
Keeping that in mind, my proposed amended settlement offer is as follows:
1. Have the vehicle brought into EPA compliance though some fix that has yet to be determined, compensate owner for 50% of invoice price, and have the entire powertrain warrantied by VW for the life of the owner or 120k miles after the fix is implemented if the vehicle is sold.
2. Compensate owners 100% of invoice price if a vehicle can not be fixed.
3. If a vehicle can be fixed but the owner does not wish to have the car fixed, offer to buy back the vehicle for the September 15, 2015 NADA clean retail value with all applicable options, no modifier for milage, and a penalty award of $7,500.
4. Opt out of the proposed settlement
