A U.S. District Judge in Detroit has shot down General Motors'
In November of last year, GM filed a racketeering lawsuit against Fiat-Chrysler, accusing the European based automaker of trying to weaken the company so that it could acquire it. The lawsuit alleged that FCA CEO Sergio Marchionne had worked to undermine GM with the help of United Auto Workers President Dennis Williams.
"Williams was a willing participant in Marchionne's bribery and takeover scheme, especially given the UAW's finances, in 2013, the UAW's financial circumstances were so dire that it sold $47 million in assets and raid(ed) its strike fund to pay operating expenses." The lawsuit alleged.
In June, District Judge Paul Borman found the lawsuit a "waste of time and resources" and dismissed the case. GM attempted to have Borman's decision tossed out, and Borman replaced, but the company's appeal failed. The case was ultimately rejected by Borman in July, citing a lack of evidence to substantiate GM's claims. GM then attempted to reignite the case citing "new evidence."
GM's attempt to have the case reheard ultimately failed when on Friday, Judge Borman declared GM's "evidence" too speculative to be used in court, and once again dismissed the case.
"Even if the affidavits establish that these foreign bank accounts exist, that fact does not rise to the inference advanced by GM, that FCA was more-than-likely using the bank accounts to bribe UAW officials," Borman said.
GM was disappointed in the decision and has since stated that it intends to appeal Borman's decision once again.
"Today's decision is disappointing, as the corruption in this case is proven given the many guilty pleas from the ongoing federal investigation. GM's suit will continue - we will not accept corruption." GM said.
Fiat-Chrysler, however, appeared relieved by Borman's decision.
"Judge Borman's ruling this morning once again confirms what we have said from the beginning - that GM's lawsuit is meritless - and its attempt to submit an amended complaint under the guise of asking the court to change its mind was nothing more than a baseless attempt to smear a competitor that is winning in the marketplace." FCA said.