The FCIRS Foundation has lodged claims against Stellantis under the WAMCA, claiming that Stellantis’ legal predecessor, Fiat Chrysler, misled investors and engaged in market manipulation. However, the court has ruled that FCIRS does not meet the admissibility criteria set forth by the WAMCA.
They fell short of several requirements and provided inaccurate information in their summons. In determining the admissibility of FCIRS, the court considered the circumstances at the time of the judgment request (ex nunc). However, this approach does not pertain to the misleading statements made by FCIRS in the summons, which were false at the time they were presented.
For instance, FCIRS claimed to be sending newsletters. Evidence has shown that this was not true when the summons was filed on August 27, 2024; they had only sent out two newsletters later, in March 2025 and May 2025. This means they misled the court with incorrect information in the summons.
Additionally, FCIRS stated in the summons that specific documents had been published on its website; however, that was not the case at the time the summons was issued. These include the latest annual report adopted by the supervisory board, the most recently adopted board report, and the financial statements. Thus, they also provided incorrect information regarding these documents in the summons.
Beyond the governance requirements previously mentioned, the foundation must also be sufficiently representative, considering the constituency and size of the claims it seeks to represent. The requirement for representativeness is fundamental for admissibility.
When it comes to the total number of victims, FCIRS did not include specific figures in the summons. During the hearing, they estimated the number of claimants to be between 30,000 and 440,000 investors, but such a wide range does not allow for clear conclusions.
Shortly before the hearing, FCIRS claimed to represent 3,400 investors. However, the court cannot ascertain whether this number is significant or minor in relation to the overall group, especially since FCIRS has not provided any supporting evidence. At the hearing, FCIRS admitted that it had not yet reviewed these 3,400 registrations, and it also indicated that some of the identified victims did not sustain any damages — specifically, those who sold their shares before 2017.
In other words, FCIRS asked the court to assess its representativeness (a key admissibility requirement) solely based on stating a percentage at the hearing, even though that percentage is unverified and, according to Stellantis, appears to be fabricated, without counterarguments from FCIRS.
Consequently, the court has ruled that FCIRS is inadmissible. The court sees no reason to give FCIRS the opportunity to further substantiate its claims. FCIRS could and should have already done so in the summons, and in any case, after Stellantis’ statement of defense, in which Stellantis explicitly requested more information from FCIRS on the matter of representativeness.
