Guy Lofalk fights back
October 21, 2011 in News
To TT Guy Lofalk today fought back towards the comments made by Saab Automobile. From Saab’s point of view a large disappointment in the way that Guy Lofalk has handled the reconstruction. Lofalk is now fighting back against the accusations made towards him:
- I am not part of the game which is taking place at the management-level. I am appointed by a court to administrate Saab’s reconstruction. I have no disposal of any of Saab’s shares, say Guy Lofalk who feels bothered by the information presented.
- It is conspiracy theories which are hopeless to comment. There is a great deal of disinformation and speculations.
He maintains his position that he has kept the Saab management informed about everything he has done.
- Yes, the whole time.
During the reconstruction several investors have displayed interest in Saab.
- I have passed on the information to the management of Saab.
During the trip to China which was initiated by Pang Da and Youngman who arranged the meeting with the NDRC.
- Muller was a promoter of the meeting. I told him that this was the last chance, he said – go.
Guy Lofalk points out that he did not know the plan from the chinese companies to buy 100% of Saab.
- Facts are not changed just because you shoot the messenger say Guy Lofalk.
ThomasJ said on October 21, 2011
Why fight back?
Lawyers usually don’t speak outside court, or?
moose said on October 21, 2011
Lawyer named Victor Muller is quite talkative outside the court too, isn’t he?
ANA said on October 21, 2011
And let’s face it Lofalk has been shredded in the media, by unnamed sources (probably by you-know-who) so why shouldn’t he defend his character.
Tripod said on October 21, 2011
He hasn’t seen much compared to, ehm, some other people…
ANA said on October 21, 2011
ehm some people deserve it….
Khrisdk said on October 21, 2011
Yup. ;-}
Khrisdk said on October 21, 2011
Everybody involved talks too much.
Except for those who makes the real decisions.
Which is why everybody in here rides their pet perceptions.
Meller said on October 21, 2011
Mr Muller told us this few days ago:
“Subscription to 2,386,635 ordinary shares in the capital of Swan at a price of USD 4.19 per share for the purpose of funding the working capital of Swan, Saab Automobile and Saab Great Britain Ltd. The shares to be issued will be paid in full by Friday October 21, 2011.”
If i’m right October 21 is today. Actually it’s already over from the European point of view.
I’m just asking the open but very important question: are the money on SWAN’s accounts??????????
If som then there’s a credit to VM. If not, then sorry….another promise that….
You know what I want to tell.
TimR said on October 21, 2011
Well unless you have access to SWAN’s accounts then we’re never going to find out now are we! =)
Seriously now, we will be let known in due time in one way or another… it all depends on what the court say at the end of the month…
Meller said on October 21, 2011
Don’t agree with you Tim.
Saab workers, dealer and all people affected of Saabism deserve not be kept in uncertinity. If we were told the money are to arrive today, we have the right to ask and Swan should not make another PR mistake by not answering.
In my opinion the credtibilty is now important issue for VM.
Remember that he let us known himself like a PR guy, who talks, talks, talks….. But so far Saab doesn’t manufacture cars…
JasonPowell said on October 21, 2011
Meller,
Unless you are a dealer, don’t worry about us needing to know when the money is in. We receive open letters from Victor just like the Saab staff does and in all honesty, I don’t care about when the money is in unless that is going to also tell me that production is starting as well. I need to know when I can order cars again, not when the loan money is in.
moose said on October 21, 2011
Let’s just say that if I were a betting man, I would not bet on money being on the account.
After all it would not be the first time VM has been outright lying – remember in early March, less than 30 days before the production stop started, Victor claimed with a straight face that Saab still had a “fully funded business plan” and everything was moving forward.
It’s easy to understand why he did it, but he does have a proven track record of lying. And please, do not anyone say that “but things changed after he made the statement” …
Jeff said on October 21, 2011
Let’s just say, be glad you don’t make bets moose. This is the last friggin warning to EVERYONE. Stop calling people liars, stop trash talking. Victor spoke of the business plan under a certain set of conditions that obviously fell apart once the suppliers demanded new credit terms, thus negating that prior business plan. Stop bending peoples words, Lofalks, Mullers, your own. Stop. I am going to go on a delete spree the next time I see anyone accusing anyone of lying or playing favorites.
Look carefully at the articles here, both sides are presented. There are about 5 commenters that are stressing out an entire community right now, and I for one am not going to allow it to continue. We know your IPs, we know your emails, if you create repeat accounts, we’ll figure it out. If you want to comment, make sure it’s about facts, not wild speculation. If you are part of North Street management, feel free to enlighten us on the process. If not, I’ll be in contact with them myself so I get the real story.
moose said on October 21, 2011
… and you know where our families live
(And for the record: I’m trying here to have a laugh with you, not laughing at you)
Marque said on October 22, 2011
It is still not funny though!
Rune said on October 21, 2011
Kinda reminds me of the Schrödinger’s cat paradox.
The situation changed the minute Lofalk petitioned the courts for the reconstruction to end. That event alone should affect the focus of the management. When the reconstruction ends, they need to have reached an agreement with the creditors or be able to pay them in full. Where those 70 million dollars are at the moment is secondary IMO.
(For all I know the money could be sitting in Saab’s accounts already, but what good would that do?)
Khrisdk said on October 21, 2011
I always liked that cat.
And the black swan theory.
Nothing is true, everything is permitted
SaabMan said on October 21, 2011
This sort of confirms what I guessed in another thread. Youngman (and perhaps Pang Da) acted dishonorably by failing to honor their signed agreements in terms of the bridge funding, so Lofalk turned to Geely, feeling they were most trustworthy and likewise had deep pockets, given their track record with Volvo. Of course it became clear soon after that such a deal was not possible. The recent buy-out bid was just the latest in a series of delays and slaps in the face by Youngman, of which even Lofalk wasn’t aware. But when it became clear to Lofalk that the Youngman funds weren’t forth-coming, as agreed, he felt that the reconstruction couldn’t continue. Of course he may be wrong on that score, given the investment by North Street Capital. And it is obviously true that the Messrs. Muller and Lofalk don’t see eye to eye. But I don’t think that Lofalk is acting like Darth Vader here. He and Muller just have different ideas about how a Saab future is possible.
moose said on October 21, 2011
If Youngman/PangDa can back out of the deal, it means that there was either:
a) Clause which allowed them to do that
b) The contract was written by incompetent person, and there was a loop hole which allowed them to back out
That is all just business…
Mailr said on October 21, 2011
… or they are just thinking they won’t get caught. If they succeed there is no one left to claim damages. Has happened before.
SaabMan said on October 21, 2011
Regardless of how the contract is written, the money (70 million Euros) hasn’t arrived as promised. No one questions this fact and Mr. Lofalk writes as much in his brief to the court. That’s why he is calling for the end of the reconstruction. I think the problem is that there is no way, in an international business agreement like this, to hold one party or the other to its promises.
Paul said on October 21, 2011
Thing is though, Greely hasn’t got deep pockets. They are getting their funding for Volvo from the Chinese government.
Marcus said on October 21, 2011
i think the chinese are now obsolet in the same way like this administrator from the court.
they made a bad game.
if saab´s future will be founded on such methods, this brand will never be the same and will never be any car for me in the future.
Edis said on October 21, 2011
Lofalks letter to the court
web translated
sportwagon28t said on October 21, 2011
timR thanks for posting this response, the answers seem clear and credible from lofalk..over to you Victor-i think your time is running out
lilly1234 said on October 21, 2011
It’s too bad the that Sweden did not look at VA and vet him as clean enough to do the deal. It’s too bad Marcus has to feel the way he does about Saab when all that they are trying to do is live.It’s too bad that the Swedes and GM dumped Saab,It’s too bad that even back when Saab was started that they were never given enough money to really keep current and GM did the same thing till right befor they pulled the plug on Saab. I have been selling Saabs for 34 years and driving one from 1974 I hope with all my heart that VM can get this done and not just because I have a place in my heart for Saab but for all the news people that called us dead before they listen to our heart.
mnztr said on October 21, 2011
Why fight back? Lofalk has is personal reputation to consider. If what he says is true and VM is dragging his name through the mud, then this is very disturbing. I wonder if we will ever know the truth??
mnztr said on October 21, 2011
Lofalk is wanting to end reconstruction because he says that 70M is simply not enough $$ to complete any reconstruction of SAAB, and on that point he is 100% correct. Even the 240M+ that Pang Da and youngman were to invest is absolutely marginal. As for not revealing plan B until you have to – NONSENSE. The Chinese just made a lowball offer because they think SAAB has no choice, so revealing plan B would be good…kinda around now.
TurboLover said on October 21, 2011
Think you are right, but hope you are wrong…
E said on October 21, 2011
I read it differently. I read it to say that when only a portion of the $70M bridge loan arrived, he went to find out why. The answers he got from the two companies indicated a lack of willingness on their part to follow through with the initial bridge loan agreement. (Of course, I’m wrapping up my work day and have a splitting headache, so I may be wrong.)
Also, was there more English translation that got chopped off?
rallyho said on October 21, 2011
Who is Guy Lofalk?
Is he a career bureaucrat or a recent political appointee?
That said (or honestly asked), if he is a career bureaucrat I can assure you that he did not run off willy-nilly and on his own initiative request a meeting with Geely. That is the kiss of death for a career government man. The only way he did this was at the direction of someone higher where he had some degree of protection if the schizz hit the fan.
Usually when bureaucrats do this it is because they have another fat job or compensation assured in the private sector and they are ready to bail out (retire), if they are civil servants.
So, who is he and most importantly, who will gain by his actions? Who pulls his strings?
Rare is the career civil servant who takes initiative especially for the “greater good” and those that do often end up sharpening pencils in some basement without windows. Those who do not play (work for the tax paying public), usually do not make it very high up. But sometimes we do make it to retirement.
So, who is pulling his strings?
TurboLover said on October 21, 2011
Who is Guy Lofalk?
He is the lawyer VM chose…
mpprh said on October 21, 2011
He is the lawyer the court appointed …
hilmar said on October 21, 2011
I would like to know what he really talked about with the Chinese investors. Before Mr. Lofalk appeared on the stage of this tragedy the deal seemed to be viable.
skwdenyer said on October 21, 2011
That’s true. But before GL appeared, Saab was not in reconstruction.
hilmar said on October 21, 2011
But does this mean that the situation of reconstruction changed the possibility to achieve an agreement with the Chinese ?
skwdenyer said on October 21, 2011
Possibly, yes; it depends, amongst other things, upon the precise wording of the contracts.
RS said on October 21, 2011
Didn’t the Chinese provide additional documentation so that the request for reconstruction could go through the second time.
Everybody thought this was in the best interest of Saab and the deal. To have the same agreement now questioned sounds a bit strange to me. What has changed? GL?
derek said on October 21, 2011
Mr. Lofalk is simply to dispose of the company at the highest price. If that means a 100% sales, he will do it. He doesn’t look at the big picture of having the factory closed forever.
RS said on October 21, 2011
Good to hear from man of the hour.
There is always speculation if you don’t get any information directly from the person in question. We Saabers have an open mind so please feel free to speak your mind.
I’m personally interested in this sentence:
But, was he aware of the meeting with Geely?!
Come on people! Start working together for SAAB. A deal is easily made if that’s what Guy truly wants? Prove us wrong, that you’re not there to wipeout SWAN, which BTW is not 100% owned by VM and VA.
Saabim said on October 21, 2011
Interesting comments today. We haven’t forget than VM must show best in the best light, must be sovereign if he likes to save Saab. Nobody like communicate crying men togheter. And VM must proudly sequel this game to the end. Unfortunatelly we don’t know all details. Lofalk has done his job. Who is right and who isn’t. We can’t determine it.
davidgmills said on October 22, 2011
Well this translation is hard to make out but as I expected Lofalk is just doing the job of a trustee/administrator in bankruptcy/reorganization proceedings. The gist of what I get is that the Chinese companies have come to the conclusion that if they have to put as much into Saab as it is going to take to reorganize it, they might as well let Saab go under (fully bankrupt) and then buy it outright. It makes sense. They get to own and manage Saab and don’t have to worry about making Mueller happy or having him go rogue on them.
So Lofalk has come to the conclusion that a reconstruction won’t work, at least not with the Chinese. Maybe Meuller gets some US hedge fund help to reorganize, which is fine with me, but I doubt the US hedge fund has had the time to really put together a package the judge will accept. Time is running out for reorganization.
davidgmills said on October 22, 2011
Section 4 of the Letter to the Court has no English translation. I would really be curious as to what Section 4 says.
davidgmills said on October 22, 2011
On reread, it sounds like the reconstruction was conditional upon a bridge loan until the Chinese companies got approval from the Chinese government to make a larger investment in Saab. But the Chinese companies were not able, or not willing, or perhaps not permitted by the Chinese government (pure speculation on my part) to put up the full amount of the bridge loan. Whatever they were able to put up, Lofalk was convinced was not near enough to bridge Saab over until late December.
Sure would like to know what the last paragraph says.
Tripod said on October 22, 2011
davidgmills, October 22, 2011 at 01:10 and 01:21 … if you just can wait a few minutes…
“Sure would like to know what the last paragraph says.”
Well, I don’t know why that guy posted that lengthy piece earlier in this blog post, in two languages, still not fully translated, in a comment. Could have sent a PM to the crew and asked them to post something.
Anyhow, I did write a short summary, in fact including section 4, earlier when someone asked for a complete translation, some time after I had read it. But no one bothered to comment.
But I will give you a translation of section 4, the summary; still rather quick, but a bit better than automatic web-translations; and as you may find, it’s pretty close to my short summary earlier. The main reason is a lack of funding for the reconstruction, no big surprise, and some ongoing disagreement, different opinions about obligations, related to the deal about the bridge loan, the funding during reconstruction.
Do notice that Mr. Lofalk was on Swedish TV this evening, commented by RS and me in the blog post “Court decision next week”, this evening. I will not post a link to that one as well, since then this comment will probably have to wait on moderation. And no, I will not translate an 8+ minute audio clip.
—
My translation:
4 Summary
In conclusion, the present situation is caused by required funding of the reconstruction not being obtained; the original reconstruction plan can no longer be held since the parties no longer wish to cooperate and the planned schedule thus can not be maintained. The companies’ financial situation does not offer time to find other solutions. In the present situation the companies are not suitable for further reconstruction. I have since some time informed the companies that if they do not receive adequate funding, I must request that the reconstruction is terminated.
For that reason it is my duty as administrator to apply that the reorganisation shall cease.
I now leave it to the shareholders, the pledgees and potential investors to try to resolve the situation in the best way possible as I can no longer maintain the reconstruction.
—
JB said on October 22, 2011
Why no word from SWade during all of this? His feedback would be helpful.
e170ar said on October 22, 2011
Wild speculation: Remember Rover? Who got IP?
(I believe that it is in interest of Chinese firms for SAAB to go bankrupt. Then they can get SAAB IP very cheaply).
mnztr said on October 22, 2011
in bankruptcy all the license agreement with GM will lapse, so the buyer of SAAB will have no rights to any IP that was developed under GM ownership…they also lose the branding. If SAAB goes bankrupt it will be almost impossible to restart it. The buyer will not even be allowed to resume production of the current models.