FKG: Reconstruction is the way to go
November 16, 2011 in News
I stumbled across an article from Ny Teknik which points out why in Saabs case reconstruction is to be preferred over bankrupcy. It’s the better solution for all parties involved. Worth mentioning that this piece was written by Frederick Sidahl, CEO of the supplier organisation FKG.
Early on we, FKG – Automotive Suppliers trade association of automotive suppliers, the position to support a reorganization instead of bankruptcy for Saab Automobile. As an industry organization, we work to ensure that our members get the right business opportunities and bring their collective action in the larger context. Along with legal expertise in insolvency law was judged that the reorganization of Saab and not bankruptcy was to advocate for our members’ sake.
A very interesting part is that one as it contains a remark on the licenses:
We do not know in detail the patents or licenses that Saab and GM owns or has rights to in this business. However, we know that it is common that license rights can not be transferred. A restriction that is enforceable against a bankruptcy estate, which can significantly reduce the estate value. We do not know fully what company owns any Saab patents – they end up in this case outside the estate?
A bankruptcy, and then a new procedure takes time, uncertainty surrounding the brand, volumes fail where everything turns back to the suppliers.
Therefore FKGs position clear – rather continuing reorganization than bankruptcy. For us, and the Swedish automotive dynamics, Saab is an important part.
There have been some voices that said Saab should go through a bankrupcy and then try to start new, free from all old burdons. I disagree and I concur with Frederik Sidahl, that bankrupcy proceedings will cost time and confidence from suppliers, dealers and customers. Most likely Saab would not rise from such a scenario again.
But it is definetely good to know that the FKG still see the reorganization as the way to go and stand behind the process.
saabtec said on November 16, 2011
Bravo!
JST1981 said on November 16, 2011
Considering the current 9-3 we cannot talk about technology which GM can be keen on keeping an eye on regarding the age of the car. As far as 9-5 and 9-4X are concerned GM should put a price tag on their so called technology – cause imho money is the cause what it’s all about. Two years ago, GM wanted to shut down Saab rather than selling it. In an act of pure unselfishness they sold Saab to VM and the Spyker crew. Two years later a stronger New-GM sees the opportunity to make money again with the same package. I don’t understand what GM really is worrying about – if Pang Da and Youngman want to have GM technology it’s just a question of time and money to get it. GM never ever played a fair game from my point of view. They seem to me as the same bunch of greedy and grumpy old man who almost ruined their own company a little while ago now wearing New-GM clothes. In case of GM you could say that old habits really die hard.
Saab should have a chance to step up as an independent company again – so GM: let ‘em go!! Give the unloved child you wanted to kill two years ago now a chance to live a life without you. Or even better help the unloved child to make it by providing the right things at the right time for the first time in the last 20 years.
Cokeisit said on November 16, 2011
Hasn’t the FKG been way more positive since the new CEO was appointed?
Let Saab fly!
ArchDandy said on November 16, 2011
Yes, I agree, but Fredrik has worked at Saab.
Saabim said on November 16, 2011
FKG has token best decission. Congratulation.
Jasper said on November 16, 2011
Gosh this story is endlesss…it goes on and on and on
rallyho said on November 16, 2011
Is the Pope Catholic? Does Maud schizx in the woods? What is the sound of one hand clapping? Do car parts builders want to supply parts to car makers? On tomorrows edition of SU, one of these controversial issued will be tackled in a no-holds barred industry expose.
Baver said on November 16, 2011
Hey, my post was removed. Why? This was a serious question.
Baver said on November 16, 2011
Could a moderator send me a private message about my post, please?
rallyho said on November 16, 2011
The second part is quite interesting and is really can make any deal spin out of control. Follow it all the way through. How many patents and technologies does GM use under license from other companies?
A dated example may be something like even the variable speed windshield wipers. Chrysler held that simple patent and GM paid to use it but Ford didn’t and it was annoying to buy a new Ford with 2 speeds on the wipers. GM was also using the automatic 3 speed transmission that was the legendary Chrysler Torqflite (sp). How many metals technologies with the casting of blocks or wheels may be on license? It’s pretty amazing but shows how the art of the deal is not what is on the surface.