VM & Lofalk’s Relationship
November 30, 2011 in News
Accodring to Stockholm TT and E24.se the administrator Guy Lofalk is right now trying to launch a new ownership structure with GM for Saab. At the same time the unions are preparing a demand for the salaries that were supposed to be paid in November.
A Chinese regional fund, that takes on 60% of the ownership in Saab is the solution that Guy Lofalk is trying to launch with GM. He has also tried to pursued Pang Da and Youngman to settle for 20% each, according to Dagens Industri.
- Guy Lofalk’s suggestion is a test-balloon to GM to see what kind of response he will get in order to get talks going, according to a source to Dagens Industri.
Victor Mullers respons to this in E24 was:
- The deal had been going on for a long time, and the layout with 54% Chinese ownership was approved. And then the administrator Guy Lofalk started on a mission from the government, to pursue a 100% ownership and thats when GM stepped on the brake, in the interview with Teknikens Värld.He also stated that he fully understands that they (GM) do not want to risk their market in China.
It is pretty clear that there is still a kind of conflict between how Guy Lofalk is acting compared to what Victor Muller and Saab actually wants. My question is, does Guy Lofalk understand the words spoken by James Cain when he said loud an clear that GM will only negotiate with Saab and that GM will never allow a 100% Chinese ownership?
Troels, Denmark said on November 30, 2011
Really strange situation, if GL and VM are both running to GM with different deal-proposals… meanwhile the clock is ticking…
Does not sound really good..
dave said on November 30, 2011
Besides GM I’m also worried about the NDRC. If they only approve the deal in case the Chinese own 100% (why on earth ?) all this will be in vain and a complete waste of time
Waiting to see
Lundin said on November 30, 2011
“did Guy Lofalk understand the words spoken by James Cain when he said loud an clear that GM will only negotiate with Saab and that GM will never allow a 100% chinese ownership?”
Not sure he did Tim, but did anyone care goback to the “so-called” approved deal ? (hello GL here is your REAL testballon). I think this approved deal has been denied now as well.
Now,that is what i dont understand. So does this mean that GM is run by children ? They was upset about the 100% shock and now refuse to go back even if someone ask them ? Because ?
Keith said on December 1, 2011
So does this mean that GM is run by children ?
Explain your logic.
Lundin said on December 1, 2011
Keith, are you associated with GM ?
I *think* it is on a childish-level if Saab can’t go back to the “approved” deal because they (GM) is pissed off.I think you understand the child analogy.Simple as that.I believe the first MOU was done not because it looked good, but because it was actually approved (at least more or less…and let me tell you this..i am not guessing).
It think it’s all rubbish.So what is your take on all this ?
Keith said on December 1, 2011
My association is as follows – 2 GM cars in my driveway. A Saab (mine) and a Chevrolet (my wifes). I like both cars. My work is not at all related to cars.
I do like to be associated with truth.
Read your own statement. What did GM agree to, that you believe they no longer do agree to? Was GM a party to the MOU you cite?
Lundin said on December 1, 2011
You will have to look up the exact numbers yourself, but the original joint venture (DJV) and a manufacturing joint venture (MJV) was not based on something made up over night and without assurance that is correct yes. It also preserved the control of SWAN/Saab in the board.
You dont find the situation funny or somewhat strange ? So many months has passed and Saab (GL. which btw shouldnt take an active role in doing the actual transfer as an admin) still try to come up with variants on the orginal MOU ? There has been a clear communication between all parties here ?
You think this is fair for people working for GM for over 20 years not even knowing if Saab can be sold or not ?
B 125 AAB said on November 30, 2011
Not difficult to understand. Guy is trying to save SAAB as a business, Victor is trying to make as much money as possible from the sale of his shares. No wonder they cannot agree on the strategy.
Keith said on November 30, 2011
Lundin… read the report. GM has been very consistent. They said they wouldn’t approve Chinese control. And if they get that proposal again they will say it again. This is no surprise at all.
Lundin said on November 30, 2011
I agree and i said this weeks ago, i even quoted Einstein “doing things over and over again and expect different results is insane”.
So i agree. But, ok, why not go back to the orginal PLAN that according to VM was approved. If it wasn’t then GM please say what you can support in terms of shares for the Chinese partners. Should Saab be guessing in intervals from 1-49 ? and it will take some more 49 weeks?
Keith said on November 30, 2011
You are presuming that GM hasn’t communicated what would be OK. Neither of us knows, but that doesn’t sound probable. It does make sense that they would communicate it privately – not by shouting it on SU. Also, the % likely isn’t the only issue – but also what company gets that %.
Ronnie_Rad said on November 30, 2011
In case no one has been able to figure it out yet, GM is working WITH VM. This is the whole purpose of their statement claiming they will only negotiate with SAAB. Otherwise they run the risk of alienating Swan and the Chinese “sticking it” to SWAN in negotiations.
We may not fully understand GM, their corporate culture, or all of their moves in these negotiations, however it is plain for the eyes to see that GM is NOT trying to be the boogyman, but protect its interests, have due diligence with SWAN, get the best out of this for themselves, and to a lesser extent Trollhattan.
Its no time for uncoordinated loathing and dithering around like a clown. I know the negotiations are going on at god speed, but with the administration of Saab GB and the salaries needing to be payed already, whatever plan they are finalizing right now needs to go ahead, we have no time to keep searching for other ownership structures and other such nonsense. Get it done.
-RR.
quickbird said on November 30, 2011
For GL, “A chinese regional fund” is not a Chinese? Very confused about this…
RS said on November 30, 2011
So now GL is trying to shove 60% of Saab to some Chinese mystery buyer -GM will never approve?
I feel my Saab enthusiasm and confidence in this guy falling to an all time low…
They seem so obsessed with removing SWAN from Sweden that they are willing to risk killing Saab in the process, huh?
A Saab 100% owned by the Chinese is not a good deal in my book for any of the stakeholders.
A majority owner that only cares for profits could shut THN down tomorrow. Is this what the Swe Govt is really after?
SaabSouth said on November 30, 2011
I think the game is up! How can they still be talking about ‘the structure’ of the deal it has been 7 Months…. How much time do they need? I think many people have underestimted the impact of Saab Gb going, they are 25% of the volume and all the good people and dealers will be gone…..Administration in the uk is a quick death, the administrator will not speculate any money nd gets rid of staff very quickly…
terry9000k said on December 1, 2011
THIS IS FACT……..
aop said on November 30, 2011
I always suspected to be two negotiations camps since Guy L stepped in as administrator.
One lead by Guy L & Chinese , second (somehow in the background) VM , SAAB and GM.
As of now I think the two camps ignored each other pretty much and all attention was brought to Guy L and his never ending new proposals to GM on the same subject.
I seriously doubt that Guy L even had any contacts with GM prior to his visit in the US (where by the way he needed the help of Swedish Ambasador to introduce him to GM).
To be more specific, GM had contracts with SWAN as to SWAN is that they sold SAAB. When they say we only negotiate with SAAB they meant SWAN and not Guy L.
SaabSouth said on November 30, 2011
But Swan does not have a pot to piss in so how can they negotiate anything? Saab needs big money , that can only be the chinese.
aop said on November 30, 2011
Do you think that because NOW China has money, any basic rules in business conduct and general ethics should be overriden?
Swan doesn’t need money to negotiate with GM. They have a contract to respect on both ends.
And both parties have an interest in SAAB to survive.
Henrik B. said on November 30, 2011
I’ve just read the Press release by Saab – featuring the Q3 Interim Report!
Reading the final outlook and statements by VM, makes me believe more and more, that there won’t be a Saab Automobile in six month….
Cheers!
ivo 71 said on December 1, 2011
He is talking about possibly winding down SWAN, not Saab. If Saab (and Spyker) are sold then SWAN, a holding, will no longer hold anything and become an inactive empty shell. In which case a liquidation wouldn’t be illogical.
Ivo
Henrik B. said on December 1, 2011
I know, but he’s also talking about the banqrupcy of Saab – as no deal will be possible (time issue).
Cheers!
SaabMan said on November 30, 2011
I’m a bit confused, as I am sure many are. Often when reading Saab news one gets confused. But here’s why now, in particular. This news has been out there all day. I saw it at 7 a.m. US Eastern time. At the same time, SU writers posted notices telling us to ignore this news because DI or TT don’t know what they are talking about, it’s speculation, and not THE DEAL. So, why is it being posted now? Is there more credibility to it now? I thought we were still waiting for Jeff’s breaking news. Or is this the deal that’s actually out there? And if so, I agree that it seems unlikely to be approved by GM. But it does also make me wonder why this 60% Chinese investment is so important to Guy Lofalk. I’ve been wondering that all day, in fact. Why not 60% NSC or 60% anyone else. If Mr. Lofalk knows that 100% Chinese ownership is a non-starter to GM, why not find some other investment group in Sweden, the US, Germany, India, wherever to invest?
terry9000k said on December 1, 2011
CL is not capable of finding a white knight, he would not know where to start..
VM, has already done the world, looking for investors.
CL, is the one that gets the blame in my Book, just after his 11mil.
Jeff said on December 1, 2011
Don’t be confused. Tim likes to post news up because he thinks if we don’t cover a story, people will feel like we’re not giving them the whole picture. He’s basically saying (pardon the lack of explicity) that Guy Lofalk by still seeking 100% Chinese ownership is drifting on his own. What’s incredible is how dense the man is. GM is so so clear, no 100%– yet guy wants to pursue it to the bitter end. Thank god for clearer heads.
Keith said on November 30, 2011
I think we don’t know. At all. This is all just wild #ssed guessing.
NC said on November 30, 2011
People, as fun as it is to consider yourself smarter than Sweden’s most reputable reconstruction lawyer with a proven track record (my understanding from what was posted here, I have no other information on GL), it is not totally fair to do so. Perhaps it is time to restate the obvious.
At the moment, no one here has any knowledge as to who is negotiating with whom and on what. It is reasonable to assume that GL is doing what he thinks is right for the whole reconstruction to be completed successfully, because he should have no personal interest in any other outcome (yes I remember the bonus stories). I am sure he is not stupid enough to meet wrong people in wrong countries.
VM, in his turn, has a definite financial interest of his own (“we threw in all, even the kitchen sink”, anyone remember?), so his scope of options for the way out may be limited. I have no knowledge on the crew’s sources (from their presentation, I would assume these being closer to VM than GL), but the constant hints of GL being the evil one spoiling all perfect arrangements made by VM do not seem to be completely balanced. As all we can do is to keep calm and carry on anyway, I suggest GL to be given a chance, with all bashing to follow after everything gets more or less clear.
I still have problems bringing the news reports in correlation with the crew’s “all’s ok, the deal is done” comments. And I really really really wish I could.
I’m going to be super clear: VM is not our source, yet we’re in the loop and are aware of his positions. I’m not sure that the full story of what GL is doing or has done will ever be made public, but if it ever leaks, your response would probably be something like, “Wow.” He may be fighting to sell Saab, but the Machiavellian approach he’s taking blinds him to see problems and their obvious solutions. I don’t take pleasure in criticizing Lofalk in any way, I’m sure in his own mind he’s doing what he feels is right- I just can’t stand the methods I’ve witnessed him use. -Jeff
Lundin said on November 30, 2011
Well..i dont think anyone is trying to be smarter ? They are reacting to current news and i have to say that anyone is free to have an opinion on this matter by now, good or bad,potential customers to employees. I still have great hope that this can eventually be resolved.GL is probably not reading a bit of it and if he is i think he can handle it,no ? There is no hard/unfair words against him,is it ?
Keith said on November 30, 2011
The point isn’t whether GL reads this – the point is that the comments on GL are not based on fact or knowledge, but conjecture. Imagine if you had his responsibility, how you might perceive VM. On one hand, VM is a deal maker and a passionate spokesman for the brand. On the other hand, his main financier has been arrested for embezzlement, and VM was paying himself bonuses while not paying suppliers.
We just don’t know enough to judge this, other than it looks dire.
Lundin said on November 30, 2011
“The point isn’t whether GL reads this”
Which wasn’t my point. Anyone is free to have an opinion (not judge) on this matter as of today 2011-11-30. I am sorry but your message doesn’t make sense to me. So how can you even presume I dont know details about the situation? i think you are the one guessing here to be honest.
I was one of the suppliers,and still is. GL has not paied my bill(s) this month.I am still not allowed to have an opinion ?
Keith said on November 30, 2011
Then you are certainly closer to it than I. I’m sorry to learn you have those unpaid bills – that must be very difficult.
Did Saab pay its bills on time when they were part of GM?
Lundin said on November 30, 2011
Thanks.Yes it is.
I have been both supplier/consult and employee and from what i can tell Saab under GM ownership always paid its bills,yes.GM do many thing overly complicated in many areas but it works, no one can take it away from them that.Saab had a real chance of going independent and hopefully everyone is on the same track of the brand is saved.
Again, i dont want to bash GM (and anyone associated with them) nor GL or VM even though it has created problems for me.If someone did i am sorry.
Rune said on November 30, 2011
Keith, most of the events (all, except the recent request for a meeting with GM) took place long before the embezzlement charges against VA.
Lofalk seems to have walked straight into every minefield there is. The question then is: Did VM trick him into doing this or withhold information (such as ‘GM won’t accept 100% Chinese ownership’)? Since VM is the one who lost the most by these events, I can’t really see why he’d do something like that. I appreciate a practical joke as much as the next guy, but I just don’t see how this one would have played out.
Keith said on November 30, 2011
True about the actual charges, but there were big questions about VA going back several years.
It’s hard to know, based on the fragments we do know. I do wonder how this might have been different if Saab had a more nimble and cost conscious CEO starting the day they became independent from GM.
Khrisdk said on December 1, 2011
That CEO from the day they became independent was another person than VM.
Keith said on December 1, 2011
Agreed. But not one that fits the above description.
Khrisdk said on December 1, 2011
Probably not
That’s probably one of the the main reason behind Operation Cheetah
NC said on December 1, 2011
I don’t get the feeling that GL is here to turn the reconstruction into a farce. He may have not acted in a perfect way in some situations (even, as Rune suggests below, he could have been guided into traps), but I do not believe an experienced lawyer would have ever taken in a way which is a clear dead-end for his client. His presumable trying to force a transaction clearly never to be accepted by GM sounds strange. Claims of GL alone making the omnipotent NDRC change its mind sound even less likely. There should be more to this.
ivo 71 said on December 1, 2011
Well, GL (or his office) is being sued by the owners of a mining company in the north of Sweden for 11 million SEK because of an alleged mishandling of their reconstruction.
And it ís an undisputed fact that he caused NDRC and YMPD serious loss of face by trying to interest Geely in acquiring Saab while YMPD were designated by NDRC to be the only potential buyers. That’s an absolute no-no in China. Maybe he didn’t do it out of bad will or perhaps he was instructed to do so by the Swedish Government but, whatever the motive, it was a pretty stupid action. The more so since he did it without consulting with or even informing VM or anyone else at Saab -he says they knew but VM and others at Saab deny it- while, under Swedish law, his brief stipulates consultations with the management of the company under reconstruction regarding important decisions about the future of the company. He simply isn’t allowed to just go out there and try to put together deals on his own.
So I kinda wonder about his being the top reconstruction lawyer in Sweden. Or maybe he is (in Sweden) but doesn’t know much about doing business in China. Or maybe he walked into a trap set by Stockholm. Or… We just don’t know.
Ivo
Ronnie_Rad said on December 1, 2011
NC,
“Sweden’s most reputable reconstruction lawyer” …..???? where did you get this from?
I find it astonishing that people assert their own (less than truthful) claims when no such data exists or hints at that. He was simply picked by the court because Saab asked for him, nothing “reputable” about that. And if you find his sidelining of VM “reputable” then your probably alone.
“At the moment, no one here has any knowledge as to who is negotiating with whom and on what.”
Also wrong. Jeff was kind enough to clearly state several, upon several, upon several, times that he has contact with parties involved with the negotiations.
And besides, how do you know who has contact with whom unless your God?
“I am sure he is not stupid enough to meet wrong people in wrong countries.”.
Oh but he was. He met with NDRC without VMs knowledge on several occasions to disrupt a deal and usher in a new 100% ownership idea that was never apart of the original, months long, negotiations that were about to be finalized! Not to mention he’s meeting with the wrong people right now in Washington when Cain made it clear he is not negotiating with anyone but SAAB management (even if he is the administrator).
“…the constant hints of GL being the evil one spoiling all perfect arrangements made by VM do not seem to be completely balanced. As all we can do is to keep calm and carry on anyway, I suggest GL to be given a chance, with all bashing to follow after everything gets more or less clear.”
Thats the whole point! GL isn’t one to be given chances, he seizes chances. Chances to protect the interest of the Swedish taxpayer, and protect both the debtor and the creditors. Not sure what’s not clear about the fact that he talked to NDRC about a 100% deal, and the effect was that NDRC wanted a 100% deal thereafter, so the deal was stalled, GM said no, and here we are today back at the drawing board trying to appease GM, NDRC, Youngman, Pangda, and the GL agenda! Must I draw a timeline?
I’m not trying to sound hostile as that is unnecessary and against the website policy, however coming in here with a convenient case of amnesia and sounding “all knowing” wasn’t a good strategy because your information was wrong.
Regards,
RR
NC said on December 1, 2011
Once again, none of us here is God I believe and none of us here has absolute knowledge of what is/was actually going on. This includes the purported meetings with Geely/NDRC, sidelining of VM and everything else you present as facts. For me the story of GL coming in and breaking everything down because of his extreme, almost comical incompetence just doesn’t work.
My assertion only was that GL is definitely not a stranger in the business (I clearly remember we has well regarded on this site during the first reconstruction), his fees are decent and his grasp at least present. The Saab reconstruction is the largest in Sweden’s history (as reported here, not my own info) and it is fair to assume that not just anyone would be entrusted to be Saab’s administrator. Chosen by Saab itself twice.
Why should be treat him as pure evil? Did he ever have a chance to counter all the claims you bring?
(And please note I am just a fellow Saab enthusiast, having ordered my 9-3 Aero immediately after the first reconstruction was announced).
Ronnie_Rad said on December 1, 2011
“For me the story of GL coming in and breaking everything down because of his extreme, almost comical incompetence just doesn’t work.”
Where, oh where, did this come from? Incompetence? That is not what is on record here at SU or what I was referring to…I was saying GL came in, had an agenda that certain Swedish Government officials pushed (in reference to Geely), and the NDRC interrupted, as only Youngman can negotiate with Saab. So it was not incompetence, more like a tool to disrupt a process that was in final stages. To say they just fell apart because the NDRC woke up one day and said “Buy the whole enchilada” at the last minute is very, very unlikely in the face of all the Lofalk events.
“Did he ever have a chance to counter all the claims you bring?”
Sigh…again with ‘chances’. Short answer: Yes, he did have the ‘chance’ to counter all the claims that I, other commenters, some SU writers, the Swedish, European, and American media outlets have suggested.
http://www.saabsunited.com/2011/10/guy-lofalk-fights-back.html
(there are two other articles I want to post, but don’t want my comment moderated… but they are freely available on SU and a simple google search of “Guy Lofalk Saabsunited”)
He did so successfully, and everyone listened. However it is important to understand that even thought he claims he had no idea of the 100% ownership pledge from YMPD, this is highly improbable because he already had two meetings with NDRC, one WITH Saab, and one without. As soon as that one meeting where VM had no idea he went to China, was when the deal fell apart. Pull your head out of the sand: What does that tell you?????
Goose said on December 1, 2011
“Sweden’s most reputable reconstruction lawyer” …..???? where did you get this from?
I find it astonishing that people assert their own (less than truthful) claims when no such data exists or hints at that. He was simply picked by the court because Saab asked for him, nothing “reputable” about that. And if you find his sidelining of VM “reputable” then your probably alone.”
@Ronnie – as regards GL’s reputation in general, please note that he seems to be seen as a ‘leading individual’ among Swedish insolvency lawyers indeed (although his firm is referred to as a ‘third tier firm’). I would think that Saab never would not ask the cours for a random insolvency lawyer but have done their research as well.
Source:
http://www.legal500.com/c/sweden/insolvency/insolvency#table_2092
terry9000k said on December 1, 2011
Re; ”smarter than Sweden’s most reputable reconstruction lawyer with a proven track record”
We, also haven’t been sued by an ex client…
9kCDGriffin said on November 30, 2011
a few days ago i happened to meet a retired worker of GM Netherlands. he (80+) used to work at the financial/budgetting dept. after discussing the situation with Saab he told me: GM should already have gone bankrupt in the early 1930s! the company is such a moloch, ‘rusted stuck’ in procedures they themselves dont understand why they execute/follow them.
somehow GM floats on OPEL-technology. if they don’t have Opel, they’re nowhere, because a lot of US cars are based on OPEL-technology. that’s one of the reasons, i think, GM doesn’t want to sell OPEL…
Markac said on November 30, 2011
GM has repeatedly stated that it will not allow Saab to have 100% Chinese ownership. Yet GL, Pang Da and Youngman keep trying to tweak a deal that would involve 100% Chinese ownership. It makes no sense and It seems they are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, rather than trying to find a deal that GM will approve. Come on guys, find another non Chinese investor and make a deal that GM won’t refuse. Time is ticking away!!
100%Saab said on December 1, 2011
Agreed, stop wasting time with the Chinese. Swegov messed up. They should have bought Saab, then Swegov could have sold Saab to the Chinese. Remember Hummer.
CSD_ChineseSaabDriver said on December 1, 2011
NDRC should have big power in all this big mess.
If GM does not say yes to 100% Chinese takeover, China will punish GM by limiting its business in Chinese market.
WTF is GM doing, what the hell is there going on. Every new day I am getting more tired about this Saab Soap, AHHA SS, I am driving Saab Sport Sedan LOL
jond said on December 1, 2011
Agreed. They are the only party who can put pressure on GM. In fact IMHO the only two significant players right now are the NDRC and GM.
Also, I regret that this forum appears to me to to be becoming just a little biased. My suspicion is that some of the moderators have close connections with VM and will not hear a word said against him. Obviously none of GM, SweGov, GL or the NDRC will be saying anything directly to SU or even hinting at anything and that is why we are getting all this negative stuff about them.
Come on guys! We simply don’t know. No doubt it will all will become clear soon.
Keith said on December 1, 2011
Agreed.
100%Saab said on December 1, 2011
Does NDRC really care about Saab? Probably not. We will see.
skn said on December 1, 2011
Ronnie_Rad – hear, hear! I could not agree more. This is so clear and obvious that only the most naive don’t see what is happening
Dont forget that “enlightened self interest” builds the greatest value – and in this picture the only person who has that is VM
GL is a tool of some bureaucrat’s agenda. A tool. Period. A blunt lumbering one to boot.
I have every confidence that VM – with his passion for SAAB PLUS (emphasis – PLUS) his self interest – is the only savior SAAB will ever see
Step up and support him. Or watch our favorite brand … go … “blip” – vanish
Wake up folks
Saabo said on December 1, 2011
From my point of view: VM has his plan B worked out, but he have to wait for Guy Lofalk since GL now formally are leading the company in reconstruction. So Victor are not allowed to put plan B in to practice before GL gives up the China-GM track. Victor feels and knows that there ain´t more for him to do right now and he can participate in talkshows and give interviews, maybe to put pressure on GL.
Of course, pure speculation, but who knows…
Remdu67 said on December 1, 2011
Victor Mullers respons to this in E24 was:
- The deal had been going on for a long time, and the layout with 54% Chinese ownership was approved.
How to verify this statement? Why would GM now change its mind?
Like being said above, this sounds childish. To me this sounds like a “It is not me. It is their fault” thing. And I do not care about whose fault it is now. But how to get a deal done. This statement sounds like to me that he still does not know what the extent of the possibility and the very goal of GM. Hopefully, there is still a strong willingness of the chinese parties to get into Saab’s business. NDRC is backing them for sure, which is at this late time quite reassuring regarding Saab’s future, whatever happens.
Irish Badger said on December 1, 2011
Hi All,
This is my first time making a comment – have been following the site since Sept. Following the Saag saga is becoming a serious addiction and I have been hitting the refresh button constantly but given Jeff’s latest post and what I read on di.se I believe I finally have a grip where things stand. That’s good as I must admit that Jeff’s occasional cryptic (yet comforting) pronouncements have had me utterly baffled at times.
Anyway, this is what I believe the situation to be: there are 2 tracks in these negotiations (and may always have been) –
1. the GL track – sideline VM, wrest control and get Saab palmed off 100% to a nebulous group of Chinese investors. This way SweGov gets to wipe their hands of the whole affair. The glaring flaw with this approach is that no-one in their right mind believes that a 60% ownership by “regional investment fund” from Inner Mongolia won’t impede YM from ripping off GM’s IP in about 5 seconds! But hey, at least GL is getting plenty of frequent flier miles!
2. The VM track – have YM/PD as Partners with NSC owning 60% and thus guaranteeing GM’s IP wont get ripped off. The only problem with this – GL does not want VM to remain in control of Saab but SWAN really needs to in order to have independant management that will protect the IP. In 3-4 years, when Phoenix is up and online, they can renegotiate – YMPD can get 100% (bye GM and VM!) and VM might actually recoup his entire investment.
Needless to say I think that track 2 seems entirely reasonable but I don’t live in a Socialist Utopia!
If I read this correctly, this saga is going to play out for weeks/months more… with many twists and roundabouts. If not today, at some point in the future I suspect that Saab won’t be able to pay its employees and will be back in front of a judge to order the wind up of the company. At that point there is going to be an almighty battle to have GL removed and plan B implemented.
If that happens, I don’t know Swedish Law but I wonder if GL is liable for the damage to the company and letting his ego/agenda interfere with his fiduciary responsibilities? Here in the US he would be toast…
Massimo said on December 1, 2011
I believe that everything is clear enough. GM reaches its goal of turning a competitor without pain (damage dealers etc..) Having found a suitable subject in the circus VM. The Chinese have tried the shot (technology almost free) but they have not come to terms with GM, which just are not stupid. GL only serves to give a clean government. at Christmas we’ll all go home.