Guy Lofalk is to cooperate with the receivers

ttela.se yesterday talked to Victor about the confidentiality agreement between Guy Lofalk and SWAN:

Guy Lofalk now has no reason not to cooperate with Saab’s bankruptcy trustees and has to disclose his compensation. This says the former Saab CEO Victor Muller who so shortly before 14 o’clock on Friday tore up the confidentiality agreement between the Swedish Automobile and Guy Lofalk.

– Mr. Lofalk must cooperate now, says Muller via SMS.

– For SWAN and for me this means that Mr. Lofalks salted bills are coming to the light and he has allowed to stand for what he did.

How much did Lofalk paid for their mission?

– He got 1.2 million! (10.6 million) but he wanted more. But he did not get the sum from SWAN because we felt he demanded too much and did a disastrous job, says Muller TTELA.

Was it Lofalk who wanted to move money to SWAN instead of getting paid directly from Saab?

– Of course, I am sure of this because he did not want his exorbitant fee to be in Saab’s accounting or have an unpaid bill for Saab if they would go bankrupt.

For the current process this is of course only a sidenote but it is good to see that someone is taking a closer look at the issue Lofalk. H has been one of the main drivers towards the 100% Chinese deal and to a huge degree sealed Saabs fate through this. Once Saab is saved and in good hands this will be a story to tell but for now we’ll leave it to this and watch what happens to Mr. Lofalk.

Eric
Member
4 years 5 months ago

Karma is coming for Guy Lofalk & it/she doesn’t look happy!

Peter Gilbert
Member
4 years 5 months ago

And it’s not the Karma made by Fisker Karma. But both end getting hauled away!
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSDbUcdAshq3wIeq6Avv8cSUBfFJtzJ-8ce-3WXZRwRlVoOTz14fg

SaabKen
Member
4 years 5 months ago

My karma will run over your dogma ? LOL.

xelav
Member
4 years 5 months ago

Give justice a fair chance to look at it. It’s not up to us to judge the man. What do we really know ? But it will be interesting to read / hear , later when Saab is back on track, what all happened behind the scenes that it could come this far. Keeping the fait.

900_S
Member
4 years 5 months ago

I agree, though my judgmental side feels some sort of retribution is in order.

I wonder though, can any of that money be taken back from Mr. Lofalk? I would think the money is fairly his, whether or not we agree with how he did his job.

ryanonsrc
Member
4 years 5 months ago
I think we have advanced *way* beyond the point where we should be issuing free passes to government/bank officials who have stepped in and made an already volatile situation worse. We already know that Guy Lofalk was operating behind the back of Saab/Swan management, we also know that he pursued a truly risky 100% Chinese ownership deal that everyone else knew would sour relations with GM, and we also know that he deliberately attempted to conceal his fees by “[moving] money to SWAN instead of getting paid directly from Saab”. Even if I ignore that the last one sounds a… Read more »
Trued
Member
4 years 5 months ago

The Saab Saga´s newest chapter will it never end? Greedy people is the worst side of a capitalistic society.

Nate 9-3
Member
4 years 5 months ago
With all due respect, this is not capitalism. This is cronyism or fascism at worst. If this was capitalism then SAAB would be able to sink or swim on it’s own merits. We all know that the Swedish government is all about letting SAAB sink by way of not bailing it out. I am OK with that. However, the shady dealings that have gone on behind the scenes with AB, FR, GL and MO all point to the government picking the “winners and losers”, which is antithetical to capitalism. If I could make one slight change to your last sentence… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
4 years 5 months ago

Crony capitalism? Nate: I don’t know what side of the political spectrum you’re on and it doesn’t really matter, as I acknowledge that both sides practice “crony capitalism.” An example is funneling half a billion dollars of public money to a failure solar company, who in turn supports the political party with contributions. It happens with green energy and it happens on the other side with defense spending—-a real mess.

davidgmills
Member
4 years 5 months ago

Not quite. Corporations are creations of the state. In fact, corporations are a legal way to privatize profits and socialize losses (that is what the concept of limited liability is after all). So it does not bother me one whit if a government wants to intervene and pick corporate winners and losers.

If you want pure capitalism, then you must do away with corporations and let individuals be responsible for both their profits and their losses.

RS
Member
4 years 5 months ago

“So it does not bother me one whit if a government wants to intervene and pick corporate winners and losers.”
David, you must be very happy with how things are going with SAAB then?

davidgmills
Member
4 years 5 months ago

What bothers me is when governments bail out corporations or refuse to bail them out against the will of the citizenry.

RS
Member
4 years 5 months ago

I agree.

Nate 9-3
Member
4 years 5 months ago
David – you made very good points about corporations in your two prior posts in this thread. Big business and “will-of-the-people” are not very synergistic. Did you know that when the US was established that there were very few allowances for corporations? For the most part they were illegal with the following exception: a corporation could be formed so long as it was for a business enterprise regarding a single commodity (not a service or manufactured product – we are talking corn, wheat, livestock, limestone) and the MAXIMUM charter that a corporation could receive was a life of 20 years.… Read more »
ivo 71
Member
4 years 5 months ago
I think you are somewhat confused as to the Royal Dutch etc thing. What is today known as the Royal Dutch/Shell Group evolved from a merger between the Netherlands-owned Koninklijke Nederlandse Petroleum Maatschappij (or the Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., founded in 1890 to operate the oilwells in the then Dutch East Indies, present-day Indonesia) and the British-owned Shell Transport and Trading Company. Very very capitalist, both of them. I believe the entity you wanted to allude to is the Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie (Dutch East India Company) or the VOC. A highly different kettle of fish, that one, although I would… Read more »
Nate 9-3
Member
4 years 5 months ago
Ivo – thank you for the correction. That was a mistake on my part. However, it seems that I am operating under the classical definition of capitalism and not the popular (and incorrect in my opinion) version of capitalism. I believe the VOC and I am sure that the British East India Co. were supported by their respective governments, which is not capitalistic. They were not capitalistic, but mercantilistic (i.e. “mercantilism”). Capitalism spawned in large part as a revolt against mercantilism in the 18th century. The thought was to allow markets to determine prices and participants rather than governments. Thanks… Read more »
ivo 71
Member
4 years 5 months ago
Well, that, as you write, depends on how you look at capitalism. The VOC (the V actually stands for Vereenigde or United) was preceded by several city-based trade exploration companies funded by tradesmen in those cities. These companies -or perhaps commercial venture co-operatives is the correct description- were mainly active in trying to create a business presence in areas until then controlled by the Portuguese. When the British East India Company was set up in 1600, aiming to take over a portion or, if possible, all of the -by the strongly declining- Portuguese trade in the East, the Dutch government… Read more »
Nate 9-3
Member
4 years 5 months ago
I just want to say that while I favor capitalism (when all of the rules are enforced and obey – though there are few rules to begin with) over all other economic models it does not mean that I am putting down other models…though I will put down fascism… What I would like to make clear is that what we have in the world today, and even in the US, is not capitalism. So each of you are free to have your own preference as I am free to have mind, and it is all good. However, I do not… Read more »
Nate 9-3
Member
4 years 5 months ago
Ivo – this is great information. However, see your comment about military support. To me that reads “the state”. If I want to sell a widget to the Dutch the US military will not “grease the wheels” show we say. However, if you get a scalable business, i.e. big business and your business specializes in a strategic commodity…oh, let’s say oil…then all of the sudden the military is interested. I do not care if private citizens own 49% of Exxon Stock and vote on officers. At some point they are just there to be used up like the rest of… Read more »
ivo 71
Member
4 years 5 months ago
Well, the US military did put in a big effort to help sell the JSF to other nations, including the Netherlands. I’ll give you they didn’t invade or bomb us to force our parliament to buy that plane but the effort was exerted, nevertheless, on behalf of a highly capitalist American airplane manufacturer. But hyta is, of course, neither here nor there in the philosophical sense. I guess we could continue this discussion almost ad infinitum but Saabs United isn’t really the podium for that, is it? So I’ll agree with you in the sense that we will agree to… Read more »
Nate 9-3
Member
4 years 5 months ago

Ivo – I agree. We really are digressing. It has been a pleasure. Much peace and prosperity (emphasis on peace) to you and yours – regardless of your political and economic system 🙂

Thylmuc
Member
4 years 5 months ago

According to German Wikipedia, the British East India Company was resolved in 1874 by an act. British Petroleum was founded in Germany in 1904 as “Deutsche Petroleum Aktiengesellschaft” which in turn set up a daugher company in 1906 called British Petroleum, which ultimately, as it seems, became a bit more successful than the parent. Where is the connection?

davidgmills
Member
4 years 5 months ago

Yep. Twenty year charters. The founding fathers really did not like corporations much. It was the East India Tea company’s tea that went into Boston harbor.

Jeff Shore
Member
4 years 5 months ago

You mean like how the US Gov. bailed out General Motors and GM has still unpaid the US Gov. Back for over 20billion dollars which they were LOANED. It’s all good though because GM is doing well as they continue to kill off other brands and block sales. I do not think a Gov should be allowed to bail out ANYONE personally – it creates a bad situation for everyone.

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 5 months ago

The administration bailed out GM to “save jobs” but an argument can be made that a standard bankruptcy with no “favors” from the government would have resulted in a GM with much fewer obligations, more freedom, etc. The fact that a third of the company was turned over to the union shows that the bailout was politically motivated and not only to “save jobs.” It was to save croonies too.

ryanonsrc
Member
4 years 5 months ago

I agree with Nate 9-3.

Guy Lofalk had an official government-sanctioned duty to perform. Despite the fact that Saab selected them (which obviously turned out to be a mistake), absurd payment demands could very well be bordering on extortion.

saabboy1
Member
4 years 5 months ago

+1 Nate, your spot on!

TonymacUK
Member
4 years 5 months ago

Are those figures Dollars, SEK or GBP?

Carlo A
Member
4 years 5 months ago

I would guess 1.2mln Euro …… not bad for a complete cock-up

TonymacUK
Member
4 years 5 months ago

In that case, I suppose the only saving grace is that the Euro is a dying currency!

Henrik B.
Member
4 years 5 months ago

SUBSCRIBE!

Cheers!

RS
Member
4 years 5 months ago

1.2 million euro paid in SEK.

Coke is it
Member
4 years 5 months ago

This is really interesting.

I hope GL take the Swedish government with him down the drain when he desperately tries to save his own skin. I would love to know the truth about mr Borgs interfering during the Chinese deal.

Trued
Member
4 years 5 months ago

The Swedish government is fragile now after the FOI/Saudi affair and the defense minister who resigned. It is 100% Borg control unfortunately.

baas900i
Member
4 years 5 months ago

Does the current Swedish government need to call an election soon? On the ground have the Swedish population got over the Saab hibernation or do the government get the blame?

100%Saab
Member
4 years 5 months ago

I would like to know about all his dealings with the Swedish Government.

wishihadasaab
Member
4 years 5 months ago

How come you guys did not report that the administrators are holding a press conference on Tuesday? It seems like big news since the administrators said they would no longer hold press conferences because they had nothing they could report. This is huge news. Am I the only way able to read between the lines?

Ralph
Member
4 years 5 months ago

Didn’t they say they’d hold a press conference every two weeks? In that case next Tuesday would make perfect sense.

wishihadasaab
Member
4 years 5 months ago

I think they did. I was drunk and angry when I wrote that

Ralph
Member
4 years 5 months ago

🙂

dezzer
Member
4 years 5 months ago

Well in my book, it’s the end of the month near enough, 1730 hrs, 31st March 2012…………….and we are still no better off folks, when will it all end, i would rather know either way !!!

davidgmills
Member
4 years 5 months ago

Mueller may be upset but Swan may have been the only corporation with cash to pay for a trustee to attempt reorganization. This happens a lot in bankruptcy proceedings. Presumably Swan would have benefited from a reorganization had it been successful. Mueller would not be complaining if Lofalk had been successful in a reorganization and Swan benefited from the reorganization.

ivo 71
Member
4 years 5 months ago
But Muller does have some very good reasons to complain now, doesn’t he? With his -perhaps SweGov-proposed?- 100% Chinese Saab idea Lofalk, behind the backs of everyone at Saab, succeded in torpedoing an effectively done 20% China/80% Swan deal between the Chinese partners, Swan and GM if what VM tells is the truth. And I see no reason to disbelieve him. That brilliant bit of Lofalks personal initiative has cost Muller personally beween 10 and 20 million euros, maybe 10.000 people in Sweden and elsewhere their livelihood and us our favorite car brand. And then there is this insignificant little… Read more »
Rolf Hägg
Guest
4 years 5 months ago

I’d like to know why if there was so much money lying around to pay this guy, why couldnt some of that been used to give us our warranties. Seems shady around every corner of this soap opera!

TonymacUK
Member
4 years 5 months ago

good point!

Jelmer
Member
4 years 5 months ago

1,2 million is mearly enough to cover warranty for 100 cars…! Don’t you think they payed Lofalk because they hoped that would make sure there would be a future with warranty!!! This kind of sacasm is what killed Saab in the first place.

What is so important about this warranty in the first place… It does not include parts that wear out like brakes clutches etc. and what is a chance you blow a engine. If warranty is so important maybe a Kia would have been a better choice for you guys than you get 7jrs…!

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 5 months ago

So you don’t think warranty is that important? Kia-Hyundai offer 10 year powertrain warranties in the U.S. and I think a 5 year bumper to bumper, for cars that cost half as much. You see a winning formula for Saab offering cars that people like but not standing behind them?

KingRichardSaab
Member
4 years 5 months ago

Jelmer,
Do you OWN/LEASE a 2010 or PRE-Bankruptcy 2011 car?
Unless you do, I don’t think your statement if very fair to us that no longer have a warranty.
I (we) paid for our warranty, and I think I (we) deserve what we paid for.
And no, wanting my warranty honored has nothing to do with buying a Hyundai/Kia.

Jelmer
Member
4 years 5 months ago

I’m sorry my statement was not meant to insult anyone. Below you can read that i have a my2011 9-3 and that only recently got somekind of warranty again so i know how it feels. My only point is that warranty feels secure but is no golden egg… Thats why i think there is no use in pointing fingers to SWAN/Muller/Saab and maybe even Lofalk. We all took a risk and lost for now its to early to think there will be warranty at all.

This discussion made one thing clear to me warranty has different meanings in different country,s

Coke is it
Member
4 years 5 months ago

Isn’t it awfully quiet at SU at the moment?

Jelmer
Member
4 years 5 months ago
So warranty is standig behind a car? I think building good cars is better… Both is great thats sure. I think long warranty can also a signal that a car is not good and you need warranty to cover for that..? I know a guy with a new Ford Fiesta he didn’t even get a new battery when it died 2 times in one year and he even bought extended warranty, they told him its simply not covered in warranty, what do you thing that does for his trust? Do you buy an iPhone because it has 7 years warranty… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
4 years 5 months ago
My point on warranties is that having the piece of mind and protection of a warranty is a very good thing. Kia cars have come a long way—-have you driven one lately? Powerful engines, reliable drive trains, nice styling in the opinion of many. The fact that they stand behind the vehicle with an industry leading warranty is good for owners. When a company builds a reputation for reliablility like Honda or Toyota, often they don’t offer long warranties and people buy anyway, based on reputation. As far as Saab goes, I had a 4 year warranty when I bought… Read more »
wishihadasaab
Member
4 years 5 months ago

There is nothing wrong with government bailouts in any form of government. Government has a duty to pick up where business comes up short. The government is not about making profits but fulfilling the needs of society. So if a lot of people will be unemployed because a big company will fail then its in the interest of society to lend a hand. Just my 2 cents.

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 5 months ago
Joseph: It’s tricky—-but bailouts could be good or they could be very bad. Pouring money into a failed business often will just enable them to continue to fail, only being propped up with money from others—-who haven’t failed. These should be LOANS, not gifts and there should be a deadline on repaying the loans. Personally, I’m opposed to government officials deciding who gets bailed out and who doesn’t. These people are no smarter than I am and they are often far more corrupt. Let the market pick winners and losers. Let the government be a safety net for people who… Read more »
RS
Member
4 years 5 months ago

Very well said.
In regards to Saab, if the Swe Govt was in a position to stop investors at a crucial time a year ago, they should have provided alternative solutions. They after all had a huge stake in the operation by guaranteeing the EIB loan in 2010 that now for the very same reason has fallen into the lap of the Swedish taxpayer. Not to mention all the cost for unemployment, lost tax revenues etc.

EuroDriver
Member
4 years 5 months ago

Sounds like Guy ran out of options 🙂 But Guy should have been with the Bankruptcy Administrators and the SweGov since Dec 19. After all he was the overseer of the Bankruptcy Protection program.

scand
Member
4 years 5 months ago
Meanwhile, in other news – Swan gets the administrator of Saab GB to write off 23.15M eur of the 24.9 M eur loan Saab GB had made to Swedish Automobile. That would also have paid a lot of warranty claims, no ? While it seems popular to make Mr Lofalk the villain in this story, I cant quite get over the fact that Saab was a financial train wreck long before he came on the scene, something I imagine he realised very quickly once he was appointed. You cannot do a turnaround if you lack the cash. By the time… Read more »
wpDiscuz