Some documents (english version) on the Spyker’s site do also talk about Swedish Automobile NV as the new name for Spyker Cars NV.
Thanks to Tim
If we have to believe the Dutch newspaper deVolkskrant, Spyker cars will be renamed to Swedish Automobile NV.
As we know, Spyker has sold the Spyker sportscar part of the company to the coach-builder CPP earlier this year, so it made no sense to use the name Spyker any more. Furthermore it is unknown if they are fully free to use the name SAAB, or if they have to always ask Saab technology AB if they want to use it differently.
I personally like the name, it denotes that they want to concentrate in their Swedishness and it is better than all those new artificially created company names.
Thanks to Ralph for the hint
31 thoughts on “Spyker Cars will be Swedish Automobile NV”
It sounds good, even though I had thought name would be something like “Saab Automobile Holding NV”.
Presently no company of that name has been registered at the Dutch Chamber of Commerce, but there’s a company called “Swedish Automobile Holding II B.V.”. The parent company is “Saab Automobile Holding I S.à.” registered in Luxemburg.
There’s a piece of information (in Dutch) on Spykers website which also noted the name change: Spyker Cars N.V. to Swedish Automobile N.V.
There’s also an English document.
I am not a tax expert, but being based in Holland apparently is great from a tax management perspecttive; Holland is said to have a very interesting tax regime for holding companies 😉
That’s right. Many major (US) companies have their holding company based in the Netherlands.
Yes it is, but not for hard-working individuals; taxes for the normal people are extreme in NL !
misconception. We are right at the EU average. Denmark is at the extreme top, even with hvaing a right-wing neo-con government for a decade.
And Belgium is nearly there with Denmark and the other scandianvian countries in term of tax level (on work, not on company profit)
.. and what a government.. 🙁 Made it embarrassing to be an Dane…
We don’t have any right or left wings in DK..we have the-middle-of-the-road..jantelaw government..and high taxes to even things out.. 😉
Why haven’t Antonov taken over Saab already? I’m reading that he have gathered enough capital through a group of investors to repay EIB loan, and in addition, has the working capital that Saab needs to pay daily bills. GM is OK with him as far as I know so there are no major obstacles left?
NDO is also in the equation.
They have to approve too
As an intermediary / proxy for the EIB loans right? So they have no relevance if the EIB are to be repaid anyways, right?
First the EIB and the NDO have to approve VA as part of Saab, then VA can repay the EIB loan.
I really don’t get why future ownership/composition of shareholders could be any of government’s business once they are repaid and out of the picture. Swedish government have the power to control ownership in private corporations (except for competition issues). Saab/VA ought to be able to repay EIB/national debt office and tell them to back off.
* do not have the power
Yes, and VA can’t repay the loans before he is accepted as an owner. So it’s kind of a stand-off.. (or what you call it? “Moment 22” in Swedish). There is no fast solution for the VA case, but Saab might be able to get cash elsewhere..
TTELA today: http://ttela.se/ekonomi/saab/1.1175551-saab-vander-sig-till-kina
Valdemar Lönnroth of ttela suggests that
– Saab may be able draw upon a credit facility of up to one milliard (US: one billion) kronor that contractually exists for Spyker Holding with GEM, a US capital fund and
– money from China may be forthcoming as well.
They also say that Vladimir Antonov has half a milliard kronor available to invest as soon as he is admitted as co-owner of Spyker/Swedish Automobile Holding.
‘More about this in Thursday’s newspaper’. Someone bought the print edition yet?
According to TTELA, the reason for this name is that they’ve been unable to reach an agreement with Saab AB (defence) about using the name Saab for the holding company.
…Yet… according to Muller. Whichever way it is (Saab AB doesn’t want to, or not yet agreed), I think Spyker wants to change the name to something else ASAP, which is great
What about “Swedish Automobile Aktiebolaget”? with as acronym SAAB! Are acronyms protected?
Thanks for getting to that point. Keeping the SAAB acronym was what occurred to me after I read this earlier today. I was coming back to see if anyone made the acronym connection and see it did appear.
You guys are way better than me, I haven’t seen the disguised acronym.
On my opinion the company is now listed in Amsterdam stock exchange, thus the company form has to be NL, but if they move from Amsterdam to Stockholm stock exchange, shouldn’t the company change the form from a NL to a AB?
A real cunning plan 😉
I think that is the thinking behind the new name. But isn’t the Sa.. in ‘old’ Saab not short for Svenska Automobil? Which is the same as Swedish Automobile, isn’t it? Enough stuff for a brand name dispute here. It’s, perhaps, a good thing that VM is a lawyer himself.
Oops, we are discussing the same thing at two places, see the next couple of posts. =)
Considering that SAAB is short for “Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolaget”=”Swedish Aeroplanes Inc.”, the name “Swedish Automobile NV” seems like a pretty good choice. If NV=Inc.=AB, then a direct translation to Swedish (and using the word automobil, which is just as oldfasioned as aeroplan), you’d get the familiar abbreviation “SAAB”. =)
I haven’t thought of it like that, but you’re absolutely right! NV is indeed .inc and AB, so translated the new name would still be SAAB. Cool.
But wasn’t the name of the automotive division changed into ‘Svenska Automobil AB’ at the time? When the split-off from the aviation division occurred?
NV (short for Dutch term Naamloze Vennootschap) = AB, that I am absolutely sure of.
I asked Wikipedia, which claims that Saab short for ” Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolaget” and the car division is named ” Saab Automobile AB”.
Comments are closed.