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.