Today as I went through the news feed a headline caught my eye:
Saab may be forced into voluntary liquidation, even if sale to Pang Da and Youngman goes through
It appeared on Paul Tan’s Automotive News and I found similar headlines in a few other places, too.
It appears like they just didn’t get the difference between SWAN and SAAB because that possible liquidation scenario is exactly what SWAN were talking about for SWAN in their press info after the shareholders meeting last week. The contradiction in this headline, Saab will be sold and then liquidated, is obvious and almost comical but we know how such things can spread on the interwebs.
To clarify things, for those who did not read the SWAN info and for lazy journos, here’s a quote from Bloomberg:
Saab Auto Owner May Liquidate as Sale May Not Raise Enough Cash
Swedish Automobile NV, the Dutch owner of Saab Automobile, may liquidate even if it succeeds in selling the former General Motors Co. (GM) brand, as the proceeds may not be enough to pay off creditors.
Swedish Automobile, which has tentative agreements to dispose of Saab as well as its Spyker sports-car business, will consider “all of its options,” including a voluntary liquidation should the deals go through, the Zeewolde, Netherlands-based company said in a Nov. 11 statement.
It makes people worry even more about Saab’s future when the media writes wrong… 🙁
At least this time they have only confused SWAN with Saab Automobile. In other cases some lazy journos did even talk about Saab AB, which is a very different company 😉
It was said even on the Swedish media that SWAN can be liquidated even if the sale goes through. So why do they mix up??
The damage the superficial and hasted journalist can do – not only in this case – is indefinite … (sigh)
If the Swedish government would Guarantee the EIB bank, whom would have to pay the creditors, SWAN or SAAB Automobile?
If the Swedish government would Guarantee the EIB bank, what would be the case of SWAN or SAAB Automobile declare voluntary liquidation?
If a voluntary liquidation is declared, would SAAB die once and for all, or would SAAB be given birth again in the future?
Osama,
the talks are about SWAN.
Swedish Automobile NL (SWAN) has a total debt amount of € 136,5 million. If SWAN sells Saab Automobile AB for € 100 million and Spyker for € 32 million, there is still money missing to pay all the creditors. And because of that and because SWAN would then be nothing else than a empty shell, SWAN would then liquidate itself.
This is the information SWAN gave after the Extraordinary shareholders meeting on Nov 11, as you can read here.
I must confirm that I did not understand this difference when I read it last week. Thanks for clarification!
Ok so I have not been following well. If saab is sold then swan could go by the wayside but saab goes on right
Yes. SWAN was the parent company set up to own Saab and Spyker. If Saab is sold to Pang Da/Youngman and the Spyker sale goes through to North Street, then SWAN is a parent company with no “children”. Then it would make sense to just liquidate it.
also it would still have debts, but no assets, and no income. ie would be broke.
To me this could be negotiation techniques to put more pressure on the Chinese or other potential investors after GM made it clear that SAAB could not change hands. Any deal should keep SWAN as shareholder in SAAB since all technology licences are signed with SWAN.
The only real fix for this constant misinformation is to get Saab back on its feet with real cash behind it. Otherwise, every b.s. “bankrupt” story written in the last two year becomes accurate.
SWAN will liquidate itself with money geting from the sale of SAAB and Spyker. how about if saab deal can not be reached? if Swan liquidate itself, how about remaining saab? it’s assets can also be liquidated?
The question is what would actually remain?
They might have some buildings, some parts, other bits of real estate…but everything else of value is actually owned by GM. GM’s position is that SWAN can’t sell what it doesn’t own.
Does anyone know exactly how much did YoungMan & PangDa invested in SAAB already and what will happen if SWAN or SAAB will go bankrupt?
Will they be privilleged among the other creditors SAAB has or they will have to wait in the line to get what’s left ?
Thank you for making this post. I’ve had to answer this numerous times to worried customers, employees and fellow dealers since last Friday. Even when a journalist properly reported about the shareholders meeting, there still was a fair amount of unnecessary confusion and concern because the names SWAN and SAAB have been used so interchangeably in the media over the last several months. Again, thank you for posting the difference between SWAN and SAAB AB.
Kurt, there’s a saying here in the US: “You can’t polish a turd.”
That seems to apply to any spinning of the Saab/SWAN situation, which has both entities slowly circling the drain — barring any last-minute deal on the sale of tech properties that neither Saab nor SWAN own.
This raises the uncomfortable question of what you actually said to any worried customers or employees about the situation.
Sometimes I wonder if it’s even worth trying to explain it to these people, Kurt.
Kurt’s clarification to the dealer body was appreciated and articulated in a way that the journos should have. There are many people who took what was written as Saab (the car company) going into liquidation, despite a deal being executed. The distinction is critically important. No one is trying to ‘spin’ the news into something positive. It is exactly what it is.
AJ: “Despite a deal being executed?”
A deal between whom and for what? If you and I agree to sell you my neighbor’s house — even though I don’t own it — there might be a transaction in the works but that doesn’t quite make for “a deal being executed.”
Well..Saab owns it’s house.
I just don’t own all of the furniture.
Now you’re nitpicking; that wasn’t the main point here, was it? When, if, whatever, there is a 100% sale of Saab and Spyker, there will be a situation for Swan to handle, if they have no more business, and perhaps still more debts; they have to discuss that. The part about whom owns what in Saab or Spyker, whatever isn’t the point.
Time for a bit of Swan Lake, Saab style …………….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5R0XnM98LU
Granted, journalists should get their facts straight and figure out what they’re talking about in order to convey good information to the people they reach… But it’s still a little confusing or odd to the regular person who isn’t following Saab-specific news.