Nevs’ composition proposal approved by Court

SAAB Factory March 2013A press release from Nevs today;

The District Court of Vänersborg today approved the composition proposal earlier presented by Nevs, as the stipulated number of creditors’ votes needed for the court to decide in favor of the composition proposal was achieved.

The number of present creditors entitled to vote, and those who on beforehand had approved the proposal and signed a proxy for the Administrator to vote for them, amounted to 98,2 percent of the creditors and 98,6 percent of the amount of the debt.

The composition means that claims up to 500’000 SEK will be fully paid, and that claims above 500’000 SEK will be reduced by 50 percent. Of a total of 573 creditors 469 will get their full claim paid.

The payments will be performed in two steps. The first within 60 days from the date that the Court’s decision is legally valid, and the second step within six months from the same date. The composition as well as the operating costs for the coming months will be financed by Nevs’ main owner. Nevs intends to apply for exiting the reorganization as soon as the composition is legally valid in mid-April.

“A composition was needed for Nevs to exit the reorganization in order to be able to sign commercially viable agreements with our OEM and financial partners we have been in dialogue with for a long time. We appreciate the support from our suppliers, with whom we want to continue to develop long-term relations”, said Mattias Bergman, President Nevs.

“My duty as Administrator is to secure that the composition is favorable for both the company and the creditors. Todays’ decision creates possibilities both for the development of Nevs’ business as well as future business potentials for the creditors”, said the Administrator, Attorney Lars Eric Gustafsson, Hamilton Law Firm.

52 thoughts on “Nevs’ composition proposal approved by Court”

  1. Hope with all my heart that this is finally the last step in this long and nerve taking process.
    That we now might known by the beginning of the summer period what the future of the Trollhattan plant will be.

  2. Great news! Hopefully this means we will see new Saabs on the road at some point in the future!

    • MIke, it is only one important step in the right direction, but some more have to follow.
      Next step is exiting reorganization, and we will have to wait till mid April.

  3. “The composition as well as the operating costs for the coming months will be financed by Nevs’ main owner.” They have the money to make these payments?????

    • He still wants to sell a part of NEVS. I think he has to do this last investment if he wants to see a ROI of his initial investment in NEVS.

  4. Angelo, I believe that we saw a statement that did, in fact, indicate that finishing assembly of, and then selling, 100-odd 9-3s was intended to help fund continuing operations. But the only way the owner would be willing to keep pumping in additional money at this point is if he thought that he would net more in the sale to new investors. The fact that he is willing to foot the bill for now is encouraging as it suggests a deal with a new investor is a realistic proposition. Otherwise, it makes no sense.

  5. In an interview with a reporter from the local radio, Mattias Bergman claims, that NEVS are about to land a development contract worth several billion kroner.

    If that is true, it is the first realistic plan for survival, I have heard from NEVS, since I don`t believe Saab AB will re-lease the brand.

    • If Saab AB will not re-lease use of the brand name…if that’s true…than Saab is dead as a car brand, which might defeat the purpose for at least one interested party. I guess in reality, the destruction of continuity of selling Saabs in key markets has pretty much finished off the brand anyway—-but if you’re right, this will make it official. Don’t tell me someone is desperate for that ancient Phoenix platform.

      • that ancient phoenix platform is as old as the MQB-platform from VW and only 1 or 2 younger than the MLB from Audi, and you will see cars based on that platforms in the next years.

        • Red: The other platforms you mentioned—aren’t they completed, with cars being produced on them? Built into the “ancient” comment is the fact that Phoenix isn’t done yet. To my knowledge, not a single vehicle has been produced on it and/or sold. So by the time it’s done, will it have set a record from beginning to end—-how long it took?

  6. If I judge Mattias Bergmans statement correct it is the OEM 2 contract (DF- Phoenix) that is most urgent, or most ready to go. Probably because it has less complications with due dilligence, Brand name etc. I have also heard from people here at SU with insights in Chinese news that this deal has already been cleared by Chinese authorities including funding. If this holds true, lets not be sad about it because it may secure a start of what we hope to be the new Saab. And let’s not doom the Phoenix as ancient since it isn’t ready yet.

    • When was the Phoenix platform conceived? How long does it usually take an automaker from inception to completion, to develop a new model on a new platform? Has Phoenix been passed by like an old Edsel being lapped at the Daytona 500 by modern cars? Sorry, but this is getting more and more ridiculous.

      • But please! Do You really think that the Phoenix platform is ancient!? A lot of carmakers use platforms that are “conceived” 10-20 years ago, or even more than that. Since Phoenix isn’t ready yet it can’t be old when it is finished. It’s not been put in a drawer for five years to be pulled out to be used one day in the future…

        • Automakers use old platforms to save money. Yes, we know that. Instead of developing a new platform, they solider on with an old one and try to refine it. I guess my point is that if you’re going to develop a new one, why would you start with one that is ALREADY “old?” If a computer company had been working on software and a new computer system six years ago and put it in mothballs—-would someone be anxious to get a hold of it to finish it? Or would it perhaps be a better option to start with a fresh piece of paper and design something based on today’s world? I’m not writing Phoenix off—-I know there are probably aspects of it that are good—-I’m just wondering if people think there is some sort of chess game with millions (billions?) of dollars involved for the purpose of getting a “new old stock” platform?

          • Roger wasn’t referring to using 10 – 20 years old platforms, but to the age of a conception. A conception can be realized 10 or 20 years after it was conceived but it still could fit perfectly into the market place.
            There is no such thing as a “completely new platform”. People do not reinvent the wheel every time they create a new platform, they are basing themselves on the knowledge they already have and are using solutions that already have been used. Even when there is some completely novel solution it goes hand in hand with the old, already proven ones. And the thought process that led to this novel solution was of course based on extensive knowledge of the existing solutions. In some sense, “a new” product is always an updated version of an existing product, the difference is only in the degree of updating. Many platforms and engines that are considered new today are a result of constant development and redevelopment of things created decades ago. So is the Phoenix, it’s not old, it might have some aspects that don’t work and should be changed and it probably has some aspects that could be left the way they are. But you can’t call it old, because it is not a finished product. It needs development to be turned into finished product. When this is done one may call it “a finished Phoenix” or may choose to say “this is a new platform based on the Phoenix. The difference between the two is not rigid.

            • That’s understood Avelik—-but since a car has never been built on this platform and we don’t know of the commercial viability of it—-and it was started so long ago—-I’m just wondering what value there is in it. Things do change—-it’s sort of like a musical group trying to finish a song they started writing in 1988. It’s possible to finish it—-but the trends in music have changed. I honestly don’t know how far along Phoenix is—-or if finishing it on the same course that it started on would provide a functional, contemporary car, ready for today’s market. I suspect there’s a lot of work remaining and that by the time they finish it, it might be outdated unless they blow it up and start over in some ways.

              • Car development is not linear. It is not like the final result is locked already in the start and changes are not possible. Major turns during the development are absolutely possible and happen all the time. Major changes are possible even long into the life of the platform when many models have been made on it. The Epsilon I platform didn’t have the AWD capability when it was introduced. This capability was added quite a few years later by Saab. Quite a serious change of the platform capabilities was added in such late period of the platform’s development. There is no danger of the Phoenix being dated when it is finished because, firstly, it wasn’t conceived that long ago for it to be unchangeably out of place (after all they aren’t gonna make it work with a steam engine), and secondly, because it is being developed. The engineers who work on the platform do not work closed in a underground bunker without access to the outer world, so that they would blindly develop something and then check if it is functional in the new world they discover after leaving the bunker. No, they are aware of the changing demands of the market place and a free to make the corresponding changes. They can change some aspects of the platform that underperform, while keeping other aspects untouched. In this way the whole package will be up to date.
                From what we know Phoenix’s development hasn’t been linear. At first it was prepared to have mild hybrid capabilities with the eXWD, the later development aims at adding more capabilities than that. The Phoenix is valuable because it needs some more development that could turn it into a very capable platform both in terms of number of models in can underpin and in terms of the qualities these cars have. It is valuable because it already has some aspects that work, it just needs to develop the other aspects. And that will be much cheaper and easier than developing all of the aspects anew.

                  • Well, taking into consideration how globalized the auto industry is (as all industries), “where” something is developed is a little relative. They will use a lot of tech developed by different people in different places, but the general development should be led where it has always been – Trollhattan.

                • To set the record straight:
                  -an architecture/platform is to about 80% built on supplier components.
                  -Phoenix as developed by SAAB obviously contained some GM parts.
                  -Phoenix was not finalised during the SAAB- era.
                  -to have a completely finalised architecture, there need to be a “first vehicle”.
                  -NEVS has had limited resources to update/finalise Phoenix due to lack of money (consultants) and bad supplier relations.
                  -there has been no outside evaluation of just how competitive Phoenix is.
                  -nobody is using 10-20 years old platforms – no suppliers
                  -the AWD capability on Epsilon 1, was enforced by Opel – to help SAAB, and at a price.

                  • “nobody is using 10-20 years old platforms”

                    Platforms can live a long time. Ford’s Panther platform was in production for 33 years – from 1978 to 2011.

              • I’ll just add a description to make things easier to imagine – think of the platform as a set of units. A good platform needs the right number of units that perform in the right way. The Phoenix already has some of the units needed. Some of these units perform in the right way, some don’t. Now the Phoenix needs the underperforming units replaced or upgraded and the lacking units developed (it is not possible for all the units to under perform). This will be way easier than developing all the needed units “from scratch”, because every unit needs to be designed, tested etc.

  7. I’m happy to hear that NEVS/Saab is once again off life support. As a Saab owner exclusively since 1986 (’74 Sonett III, ’86 C900, ’99 9-5SC, 2009 9-3SC, ’11 NG 9-5T4 Premium) I have come to the realization that after my NG 9-5 bites that dust, it will most likely be my last Saab that I will own. If the brand ever makes it back to our shores here in the USA, the cost will be prohibitive on my future monthly retirement income. I wish them well!

    • It very much depends on what Mahindras plans are, And nobody really don’t know how that will turn out. Swade did a piece on Mahindra and came to the conclusion that their philosophy isn’t that far off from Saabs, so you could just wait and see. And it seems that they are now aiming for a product in 2017-2018.

        • Seems very unlikely at this point. It would probably require investment of an established major automotive player to pry the name from Saab AB again. I’d like to be proven wrong but my assumption at this point is that there will be no more new Saab cars in my lifetime.

          Many more years down the road, who knows? Who would have thought that Borgward of all things would be poised for a comeback after being dead for something like 55 years, but there it is.

        • They are obviously aiming for that. It took 6 months last time to secure the name rights, and at least 2 years for the cars to materialize, so they have time for a prolonged process… Let’s hope it will be a lot faster this time.

  8. Someone please tell me again (yes I have a short memory) whether Mahindra is still interested and is actually involved in this deal (as OEM1 or OEM2) or not ?

    • As OEM1 hasn’t stated that the letter of intent is retract they are still on. Because if they weren’t on, not retracting it would open them up for lawsuits, and not a risk any sane business leader would take. So you can be pretty sure they are still on board until you hear the opposite through official channels.

    • Whilst J.C.’s 9-3 (or 900) definitely still needed some work, I didn’t find it totally ugly. By the same token, I didn’t find Padian’s NG9-5 fantastic either. I’ve always thought the front looked a bit owlish, the side view a bit like a squashed Rover 75 and the whole thing just a trifle stodgy. About the only thing I really liked was the interior except for that generic GM steering wheel. Here’s hoping a new 9-3 might get the hatch from J.C.’s design and the interior from Padian’s. That would make a good starting point.

  9. It’s nice to fantasize and nice to have hope, but we are all getting a little ahead of what’s going on…….We don’t know yet whether there will be a car company producing independent cars for the world’s markets, or only a development company and branch of some Chinese company. We don’t know that even if the company independently produces a car that it will be a Saab either in name or spirt.

    It’s pretty incredible the lack of hard news or even credible rumor. Other than the exact location of the beaches in Normandy, there was more news about the invasion of Europe in WWII.

    • Thanks for bringing the discussion back to Earth Hugh. I swear, some of us are so starved for something positive, we find it in ANYTHING reported. I stand by what I’ve been saying for years now: There’s no way forward with NEVS as the owner. Until the company moves into different hands, there’s no point in getting excited about anything. Even if they had “succeeded” by their own definition, most of us would have been sick over the results. Someone else has to be running things for any chance at all of “success” the way most of us would define it.

  10. Guys the most likely company to be involved is Qoros cars… The top Saab engineers from previous Saab has pumped in a huge amount of Tech and engineering from previous Saab. The company is way ahead of anything Nevs or Mahindra can do… In fact they are basically Saab…. Read this

    The Saab brand name is dead unless it goes with Qoros. Why would someone pay for the name when Qoros is light years ahead, with tons of Saab engineering? They won’t.. Think about it… They got the top 30 engineers from Saab.

    I believe Nevs may contract production and Sell the rights of the phoenix to them. Qoros is aggressively moving into the european market…

  11. I hope the financing issue is solved soon and and that the company carries on with R&D, engineering, manufacturing and sales. Saab cars deserve to be on the roads. Keep up good work!

    • Yes, though I would think “resumes” is more accurate than “carries on with.” Right now, they’re dead in the water. They need to revive and it’s not going to be easy. There are forces, external and internal, that might make this almost impossible to overcome.

Comments are closed.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.