Brevet: här är Mullers attack på Guy Lofalk

Det är ord och inga visor som gäller från Muller. Kritiken rör alltifrån bristfällig kompetens till oförmåga att kommunicera på ett vettigt sätt.

Uppgifterna ska snart läggas fram för styrelsen i Saabs moderbolag, börsnoterade Swedish Automobile, Swan.

Guy Lofalk viftar dock bort kritiken och säger följande till Dagens Industri:

”Detta är ett personangrepp. Jag förstår dock att alla är pressade i denna situation, men som rekonstruktör måste man ha integritet även mot ägare och fatta beslut som de inte alltid gillar. Det är inte ovanligt i dessa situationer att det kan uppstå irritation.”

Brevet:

“I have summarized my points to be included in the request to the court next week on Lofalk’s removal as administrator if we stay in reorg.

1. Insufficient skills to lead a complex reorganization process of a global automotive company

a. Lack of understanding of the basic operations of Saab and apparent lack of interest to understand these

b. Lack of overview of various stakeholders interests, positions and likely reactions so to support Saab management on various funding scenarios

c. Lack of professionalism in handling media thereby disclosing information about Saab inappropriately and prematurely

2. Lack of alignment of reorganization objectives between administrator, Saab owner and Saab (management)

a. Complete lack of alignment and coordination of administrator activities with Saab owner/management objectives

b. Continuous interference with ownership structure and issues, rather than focusing on funding and managing reorg process

c. Complete lack of communications with Saab’s owner and Saab management on actions and activities

3. Inadequate management of the reorganization process

a. Lack of review and understanding of relevant files (ie. security documentation, key supply agreements w GM, etc.)See example below.

b. No adherence to clear governance process (ie started w Reorganisation Steering Committee meetings which stopped after 3-4 weeks and never resumed)

c. Virtually no presence on site to manage reorg activities

d. Lack of communications with Saab management and stakeholders

4. Excessive costs of service relative to value of services provided.Used up eur 1.2m in 10 weeks

a. Excessively high time charges relative to normal practices of professional advisors (ie. Lofalk’s hours invoiced)

b. High cost of various advisors engaged by Lofalk without any clear benefit to Saab (i.e. EUR150k charged by Halvarsson & Halvarsson for pr services non of which was ever discussed with Saab’s PR dept or even noticed)

5. breach of client confidentiality by disclosing a confidential letter from Hans Hugenholtz to him to the Saab Reorg Creditors Committee.

The best exampke of his total lack of understanding how to deal with stakeholders such as GM is the following.During his 3 day visit to GM Detroit last week,which was a total disaster because he could not even begin to explain who would act as the 60 percent chinese majority shareholder,he made his ultimate faux pas: First he suggested that GM themselves would take the 60 percent making it totally clear to them that he has not the least understanding of GM’s sensitive position in respect of China and its partner Shanghai Auto.He had already lost any and all credibility by then but when it became clear that GM would not entertain his silly proposal he a started to threaten them.He said that if GM continued to refuse his porposal to allow a 100percent deal,GM would need to realize that he would exit reorg and Saab would immediately go into bancruptcy.He could then not control the process for GM anymore because a receiver would be appointed who would then start to sell of all of Saab’s assets including the computers of the Engineering dept.GM should know,lofalk said,that on these computers all of GM’s licensed technology would be stored and the chinese would buy the computers and so they would still lay their hands on GM’s technology but for the price of the computers.GM terminated the meeting after this blackmail attempt of which even a 5 year old would understand was total nonsense.

No less than 3 times lofalk abused his powers as administrator to force an ownership change:

Firstly by handing over a proposal by Geely and pang da to buy 100 percent of Saab for $1 m.when that information leaked out and Geely ran for the hills,he resorted to step 2.

In beijing he forced YM then to accept making an offer for 100 percent of Saab with Pang da threatening them that if YM would not cooperate,he would exit reorg and Saab would go bust and they would lose everything.YM reluctantly agreed.this is when the disaster started ofcourse because it was made clear from the outset that GM would never agree.lofalk then said that YM and pd did not need to worry because he and the Swedish Governement would take care of GM.ofcourse that miserably failed.

Finally,lofalk last week again tried to interfere in the ownership process by intimidating Rachel Pang when she had made a new proposal to GM together with Swan.

This is what the chairman of SWan wrote to him on dec 3 as a result:

Dear Mr Lofalk,

For some two and a half months you have acted as administrator for Saab Automobile.

During such period we, however, feel that you have interfered with the ownership structure of Saab Automobile more, rather than focused on the reorganization of Saab Automobile as you should.

We especially have three specific occurrences in mind – first you conveyed a proposal from Geely and Pang Da to buy Saab for $1m, subsequently you forced the sale of 100 percent of Saab Automobile to Youngman and Pang Da instead of the already signed and notified deal where Youngman and PangDa would invest in SWAN (although SWAN/Saab management made it blatantly clear that a 100%-deal would not be accepted by GM) and now – since it became clear that the 100 percent deal will indeed never be accepted by GM – you are trying to interfere (by threatening YM that this proposal will not be accepted by the Swedish Government) with YM’s proposal to acquire 19.9 percent in SWAN and an independent Chinese financial party that would acquire 29.9 percent.

All of this has been harmful for Saab Automobile and all of its stakeholders since it has delayed a long term solution, one that would be beneficial for all of Saab’s stakeholders, the parties who’s interests should be protected in the reorganization.

We find it totally unacceptable and believe that your actions have constituted and continue to constitute a breach of your duties as administrator and have caused serious damages to Saab Automobile and its stakeholders. I therefore demand you to refrain from involving yourself with such ownership issues and focus on the reorganization instead.

If we experience that you do not comply with the above demand, we see no other choice than to apply to the court to have you removed as administrator and we reserve the right to hold you liable for any and all damages incurred as a result of your actions.

Yours sincerely.

Drs J.B,.Th. Hugenholtz

Chairman of the Supervisory Board

Swedish Automobile NV

After this,Saab decided to remove lofalk at any price.

Lets dicuss,

Vic”