pico Posted November 19, 2012 Share #21 Posted November 19, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) It seems to me the worst that can happen is that the company gets strong enough to sell off assets in a slow and organized way rather than as a fire sale. In my opinion, the worst that can happen is that Kodak employee pensions are stolen. It happens. How in heaven can that be permitted? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 Hi pico, Take a look here Kodak reaches deal to borrow $793 million. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IkarusJohn Posted November 19, 2012 Share #22 Posted November 19, 2012 In my opinion, the worst that can happen is that Kodak employee pensions are stolen. It happens. How in heaven can that be permitted? . Sorry, Pico - don't follow your logic. Are you unhappy because morality has no place in the law, or that the law is not enforced? I would imagine steeling the pension fund (Robert Maxwell style) is theft, or at the very least illegal, and therefore actionable. The fact that theft might be immoral isn't the point. I'd be far more worried if elected politicians started making laws telling me what was moral ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 19, 2012 Share #23 Posted November 19, 2012 Sorry, Pico - don't follow your logic. Are you unhappy because morality has no place in the law, or that the law is not enforced? I would imagine steeling the pension fund (Robert Maxwell style) is theft, or at the very least illegal, and therefore actionable. The fact that theft might be immoral isn't the point. I'd be far more worried if elected politicians started making laws telling me what was moral ... It is not always illegal for a company to loot their pension funds. In the USA we have The Employee Retirement Income Safety Act of 1974, which is weak. The bottom line is that there may be no bottom line - when a fund is broke, it is broke. Pensions can be cut. Concerning the morality, my position is that workers must be paid and pensions must be honored. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 20, 2012 Share #24 Posted November 20, 2012 In my opinion, the worst that can happen is that Kodak employee pensions are stolen. It happens. How in heaven can that be permitted? . If the money is not there for the pensions, it can't be stolen. How to fund the pensions has to do with the bankruptcy court at this point. If anything this loan will give them more options. My girlfriend worked for US Airways and when it went bankrupt the government run Pension Guaranty Corp. (kind of a pension insurance program) took over responsibilities but not at the full amount the employees were promised of course. So there is a difference between working for a company that fully funds the pension vs. one that promises future payments. That is up to the workers and/or the unions to negotiate in their contracts. It has little to do with the responsibility, moral or otherwise, of anyone who bails out a failing company. Of course they'll have their own financial motives but they are often picking up the pieces broken by bad management. So I blame the ones that caused the problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 20, 2012 Share #25 Posted November 20, 2012 If the money is not there for the pensions, it can't be stolen. The theft of pension funds occurs before the crisis of pensions arise. It is 'not there' because the company has stolen from it. How to fund the pensions has to do with the bankruptcy court at this point. If anything this loan will give them more options. Not if the agreement passes the ownership of pensions to the buyer. In that case, the pensioners lose! I read the rest of your post/posit and it is not informative, in fact, it is entirely disputable. Perhaps we should take it point-by-point. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 20, 2012 Share #26 Posted November 20, 2012 The theft of pension funds occurs before the crisis of pensions arise. It is 'not there' because the company has stolen from it. Are we talking in circles? If the money is already "stolen" by Kodak not fully funding it, then why is anyone blaming Blackstone? If Kodak does not have the money to fund the future pensions, it won't make much difference to the retirees what Blackstone does. Most likely the bankruptcy court will decide that the pensions are reduced or eliminated as part of any plan to come out of bankruptcy... whether with new investors or not. Plus this was described as a loan not as a purchase of any ownership. I am not sure what secures it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted November 20, 2012 Share #27 Posted November 20, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Please oh please isn't there someone out there that wants the prestige of Kodak film to add to their portfolio? What about 3M or some other big player? 3M got out of the film business about 1996 when they included the Ferrania business in the spin-off that became Imation. I doubt very much that they'd want to get back into it now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted November 22, 2012 Share #28 Posted November 22, 2012 I just hope that Kodak film, paper and chemicals don't disappear as a result of the "help" that Blackstone is giving. to Kodak. Furthermore I hope Kodak's employees who have accrued pensions don't end up with nothing to show for their dedication to Kodak and their long years of service. If Blackstone is permitted to dismember Kodak, both of the above may come to pass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 24, 2012 Share #29 Posted November 24, 2012 If Blackstone is permitted to dismember Kodak, both of the above may come to pass. Keep in mind that Kodak has been dismembering itself for some time and continuing in that direction probably has nothing to do with Blackstone. They have been trying to sell their patents and the film division. Kodak is in bankruptcy so the future of the pension (and everything else) is already an issue that the court has to deal with before Kodak can emerge from bankruptcy. Blackstone is providing a loan to try to allow Kodak to come out of bankruptcy. If Kodak can't emerge from bankruptcy, the only alternative I can see would be liquidation of all assets and the possible loss of the entire pension plan... if the sale of assets in the breakup are insufficient to fund it. (I don't know what criteria the court uses to prioritize various debts and the pension.) How exactly is Blackstone's loan hurting Kodak? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted November 24, 2012 Share #30 Posted November 24, 2012 Hello Alan, I don't know anything about Kodak or Blackstone or their relationship. Instead, let me ask you a hypothetical question about 2 hypothetical companies: If company "A" spends or removes assets, including an employee pension fund, from company "A" so that these assets are out of reach of those who have a claim against company "A". And company "B" then offeres to loan company "A" a certain ammount of money to restructure company "A" without stipulating that sufficient money be used to return the no-longer-present pension fund to the condition it was supposed to have been in. What further recourse do the pension fund recipients have as per replenishing the pension fund with company "B" if company "A" uses the loan money for things other than replenishing the pension fund & then company "A" disappears in bankruptcy court without the court providing sufficient funds from the remaining assets of company"A" to the pension fund to return it to where it should have been? Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 25, 2012 Share #31 Posted November 25, 2012 Alan, pension funds should be trusts untouchable by the corporation. The problem, and ethical issue is they are NOT. We know that. It is about time to make that the absolute fundamental principle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 26, 2012 Share #32 Posted November 26, 2012 Michael (& Pico), It is difficult to respond to either question when the issue is one of US law. Generally speaking, if a transaction is entered into within a relatively short period prior to liquidation (at which point solvency may be an issue) it can be examined and set aside by a liquidator if it is found to have had no purpose other than defeating creditors. This is often referred to as a "voidable preference". In this way, stripping a company of all value in order to defeat creditors on liquidation is not effective. As for pension funds, we all need to be careful about broad generalisations, when laws between jurisdictions (countries, federal and state) vary. As a general rule, if the funds are not separated out and held for a purpose, it is difficult to stop a company from treating them as just another asset. It's not quite correct to say that pension funds in all jurisdictions have no protection. Do we know if Kodak actually holds such funds, where those funds are held, to what purpose and in what jurisdiction? Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 26, 2012 Share #33 Posted November 26, 2012 Hello Alan, I don't know anything about Kodak or Blackstone or their relationship. Instead, let me ask you a hypothetical question about 2 hypothetical companies: If company "A" spends or removes assets, including an employee pension fund, from company "A" so that these assets are out of reach of those who have a claim against company "A". And company "B" then offeres to loan company "A" a certain ammount of money to restructure company "A" without stipulating that sufficient money be used to return the no-longer-present pension fund to the condition it was supposed to have been in. What further recourse do the pension fund recipients have as per replenishing the pension fund with company "B" if company "A" uses the loan money for things other than replenishing the pension fund & then company "A" disappears in bankruptcy court without the court providing sufficient funds from the remaining assets of company"A" to the pension fund to return it to where it should have been? Best Regards, Michael I think you need to get a lot more specific and then find a lawyer in that field to answer your questions. I can only assume the bankruptcy judge knows what he/she is doing... since I have no evidence to the contrary. All I'm saying is that Kodak is already in bankruptcy so everything including the pension fund may be at play. Maybe people want to worry about Blackstone, but I have no idea if they are the boogeyman or the potential savior in this situation. I do know that Kodak is sinking fast and it looks like nobody else is going to throw them a lifeline. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.