**GM preparing for bankruptcy**

[MickyB]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

Wwitching into space cadet mode:

Your right, but it depends on the charge document. Usually most charges can be "defaulted" if an Insolvency Event occurs or the company stops or threatens to stop carrying on its businesses or a material part thereof without the consent of the bank.

Regardless the directors would jump straight to VA as the repercussions of trading whilst insolvent are significantly more onerous than in the US. Going to VA should allow a banking syndicate with security over substantially the whole of the company to appoint a receiver and manager within 13 days of the VA commencing.

I'm sure if any of these occur, the validity of appointment would be challenged one way or another whether it's a VA or an R&M.

Did you write the CPA 'Insolvency and Reconstruction' module, because it's all coming back to me now after reading that mate!
I don't know much about the corporate structure of Holden, but who are it's Directors? Are they based here or abroad?

[Piotr]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

Your right, but it depends on the charge document. Usually most charges can be "defaulted" if an Insolvency Event occurs or the company stops or threatens to stop carrying on its businesses or a material part thereof without the consent of the bank.

All of those are example of non-monetarydefaults which may be written into the charge, but it does depend on the charge itself.

Originally Posted by Dave_au

Regardless the directors would jump straight to VA as the repercussions of trading whilst insolvent are significantly more onerous than in the US. Going to VA should allow a banking syndicate with security over substantially the whole of the company to appoint a receiver and manager within 13 days of the VA commencing.

13 Business day

Originally Posted by Dave_au

I'm sure if any of these occur, the validity of appointment would be challenged one way or another whether it's a VA or an R&M.

You can not challenge the validity of the appointment of an administrator.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by XplosiveR6

mm interesting, seems like another example of holden controling the media. I bet if it was FOA facing bankruptcy the title would have stayed.

Well I guess it would depend on whether FoA rang them up and threatened them with legal action! I'd be willing to bet that's what happened here.

As an aside, has anyone noticed the lack of content on Drivel.com lately, particularly relating to Ford? Could it be that Ford has gotten the on with them about some of the crap they publish about the Falcon and decided to 'decline' to invite Drive journos to press releases and such?

[R-Design]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

As an aside, has anyone noticed the lack of content on Drivel.com lately, particularly relating to Ford? Could it be that Ford has gotten the on with them about some of the crap they publish about the Falcon and decided to 'decline' to invite Drive journos to press releases and such?

Probably a case of, if you can't say something negative, say nothing at all.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Well I guess it would depend on whether FoA rang them up and threatened them with legal action! I'd be willing to bet that's what happened here.

As an aside, has anyone noticed the lack of content on Drivel.com lately, particularly relating to Ford? Could it be that Ford has gotten the on with them about some of the crap they publish about the Falcon and decided to 'decline' to invite Drive journos to press releases and such?

Marin Burela would be the perfect man to tell Gover and the other idiots at Drivel that they are idiots and lacking in both journalistic aptitude and biased!

He sure seems to be an "ask questions & tell it like it is then back it up ith facts type of guy!"

Shame the drivel hasn't been writing up any of the positive stuff, which there has been plenty of lately. Better than just turning positives into negatives though.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Boss315

Probably a case of, if you can't say something negative, say nothing at all.

Exactly.

PS Having a laugh thinking about a situation at work the other day. One mate was looking at a Terri or Adventra V8 and ended buying the Adventra for the power. The other mate was talking up the economy of his Holden Adventra V8 and saying it gets 14s around town. I asked was that off the computer or at the bowser. He said computer, I said well check it. Holden have been known for years to be optimistic with several journo's running out of fuel. Mentioning it was probably mid 15s. He asked why would they do that. I said to make you feel better if your too lazy to check yourself. The other mate then said he'd say that, he likes Fords. To which I got called a Ford loser. Needless to say I mentioned, how many days before GM go bankrupt? The room just burst into laughter! Table quickly turned to inevitable demise (in current form) of GM!

[GT69]

Originally Posted by phillyc

Exactly.

PS Having a laugh thinking about a situation at work the other day. One mate was looking at a Terri or Adventra V8 and ended buying the Adventra for the power. The other mate was talking up the economy of his Holden Adventra V8 and saying it gets 14s around town. I asked was that off the computer or at the bowser. He said computer, I said well check it. Holden have been known for years to be optimistic with several journo's running out of fuel. Mentioning it was probably mid 15s. He asked why would they do that. I said to make you feel better if your too lazy to check yourself. The other mate then said he'd say that, he likes Fords. To which I got called a Ford loser. Needless to say I mentioned, how many days before GM go bankrupt? The room just burst into laughter! Table quickly turned to inevitable demise (in current form) of GM!

Some holden fans continue to tell me my XR6T was a waste and should have bought a holden instead. Everytime i see it coming i tell them to hurry up and buy that new commodore or they'll be stuck with the all new 2010 kia commodore

[Gobes32]

I call bulls&^t that Holden do not know what will happen to them in the event of a GM bankruptcy, this whole situation would be a joke if it were not so serious.

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by Piotr

You can not challenge the validity of the appointment of an administrator.

Completely off topic now - You can through 447C.

[R-Design]

More GM doom and gloom:

http://www.caradvice.com.au/30802/gm...t-76-year-low/

[z80]

Somehow me thinks no aussie car maker is immune from the economic downturn.

The rot hasn't even begun in Aus...

[phillyc]

The GM executives have all started to sell all of their GM stocks in the last week. Lutz was the biggest seller.

I'm not saying Lutz is a rat, because he actually helped Holden get a foothold in the US and in turn awareness of Falcon in the US. But it would appear the rats are leaving the ship. I would 99% expect bankruptcy within the next 2 weeks.

All of which is great news for Ford US as they will continue to increase their market share as they have done for 6 of the last 7mths.

Chrysler, have just announced that parts of the business will be in Ch11 for 2years...

GM is a company more than double the size and with much more downward momentum.

[vztrt]

GM is having problems with the unions.

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-n...0516-b6le.html

GM, union at odds as bankruptcy deadline looms
May 16, 2009 - 3:44PM

General Motors remains at odds with its main union over key contract changes as a deadline to prove viability and avert bankruptcy fast approaches, union officials said.

The United Auto Workers union objects to GM's plans to shut down more US plants and import as many as 50,000 vehicles from China.

"If GM is going to receive government assistance to facilitate its restructuring, along with substantial benefits from the tremendous sacrifices by UAW active and retired members and other stakeholders, we believe it should be required to maintain the maximum number of jobs in the US, instead of outsourcing more production to countries where the vehicles will have little or no US content," UAW legislative director Alan Reuther wrote in a letter distributed to lawmakers Friday.

The struggling automaker also faces steep opposition from dealers after announcing plans Friday to shrink its dealer network 40 percent, cutting some 2,300 sales outlets by the end of 2010 from the current level of 5,969.

It must also reach an agreement with bondholders to slash its massive debt-load with an equity swap.

GM is funding its operations with more than 15 billion US dollars in emergency government loans and faces a June 1 deadline to complete a major restructuring plan or be forced to follow its rival Chrysler into bankruptcy court.

GM's chief executive officer Fritz Henderson acknowledged earlier this week that a bankruptcy filing is the "more probable" outcome "given the objectives that we've set for ourselves."

The automaker announced it would move up payments to suppliers to May 28 from June 2 specifically so the money could not get tied up in a bankruptcy filing.

UAW spokesman Roger Kerson declined to comment on reports that GM wants to cut as many as 21,000 additional blue-collar jobs in the next phase of its restructuring in order to reduce costs by as much one billion US dollars.

GM has already announced plans to slash 26,000 union jobs and the fresh cuts would mean its hourly workforce would be more than halved to about 42,000 from 87,000 in the spring of 2008.

GM declined to comment on the status of negotiations.

GM's plans to import up to a third of the vehicles it sells in the United States by 2014 will mean the US government has spent billions of US dollars to lose jobs instead of protect them, said Harley Shaiken, a labor expert from University of California-Berkley.

"GM has tended to be tone deaf on the political implications of these kind of decisions," Shaiken told AFP.

"The Auto Task Force also tends to a little tone deaf as well... A large part of their approach tends to be at cross purposes with the stimulus package."

© 2009 AFP

[vztrt]

Also as some of you may have seen, The closing of dealerships.

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-n...0516-b6n6.html

Job losses as GM, Chrysler close dealerships
Charlotte Raab
May 16, 2009 - 5:24PM

Moves by ailing carmakers Chrysler and General Motors to slash their US dealerships will cost tens of thousands of jobs, taking a heavier toll than cuts in production, analysts say.

General Motors, the largest US automaker, said Friday it would seek to eliminate nearly 40 percent of its US dealers, more than 2,300 sales outlets, by the end of 2010 as part of its reorganisation to avert bankruptcy.

Chrysler, which has filed for bankruptcy protection, said Thursday it had asked the bankruptcy court to shut down 789 dealers, nearly one-fourth of its sales outlets.

For GM, the decision to close the dealerships, which employ about 50 people each, could translate into the loss of as many as 150,000 jobs -- representing a 0.2 percentage point rise in the unemployment rate, Joel Naroff at Naroff Economic Advisors said.

By contrast, the restructuring plans of GM and Chrysler project the loss this year of 47,000 and 3,000 jobs, respectively, in the recession-ravaged economy.

The two struggling automakers have already taken the hatchet to payrolls in the last several years: Chrysler has slashed 32,000 jobs since 2007; GM cut 31,000 in 2008 alone.

David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, said the announcements of the dealership closings "brings the issue of the problem of the auto industry to the attention of the entire country."

The crisis affects not just the hub of the US auto industry in Detroit, Michigan, and its industrial spokes in the Midwest, but directly touches dealerships across the country, from large cities to small towns.

George Magliano, an auto industry specialist at IHS Global Insight, said that unlike factory closings, the shuttering of dealerships "is more painful -- it's more localized."

"These guys were a source of support of a lot of the community activity," he said.

"The ripple effect of the dealership closings can be significant, they can be the key employer of the area. You shut them down, and it hurts the revenue base there," he added.

Cole estimated that each dealership job acts as multiplier, creating three related jobs.

Magliano noted that it was impossible for GM and Chrysler, faced with a severe US auto industry slump in general and their loss of market share, to maintain dealerships at boom-year levels.

Rival Japanese automakers operate nearly half as many dealerships as GM intends to keep.

"They've been trying to consolidate dealerships for years, it's a 10-year process," Magliano said of the US auto giants.

Naroff said that at least a disorderly dismantling at bankrupt Chrysler was avoided.

"Had they just shut down, then you can multiply the (social) impact by three or four -- that's just Chrysler. With GM you see the disaster was there," he said.

Naroff noted the "large" impact of the dealership closures on unemployment, but said it would have been bigger without the working capital given by President Barack Obama's administration to GM and Chrysler to help them through restructuring.

"The fact that money was used to stabilize the situation and give them a chance to have some sort of reasonably controlled and negotiated bankruptcy probably has saved a lot of jobs," Naroff said.

The Treasury Department acknowledged the "difficult" decisions and stressed Obama's auto task force had not been involved in deciding which dealers, or how many dealers, would be closed.

"Without the president?s intervention, the entire GM and Chrysler dealer networks could have been lost," the Treasury said in a statement.

© 2009 AFP

[vztrt]

Some more info.

http://business.theage.com.au/busine...0516-b6vq.html

GM dealer cuts raise spectre of insolvency

Nick Bunkley
May 17, 2009

GENERAL Motors told more than 1100 US dealers on Friday that their franchises would not be renewed next year, bringing the total for the week to nearly 2000 car dealers no longer wanted.

The action, involving only half of the showrooms that GM hopes to eliminate, was another step towards a likely bankruptcy filing at the end of this month.

GM — which owns Holden in Australia — says it still hopes to avoid bankruptcy and subsist on more government loans.

But Mark LaNeve, GM's vice-president for North American sales and marketing, acknowledged that the dealer cuts "would be hard to enforce" outside court.

The letters to GM dealers arrived just one day after Chrysler sent similar notices to 789 dealers. Chrysler is asking a bankruptcy judge to terminate the agreements with its cast-offs by June 9.

One of the GM letters was delivered Friday morning by FedEx to Thomas Epperson, whose father started Epp's Chevrolet 50 years ago in Middlesboro, Kentucky. Mr Epperson was already reeling from the letter he got from Chrysler, revoking his long-standing franchise to sell Jeeps.

"It's more than I can handle right now," he said. "I don't know what to do. I'm in shock. I'm looking at a plaque they just gave him (referring to his father) two months ago, that says 50-year dealer. And now I got a letter today saying we're done."

GM and Chrysler say they need far fewer dealerships to become more efficient and profitable in a shrinking industry. After the cuts, their dealer networks will still be larger than those of foreign competitors Toyota and Honda.

In 2008, Chrysler dealers sold an average of 303 new vehicles each, compared with 1292 sales at an average Toyota showroom, Chrysler said in a filing in bankruptcy court.

The ousted 1100 GM dealers represent 18 per cent of GM's 5969 outlets, but just 7 per cent of last year's sales. Nearly 500 of them sell fewer than 35 new GM vehicles a year, Mr LaNeve said.

Unlike Chrysler, GM did not announce publicly the dealers that it does not want.

NEW YORK TIMES

[R-Design]

It's roughly two weeks before we get an announcement from GM regarding their entering CH11. I wonder how long after that consumer confidence in GMH will start to be eroded due to the financial mismanagement of their US parent.

Ford US seem to doing their best as winning over current Chrysler owners, I wonder if Ford AU has a similar plan here with respect to GMH’s retail & fleet business. If they don't they should, it might be time for Ford introduce some adverting mentioning the 50th anniversary of Falcon & it’s plans to build Focus in Australia. You don’t get a better free kick than the one they’re about to be handed.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Boss315

I wonder if Ford AU has a similar plan here with respect to GMH’s retail & fleet business.

The government is purposely propping up Holden sales in Australia. Even if the car emits more C02 and is not as fuel efficient as the Falcon counterpart.

[R-Design]

I read somewhere that 1 in 5 Commodores are sold to Gov't departments. If that's the case it's probably a good thing for Ford as Government discounts are through the roof. It'd look good for their sales numbers per month, and help clear out excess stocks, but the profit they're making per unit would be next to nothing.

Another article stated that Toyota were losing Fleet Clients to other makes to who were offering cut pricing, I wonder if this is another GMH tactic to keep Commodore sales number high. If so it's another reason Ford should differentiate themselves from GMH & not sell based on price alone. The more of a pickle GM get themselves into the less likely people are going to buy their product regardless of price.

[GT69]

I find it all rather odd. The omega model commodores are the fleet queens for government it would appear, Fords XT is abit more expensive and sales seem to be split equally between XT, XR and G series vehicles. Yet FPV have cheaper (and arguably better across the board) Products for less money than the HSV counterparts.

To me the fact that Omega is cheaper than XT yet bother GT and F6 are cheaper the HSV models makes me think that profit margin has been lost on entry level omega's and HSV buyers are picking up the tab

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by GT69

I find it all rather odd. The omega model commodores are the fleet queens for government it would appear, Fords XT is abit more expensive and sales seem to be split equally between XT, XR and G series vehicles. Yet FPV have cheaper (and arguably better across the board) Products for less money than the HSV counterparts.

To me the fact that Omega is cheaper than XT yet bother GT and F6 are cheaper the HSV models makes me think that profit margin has been lost on entry level omega's and HSV buyers are picking up the tab

This may very well be holden's aim. It comes as no surprise to anyone that car companies heavilly discount fleet sales, but private buyer sales of top spec models they do not. This effectively subsidises the low spec stuff to keep them selling (and keep the plant moving) while you make cash on high spec cars. Part of the reason why Ford is going to do well if they can increase fleet sales of falcon while maintaining the private buyer share they currently have.

Holden may have also used this method to its advantage where they sell the fleet cars themselves, but dealers the HSVs etc. This way if a dealer has to discount a R8 to compete with an F6 (not sure how likely this is??) the dealer loses the money, not Holden itself. People need to understand that unless Ford offers bonuses (or reduces its dealer pricing) then Ford gets paid whatever the dealer buys the car for. The price you pay is between you and your dealer...whoever has the better witts. The more G6Es ford sells as a % the better. A G6E is probably sold to a dealer for a good $10k more than what ford sells XT fleet cars for. It sure as hell doesn't cost $10k more to build though!!!!

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

This effectively subsidises the low spec stuff to keep them selling (and keep the plant moving) while you make cash on high spec cars. Part of the reason why Ford is going to do well if they can increase fleet sales of falcon while maintaining the private buyer share they currently have.

Pretty much. While the profit levels will be low on fleet cars you have more units coming out of the factory (which reduces the amount of down days which erode profits) also the fact that fleet cars give more servicing opportunities for the dealer and in tern increases part sales for ford which increase profits and spreads the R&D costs. Simple items like filters, brakes, plugs and coil packs bring profits in for Ford.

[R-Design]

Originally Posted by GT69

To me the fact that Omega is cheaper than XT yet bother GT and F6 are cheaper the HSV models makes me think that profit margin has been lost on entry level omega's and HSV buyers are picking up the tab

Think this has more to do with HSV being around for 20 years and having a great reputation for building performance V8's. FPV was really created as a response to HSV's success, and has copied its business model to get to where it is today.

While the F6 can be regarded as a strong brand, until the GT beats the GTS into a pulp (performance wise) it will still be considered (to the market) as an inferior product & hence the price discrepancy.

[vztrt]

Dumped dealers will take legal action.

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...2575BA002056D1

US dealers go to court

GM, Chrysler target almost 2000 dealers in US clean-out

By IAN PORTER 18 May 2009

TERMINATED car dealers in the US are not going down without a fight, with Chrysler retailers mounting a court challenge against plans to axe 789 dealerships by June 9.

The Chrysler national dealer council has asked the US bankruptcy court to grant the dealers the same protection they would have received outside the court, so they could take advantage of state franchise protection laws.

General Motors also wrote to 1124 of its dealers telling them they were considered poor performers and that their franchises would not be renewed after October, 2010.

This was just first tranche of intended GM dealer terminations as the struggling car-maker has indicated to president Obama’s automotive task force that it would cull a total of 2294 dealers to reduce its network to 3600 as part of its restructuring plan.

The Chrysler dealer council indicated in documents filed in the US bankruptcy court that it would argue that dealers generated revenues vital to Chrysler’s future success.

It said that not only weren’t the dealers a burden on Chrysler, but they bore the risk on unsold cars and cars in transit from the factory.

For its part, Chrysler is asking the bankruptcy court judge handling its bankruptcy to allow it to terminate the 789 dealers – about a quarter of its retail network. Chrysler said it would not buy back any inventory held by the dealers.

Chrysler wants other dealerships to buy the stock to prevent it from flooding the auction market and used-car yards, depressing new-car prices.

GM’s vice-president of sales, Mark LaNeve, said GM wanted dealers to sell down their existing inventory, although he admitted GM may have to take some cars back.

He said GM was willing to offer some support to dealers to do this – rebates to enable discounting – as that would be preferable to seeing the inventory dumped on the auction houses.

Mr LaNeve said dealers targeted by GM were responsible for only seven per cent of GM’s 2008 US sales volumes. They also held about eight per cent of inventory.

“We don’t expect there will be much reversing of these decisions,” he told Automotive News. An appeals channel will be available to aggrieved dealers.

The National Automobile Dealers Association said the proposed GM cuts were “drastic and far-reaching” and would affect 63,000 dealership employees.

“We view GM’s action with a profound sense of sadness and disappointment,” NADA vice-president David Hyatt said in a statement.

“GM’s decision comes through no fault of the dealers, who are, in many cases, family-run businesses that have been loyal partners with GM – through good times and bad – for multiple generations.”

Reactions from dealers have ranged from indignation to resignation, according to the executive vice-president of the Nebraska New Car and Truck dealers Association, Loy Todd jun.

“They are saying the same things the Chrysler guys are saying, especially in the rural areas, the old family-owned stores. I have people saying ‘I never cost them a dime. I have made a profit every year for 60 years, served my community and my market. Why me’?” Mr Todd said.

Meanwhile, in Detroit, the sale of GM shares by current and former GM executives including Bob Lutz sparked a plunge in GM shares last week, pushing the share price to a 76-year low.

The six GM executives raised a total of about $US315,000 ($A420,000) by selling their shares about $US1.60.

Mr Lutz, who joined the company in 2002 and would have received shares as a signing-on inducement and as bonuses at times during his tenure, sold 81,360 shares.

When he joined, GM shares were selling at $US37, and his parcel would have been worth a little over $US3 million.

Share analysts in the US cannot understand why GM shares are even selling at $US1.60.

“It’s a lose-lose situation as far as we see it, and the shares kind of seem to have been doing a levitating magic trick and just staying up there in the $US1.50 to $US2 range,” Standard and Poor’s equity analyst Efraim Levy said.

“Given that there is a two-week deadline, there should be more downside pressure,” he said.

This was a reference to the deadline imposed on GM by the Obama automotive industry task force to reach an agreement with its creditors.

If it does reach an agreement, it will issue a massive number of cheap new shares to pay off its $US44 billion of unsecured liabilities. If it does not, it will go into bankruptcy and the shares will likely be worthless anyway.

[R-Design]

Holden boss argues his company will stay a viable part of a 'new' GM, but has to base its future on the domestic market

http://www.carsales.com.au/news/2009...-at-home-15162

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by Boss315

Holden boss argues his company will stay a viable part of a 'new' GM, but has to base its future on the domestic market

http://www.carsales.com.au/news/2009...-at-home-15162

Interesting article. It is starting to show how much holden are up the creek. With the news that more production for GM will be coming out of China, and the G8 being canned, it sounds like Holden have been told that there really isn't any possibility for large exports.

The last comment was also interesting r.e. no more large projects like the Zeta platform. To me that reads that in the future holden will follow fords current situation and have an "orphan" car, developing off the zeta platform as they see fit while the rest of GM goes their own way. Sounds like they haven't learnt anything at all.

It all comes back to GM losing money at a rapid rate, and the outposts having to fend for themselves while the US struggles to survive.

All in all bad things for holden. It sounds like there will be less major development of the commodore if holden have to come up with more of the development dollars over a smaller number of sales due to lack of export.

[HSE2]

Originally Posted by Boss315

Holden boss argues his company will stay a viable part of a 'new' GM, but has to base its future on the domestic market

http://www.carsales.com.au/news/2009...-at-home-15162

Hasn't this gone full circle. Holden and the media weren't that long ago purporting the virtues of an export market being their saving grace and that Ford (Aus) couldn't possible survive without it. Sounds ironic now.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by HSE2

Hasn't this gone full circle. Holden and the media weren't that long ago purporting the virtues of an export market being their saving grace and that Ford (Aus) couldn't possible survive without it. Sounds ironic now.

What a crock of crap and I agree with you HSE2.

The media were drilling Ford, expecting them to pull up stumps because we didn't get a large export market and saying Holden do etc. Now because Holden are going to focus domestically, they are now agreeing that its the best thing.

"There's no guarantee on any of this. None at all. And we treated it as such from day one. [But] We feel very good about where we [Holden] are," he stated.

"I don't know -- we haven't run the business case. It's not something quite frankly that we've studied. We're still the best-selling car here and we think the things we're going to do to Commodore in the next few years makes us potentially the only game in town."

Reuss, being totally up-front bulldust. They were dumb and slow to react to the sudden drop in sales both here and exports. Hence why they had to sell cars at $27k driveaway.

Then he has the hide to essentially hint say they GMHolden may be "only game in town." Perhaps, it was to get back at Ford for saying earlier that day, that they would happily take HSV & C'dore V8 business if/when GM folds. Still, we all know GM & GMH are in far more strife than good prospects Ford.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by HSE2

Hasn't this gone full circle. Holden and the media weren't that long ago purporting the virtues of an export market being their saving grace and that Ford (Aus) couldn't possible survive without it. Sounds ironic now.

Bingo.. holden have shot themselves in the foot by ratcheting themselves forward with costs and infrustructure to cope with export volume that wasnt profitable, now they have a fixed cost base which doenst have the demand to sustain it....

[Mark s]

With all that is going on in GM world, I have to wonder if Holden will get the funds ($450 million IIRC) from GM to produce this new 4 cyl car at the Elizabeth plant.

Wasn't the deal that the Australian Govt throw in $150 million and the rest would come from the parent company?

With all this doom and gloom in GM world and the bankruptcy just around the corner for the parent, what are the chances of Holden getting these funds from the parent, or are we as the tax payer going to foot the bill for the promised amount?

Was this 4 cyl car going to be a major export for GMH, or was it a local only car to replace the Daewoo triplets?

What does everyone think? Will this project also be on it’s deathbed and what will this also see the slow death of a Commodore as well as a locally produced car?


Will we also see the locally built Focus get given the flick as well? Does anyone know if this is still going ahead?


Cheers
Mark

[Gobes32]

Originally Posted by Mark s

With all that is going on in GM world, I have to wonder if Holden will get the funds ($450 million IIRC) from GM to produce this new 4 cyl car at the Elizabeth plant.

Wasn't the deal that the Australian Govt throw in $150 million and the rest would come from the parent company?

With all this doom and gloom in GM world and the bankruptcy just around the corner for the parent, what are the chances of Holden getting these funds from the parent, or are we as the tax payer going to foot the bill for the promised amount?

Was this 4 cyl car going to be a major export for GMH, or was it a local only car to replace the Daewoo triplets?

What does everyone think? Will this project also be on it’s deathbed and what will this also see the slow death of a Commodore as well as a locally produced car?


Will we also see the locally built Focus get given the flick as well? Does anyone know if this is still going ahead?


Cheers
Mark

Good question, where exactly does a bankrupt company find $450 million to build a car in Australia that they already produce in 4 other countries?????

Focus is still going ahead, nothing has changed there.