Jump to content

It's only Chapter 11.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<blockquote>

<p>No I believe they will probably try to sell off their film business in order to raise money, I figure someone will definitely buy it and make a run at a successful business.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then why try to sell it. It would make more sense to try to sell off the parts which are not profitable. If there is a section which makes a profit, the logical thing to do is keep it, not sell it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Then why try to sell it. It would make more sense to try to sell off the parts which are not profitable. If there is a section which makes a profit, the logical thing to do is keep it, not sell it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Because I believe the current leadership of the company doesn't see that. From what I have seen in the past couple of years, they have made no effort to try to cultivate film sales. I believe they have done what everyone else has done and just believed that film was dying and just decided to let it ride out it's life.... I think if a company ran the film division and that is all it did, in my opinion, would probably make a tidy profit... not billions but there is some money to be made. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>@John E:</strong> There is NOTHING in the links you give about abandoning film production. Period. The 'closing of labs' referred to has already happened. Kodak is no longer in the photofinishing business; it still makes film. If EK wishes to become a digital-only company, it is likely to sell the film production lines. I hope the buyer (if a sale occurs) is savvy and tough enough to make that business survive--I believe it is possible.</p>

<p>As to the 'buggy whip' nonsense; I can drive a carriage, but I can't go 55 mph on the highway for hours with one. I CAN shoot and print salable work from my film cameras, in SOME cases more easily or affordably than with digital (which is what I mostly use). </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Here are a few quick references. You will note that there no reference to continuing the film business, but to closing down those manufacturing plants and labs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those are plants/labs that have previously been closed. Nothing you have provided says anything about closing existing production facilities or ceasing to manufacturer film.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If anyone has access to the bankruptcy court PACER system you can actually download the agreement with Citi regarding the DIP package.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps there is more info there, but I do not have access to PACER. And I still stand by my opinion that if Kodak were going to cease film production as of the bankruptcy judge's DIP ruling, there would have been headlines all over the place just for the sheer "look! look!" aspect of it that the media loves.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>One thing I don't understand is the sense of joy I kind of sense in some of these posts. I may be wrong, but I don't quite understand why some would celebrate the demise of a company that added so much to photography. Not to mention the possibility of many people losing their jobs. I never knew there was such animosity towards Kodak. I guess some people just get happiness from the misery of others.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>One thing I don't understand is the sense of joy I kind of sense in some of these posts.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would caution anyone against assigning emotion on the part of the writer to a written forum post. It is wildly inaccurate at best and involves a lot of assuming on the part of the reader.</p>

<p>The written word is a difficult manner in which to communicate emotions and feeling. Particularly in the relatively short and unprofessionally way that we all post on a forum. Most of the time it is all we can do to accurately understand the position or point that the writer is making. Allowing readers to correctly figure out the emotions behind those points or positions is frequently beyond the skills of most of us (as writers).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Josh, I understand that and don't usually read into posts. BUT, when someone comes in and posts a statement repeatedly and when asked for sources, comes back and repeats the same statement and posts references that don't support the statement, you have to wonder if either they are enjoying the possible misery of some people or they are trolling in order to stir up people. That is why, instead of attacking the poster, I asked for references. I have been participating in forums and BB's for 20 years now, you get to recognize the trolls after awhile. It is also the reason I rarely get upset over anything I read on the internet....</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>On Jan. 13th Kodak announced that it dissolved its film division and divided the assets between two remaining division.</p>

<p>ABC News carried this story yesterday.</p>

<p>Photographing Kodak's final moments<br>

Michael Janda reported this story on <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/archives.html"><strong>Saturday, January 21, 2012</strong></a> 08:24:00<br>

EMILY BOURKE: While the Kodak company may emerge from bankruptcy protection alive, and possibly stronger, after a restructure, there's no doubt the film business is in terminal decline. Kodak has already closed 13 factories and laid-off almost 50,000 staff.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below is a link to the petition filed by Kodak on January 19th. The Citibank DIP facility requires that Kodak file a motion with the BR court outlining the bid procedures for the sale of their digital IP portfolio by June, 2012, and to draft and file a plan of reorganization by early 2013. Don't see any requirement or current plan to sell the film operation.

 

The events at Kodak certainly bring me no joy and I wish for the best outcome for their current and retired employees.

 

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/1210202/1210202120119000000000001.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wait that is not what you said before. You said under the terms of the bankruptcy they had to abandon film. That story does not say that, you have not produced any evidence of your statements. The factories and personnel cuts have taken place over ~10 years, these were not the result of the bankruptcy filing. <br>

Furthermore, from the information I have read, they are creating two new divisions, I believe one is a professional product division and the other a consumer product division. They are sending the consumer films to the consumer and the professional (I would assume this includes motion picture film) to the professional unit.<br>

Will they continue to manufacture and sell film? I would venture to guess as long as it is profitable and they don't sell off those assets, yes. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>John,</p>

<p>If that is what you are basing your "no more film" statements on, then I believe you are seriously misunderstanding things. Or you really are trolling, and badly at that.</p>

<p>Kodak has previously (over the past decade) shut down film-related facilities and has (as the articles note) recently reorganized their company structure, but neither of those things mean that film is (as of now) shutting down. And there has been zero proof provided of your statement that the DIP financing requires film production to cease.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josh, I don't have a dog in this fight. After the accident that ended my photography career I went to law school and ultimately became a

bankruptcy lawyer. I did that for about twenty years before founding a software company. My comments are only observations. I heard

some wag on one of the finance shows do an analysis of Citi's financing package noting that Citi was requiring Kodak get out of he film

business. That still leaves Fuji, Agfa and others, but the film market has been in a steady and deep decline for years. None of Kodak's

public announcements talk of keeping film alive as part of their business - quite the contrary. The CEO has said they will continue the

process of winding down that business unit.

 

I hate to see it happen, but it is the reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kenneth, the critical document, if you can pull it is the DIP agreement. I would expect it to 50 to 100 pages. It should be

filed with the court. The motion and petition are very summary documents. I'll continue to see if I can find a definitive

reference in terms all can appreciate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>None of the court entered DIP facility documents mention a <em>363 sale</em> of anything other than the IP portfolio. Although I haven't meticulously combed through all 228 pages spanning 3 documents (financing order, financing motion and the credit agreement), I know where to look...unless it's purposefully hidden somewhere, which is unlikely. FYI, much of the content in DIP financing documents outline protections for the lender and their priority (or superpriority) claims.<br>

As far as I can tell, the reason no one has officially reported the demise of the film division is because it's not there.<br>

Unless someone can point me to a specific page/paragraph that directly references film production with respect to the DIP facility agreement, I would consider the issue moot for now.</p>

<p>The only real reference to declining film production is in the first-day pleadings.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>From 2003 to 2010, Kodak reduced its workforce by 50,000 employees, and closed 13 of its 15 film plants and 130 photo labs</p>

<p>...the industry projected a 10% decline, Kodak forecasted a 20% decline and the actual decline was approximately 40%. In addition to demand impairment, increasing commodity prices negatively impacted FPEG’s cash flow. FPEG purchased approximately $300 million of silver in 2011. Silver prices have ranged between 199% and 294% higher than 2008 prices. Because of the lingering effects of the economic crisis, Kodak cannot pass through all of these price increases to its customers.</p>

</blockquote>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>So after all that it comes down to nobody really knows what will happen. It's just a wait and see type situation. I will just keep shooting some Kodak film and enjoy the fine qualities that it produces. </p>

<p> I hope the best for the people at Kodak and those that spent their lives bringing those Kodak moments to our lives. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.kodaktransforms.com/" target="_blank">http://www.kodaktransforms.com/</a> Kodak Chapter 11 Reorganization<br>

I followed links from the tabs "Consumer Products and Services" and "Commercial Businesses" and found consumer film, professional film, motion picture film and Endura paper.<br>

I found motion picture film in Super 8, 16mm, 35mm and 65mm, nine different films choices and four different print film choices.<br>

Four different still color negative films, all in 35mm and 120, most in 4X5 and one in 8X10.<br>

Two reversal films, 35mm, 120, some 4X5 and 8X10.<br>

Five B&W films, 35mm, other sizes unclear without more study.<br>

These films were found through the reorganization website.<br>

This question appears on the Consumer tab and the Commercial Customer tabs: <br>

<strong>Does the Chapter 11 filing affect the selection of products that Kodak offers? </strong><br /><em>No. Offerings to customers will continue as usual.</em><br>

I don't see any evidence of bailing out of the film business, I only find evidence through the reorganization website of a company that manufactures and sells film, among other things. Why would there be film in the reorganization website if Kodak was required to stop film? Why would the DIP require film to be dropped if it makes a profit?<br>

I doubt Kodak will stop manufacturing and selling film anytime soon.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>If that is what you are basing your "no more film" statements on, then I believe you are seriously misunderstanding things. Or you really are trolling, and badly at that.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Josh, Concerning John Ellingson, I thought that he was a troll a while ago, and it was the same with Doug Harl. They bring nothing constructive, scare people without basis in fact by spewing specious (at best) "information" over and over and over, and generally waste much too much of everyone's energy. When these individuals will not listen to reality, and they persist, and persist, and persist, why in the world are they allowed to continue here? This is a great place overall in spite of these creeps, and I've learned a lot here for which I'm very grateful, but I really wish something could be done by the moderators to rid the place of these folks. I know it's not easy, perhaps impossible to definitively determine someone like this, and I think that I understand your previously stated position. But that was before several more similarly specious posts by him. Maybe I'm just blowing off steam, but somehow I feel it should be said.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jeff: I take your comment very personally. I work hard to contribute to this forum. If you don't like my views, feel free to discuss them, refute them or whatever. There is no animus or agenda on part other than to inform and only my observations from spending 70 years on this planet collecting scar tissue. I think your comment is way out of line.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff: I take your comment very personally. I work hard to contribute to this forum. If you don't like my views, feel free to discuss them, refute them or whatever. There is no animus or agenda on part other than to inform and only my observations from spending 70 years on this planet collecting scar tissue. I think your comment is way out of line.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John Ellingson, Your specious posts have brought <em>nothing</em> of value here. They have been clearly and repeatedly refuted, yet you persist and persist and persist AND.......</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...