mandm: I do hope the Olympus camera division survives, but the economy is against them & the above news will make serious Oly users delay purchases or may find them looking elsewhere. Bankruptcies over the last ten plus years have hurt Oly more than the others. Wolfs Camera was the first big one, yes all suppliers to Wolfs lost out when the court OKed Ritz purchase of Wolfs, including the inventory, but none of the liabilities. Olympus demanded Ritz pay them for that Wolf inventory or send it back. Ritz said No, and the law is on Ritz side! Oly pushed hard, too hard to get paid & Ritz dropped Oly from their 1000+ stores, so now the largest dealer in the USA doesn't sell Oly! A few years latter, Oly gets back into Ritz, great news for Oly, right? Stocking all the stores is a big order & Ritz wants extra time to pay. Before payment, Ritz files for bankruptcy, the next week Olympus lays off 95% of it's sales force in the US! Another major $ loss for Olympus Camera in their largest market.
@YouDidntSee 11 U.S.C. 365. The bankruptcy code allows the rejection of executory contracts, subject to certain restrictions...and it's fairly common knowledge that suppliers etc. can get royally screwed in bankruptcy (or administration, depending on the jurisdiction). And from the sound of it, Ritz's purchase of Wolf was done pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 363, which allows for the purchase of assets free and clear of the bankrupt estate's liens and encumbrances.By the way, it's my understanding that under English law (Insolvency Act 1986 as amended), the administrator of a company in administration can conduct repudiatory breach, damages for which are unsecured claims. This isn't terribly dissimilar, from what I gather, from a 365 rejection that leaves the creditor with an unsecured claim for damages.Not sure where you're going with what you said - wherever a company goes bankrupt, counterparties can get completely screwed. It's simply one of the risks of doing business...
Marty4650: Lets take a minute to examine exactly what Michael Woodford did.
He discovered some financial improprieties and started questioning them. This was his responsibility as CEO.
I don't see him as a disgruntled employee in any way. He was a 30 year employee who had been promoted to president of the company just six months ago. Barely two weeks ago he was promoted to CEO, amid gushing and glowing praise from the Board of Directors.
Now the same Board of Directors fires him, citing "cultural differences." One would think these cultural differences would have surfaced some time during the last three decades of his career at Olympus.
If there are differences at all, they were ethical differences. In the USA and the UK a CEO is responsible to report any financial problems. Perhaps it is differenet in Japan. Maybe they are expected to cover things up?
Er, does SOX apply to companies listed on the pink sheets? From what I understand, the pink sheets are a bit of a free-for-all, and if SOX doesn't apply, it's buyer beware.