Kodak Reshuffles Decks

[Roster]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 54198.html

Ominous final paragraph. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

[aj]

Nice to cheer up the crowd for the season.

TO CONTINUE READING?

Or is everybody subscribing to murdoch 'newspaper' WSJ

[mr8mm]

Since I do not subscribe to the WSJ, please tell us what the ominous last paragraph is about. Or summerize.--Thanks

[S8 Booster]

seems like this is the full story but also check out this link for much more on the subject:

http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/arti ... html#hdng1

also:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html

http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&n ... SRPWUX-L6M

By DANA MATTIOLI and DREW FITZGERALD

Eastman Kodak Co. reshuffled its decks Thursday, promoting its general counsel to president and selling off a 194-year-old business that made gelatin.

The moves appeared to be a welcome boost for Kodak shares, which moved 20% higher in after-hours trading.

But they also highlighted the straits at the Rochester, N.Y.-based company, as it races to find fresh financing amid a steep decline in the value of its stock and bonds.

One key path for 131-year-old Kodak is selling off its portfolio of intellectual property, which might bring in hundreds of millions of dollars to invest in Kodak's product lines, which are largely printers.

Late Thursday, Kodak said it was promoting general counsel Laura Quatela to president. Ms. Quatela, who joined Kodak in 1999, has been responsible for monetizing Kodak's intellectual property since 2008.

The 54-year-old Ms. Quatela will begin serving as president alongside current president Phil Faraci, who has been in the role since 2007. Both will report to Chief Executive Antonio Perez.

Ms. Quatela's role in the company has grown as Kodak's fortunes declined. The same year she became head of intellectual property, Kodak created a goal to generate between $250 million and $350 million a year in patent licensing.

Under Ms. Quatela's leadership, Kodak struck a $550 million licensing deal with Samsung Electronics Co. and a $400 million deal with LG Electronics Inc., as well as a number of other deals that have been a big factor in keeping the company afloat.

Since August, her role has become even more vital as Kodak began an effort to sell 1,100 of its digital patents. Ms. Quatela has appeared alongside Mr. Perez in company town halls, updating employees about Kodak's patent sale efforts.

The company and its restructuring advisers have been aggressively looking to shed assets.

Kodak said it was selling off its Eastman Gelatine Corp. business to Rousselot, part of Vion Food Group for an undisclosed sum.

The Kodak subsidiary dates back to 1817 and makes gelatin for printing, imaging, food and pharmaceutical purposes. Kodak bought the company, at one time named The American Glue Company, in 1930 when its film business was thriving. As film sales started to wane, the company branched out more aggressively into other areas like food and pharmaceuticals.

The sale also includes a 575,000-square-foot production facility in Peabody, Mass., where the company makes gelatin made from cattle bones.

Kodak warned last month that if it isn't able to close on a patent deal or raise rescue financing over the next 12 months it may not be able to remain in business.

Write to Dana Mattioli at dana.mattioli@wsj.com and Drew FitzGerald at andrew.fitzgerald@dowjones.com



Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1 ... z1hhQllAus

shoot.....

[mr8mm]

Ok, so when does Kodak sell off its analog film business to Fuji? Or will they milk every last penny out the motion picture division and then close it down? ---J.S.

[S8 Booster]

as for gelatine based base.... Fuji did/do use Polyester for some of their bases - Single8 for one.... do that give them a better hand vs Kodak?

knowing some parts of japanese industry on high levels it seems to me that they are more controlled by realities than emotions ... can this make Fuji better to handle the slowing film business than Kodak has been? Taking the bad decitions at an earlier time or that the consequences of such being less for Fuji?

shoot......?

[wahiba]

I think gelatine is the basis of the emulsion that is coated onto the base whether it be acetate, polyester or paper.

When gelatine was the core of Kodak's business it made sense to make their own. It must make sense now to buy it in.

[Will2]

Someone will buy the motion picture film business. It may be an Indian or Chinese company, but there's still money in it so if they can get the formulas and patents cheap someone will buy it.

[carllooper]

Yes, if Kodak goes bankrupt it just means it will be forced to liquidate it's assets at whatever price it can get, rather than at one it might have otherwise obtained, had it the health to hold out for it.

Those buying up the assets will be those who believe they can make a go of the film business in a way that Kodak couldn't (or wouldn't), eg. with a smaller number of employees, smaller premises, the smell of an oily rag, etc.

Kodak could have also pursued such an approach, downsizing and so on, but the infrastructure it had built over many decades was/is one attuned to big business rather than small. Kodak chose to continue as a big business and to sink or swim on that basis.

If and when the Kodak film business goes under, the film business will have completed it's move into a different mode, becoming a boutique business.

I'm reminded of those businesses (for example) that specialize in handmade paper for artists. They are small compared to those businesses that make office paper, but they exist. They do not depend on the existence of big paper businesses in order to produce their hand made paper. They service a niche market.

When newspapers (etc) went from handset typography to electronic typeset, the equipment moved across into a world maintained by artists. A smaller world but one that continues to exist.

[Will2]

OR, Kodak can go bankrupt, screw all of it's suppliers and contracts, then come out of it shedding all of it's debt as a leaner, meaner company or several small companies. Happens in the radio business quite a bit here in the U.S.

Horrible way to do business but it has been done.

[carllooper]

For consumers of film there are pessimistic outcomes easily possible. If Kodak goes down with too much of a thump it could very well cause insurmountable problems for smaller business models that might have otherwise been able to buy up and reconstruct those assets. The assets could be flung all over the place. By the time any film business has reassembled the assets it might be too late. Or Kodak could very well save itself (as a brand) but cease playing film and lock up all it's film assets (like a petulant child?).

Perhaps film goes into hibernation, awaiting some steam-punk age, where it resurfaces afresh.