Clement says Nortel isn’t bankrupt



Clement says Nortel isn't bankrupt

From Industry Minister Tony Clement’s otherwise rather bland news release on Nortel this morning, this interesting line:

“It is important to note that Nortel is filing for court-supervised restructuring under the CCAA, not bankruptcy. Nortel has stated that it has every intention of emerging from this restructuring under the CCAA as a viable business. We will monitor its progress closely.”

Clement also mentions in his release that the federal Export Development Corporation has provided $30 million in short-term financing to Nortel and is open to doing more “in conjunction with other financial institutions.”

Well, $30 million isn’t much of a start for a mess like Nortel’s, but does Clement’s statement amount to the beginnings of a hint that the feds are interested in making a more sizeable contribution to the company’s survival? Is there any public lifeline money left over after the auto bailout? After all, one has to ask: why autos (and maybe lumber and cattle and…) and not telecommunications?

And if it’s not technically correct to say Nortel is filing for bankruptcy, bankruptcy is certainly the word being bandied about here and here and here and, well, just about everywhere.

Filed under:

Clement says Nortel isn’t bankrupt

  1. All good Cons know giving money to ‘bankrupt’ companies is a waste of taxpayer $$$ but giving money to companies that are entering “court-supervised restructuring” is just good business sense.

    I am curious to know what happens to Cons when they head for Ottawa, why they ignore their beliefs and start behaving like socialists.

    • jwl, I’ll echo what ITQ has said in another thread. You’re beginning to worry me.

      If diehard cheerleaders like you and Jarrid (are you two the same person, btw?) stop singing the praises of TheStrategist ™, can a (political) bankruptcy filing for DearLeader ™ be far behind?

      • In jwl’s defense, there’s simply no confusing him with Jarrid or the other conbots. He’s a smart guy who thinks for himself, no matter how often I find myself disagreeing with what he says.

    • “I am curious to know what happens to Cons when they head for Ottawa…”

      …not to mention Washington. Look back 30 years.

      This might seem crazy to you, but perhaps those beliefs aren’t as important to them as getting and keeping power. You accuse the left of this all the time but profess to be amazed when a politician says most of the things *you* want to hear and then fails to live up to your ideals.

      Politics is hard. Harper isn’t the first arrogant right-winger to claim the mantle of “competent, grown-up leadership” and utterly fail to deliver (see Mike Harris, George W. Bush).

      Can you name anyone since Barry Goldwater who ran as a “conservative”, gained power and met with your approval? Or have conservative voters taken the bait over and over and over, only to be disappointed over and over and over when ideology ran smack into reality?

      • I have lots of time for Reagan, Thatcher, Harris and Martin while Finance Minister but you are correct that most Con governments are major disappointments.

        I think most Cons in politics are distinctly the ‘B’ team when it comes to cons because most proper cons wouldn’t go into politics for love nor money. Cons don’t seem to have the heart to enter battle, which is what is needed now, and they would rather go along/get along.

        • Reagan and Harris both funded their conservative agendas through massive deficits. For all the “tax-and-spend” accusations made against liberals, “borrow-and-spend” seems to be fundamental to the definition of conservatism. Or is fiscal irresponsibility ok with you?

          Martin was and is a (L)liberal. You don’t get to claim him as a con just because he actually delivered on fiscal responsibility. Kinda like Clinton, for that matter.

  2. After all, one has to ask: why autos (and maybe lumber and cattle and…

    And regional aircraft…and snowmobiles! For the love of God, don’t forget those beautiful Bombardier snowmobiles.

    And it’s hard to say “bankruptcy protection” without using the word “bankruptcy”.

    • Clement’s distinction is actually valid, but there’s a large chance that it will make no practical difference.

      • To the extent that it matters Ch 11 (in the US) and rotection From Creditors in Canada are the same thing…and both are differnt than Ch 7 or bankruptcy which is insolvency where the company is sold for parts….ie worth nothing as a complete and going concern.

        Nortel clearly couldnt execute on a reorg plan while still trying to please creditors and shareholders.

        Air canada went through this same process….the car companies ultimately will, just not today it appears.

        Sad day actually, but long overdue. Mistakes made many years ago are still being paid for. Nothing is ever too big to fail, especialy given enough time. Do any comparison of North american stock exchanges and look for names 25 years ago, pick any point, and less than half of them will exist on the exchange 25 years later. Just the way it goes.

  3. Tony Clement is a socialist

  4. I feel sorry for the shareholders, a lot of them forced into buying Nortel because Brokers and Money managers pushed it on their clients. “Nortel is THE tech company in Canada”. I can hear them saying
    things like that. The think is the strong, well managed companies survive and Nortel is not a strong company. Accounting problems, roll back, mismanagement, and now at .12! Let the company REST IN PEACE and we don’t have to hear another analyst opinion on Nortel.