Kodak Alaris - sold

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
51,873
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

As far as I'm aware, none of the US Eastman Kodak employees are facing a shortfall - no government intervention involved.
Where they have been hit is the loss of some or all retiree health benefits - not a pension entitlement, but certainly a critically important retirement benefit, particularly for US retirees who had not yet reached 65 years of age. Prior to the bankruptcy, the health benefits were paid for.
Some of my information about this is a bit dated, but I believe I would have heard if there had been major changes.
My Dad was a Canadian Kodak/Kodak Canada employee who retired in 1983 after 37 years of employment. He received his pension and other retirement benefits starting then and continuing without interruption until he passed away in late 2015 - ten 2+ years after the bankruptcy. At that time, the pension fund that secured the pension entitlements of former Kodak Canada employees was still in place and was still sufficiently large to result in actuarial projections indicated a small surplus - the fund was sufficient. It was at that time that I stopped being privy to current updates. As well, up until that time, my Dad and the other Kodak Canada retirees had continued to receive the benefit of the extended health benefits they had been enjoying prior to the bankruptcy, ten years before.
Health benefits are, of course, far less expensive for an employer to pay in Canada than they are in the US.
The pre-2005 employees who are most likely to lose something are, ironically, the youngest ones. If someone had been working for 10 years for Eastman Kodak in 201305, and were only 35 years old then, then when they are ready for retirement, a substantial amount of money that had been set aside by 201305 might be used up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
51,873
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

No - their employer was Kodak Limited, not Eastman Kodak, and the separate pension fund that is and was the fund that until recently owned the shares in Kodak Alaris, is the UK based Pension fund that was paid into by Kodak Limited for so many years. Eastman Kodak wasn't involved with the creation or maintenance of that account.
The only reason that Eastman Kodak was involved at all with the Kodak Limited Pension fund is that the UK legislation creates super-priority interests in assets when a UK subsidiary employer corporation (Kodak Limited) pension plan is vulnerable, and that subsidiary's parent corporation (Eastman Kodak) is in bankruptcy, as it was in 2013 (not 2005, which I erroneously posted elsewhere).
In short, Eastman Kodak's bankruptcy trustee couldn't use the assets of its subsidiary Kodak Limited to satisfy EK's creditors, without those assets first being used to protect the Kodak Limited pension fund, which was projected to suffer a shortfall. The UK legislation gives an agency of the UK government a big stick to help it prevent a bankruptcy of a foreign (US) holding company from taking advantage of a UK pension fund. That extra protective "stick" is peculiar to the UK.
All was settled in 2013 when Eastman Kodak was released, and the Kodak Limited Pension Fund was left with a bunch of extra valuable assets. They used their brand new corporation, Kodak Alaris, to try to realize on those assets. In the 10+ years since, business changes have happened, the Kodak Limited Pension Plan has been taken over by the UK Pension Protection office and now, that office has sold the shares held by the fund in Kodak Alaris to Kingswood.
Kodak Alaris is unchanged and continues to do business and employ others, just like they started to do in 2013. Kodak Alaris owes nothing to the old Kodak Limited Pension Fund.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
51,873
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
For all those reading through my posts on this and other recent threads referencing the Eastman Kodak bankruptcy, I must have had my start date on APUG on the brain!
2013 was the bankruptcy date - not 2005!
I've corrected some, but there are too many.
My apologies if any confusion has arisen.
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,332
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
MattKing said:
... Kodak Alaris is unchanged and continues to do business and employ others, just like they started to do in 2013. ...
Click to expand...

Unless, perhaps, one was working for the two Kodak Alaris business units sold in FY21, PPDS and AI Foundry. AS you noted, Kodak Alaris has been in a continual state of evolution with numerous business changes, while still maintaining their core business activities.

For me the thing to be watching over the next year or so is any changes to the Kodak Alaris Executive Committee. They will either be supported in continuance of the business as-is, or will conform o changes mandated by the new owner, or will voluntarily leave or get driven out. In my experience, that and voluntary separation/retirement of senior employees is often the first reactions to new ownership whether changes are imposed immediately or not.
 
Last edited:

cmacd123

Member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,307
Location
Stittsville, Ontario
Format
35mm
Building 38 coates ALL the still film, all the movie film, all the movie Lab film, the electronic products... and who knows what else. the Still film these days is a Very small part, (in fact the movie film is likly a small Part)

NOW the only inefficiency I can see is their are a LOT of firms, like Flic Film, that buy Movie film and convert it for still camera use. this is likly to take advantage of the price difference between Movie and still film.

{example B&H shows US 21.99 forKodak alaris ektachrome and 17.99 for ektachrome 5294 repacked by Flic film. - both the same emulsion, although one is BH perforated}

If I was looking at Alaris, the first thing I would be examining is the business imaging group. Kodak themselves dumped their photo copier business MANY years before the bankruptcy. while I was proud of my time slaving in Microfilm I imagine that the business digital imaging of today might be more effective if merged with Konica-Minolta or Ricoh.
 

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
14,194
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format

So there's different , Kodak standard and B&H, perfs on still and movie Ektachrome? I have a 400' roll and 135, I suppose I could check.
Makes sense that there's different perfs.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
51,873
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
mshchem said:
So there's different , Kodak standard and B&H, perfs on still and movie Ektachrome? I have a 400' roll and 135, I suppose I could check.
Makes sense that there's different perfs.
Click to expand...

More importantly from my perspective, the movie Ektachrome doesn't have frame numbers, although it probably has key codes.
 

Philippe-Georges

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
2,659
Location
Flanders Fields
Format
Medium Format
Apparently Eastman (a subsidiary from Kodak Eastman) does more than just making film.
Here in Gent we have a few of their factories, still very active they are.
One factory in Ghent North, one in Ghent South and a technology center near the university's technology spinoffs.


 
Last edited:

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
20,542
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Philippe-Georges said:
Apparently Eastman (a subsidiary from Kodak Eastman) does more than just making film.
Click to expand...

That's what a few people have been trying to hammer into the public consciousness, but it's remarkably difficult to get people to understand this, or what it means for wild ideas to split up companies etc.

However...

Philippe-Georges said:
Eastman (a subsidiary from Kodak Eastman)
Click to expand...

No, Eastman Chemicals is NOT a subsidiary of EK. It split off in 1994.
 

Philippe-Georges

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
2,659
Location
Flanders Fields
Format
Medium Format

So I have been misunderstanding what is written in the second attachment?
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
20,542
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Philippe-Georges said:
So I have been misunderstanding what is written in the second attachment?
Click to expand...

Subsidiary = business entity owned and controlled by a mother company.
Eastman Chemicals was split off of Eastman Kodak in the 1990s, so it's not a subsidiary of EK; it's in fact a publicly traded company, so it's owned by its many shareholders. It's no longer related to EK other than the historical link you posted.
 

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
14,194
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format

This is Eastman Chemical, huge business, totally separate business. These folks make various plastic resins including Estar PET, that Kodak uses to extrude polyester film base.

Eastman Chemical origins were when George Eastman developed domestic sources for cellulose for paper and cellulose acetate for casting film base. WWI blocked the sources previously coming from Europe, mostly Germany

In the beginning I believe it was called Kodak Tennessee

Eastman Kodak spun off the Chemical division years ago
 

Alan Edward Klein

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,225
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
Now I'm more confused than ever about who owns what and who makes what. I hope Kingswood figured this all out before they bought whatever they bought.
 

cmacd123

Member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,307
Location
Stittsville, Ontario
Format
35mm
I think it was more like "Tennessee Eastman."

one time one of the biggest producers of the material used to make Filters for filter cigarettes. still a major supplier of the Polyester resin for plastic water bottles.

Eastman kodak has proably sold off more companies then it has ever bought.
 

Milpool

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2023
Messages
561
Location
n/a
Format
4x5 Format
Although Alaris is not EK, I really hope this doesn’t end up somehow impacting EK negatively in some way. Alaris will be forced into growth which is always worrisome to me (see Harman/Ilford…).
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
20,542
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Milpool said:
Alaris will be forced into growth which is always worrisome to me (see Harman/Ilford…).
Click to expand...

What I can glean from the media releases is that Alaris actually wants to grow but didn't have the means to do so. Kingswood are supposed to help with this. I guess it's how you want to frame it/look at it. Looking at Harman, they've been doing something that was inconceivable only a few years ago. Whether they'll pull it off, we'll have to wait and see. But it's pretty big & ambitious. It's doubtful they could have even started on that without support from Pemberstone.
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,332
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
koraks said:
... Alaris actually wants to grow ...
Click to expand...

Yes! This is self-evident when one reads the corporate website or their publications. The"mistake" made on photography forums seems to be the belief that Eastman Kodak is predominantly a photographic film manufacturing company and Kodak Alaris is predominantly a photographic film marketing company. Both are technology companies with enough insight to know how to diversify their business and expand it to remain profitable and desirable to shareholders/investors. Growth is a good thing so long as it's done in a responsible manner and the bets pay off. This is especially important for us as film uses since film has become a minority product line in both companies and has not been for quite some time the tail that wags the dog.
 

Milpool

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2023
Messages
561
Location
n/a
Format
4x5 Format
Agreed - I guess what I mean is I think it is much more likely the Harman thing was a “Pemberstone” initiative than a “Harman” initiative. I would include the colour film, and miscellaneous other smaller things in that.

Disclaimer and safe harbour - these are only my opinions as someone who has worked for a long time in the “belly of the beast”, so to speak.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
13,663
Format
8x10 Format
When people get desperate for money they might sell off a kidney, but later regret it. In the corporate world, they often chop off their own arms and legs, and sell those, trying to survive. Or, as the old saying goes, they cook and serve the goose that laid the golden eggs. Now things seem to have turned a corner, and they're able to attract some investment again.
 

Agulliver

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
3,435
Location
Luton, United Kingdom
Format
Multi Format
Catching up after taking a holiday. I am now cautiously optimistic rather than cautiously pessimistic. It seems that Alaris wants to grow it's business while retaining the distribution chain for Kodak consumer films. In the short term this probably means no change whatsoever for us. Medium term, maybe a small price reduction if Alaris can successfully grow their business.

I don't understand why people are still banging on about EK being primarily a photo film manufacturer, surely everyone knows they are much more than that? But then there's the misunderstanding that Fuji was mostly a film company and that Hyundai is mostly a car manufacturer. People get lost in their own little bubbles and know depressingly little of how the world actually works.

Given that Pemberstone has not only succeeded in keeping every Ilford and Kentmere product going at reasonable prices, they have added to the product line and are now developing a colour film *and* making record investments in the manufacturing lines.....these things do not always work out bad for us.
 

brbo

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
2,019
Location
EU
Format
Multi Format

I know what you are trying to say.

Surely print segment of EK is still larger than film business, but calling it "much more" would be a huge stretch if you measure it by profitability. Luckily, we can still confidently call EK a "film" company as they are likely to keep film business since there are little other profit generating businesses they have. Additionally, they face much tougher competition in other segments than in film.
 
  • BrianShaw
  • Deleted
  • Reason: Not a point worth discussing
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…