Anybody you know ever had debts they did not pay?
That’s what happens when you don’t pay debts.
Judges come in and mandate to sell your assets.
You are avoiding the question again. How could they pay the debts if they are decoupled from the international payment system? Why you are always avoiding the question?
Agree @Kea , this was not a good choice.
That could actually save lives. I’m working on some automobile safety stuff (not Jolla, not mercedes) and I can tell you, a better interface would make a lot of cars safer 
2 Likes
A more interesting question. How many of you have business partners that owe you money? Do you still do business with them? Are you friends? I can answer: yes, yes and yes. Now isn’t that odd?
1 Like
Totally agree and this is exactly what I meant when my post was hidden. RosTelecom got the asset. The fins got the money. Let’s see what will come out of the fins, because honestly we can not care much about what RosTelecom is doing on wards, as we have no access to this world, which is actually the worst part of the story (the problems politics created).
Honestly I am very doubtful, but I hope I am wrong. It is simply too hard to be optimistic nowdays.
it is that SFOS is not an open source OS, IMHO.
However, it is not such a thing.
I know many people that got very rich this way. Unfortunately no one wants to give me a credit/loan, big enough, so that it is worth filing bankruptcy. The bank takes only 10%, so if you are smart enough, you will be going bankrupt taking care that you have at least the 10% for the bank. The judge will leave you alone. I am not sure if it is the same for private and business - I mean the o.y. AFAIK if you are O.y or Ltd you don’t care personal liability if the Ltd files bankruptcy.
Don’t know. A foreign trust I imagine or maybe there are exceptions that have to be signed off by the EU.
Or how could they have counter offer ?
If they did have a counter offer, who would decide the buyer? The Administration isn’t going to pick Russia. Not only is it Finnish IP, Finland literally sided with the Nazis to fight Russia in WW2 and has been existentially threatened by them again in the last couple of years.
The majority of shareholders wouldn’t pick them either.
I replied earlier:
There was no buyout. Jolla assets were sold and money went to Jolla creditors. Possible excess remained in the ownership of Jolla.
Your following question was a different one:
So stealing right? Who sold Jolla assests? The owners? How is it called if your property was “sold” without your consent?
And I replied to this one.
@Steve_Everett will be able to explain this exactly since it’s his job.
Yes. I double confirm too.
1 Like
Nobody stole anything - that’s not how it works. If Rostelcom invested in Jolla Oy by buying shares then they were a part owner, not a debtor or even a creditor. Like any investment, the value of those shares can go up or down. When you invest you take a risk. Sometimes that risk pays off and you get a dividend (a payment to shareholders), sometimes it doesn’t and you lose what you have invested - either totally or partially. When you buy shares in a company, and when you have paid for them, then that is usually the limit of your liability for any debts incurred by the company.
If things go wrong you may lose your investment (i.e. what you have paid for the shares), but nothing further. Many expert people, companies, etc make a very good living by advising which companies to invest in and which to avoid, and even they don’t get it right 100% of the time.
Rostelcom may have lost their financial investment (i.e. the shares) in Jolla Oy, but they did end up with the core of a mobile OS (Sailfish developed as Aurora) that (a) they didn’t have to create themselves, and (b) they can now develop how they like for their own market. As a result, and bearing in mind their size, I doubt very much whether they will be too concerned with losing their stake in Jolla Oy as it is subsequently wound up.
Finally, how Jollyboys Oy raised whatever money was needed to buy the key assets (i.e. Sailfish OS and App Support) from Jolla Oy when those assets were liquidated I have no idea - and unless Jollyboys Oy choose to tell us then anything we might come up with is pure speculation.
And, to another point, I think it was always known and understood that Rostelcom intended to develop Aurora as the Russian government approved mobile phone OS. I don’t think there has been any secret about this.
5 Likes
…except small prints;
i.e. if there has been a special agreement between rostelecom, jolla management & other investors (as an example) in which rostelecom obliged/agreed themselves to financially support jolla s operations (such intra-shareholders agreements are quite common in fact) for example by guaranteeing x ammount of money for the next z years(so as a customer & for no shares);
enter the war, the russians cannot pay anymore (for reasons we know) and become, hence, debtors. Could make sense…
bottom line - i have a great idea for jolla / jollyboys! Theres never a dull moment here; a soap opera about this incredible endeavour would probably be well received!
2 Likes
Well, anything is possible - I’m only suggesting what is likely. Any such agreement like what you suggest that could exist will be confidential between the parties to that agreement - and since none of us here will be privy to those details, (a) we’ll never know, and (b) its not really any of our business anyway.
2 Likes
Indeed, but business of the court for sure :).
which is why they reached out there. So, three hints (war, money tighting, court), i.e. 1 &1/2 clues…this could have been likely.
Basic business, really. But oh , what do I know
1 Like
See one of the links above,
edit Teknologiayhtiö Jollan entinen johto ostaa Jolla Oy:n liiketoiminnan | Johnny L ← this one
“Lähdemme yhdessä Jollan yhteisön kanssa kehittämään ja viemään Sailfish OS -käyttöjärjestelmää AI-aikakaudelle. Uusi yhtiö on jo sopinut yli 10 MEUR rahoituksesta uuden strategian toteutusta varten”, Saarnio jatkaa
edit#2 : the joke s on the joker - now i got it ; but who’s the joker is the question 
3 Likes
And whilst it might be possible for a side agreement to have existed between Rostelcom and Jolla Oy to fund the development of Sailfish by contributing X amount of money for Y years, I think it is far more likely (yes, I don’t actually know this) that Rostelcom (a) wanted a seat on the board of Jolla Oy to influence the strategic development of Sailfish in the direction that was more aligned with their market in the early days of their involvement, and (b) wanted a license in perpetuity to effectively ‘fork’ Sailfish into Aurora and continue development on their own in whatever way they wanted. And since both these objectives seem to have been achieved I’d imagine they’re not shedding too many tears.
3 Likes
Management buyout was my term. It’s not accurate in either a legal or even a business-speak sense, but it’s close enough in terms of meaning to us.
This and other articles are pretty clear: “the district court of Pirkanmaa confirmed the company restructuring program. It obliges the company to sell its entire business to another company.”
Specifically, it obliged Rostelecom (and isn’t there a 3rd owner?) to sell their shares at a price determined by the court. The business is sold intact: assets, buildings and the massive debts. A subsidiary being subsequently created by the new owners is neither here nor there.
Steve is right. Their money is likely to be under ~€500,000 and may even be under €100,000. With debts of €4m and assets valued around €1m, the shares can’t realistically be worth much.
1 Like
Rostelecom’s proceeds could have also been seized by the EU as part of the sanctions. Currently, all seized assets are being held with a strong chance of return.
Thank you very much for your response. I admit I know shit about this, and I may be wrong, which usually I am! But I was always thinking, that when you buy shares, you do not buy some piece of paper, as you suggest, you buy a part of the company, and in this case we speak about the major shareholder. Yes, the price of the share is volatile, but the company remains, the assets of the company remain, and in my opinion the code is an asset of the company. Moreover, the shareholders are entitled of the company winnings, and as Jolla said, there were winnings. Moreover, the shareholders are entitled to vote the board proposals, and hey, guess what Rostelecom had members in the board that were replaced (I do not know how was done this). I ask you the same thing I asked @jameson but he always avoided the question. If someone takes your property, against your consent and against giving you an opportunity to defend your property (in case of debts, by not allowing you to pay the debts), how is this called?
1 Like