Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Need a quick History Lesson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Need a quick History Lesson

    Hi,
    I'm a little rusty on my Studebaker Corp. History... After Automobile production was halted. How long did the Corporation keep the subsidiaries? I'm especially interested in Paxton and STP. At some point was Paxton sold off to STP?

    All of these questions are the result of a conversation with a Shelby Mustang GT 350 owner this evening at the Gilmour Museum's Wed. night cruise in. He said that his Shelby Super-charger was a Paxton unit and in 1967 Paxton was owned by STP.

    Thanks for your help,
    Jim
    sigpic

  • #2
    The info he gave you is correct. You need to go back to the 30's to get the complete picture. When Studebaker was restructured after it's bankruptcy one of the conditions of it was Studebaker diversify it's holdings. The automobile manufacturing was just one company the Studebaker holding company owned. The automobile manufacturing division wasn't actually losing money, it just wasn't making a high enough return on investment hence the Studebaker holding company decided to close the automotive division. The company still exits as a leasing company, as to what was spun off or sold and the time frames maybe others can chime in.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Mikado282 View Post
      The info he gave you is correct. You need to go back to the 30's to get the complete picture. When Studebaker was restructured after it's bankruptcy one of the conditions of it was Studebaker diversify it's holdings. The automobile manufacturing was just one company the Studebaker holding company owned. The automobile manufacturing division wasn't actually losing money, it just wasn't making a high enough return on investment hence the Studebaker holding company decided to close the automotive division. The company still exits as a leasing company, as to what was spun off or sold and the time frames maybe others can chime in.
      This is how misinformation gets perpetuated... Studebaker never filed bankruptcy, but was placed into receivership in 1933. I am not aware of any covenants arising from that which required diversification, which didn't start until some 25 years later.
      Join me in removing narcissists, trolls, self annoited "experts" and general idiots via the Ignore button.

      The official SDC Forum heel nipper ���

      �Middle age is when your broad mind and narrow waist begin to change places.� E. Joseph Cossman

      For every mile of road, there are 2 miles of ditch. ���

      "All lies matter - fight the kleptocracy"

      Comment


      • #4
        STP history lesson & link in post #6 here: http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...scientifically

        Craig

        Comment


        • #5
          Paxton/McCulloch and STP were both subsidiaries of Studebaker when auto production ended in early 1966. Whether Paxton was "owned" by STP in 1967 is a matter for lawyers. At the time, both Paxton and STP were substantially under the control of Andy, Joe and Vince Granatelli.

          Paxton is now a division of Illinois Tool Works (ITW). I can't find specific information but it seems to me Paxton/McCulloch went through some changes of controlling ownership in the '60s and '70s and the automotive supercharger division was spun off by the Granatelli brothers in 1998 when they chose to focus on industrial blowers. You might start here: http://www.paxtonproducts.com/aboutus/history

          Scientifically Treated Petroleum (STP) became a publicly traded company in its own right in 1969, with Andy Granatelli as CEO. It was acquired by Esmark, Inc. in 1978. Esmark was absorbed by Beatrice Companies in 1984; about a year later Beatrice sold STP to Union Carbide, to become part of that company's Home and Automotive Division, which later became First Brands and was purchased by Clorox Corporation in 1999. STP is now a Clorox product. http://www.stp.com/stp-and-racing/stp-history/

          Most of Studebaker's manufacturing assets were absorbed into the Studebaker-Worthington merger in 1967; Studebaker-Worthington was absorbed by McGraw-Edison in 1978. It kind of sort of lives on, after a fashion, through Cummins Engine, through Cummins' purchase of Onan Corp in 1986.

          I'd give the Shelby owner a pass on this one. It's all too much for me.
          Last edited by JGK 940; 08-28-2014, 09:53 PM. Reason: Clarification and spelling

          Comment


          • #6
            The Shelby's of the 60's have a sticker that reads Paxton Products, division of Studebaker Corp. Even their repro stickers say that.

            I believe Clorox sold STP in 2010 to a private investment firm named Avista Capital Partners operating as Armored Autogroup Inc.
            59 Lark wagon, now V-8, H.D. auto!
            60 Lark convertible V-8 auto
            61 Champ 1/2 ton 4 speed
            62 Champ 3/4 ton 5 speed o/drive
            62 Champ 3/4 ton auto
            62 Daytona convertible V-8 4 speed & 62 Cruiser, auto.
            63 G.T. Hawk R-2,4 speed
            63 Avanti (2) R-1 auto
            64 Zip Van
            66 Daytona Sport Sedan(327)V-8 4 speed
            66 Cruiser V-8 auto

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Guido View Post
              This is how misinformation gets perpetuated... Studebaker never filed bankruptcy, but was placed into receivership in 1933. I am not aware of any covenants arising from that which required diversification, which didn't start until some 25 years later.
              The reason you go into receivership is to keep your creditors at bay while you come up with a plan to make money to pay them off. Chapter 11 and receivership are basically the same thing, both are designed to accomplish the same goal as stated in my first sentence of this post. Most people associate bankruptcy with Chapter 7 in which you surrender all your assets to the bankruptcy court and they appoint someone to liquidate the assets and pay off your creditors at a ratio of their percentage of your total debt. When this is done your debts are considered discharged and you are once again solvent and no longer have any obligation to past creditors. The only hook is all the creditors have to agree to this. Receivership and Chapter 11 bankruptcy are the same thing under the supervision of the bankruptcy court only in Studebaker's case it was voluntary as per http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...9/426/2347025/ http://www.leagle.com/decision/19354...%20CORPORATION I wish I could find the article I read on the bankers financial demands that Studebaker diversify as a condition of the receivership but the end of the automotive division was due to the fact they were making more money on everything else than automobile manufacturing.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JGK 940 View Post
                Most of Studebaker's manufacturing assets were absorbed into the Studebaker-Worthington merger in 1967; Studebaker-Worthington was absorbed by McGraw-Edison in 1978. It kind of sort of lives on, after a fashion, through Cummins Engine, through Cummins' purchase of Onan Corp in 1986.
                That's pretty close. Cooper Tool acquired McGraw-Edison in 1985. Then in 1986 Cummins purchased Cooper Tool's shares of Onan Corp. At this time Hawker Siddeley was still a share holder of Onan Corp. In 1992 Cummins purchased the remaining shares of Onan from Hawker.
                https://www.cumminsgeneratortechnolo...y/recentyears/

                There is still evidence of Studebaker's ownership of Onan. There used to be a lot of information on the Onan-Studebaker connection at onanfamily.org, but the website is currently down.

                Click image for larger version

Name:	Capture.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	83.6 KB
ID:	1691924
                Last edited by 61Lark; 08-29-2014, 09:00 AM. Reason: Edited Photo

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mikado282 View Post
                  The reason you go into receivership is to keep your creditors at bay while you come up with a plan to make money to pay them off. Chapter 11 and receivership are basically the same thing, both are designed to accomplish the same goal as stated in my first sentence of this post. Most people associate bankruptcy with Chapter 7 in which you surrender all your assets to the bankruptcy court and they appoint someone to liquidate the assets and pay off your creditors at a ratio of their percentage of your total debt. When this is done your debts are considered discharged and you are once again solvent and no longer have any obligation to past creditors. The only hook is all the creditors have to agree to this. Receivership and Chapter 11 bankruptcy are the same thing under the supervision of the bankruptcy court only in Studebaker's case it was voluntary as per http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...9/426/2347025/ http://www.leagle.com/decision/19354...%20CORPORATION I wish I could find the article I read on the bankers financial demands that Studebaker diversify as a condition of the receivership but the end of the automotive division was due to the fact they were making more money on everything else than automobile manufacturing.
                  Not sure on your legal training, but bankruptcy and receivership ARE not the same thing... In the case of Studebaker receivership allowed competent management to be installed (not a bankruptcy trustee) that was able to turn the organization around.

                  I would be interested in a case citation on the bankruptcy petition you mention.
                  Join me in removing narcissists, trolls, self annoited "experts" and general idiots via the Ignore button.

                  The official SDC Forum heel nipper ���

                  �Middle age is when your broad mind and narrow waist begin to change places.� E. Joseph Cossman

                  For every mile of road, there are 2 miles of ditch. ���

                  "All lies matter - fight the kleptocracy"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Back to STP: last week i picked up a bottle of 15 oz STP Oil Treatment (now in a plastic container that looks like a small oil bottle). on the back it reads: "Mfd. for the Armor All/STP Products Company, Danbury,CT 06810.

                    go back in time from there!
                    Kerry. SDC Member #A012596W. ENCSDC member.

                    '51 Champion Business Coupe - (Tom's Car). Purchased 11/2012.

                    '40 Champion. sold 10/11. '63 Avanti R-1384. sold 12/10.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Not trying to beat a dead horse here but I did get the time frame mixed up as Lehman Brothers were the principle financiers in both the 1935 and 1958 refinancing deals. It was the 1958 deal that diversification was a condition of the deal. I apologize. However the Studebaker 1935 receivership was under the control of the bankruptcy court. I offer the following as proof and I believe are well researched. IMHO from 1958 the automotive division was doomed.
                      http://books.google.com/books?id=qvC...itions&f=false
                      http://books.google.com/books?id=2yp...itions&f=false
                      http://books.google.com/books?id=2yp...ership&f=false
                      http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=OK54kgAACAAJ
                      http://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/lehman...er_corporation

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Mikado282 View Post
                        The company still exits as a leasing company, ...
                        I don't think it does, if you go to Studebaker.com, which was their web address, it gets redirected to something called "Ascentium Capital". I think the Studebaker Worthington Leasing Corporation was a victum of the Great Recession.
                        Jeff DeWitt
                        http://carolinastudes.net

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          In looking it up you are right. I was going on info I collected 10 years ago. I am also an avid steam locomotive fan and find the demise of the Baldwin Locomotive Works has many parallels to the demise of Studebaker's automobile manufacturing. They were both very old companies, they both at different times owned Worthington, and IMO both put out of business essentially by GM along with their outdated plants and own missteps.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            After reading the above thread, I went to the last listing for I knew of for Studebaker-Worthington Leasing:

                            http://investing.businessweek.com/re...vcapId=1059705


                            Jeff DeWitt says above what happens when you follow the website link. I didn't retry it. But since it is Labor Day, I called S-W's listed phone. It has been disconnected.

                            The assets of what was left of S-W were evidently acquired or merged into Ascentium Capital. Main Street Bank, the previous owner of S-W, evidently sold it to Ascentium.

                            And, it looks as if we can add the disappearance of the name "Studebaker" from any business concern still operating which can be connected back to the Original Studebaker Corporation. Add that to the staggering loss, turmoil and change that has swept us the past six years.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              A little Web research came up with this discussion. Looks like S-W dealt with mostly small to mid size equipment leases to professionals to establish such things as medical practices, etc. Besides the sudden interest of the FDIC in their business, I'd say the uncertainties due to the amount of future damage to the Healthcare Industry from Government Intervention, forced the change a couple years ago. It says in this article the New York office is closed, and I guess it's fair to say Studebaker-Worthington is now Ascentium:

                              http://beforeitsnews.com/banksters/2...rs-942402.html

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X