Landa is, by all means, an interesting story to write about. It’s about the disruptor who could have changed the entire world; it’s about a poor man from Poland who moved to Canada and became one of Israel's most respected innovators and investors. It’s about the technology that doesn’t really work, and the journey that numerous patents finance. Still, it is also a story that is strictly controlled, because, how much can you allow yourself to speculate, when almost everything is closed behind NDAs very few people dare to challenge, even for background, and a company that on one hand open its doors to show har far they are, to not tell much about the missing steps to really become a potential disruptor. That’s why I have decided to speculate in public, and maybe I am totally off on this story, but read, think, and comment.

So, where should we start?

Let’s start with one of the questions that is quite important and yet impossible to get a 100% straight answer to. Who owns the Landa machines? You would assume that the printers who wrote the Israeli court two months ago are the owners, but are they? No question that they have the right to use the machines, but are the machines owned by a leasing company, used as security against a bank loan, or do Landa Digital Print own the machines and rent/lease them to the printing companies?

I have been speculating about this for more than two months, but I almost forgot about it until recently. The good old saying “follow the money” works nearly every time. In a reconstruction like the one FIMI suggests over the next three years, they will need cash, but they will also need stability in the user base, as well as a hold on the existing customers.

If the machines aren’t serviced and supplies are not delivered, the value of the machines becomes almost worthless. The customers know it, Landa knows it, and of course, the current banks and leasing companies know this as well. Now it's time to turn all the machines into valuable assets, and FIMI could acquire the entire Leasing portfolio- and if the going rate is a penny on the dollar, the machines are cheap, the debt in the machines is maintained, and the owner of the machines and leasing contracts can claim future payments. The Penny on the dollar seems like a far-fetched idea, but with FIMI’s offer of $80 million against a total debt of $1.8 billion, it might be close to a Penny anyway.

Could this release further $50-$150 million? Each machine has a price tag of $3-$4 million, so considering the number of machines and their price tag, I don’t think this is entirely off. I think so. If structured correctly, this could be legal — though subject to jurisdiction and creditor approval.

With 50-55 machines in the market, could Landa Digital Printer be the owner? I am not suggesting anything illegal; I am just reflecting on how Xerox used to allow rental agreements on their machines when they had a monopoly by default.

Consider this scenario (before the court order): Landa promotes the printing presses and chooses to finance the machines themselves. Now, the customer receives the machine(s) and issues the payment to the bank, which has taken security against the contracts, not the machines themselves, but the contracts, where some credit control has ensured the quality of the debt. When Landa sold a machine or entered into a leasing/rental agreement, they, of course, received the money from the bank or leasing company right away. Landa’s obligations included delivering service, ink, consumables, spare parts, etc.

Some of the debt has been repaid to Landa or to the financial partner, but a significant part of it has not. Suppose FIMI or somebody else doesn’t buy the company and the contracts. In that case, the machines are essentially worthless, so everybody has an interest in selling this portfolio to secure ongoing business, the value in the machines, and the future payments. Why shouldn’t FIMI be able to strong-arm a bank or leasing company as the only bidder to enter into this agreement? Sell off the entire portfolio for a ‘fraction’ of the value, and boom, FIMI has now added significant value to its investments. A fraction is, of course, a question of definition. Still, suppose nobody buys Landa and most of the machines are sold under Operational Leasing on a like-for-like terms. In that case, the value is expected to be significantly lower if service and consumables aren’t maintained. For now, the question remains open: are machines providing services everywhere? We have asked around, and the answers are not uniform.

The advantage for FIMI, besides the money, is the relationship with current customers and the incentive to service the customers.

FIMI, as an investor, is not in Landa for the long term, and they have laid out (not to the public) a three-year plan that shall bring Landa back in business. Of course, FIMI can extend the restructuring timeline for Landa, but most private equity firms operate under short-term ownership, and therefore, there is maybe only one logical exit.

FIMI has stated that it lacks the technical expertise and market knowledge, and therefore, it will rely on hiring the right employees ASAP or finding partners to assist them. HP is an obvious potential partner, already mentioned in the articles from CalCalistech. They share similarities in technology, are practically neighbors, and have already seen some of the Landa papers. They could even serve as a future silent partner, announcing their interest in acquiring Landa Digital Print only after FIMI completes the restructuring of Landa Digital Print. Speculations, yes, but most of what you read here is speculation, based on a “follow the money” approach!

Let me once again underscore this is pure speculation, but I took all of the above text and ran it through ChatGPT to see if it would give my thinking a sanity check :-)

✅ Strong / Defendable

• Speculative disclaimer: You consistently remind readers this is speculation — that protects credibility.
• Follow the money: Strong guiding principle, clear for readers.
• Worthless without service: Accurate and well-phrased — the central logic of your argument.
• Penny on the dollar analogy: More grounded now with the $80M vs. $1.8B debt example.
• Xerox parallel: Good historical analogy; makes your speculation easier to understand.
• Market feedback: Mentioning you asked around and found “answers are not uniform” makes it more balanced.
• HP as partner: Safer now that you reference CalCalistech as the source.

• ⚠️ Shaky / Needs Care
• Fractional portfolio sale
• Still, the weakest assumption. Banks may prefer to restructure contracts or hold, rather than sell them off for “fractions.” Your “only bidder”/“strong-arm” language risks overstating FIMI’s leverage.
• One logical exit
• Suggesting “maybe only one logical exit” oversimplifies — PE firms often keep multiple exit options open (IPO, partial sales, extension).
• HP angle
• Even though CalCalistech mentioned HP, speculation about them as a “silent partner” is risky. Safer phrasing: “HP could be a natural candidate, though whether they have appetite is another question.”
• Machine ownership
• If all presses are already bank/leasing-owned, your whole “FIMI buys the portfolio” thesis collapses. You treat it as open — but this is the single biggest potential hole.

🚩 Where You Could Be Totally Wrong

• Ownership of machines: If Landa doesn’t own any presses, there is no leasing portfolio for FIMI to buy.
• Valuation ($50–150M): Could be far too optimistic in a distressed market.
• Customer stability: Some customers may already be exiting, reducing the strategic value of keeping them.
• HP partnership: HP may have no interest, despite being an “obvious” neighbor.
• FIMI’s expertise gap: They may not need HP — they could just hire ex-Landa staff or outside consultants.