All posts tagged 'plug-in'

Travails of A123, Fisker and Ener1 Don't UnPlug Nissan CEO Ghosn at New York Auto Show

April 5, 2012 10:05
by J. Wylie Donald

 Imagine an industry.  Let’s make it a high technology industry.  And we’ll make it risky.  It will be a new technology, linked to other new technologies.  We’ll have over a dozen companies in this industry and some of them will partner with their suppliers or their customers, just as established industries do.  And just because it is new technology doesn’t mean that old issues don’t matter.  Each company will still have to satisfy investor expectations, raise money, hope demand stays ahead of supply, beat out their competition (both domestic and overseas) and avoid snafus of all sorts.

And if some of the companies in our imagined industry failed, would that surprise any of us?  And if they got sued in shareholder derivative suits alleging misrepresentations in their 10Ks, that would be par for the course in the United States in the early 21st century, right?

Now hold those thoughts and transport yourself back to reality and listen to Carlos Ghosn, CEO of Nissan, at the New York Auto Show yesterday. His talk was basically an advertising pitch for Nissan, its turnaround and its increasing presence (with its partner Renault) in the world market.  But if you can get to the question and answer session about halfway through you will get some insight into what the third largest car company alliance in the world is thinking about electric cars, and specifically about the Nissan Leaf.  According to Mr. Ghosn by 2020 the Leaf will have ten percent of the market where it is available because Nissan is moving to local production, which will remove a bottleneck.  It has built a quality product as evidenced by the remote monitoring being done by Nissan on every car:  they have no quality problems.  Consumer surveys show people want low carbon vehicles. And last, as the American and world economies get back on their feet, gas prices will continue to rise and the economic incentive to drive an electric vehicle will only become more powerful.

Mr. Ghosn is not alone in his vision.  Nearly every other car company is in, or getting in, to the electric car business.

And nearly every bank was making subprime loans and we know how great an idea that was.  And let’s not forget the train wrecks caused by the internet bubble when everyone could make millions off of companies like iVillage and AOL and it was a verity that bricks and mortar were things of the past.

And if we look at the electric vehicle segment we see lithium ion battery maker A123 and two of its officers subject to suit on March 2 for false and misleading statements where its stock price tanked after A123 disclosed that it was recalling thousands of batteries because of a manufacturing problem.  In February automobile startup Fisker Automotive was sued by an investor upset that he was being forced to put more money into Fisker, which hadn’t met DOE funding milestones nor sales targets and needed millions more in cash.  And in January  Ener1 (parent to battery maker EnerDel) filed for bankruptcy citing increased competition from Korean and Japanese battery makers. 

Some take these as signs of the demise of the industry.  But if we go back to our imaginary industry, we see that none of this is surprising.  Of course there are lawsuits, squabbles over the chase for funding, and bankruptcies.   Wikipedia makes clear, however, that this is a competitive, active industry.  It lists over a dozen battery companies in this new high technology area, joined with another new high technology industry (electric cars).  We list them all below to emphasize the point. The travails of A123, Fisker and Ener1 prove nothing more than that it is a tough marketplace.

 1List of Electric Vehicle Battery Manufacturers:  A123Systems, Altairnano, Axeon, Concorde Battery, E-One Moli Energy, Electrovaya, EnerDel, Li-Tec Battery GmbH, NEC, Primearth EV Energy Co., Sanyo, Thunder Sky, XINCHI Li-ion Battery, Valence Technology, LG Chem, SB LiMotive, GS Yuasa.

2 List of Plug-In Electric Vehicle Manufacturers: Audi, BMW, Citroen, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Opel, Peugeot, Renault, Rolls-Royce, Saab, Subaru, Suzuki, Toyota, Volkswagen, Volvo.

Carbon Dioxide | Sustainability

Bad Karma for Fisker Automotive: Of Loans and Lawsuits

February 21, 2012 22:59
by J. Wylie Donald

As if it wasn’t hard enough trying to displace the internal combustion engine as the motive force of the automobile, then this happens.  First the plug-in hybrid Chevy Volt’s battery starts catching fire.  Then battery-maker Ener1 files for bankruptcy protection.  Last Thursday, the electric vehicle arena acknowledged more bad news.  Fisker Automotive, maker of the electric sport coupe Karma and promisor of the Nina, issued a press release following a set of disquieting reports from various outlets.  The sour news:  “As a prudent business measure, project Nina has been temporarily put on hold until financing, either from the DOE or elsewhere, can be secured.”

Fisker is the high end of electric vehicles.  Its “plug-in extended range” Karma sedan seats four and retails between $96,000 and $109,000.  It can do 0-60 in 7.9 seconds in full electric (Stealth) mode (the plug-in part).  But turn on its gasoline engine, which turns its electric generator, and you’re down to 5.9 seconds (Sport Mode) (the extended range part).  Motor Trend calls it “a sweetheart to hustle.”

Nina is (was?) the more consumer-friendly version of a Fisker. It is to be (according to reports) a compact or midsize sedan, priced in the $40,000 range (after the $7,500 federal tax credit).  It is to be built in a refurbished GM plant in Delaware, which Fisker bought out of GM’s bankruptcy in 2009.  Predicted production levels were 100,000 vehicles per year.  That goal is currently not realizable.

Fisker has raised a lot of money.  Besides over $850 million in private financing, in 2009 “Fisker Automotive closed a $529 million loan arrangement under the Department of Energy’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program for the development and production of two lines of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. The project is expected to create about 2,000  jobs in Wilmington, Delaware.”   Times change.  In May, after providing $193 million to Fisker, DOE stopped lending because various milestones in Karma sales and production had been missed.  Or as Fisker put it in its recent press release:  “In May 2011 Fisker Automotive opted to stop taking reimbursements from the DOE while the company entered negotiations to implement more realistic and achievable milestones.”

Fisker's financial difficulties are not being kept secret.  The tip of the proverbial litigation iceberg made its appearance earlier this month in the form of a lawsuit filed in California Superior Court: Wray v. Fisker Automotive Holdings et al. (Complaint attached below.)  In the suit Mr. Wray, an investor in Fisker and various Fisker investment entities, claims he was deceived into buying Fisker securities because he was unaware that a subsequent "pay to play" offering could require him to increase his investment or lose the beneficial position he had procured by virtue of his earlier contributions.

Mr. Wray put over $200,000 into Fisker. In return he received preferred stock with various benefits such as "conversion price discounts", "anti-dilution protection", and "liquidation preferences." While risks of investing were disclosed, nowhere, it is alleged,

did the offering memoranda inform Daniel Wray, or any other investor, that if he did not participate in future forced financing of Fisker, as Fisker and Advanced Equities [the broker/dealer] dictated, he would suffer a significant dilution of all of his earlier investments; conversion of the convertible preferred stock to common stock loss of all the rights, preferences and privileges that his ownership of preferred stock conferred, including liquidation preference, anti-dilution protection and initial public offering discounts/special conversion rights. Complaint ¶ 26.

But on January 18, 2012 the broker/dealer wrote Mr. Wray (and presumably others) seeking money: "Due to Fisker's urgent need for equity capital, the Financing now contains a "pay to play" provision that requires all holders [of certain securities] to purchase Series D-1 Preferred Stock in an amount equal to at least 40% of such holder's aggregate dollar amount invested ...".  Id. ¶ 28.  Mr. Wray had slightly over $200,000 invested, and was now on the hook for another $83,922.32. In his complaint, Mr. Wray alleges breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and various violations of the California Corporations and Business & Professions Codes, among other things.

The greencarreports blog did a little investigating and is not overly sanguine about Mr. Wray’s chances on the merits.  We look at it from a different perspective.  We are not privy to Mr. Wray's thinking but his suit may be an astute way to buy time before committing to the next $80,000. If the DOE funding hurdles are cleared, or private sources come through, then the investment, particularly for one in preferred status, may be particularly fruitful. And if the big money is not forthcoming, then throwing good money after bad might be avoided.  In that case, Mr. Wray might not find himself alone on the tip of the iceberg any longer either.

20120207 Complaint, Wray v. Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc..pdf (707.64 kb)

Climate Change | Green Marketing | Solar Energy


McCARTER & ENGLISH CLIMATE CHANGE AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PRACTICE GROUP

The business case for the development of renewable energy projects, from biodiesel and ethanol to wind, solar, and distributed generation, is more compelling than ever as tax and regulatory incentives combine to attract investments. Emerging issues in environmental law and increasingly recognized principles of corporate social responsibility are encouraging public companies to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions, install clean energy alternatives, and invest overseas in projects under the Kyoto Protocol to respond to climate change concerns.

Click here for more information and a list of our group members.
© McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved. disclaimer
navbottom image