By on October 29, 2012

Fisker is asking a bankruptcy judge to delay an asset sale related to beleaguered battery maker A123 Systems.

Bloomberg reports that Fisker filed an “emergency motion” to challenge the proceedings. A proposed asset sale would see Johnson Controls Inc. purchase the automotive assets of A123, including plants in Michigan and China, with JCI also looking to acquire further assets. According to court papers filed in Delaware , Gregg Galardi, an attorney for Fisker claimed that

“A hurried sale process will be damaging to the estates and deprive creditors of value that may be realized through higher and better offers…The best interests of the estates, however, are not well served through a hasty and unfair sale process designed to ensure that JCI is the ultimate purchaser.”

Other parties, including the University of Montreal and Massachusetts Clean Energy Technology Center (which was created under 2008′s Green Jobs Act and loaned money to Fisker) filed separate objections to the asset sale.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

17 Comments on “Fisker Asks For More Time With A123...”


  • avatar

    The Fisker Karma is impractical and sucks at performance. The only thing that sets it apart is it’s looks, but because it’s so heavy and slow anyone who actually knows a lot about them doesn’t want one.

    The TESLA MODEL S is the real deal and is going to put electric cars in the mainstream if they can make one slightly cheaper (under $40,000) and still get at least 150 miles range per charge. The cheapest Model S is $50,000 (even with the tax credit) and doesn’t have access to Tesla’s supercharger network.
    [epinions.com/review/2013_Tesla_Model_S_epi/content_603226738308]

    As for A123… The republicans would LOVE to use the “failure” of A123 to hurt Obama but, I say: if it was such a bad company, WHY ARE THE CHINESE TRYING TO BUY IT??? There are political forces at work here trying to undermine A123.

    • 0 avatar
      cmoibenlepro

      The Chinese want to steal the technology, so they could get the USA state grant money for free, close the existing plants, and move up to China, for other uses than the non-existent electric car market. The military for example.

      A123 itself is an inefficient, unprofitable, badly managed, state dependent, crappy company.

    • 0 avatar

      I agree. The Fisker Karma has a lot more to offer in terms of aesthetics and luxury than it does as an electric car. It could have done quite well just on the grounds of having the most-luxurious interior and exterior treatments of any American car, rivaling the best of the foreign companies

      But then, of course, they’d have never gotten funding.

      The Tesla Model-S, in contrast, seems like a real-game changer, with performance to rival the BMW M5 and Jaguar XFR. And its design is more world-class…

      • 0 avatar

        No Fisker product was ever made in the USA. They promised that their next model would be, but the Karma is build in Finland, by a contract manufacturer specializing in low volume cars.

        Incidentally, Solyndra’s viability was questioned within the funding agency even before it got funding, so this is not just the fault of the Chinese, it was a poor business model in the first place.

        I really admire Tesla and the Model S. They took the government money, and they did something truly remarkable with it: They actually delivered on their technology promises, in a way that’s price competitive. They have an order backlog of about half a year’s production.

        If you are a government and you want to give your money away to some showy high-tech contract, hand it over to Elon Musk. He’s doing SpaceX and Tesla, both with style, sophistication and a shocking level of success. I wasn’t sure of him when he kicked out Martin Eberhard, but I have to be impressed by what he’s done to date. In hindsight, I have to say he had the right strategy and Martin didn’t have the vision Tesla deserved. But he sure was a great spokesman for the Roadster.

        D

      • 0 avatar

        You’re right. I believe the contractor is Finnish Valmet Automotive, who mainly supplements production for major European brands like Renault, Porsche and Opel. But the fact of the matter is that the car was designed and engineered here in the States, and quality has a lot less to do with how and where a car is produced than how it is engineered. Moreover, a car’s origin is not really a manufacturing plant, but rather where it is created. The entire world’s supply of the BMW X3, X5 and X6 models are built in Greer, South Carolina, but they are still considered German products. Thus the Fisker Karma is an American vehicle.

        I really think the U.S. needs a world-class brand (even if it is so expensive that it only competes with makes like Bentley, Rolls-Royce or Ferrari), but at the same time something that is decidedly American. Fisker could have been that brand if it instead chose to put a conventional powertrain beneath that svelte bodywork. But at that price, and with that meager amount of practicality, bluebloods feeling a little guilty about their fuel consumption will probably just buy a Jaguar XJ V6 or a Porsche Panamera S Hybrid and call it a day. Or (gasp!) the much better and half-as-costly Tesla Model-S.

        I might just start America’s first world-class company myself.

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTheDriver

        Actually there are any number of American “supercars”, Mosler MT900, Rossion Q1, Saleen, Shelby, plenty of others.

    • 0 avatar

      Had Fisker and Tesla been CHINESE COMPANIES they’d probably already be shipping their cars to America. I live in China (on&off) so I see what that government is like. When they want something done, THERE IS NO ARGUMENT, there is no CONTROVERSY…THEY JUST F’IN DO IT.

      I saw buildings going up within months instead of years. They’d have rebuilt both the WTC towers in less than 5 years. It makes me absolutely SICK to see how pathetically corrupt the government is here. No wonder we have such a huge trade deficit.

      • 0 avatar
        BigMeats

        “THERE IS NO ARGUMENT, there is no CONTROVERSY…THEY JUST F’IN DO IT.”

        Kadaver Gehorchsamkeit? That turns out to have pitfalls.

      • 0 avatar
        ellomdian

        @BigTruckSeriesReview – I’m glad that I finally get to dismantle one of your obnoxious semi-disguised youtube cam whore pimp calls of a post on merit alone. May Bertel forgive me…

        If Fisker or Karma were CHINESE COMPANIES the odds are they would never have promoted the majority of innovative concepts and ideas that those two (admittedly flawed) companies have pursued. Chinese business, particularly industrial process in the last 10 years, has focused almost entirely on process copy. They have made no significant contributions on their own, to the point where a number of companies have started manufacturing intentionally flawed products in their Chinese facilities and performing the corrections when they are safely back out of their hands. The Chinese dilemma right now is that a majority of their brain power has been spent on duplicating facets of “western” society and not in excelling within their own identity.

        Many of those buildings you see go up in months FALL RIGHT BACK DOWN within a year. Chinese construction is LEGENDARILY shoddy and since you mention corruption, I am curious why you use it to debase the US establishment when compared to the clean, safe, totally-not-corrupt Politburo that is Chinese governance…..

        Lastly, the trade deficit is mostly a result of a sustained decade of the financial sector being elevated in social importance above manufacturing and domestic commerce in the public pecking order. Chinese currency has been manipulated to fit the picture, and as a result, they are much more volatile today than most other large nations. China literally cannot call it’s debt in without de facto suicide.

      • 0 avatar

        Ellomdian

        You dismantle my post with CONJECTURE???

        Cool story bro!

  • avatar
    drewtam

    There are other reasons why a Chinese company may want to get advanced battery tech besides automotive use. For example, diesel attack submarines or other military use.
    Therefore, it does not support your claim that this a successful viable company.

  • avatar
    GS650G

    “if it was such a bad company, WHY ARE THE CHINESE TRYING TO BUY IT??? There are political forces at work here trying to undermine A123.”

    A123 had their shot and investors voted with their feet. Your ridiculous suggestion that Republicans are behind any of this shows not only how little you know about business but clearly identifies you as an Obama fanboy. Quit watching MSNBC so much, it’s not good for you.

  • avatar
    gslippy

    The funny-sad part here is to watch two government welfare cases fighting over how one of them is bailed out.

    Fisker is a disaster, and it’s only fitting that they’re chained to A123′s sinking ship while both have received substantial government handouts. Fisker’s eventual failure won’t be due to A123, however, but due to their own foibles.

  • avatar
    JohnTheDriver

    I must admit, the more TTAC hates Fisker the more interesting the cars become! Heh, I just realized, if I bought a Fisker it would be the second Valmet produced automobile in my driveway! Hrm, this is getting interesting.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India