In February, the Chinese company Wanxiang won control of Fisker Automotive at a bankruptcy auction for a final bid of $149.2 million. The sale meant that Wanxiang would now have to deal with all of the creditors claiming that Fisker owed them money. Those individuals and groups had a combined $1 billion in claims, and they're not happy with how the bankruptcy is shaking out. In April, a settlement was announced that would see those unsecured creditors get back pennies on the dollar.

The unsecured creditors are telling the bankruptcy court that they want the judge to take away control of the bankruptcy proceedings from Fisker and implement a new repayment plan. The request was filed by a committee representing the creditors, which said it could have the new plan submitted in a matter of days, if the judge agrees with the request. The committee says there are "unreasonable demands" in the current repayment plan, such as a big paycheck for Fisker's chief restructuring officer, worth $750,000. If the judge allows the unsecured creditors to file a new plan, it will result in the "best possible outcome," the filing said.

We admit we're feeling a bit confused and dragged along by the Fisker bankruptcy proceedings. And we're quite sure that the new owners have got to be fed up as well, since they're likely to be in a bit of a time crunch if the company's really going to re-start Karma production next year.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 9 Comments
      Joeviocoe
      • 10 Months Ago
      This really isn't a fundamental problem with Fisker, Green Cars, or even the DOE loan program. This is a problem with allowing companies to go bankrupt with public money that can be written off. Most company execs would think twice about taking government money if their personal assets could be seized in the case of insolvency. Sure, this would slow down the economy since there will be so much less guaranteed revenue sources, but since politicians are so pro-business, they want to keep a corporate escape parachute that allows business to take extraordinary risks with other people's money.
        Marco Polo
        • 10 Months Ago
        @Joeviocoe
        @ AlphaEdge Directors can be sued personally for instances of proven malfeasance, or gross neglect of their duties as directors. However, anyone who invests or extends credit to a corporation does so with the knowledge that an element of risk exists. That's why due diligence and constant reassessments of the financial position of those with whom you do business is essential. All business is about assessing risk. Investors and creditors are not philanthropists, they are hoping to make money by investing/trading with the corporation. Risk, has been nature of business for all merchants, since civilisation began. Whining about losses, and wanting to 'punish' others for your own lack of judgement, is puerile, and only shows that you are not suited for the risky world of commerce.
        AlphaEdge
        • 10 Months Ago
        @Joeviocoe
        The investors also went in with their eyes open, and yet, you hold them accountable to nothing. You have to have corporations as distinct legal entities, or you could be taking the personal assets of directors who may have not had anything to do with the failure of the company. Who is going to start a company then, with that kind of risk? Say good bye to the free enterprise system. It would go against innovation, and competition. Then you would be complaining how a handful of companies dominate our society, and take ZERO risks to innovate. Why would the company directors take any risks with change, if they could lose everything? You did not think that one though very well.
          Joeviocoe
          • 10 Months Ago
          @AlphaEdge
          I was specifically talking about government 'taxpayer' money, needs to have guarantees that cannot be protected by bankruptcy. Yes, investors go in with eyes open. So those investors have to trust the business practice to a degree. As long as no fraud is happening, it should be fine to allow bankruptcy to limit the risks. And the folks that give those investors money, also trust those investors to analyze risk. There is a chain of trust there. My problem is with government playing the role of Venture Capitalist using public money. Citizens do not "trust" government to spend money on risky investments. We barely trust them to spend on public services which are known to costs a specific amount and yield a specific result. That is my conservative side. My liberal side understands that some things are too important for the commons, to be left to the whims of the Free Market. Since the Invisible Hand is not necessarily an American Hand, nor does it care about the environment. So Government DOES need to intervene. But in that case... government should not be playing by the same rules that allow high risks investments to keep the economy growing. Government should be MORE strict, not less. And only award loans if the directors are confident enough to risk some of their wealth. Bottom line, Investors are willing participants who risk their own money. Government is made of representatives of unwilling participants risking their money. The election of our representatives are not granular enough to allow people to chime in on specific investments.
      2 wheeled menace
      • 10 Months Ago
      Are people just fighting over the scraps at this point, or is this company actually going to produce anything?
        Levine Levine
        • 10 Months Ago
        @2 wheeled menace
        The new owner, Wanxiang, has basically nothing to do with the unsecured creditors getting pennies-on-the dollar settlement. Several months before Wanxiang submitted a bid for the Chapter 7 liquidation sale of Fisker, the Bankruptcy Court did a 'Cram Down' and a certain number of very unhappy creditors, secured and unsecured, had to accept the Court's plan. The new filing is a basically a motion to set aside the Court's earlier findings or a modification of the Court's verdict. Unless the petitioners can show there was fraud, undue influence, or conflict of interest in the Court's decision, the Principle of Res Judicata will hold the verdict as final upon all parties and their privities. Having already lost much money in the Fisker investment, the petitioners can gamble more money in their appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. The success rate of appealing the verdict of a Bankruptcy Court is not encouraging. Appeal Courts are inclined to repose lower court decisions.
      • 10 Months Ago
      Obama gave these clowns 192 Million of US Taxpayer Dollars. LEAN FORWARD and pass the KY Screwed Again!
        Joeviocoe
        • 10 Months Ago
        Finder's story goes back during the Bush administration. The bulk of the lost money was well on its way to approval before Obama got into office, 8 months later the loan was approved. http://venturebeat.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/fisker_timeline_8pmreutersdraft_25200.jpg?w=1650&h=46200
          EVnerdGene
          • 10 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Sorry Joe, Dead wrong. No AVTM loans were approved while Bush was still in office. The Frisker loan was pushed all the way up, and all the way back down to the DOE. follow the stink: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/car-company-us-loan-builds-cars-finland/story?id=14770875 Roughly $150M of taxpayer/printed money was lost at last count. read your own dope before spouting crap