Fisker creditors want a repayment do-over
Sebastian Blanco
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.Featured GalleryFisker Karma
News Source: The Wall Street Journal, BloombergGreenFiskerElectricHybridbankruptcyelectric vehiclefiskerfisker bankruptcyfisker karmanew fiskernew fisker karmaplug-in hybridwanxiangFisker Karma Information
ResearchNews and ReviewsOwner RatingsFor SaleValuesPhotosVideosCompareI'm reporting this comment as:Rude or offensiveNot constructive / off-topicSexual contentSpam or misleadingOtherReported 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.
extraordinary risks with other people's money.
@ 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.
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.
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
0 comments:
Post a Comment