backtop


Print 34 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Oct 23 at 6:20 PM


  (Source: Bloomberg)
The EV battery maker is selling all assets to Johnson Controls for $125 million

It's official: electric vehicle (EV) battery maker A123 Systems has filed for bankruptcy.
 
Earlier today, it was reported that A123 Systems was missing loan payments and may look into bankruptcy protection. That "may" turned into a quick "will," as the lithium-ion battery maker has officially agreed to sell its automotive business assets to Johnson Controls -- a company that optimizes energy efficiencies in car batteries, buildings and electronics.
 
As part of the agreement, A123 will sell all of the following to Johnson Controls: automotive business assets including automotive products, technology and customer contracts; its cathode powder manufacturing facilities in China; its facilities in Livonia and Romulus, Michigan, and A123's equity interest in Shanghai Advanced Traction Battery Systems Co. The total transaction is worth $125 million.
 
Johnson Controls, however, will license certain grid, government and commercial businesses back to A123, and will allow A123 to participate in discussions concerning alternatives for these businesses.
 
"We believe the asset purchase agreement with Johnson Controls, coupled with a Chapter 11 filing, is in the best interests of A123 and its stakeholders at this time," said David Vieau, CEO of A123 Systems. "We determined not to move forward with the previously announced Wanxiang agreement as a result of unanticipated and significant challenges to its completion. Since disclosing the Wanxiang agreement, we have simultaneously been evaluating contingencies, and we are pleased that Johnson Controls recognizes the inherent value of our automotive technology and automotive business assets. 
 
"We are also pleased that we have received indications of interest that recognize the value of our grid and commercial businesses. We are encouraged by the significant interest we have received, as multiple parties have submitted proposals for these businesses. As we move through this transaction process, we expect to continue operating and working with customers and suppliers."  
 
A123 Systems and all of its U.S. subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions today for reorganization under Chapter 11. A123 will receive $72.5 million in "debtor in possession" financing from Johnson Controls to help continue operations. 
 
"Our interest in A123 Systems is consistent with our long-term growth strategies and overall commitment to the development of the advanced battery industry," said Alex Molinaroli, president of Johnson Controls. "Requirements for more energy efficient vehicles continue to increase, which is driving automotive manufacturers to pursue new technologies across a broad spectrum of powertrains and associated energy storage solutions. We believe that A123's automotive capabilities are a good complement to our existing portfolio and will further advance Johnson Controls' position as a market leader in this industry."
 
A123 Systems joins a list of other green companies that fell deep into the red and filed for bankruptcy. Back in September 2011, solar panel company Solyndra filed for bankruptcy after receiving a $535 million loan from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). In November, Beacon Power (maker of flywheels for grid efficiency) filed after receiving a $43 million loan guarantee from DOE in 2010. 
 
In January 2012, EV battery maker Ener1 filed for bankruptcy after its subsidiary, EnerDel, won a $118.5 million grant from DOE in 2009. 

In addition to these woes, A123 Systems itself suffered a huge kick earlier this year when it announced a $55 million battery replacement program for Fisker Automotive's Karma due to the vehicle's issues with the batteries' hose clamps. 
 
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been known for blasting the Obama administration's green efforts, such as EV makers Tesla and Fisker, and this latest bankruptcy may further fuel his fire. 

Source: Yahoo



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Recall.
By FITCamaro on 10/17/2012 7:30:06 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/

Please point out to me where in this document it says the federal government has the power to play venture capitalist.

Fun fact, the Bill of Rights was passed because the Anti-Federalists said they wouldn't agree to ratify it unless there was stronger language protecting against the government overstepping its authority. The Bill of Rights has a preamble, just as the Constitution does, that explains its purpose. It states:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

Jefferson's opinion on the Constitution (bear in mind he did not help write it nor was he involved in the debates for or against it since he was in France). But he was an Anti-Federalist:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Madison on the type of government action you see to be for:

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. ... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." --James Madison

So now honestly give me an argument that the founders meant anything other than what they said. Or that they intended for the Constitution to be "living and breathing".

"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." — Thomas Jefferson


RE: Recall.
By gamerk2 on 10/17/2012 7:50:54 AM , Rating: 2
And Federalists HATED the Bill of Rights, because they (correctly, as it turned out) reasoned that if you put in writing what rights the people had, that would be used as an argument to limit peoples rights to JUST what was written. In effect, the Bill of Rights does nothing but limit peoples individual rights.

I also note that if the anti-Federalists had their way, we'd still be under the Articles of Confederation.


RE: Recall.
By FITCamaro on 10/17/2012 9:13:49 AM , Rating: 1
What the hell are you talking about.

quote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


The 9th amendment specifically states that not all rights are defined in the Constitution and that you have more. States just needed to further define them to codify the rights they felt that also needed to be guaranteed to their citizens. They couldn't possibly have listed every single right. They specifically listed the ones that were most important to them. And the 9th amendment was

Yes some feared what you said, but that's exactly why the 9th Amendment was added. And it goes hand in hand with the 10th amendment. Madison himself put it in there.


RE: Recall.
By Reclaimer77 on 10/17/2012 1:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
Wow!! Just..my goodness. Where did you get this stuff? You clearly don't know the most basic aspects of the Constitution!

Stop posting.


RE: Recall.
By mdogs444 on 10/18/2012 8:44:44 AM , Rating: 2
He sounds like Obama, who said he hated the constitution because it said what the government could not do to you as opposed to what it must do for you.


“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki