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 EricMartello on 10/23/2012 6:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
Dead wrong:

Dead wrong again:

The stats are also available on and the stats support the fact that global oil demand and consumption remained steady over the last decade. You can pull an obama on me and say it's wrong til you're blue in the face's a fact.

OPEC could raise the price even higher, but they want to keep it right at the point where the world gets off it at a snails pace.

Sorry but we've already established the fact that OPEC's production has been consistent throughout the recession and before. We've also cut imports of fuel by roughly 12% since 2008, which further undermines your whole OPEC theory. The volatility of oil prices has more to do with the futures market than with OPEC playing games with the prices of oil when they have little or no reason to do so. That, and the fact that the domestic oil production we have in place was initiated under Bush; Obama did not cancel what Bush started in terms of private domestic production but he did not add to it, which contributes to higher prices. Romney made this point during the second debate quite effectively.

Your own link disproves your theory about Obama, because it's the same source data my link was from. Prices have dropped slightly since Bush's last year, which is actually a drop when inflation is taken into account.

No, not really. Your link magically includes data from 2012 which has not been published by the EIA yet. That means your 2012 data is speculative at best.

Fuel prices averaged less under Bush's two terms than they have under Obama's single term, PLUS inflation now is greater than it was from 2000-2008 since QE1 (printing money out of thin air and putting it into banking system) was not instituted until 09/2008. Incidentally, fuel prices dropped sharply below $100/barrel at that very same time. What this means, in a nutshell, is that $4/gal under Obama would be like $6/gal under Bush due to the TRUE effects of inflation and the buying power of the dollar being roughly 40% weaker.

You can gauge the actual buying power of the dollar by looking at precious metal prices. Gold was under $800/oz in 2008 and it's $1,700 and change now - more than double. Don't tell me you're going to believe the fed's claim that inflation is 2% per year - more like 10% per year at least.

FWIW, I am anti-wind and anti-solar (at least beyond minimal construction to explore cost reductions in manufacturing). However, natural gas prices dropped with improvements in fracking, and much to the dismay of environmentalists Obama did nothing to stop its use. Natural gas moguls are the driving force behind wind adoption and coal regulations (which I support, but not for AGW reasons) because wind cannot grow without gas growth to fill in the gaps. It's too costly/damaging to ramp coal that fast, and nuclear is baseload only.

The basic point is that we have established technology to process and harvest energy from resources like natural gas, coal, oil AND nuclear. We should not be ignoring these to artificially force an adoption of unproven, expensive and unreliable "green alternatives".

If I was going to put money on an alternative fuel it would be biodiesel. Why? Because it integrates almost effortlessly with existing vehicles and infrastructure, and there is a degree of flexibility as to what materials can be used to produce it. Basically, any biological waste material can work. Biodiesel can also power consumer, commercial and industrial engines as effectively as gasoline or standard diesel.

“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

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki