ILNews

EnerDel parent facing shareholder legal battle

IBJ Staff
October 19, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge in New York as early as this week could chose a lead plaintiff from among at least three lawsuits accusing the parent of Indianapolis-based advanced-battery maker EnerDel of misleading investors about its financial condition.

Investors began filing the suits in August, days after New York-based Ener1 said it would restate earnings for 2010 and for the first quarter of this year.

Ener1’s 2010 financial loss of $69 million eventually was restated to a loss of $165 million.

The restatement stemmed from write-downs in the company’s investment in Norwegian electric car maker Think, which was behind in payments to Ener1 for batteries.

Think, which assembles cars in Elkhart, filed for bankruptcy this summer. It has since been been acquired by investment group led by Russian entrepreneur Boris Zingarevich, who also is a major investor in Ener1.

Smaller investors who filed suit since August allege that Ener1 made false and misleading statements about Think’s true condition and failed to make timely impairment to the value of its Think investment.

Ener1’s shares have tumbled from more than $4 a share in January, when Vice President Joe Biden visited EnerDel’s Greenfield battery plant, to about 27 cents per share in recent days. The company expressed concerns about its ability to stay afloat in regulatory documents filed in August.

According to federal court records, the largest group of investors filing suit appears to have lost an aggregate $379,891.

Proving “loss causation” in such lawsuits can be a challenge. Courts have raised the burden of proof for plaintiffs to show a misstatement caused them financial loss.

“You have to prove the information was material and that the information that was missing caused the loss,” said Irwin Levin, a partner of Indianapolis law firm Cohen & Malad, which has successfully prevailed in such suits over the years.

Ener1’s Indianapolis-area operations at the beginning of the year employed about 350 people. Company officials declined to comment on the recent lawsuits, saying they are in a quiet period amid the earnings-restatement process.

The Indiana operations produce lithium-ion batteries used for hybrid cars — mostly the Think — and for power-grid storage. Ener1 also has struck preliminary agreements to supply batteries for electric cars in China, and is slated to provide batteries for a Volvo hybrid station wagon.

The company applied for $290 million in federal loan guarantees and is awaiting word on approval. It previously received a $118.5 million U.S. Department of Energy grant.

This story originally ran in the Oct. 18, 2011, IBJ Daily, a sister publication of Indiana Lawyer.
 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT