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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT