A123 Auction Underway As Four Bidders Emerge While Fisker Waits

DEC 7 2012 BY JAY COLE 21

At least four companies have qualified to bid on the assets of now bankrupt US battery maker A123, one of which is the somewhat-controversial Wanxiang Group Corp of China, whom some US legislators want to block from the process.

Interestingly, NEC who has a near half ownership in AESC along with Nissan, and who is the manufacturer of the current battery found inside the Nissan LEAF has joined into bidding war.   Rounding out the group is Johnson Controls Inc., and Siemens AG of Germany.

Who Needs A Thermal Battery System When You Have Results Like This? (Click To Enlarge)

A123 had hoped to go into production of a disruptive new battery technology (EXT) in the first half of 2013 that saw a 90% pack retention rate over 2,000 cycles, and a 90% retention rate after 700 cycles at a blistering 167 degrees Fahrenheit.

Additionally, these EXT cells performed extremely well at 0F, a traditional Achilles heel of the lithium battery.  Both of these exception hot and cold characteristics could give any potential buyer a leg up in getting to market first with the next best thing in battery tech.

Unfortunately for A123, a lack of demand coupled with a slow roll out of the Fisker Karma, as well as a costly recall on some defective Karma packs that were improperly welded caused A123 to bleed cash before it could get to market and generate a steady revenue stream.

It appears that A123’s proprietary value is truly being appreciated only after its demise.

The auction was scheduled to start Thursday morning at 10am in Chicago  (at the law offices of Latham & Watkins), but reports surfaced that the parties were held up reviewing contracts and other details.

“It’s not like we’re bidding on gas stations,” said a person familiar with the auction.

2014 Spark EV Will Have Packs Supplied By The Winner Of A123's Automotive Assets

With other smaller interests also said to be looking at acquiring some of A123’s lesser pieces, Bojan Guzina, an attorney representing Wanxiang said the auction could run into next week.

Meanwhile, Fisker has not been receiving batteries from A123 since the bankruptcy announcement and has been forced to idle its Karma production line in Finland for over a month already while they wait on the result.

Fisker CEO Tony Posawatz has said that the company is down to their last 100 packs which are being retained for service and repairs.

Even if the auction is tied up quickly, there is no guarantee their supply chain will be made whole, as A123 (and its bidders) are looking to rid themselves of the supply contract with Fisker by asking the bankruptcy judge to void the contract because it is “below market” value, and as such can be vacated under Chapter 11.

We suspect Fisker has already started to work on sourcing lithium battery packs from another supplier…just in case.


Categories: Battery Tech, Fisker / Karma


Leave a Reply

21 Comments on "A123 Auction Underway As Four Bidders Emerge While Fisker Waits"

newest oldest most voted

I wonder what the chances are of Fisker switching to LG batteries vs. A123 or any other maker? They have Tony Posawatz at Fisker now with experience with LG cells, and both GM and Ford are already using LG for their own PHEV’s. I would say at least for the Atlantic, we will probably see LG batteries or even some other brand in those cars in the near future. Fisker is probably learning quickly to go with a track record instead of a sales pitch.

The more the better, we need the US LG chem plant up and running.

Hear! Hear! Let’s put those LG Chem workers in Michigan on
the job!

Jay quote:
“Interestingly, NEC who has a near half ownership in AESC along with Nissan, and who is the manufacturer of the current battery found inside the Nissan LEAF has joined into bidding war.”

A123’s robust battery chemistry would be a nearly perfect “fix” for Nissans battery degradation heat issue. No cooling system req’d. just slap em in.

There is more to a battery than thermal characteristics – like energy density, for eg.

Article quote:
“With other smaller interests also said to be looking at acquiring some of A123′s lesser pieces,”

Jay question: So does this mean they can bust up the company into smaller pieces based on battery chemistry??”

I thought it would be winner take all.

It remains to be seen how it all shakes out, but yes they are auctioning it off piecemeal where they can ie) automotive assets, grid business, etc. That being said, someone could offer a comprehensive offer which could be accepted over the sum of the parts.

I’m surprised GM hasn’t joined in the bidding war. If they acquired A123 with EXT chemistry, many possibilities would exist.
They could manufacture their own cells.
They could negotiate better cell prices from LG.
They could supply EXT chemistry to LG for exclusive US cell manufacturing.



I think we’d need to see the details behind the tech that Jay was not able to note (likely because no one knows yet…). Things like…. what is the specific energy (Wh/kg) of this allegedly ground breaking EXT? What is the $/Wh? If these two are not also competitive, then one can get “improved” results from current Li-ion tech, just don’t use as much of the capacity in its early life (charge to 85%, discharge to 30%, and increase the top end charge range as the battery pack starts to degrade… thus it appears that your battery is not degrading at all. This is significantly different than the EXT, but to the consumer it’s the same, and if it costs the manufacturer less, and weighs less per utilized kWh….). Having worked for a company that evaluated the phosphates, there are lots of pluses to what A123 was doing, but specific energy was not one of them.

Sorry, just to be a bit more clear unless that was confusing… the graph that Jay posts for the A123 vs. competitor is impressive at first, but… it’s graphing % capacity degradation. This is a bit misleading when comparing to “standard” li-ion cells for two fundamental reasons. The first is that they’re not graphing actual capacity, or specific capacity (Ah/kg)… I can promise you that with NMC, if you did that comparison, the competitor cells would degrade at the same rate shown, but start a heck of a lot higher, leaving the question… when’s the crossover/break even point when the A123 cells would actually drive your car further? One year? Three years? But even that isn’t good enough, because Ah don’t drive your car, Wh drive your car. Wh=Ah*V. And A123’s phosphates also have a lower cell voltage than NMC and other more standard cells. Summary: show me a graph where instead of %Ah on the Y axis, it’s Wh/kg on the Y axis, and then you’ll know if it’s a worthwhile technology. Until you see that data, the graph is merely a marketing curiosity. (Jay- no criticism intended on the news, just noting for the non-battery types)

No worries KenZ. In fact happy to have someone illustrate all those valid unknowns. I can’t really get that deep into the battery nuances in this kind of article…otherwise maybe only 100 readers would not fall unconscious before they got to the end, (=

Only thing I can really answer on your questions is that A123 at time of press was saying that the $/Wh was close to their traditional LiFePO4s.

To me the issue would be the Wh/kg, because as we move forward and prices come down that is going to be the play(imo). That is where NMC I think really has an advantage…and AESC out of Zama is already running a ppd line. Seems like your lookng at about 60-65% weight savings.

I guess we will get an idea of the value of A123 automotive tech when we see what price gets paid for it. The fact NEC showed up to me was what I really found interesting.

Auction start 10AM, not PM.

“…was scheduled to start Thursday morning at 10pm”

I was just checking to see if anyone was paying attention. You get the blue ribbon, (=

It’s OK Jay…It’s 10:00 somewhere. 😉

Jay, my man! – Today you had to spend AT LEAST as much time
writing the article and collecting the data as you did finding
the picture of Henrik ….waiting….

As usual, you’ve outdone yourself! I laughed out loud! 🙂

Is it wrong that I think I am starting to enjoy uploading pictures more than writing about EVs?

(btw, the Fisker shot is actually from a photo shot for selling watches)

My personal fav is a staff piece I hijacked the lead picture for here and replaced it with this actual screencap from a poorly translated Japanese Mitsubishi i-MiEV film:


…i don’t know why, maybe I have been doing this too long, but this amuses me to no end

LOL! “The Mistubishi Dream Maker” would’ve been better than “i” me thinks.

OK….Maybe not.

A big takeaway from this article has to be: CAN FISKER SURVIVE?

We can hope an LG pack could make it’s way into Karmas, but
that’s unlikey in any realistic timeframe to keep Fisker solvent.
With only 100 packs left, Fisker is in deep doo doo! Designing
anew what may be the most important single piece of the
entire car could sink the company.

If one company, say Johnson Controls – purchases the lion’s
share of A123, how long would it be before new packs could
be built and shipped? If not ( Johnson Control’s new agreement
with the Argonne-hub project may mean they don’t need
A123’s proprietary technology ) are they sunk? NEC’s interest
may mean there was more “under the hood” at A123 than
some might think….

The picture of the Mitsu “i” makes me wonder whatever
happened to the SCiB announcement? Awhile back
Mitsubishi announced it would be replacing it’s own
packs in the iMiev and it’s EV taxi with Toshiba’s SCiB
batteries which claim improvement in nearly every
category over it’s rival technologies.

So far, the only EV I’ve seen with SCiB batteries was
the Schwinn Tailwind electric bicycle – and it was
discontinued ( cost? It was one ‘spensive bike! )…
While I read years back that VW and others would
employ Toshiba’s batteries…There has been no
supporting news of such lately.

I believe the Honda Fit EV is supposed to be using SCiB batteries.