Fisker founders, managers sued for misleading investor

The Fisker automotive electric Atlantic sedan logo is seen during its unveiling ahead of the 2012 International Auto Show in New York April 3, 2012. [Photo/Agencies]

The founders and top managers of now-bankrupt Fisker Automotive never told potential investors that the green car startup lost access to federal funds that were crucial to the company's financial strength, according to an investor lawsuit.

Co-founder Henrik Fisker, board members and executives kept quiet that the US Department of Energy cut access to a $529 million green-technology loan in June 2011, according to the lawsuit, filed on Friday by Atlas Capital Management LP.

As a result, the firm wants a federal court in Delaware to order the defendants to repay the nearly $2 million Atlas invested in Fisker, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in late November.

Other defendants include Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a venture capital firm and early Fisker backer, Ray Lane, the former Fisker chairman and Kleiner partner emeritus, and Richard Li, an investor poised to buy Fisker out of bankruptcy.

Fisker raised more than $1.4 billion in public and private funds after its founding in 2007, but lavish spending, quality and engineering blunders and other mistakes drained Fisker's coffers and delayed the launch of its Karma plug-in hybrid, several people close to the company told Reuters earlier this year.

Much of Fisker's funds came after it won an Energy Department loan in September 2009. This government loan was continually used to entice investors to back the company and to generate favorable press, according to the Atlas lawsuit.

Fisker tapped $192 million from its Energy Department loan but lost access to the remainder in June 2011 after it privately disclosed to US officials that it failed to meet a Karma production milestone required by the government. This was never disclosed to investors, the Atlas lawsuit said.

Atlas also said that Fisker used an "obscure" provision of its previous offering to carry out a "pay to play" capital call. If investors did not participate in follow-on rounds, their previous investment would be severely diluted.