IBJNews

EnerDel parent in danger of losing NASDAQ listing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Battery maker Ener1 could lose its listing on the NASDAQ stock exchange if it continues trading below $1 per share.

The New York parent of EnerDel, which has almost 400 employees in the Indianapolis area, told investors Friday that it had received written notice of its failure to comply with NASDAQ's listing requirements.

The bid price of Ener1's stock had closed below the minimum $1 per share for 30 consecutive business days prior to Sept. 6. The stock (HEV) closed Friday at 36 cents per share.

Ener1 shares will have to rise to or above the $1 minimum for at least 10 consecutive business days between now and March 5 to stay in compliance.

Ener1's stock-price woes began in May, after the company wrote off $73 million related to its interest in Think, the electric car company. In August, the company delayed filing its second-quarter earnings report and later said it would restate previously announced earnings. An auditor said the company's cash-flow problems could put it out of business.

On Monday, Ener1 said it had restructured $58.5 million in debt. In addition, principal shareholder BzinFin S.A., the company backed by Russian businessman Boris Zingarevich, has extended the maturity date on a $15 million line of credit from November 2011 to July 2013.

"We're pleased with the confidence placed in us by our investors, since these agreements give us greater flexibility to achieve our business goals," Chairman and CEO Charles Gassenheimer said in a written statement.

Should Ener1 fail to meet NASDAQ’s 10-day demand, its stock would be relegated to penny-stock status on the over-the-counter bulletin board or the pink sheets. Once that happens, shares are harder to buy and sell.

 

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 IBJ 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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT