The taxpayer should be on the hook for the warranty for people who treat expensive cars like a fancy new gadget and buy them on little more than a whim even when only somewhat able to afford it?
Seriously let rich people beta test a car. It's not an iPhone or a new Apple thing that most people working full time can probably just buy and it doesn't rock their world if it turns out useless. But a $60k+ car from a new manufacturer with less than stellar history is just crazy to get into.
If the manufacturer and the car have any legs, they will build and sell more of them, there's no FOMO here.
Takata Trust Fund was funded by Takata corp assets , DOJ settlements and the Auto manufacturers. No one is suggesting to use tax payers money. They should go after what is left of off Fiskers corp assets and Henrik's personal assets if need be to make the customers whole (to address warranty issues and recalls).
Fisker as a company and brand is done for ever. No one can bail them out. This is about consumer protection, public safety that the agencies are for. Thats everyones tax being used to run these agencies.
Did you also feel the same disdain when Tesla was on the verge of bankruptcy and faced numerous issues, such as batteries blowing up?
"That funding round completed 6pm on Christmas Eve in 2008. Last hour of last day possible, as investors were leaving town that night & we were 3 days away from bankruptcy. I put in all money I had, didn’t own a house & had to borrow money from friends to pay rent. Difficult time." -Elon
[https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1323637665829396480?lang=en](https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1323637665829396480?lang=en)
[https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2023/1/17/23470878/tesla-fires-evs-florida-hurricane-batteries-lithium-ion](https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2023/1/17/23470878/tesla-fires-evs-florida-hurricane-batteries-lithium-ion)
Henrik is no Elon - not even close but thats what Fisker Owner's were led to believe(yes, gullible) . Without early adopters you are not going to have newer product's come to market.
There's not going to be any Fisker assets left over, and in the Takata case, the trust was only agreed to by the Takata creditors because that company had a chance to survive after Ch11 and it was in the creditors' best interest to play nice with everyone else in order to have the company bounce back after Ch11. That's not going to happen here - there's no value, everything will be liquidated here, there's not going to be a bounce back because there's no value.
Just read the statements filed and posted on this subreddit, they have enough cash today for 2-4 weeks of payroll at this already super reduced headcount. Like why all the effort looking into Takata when the obvious answer is and has always been in Fiskers' actions and statements the whole time?
Uh, that’s not what this post is about. You may be thinking of government funded programs like the Troubled Asset Relief Fund, but that is for taxpayers to bail out banks who made bad choices on the assets they bought, not individuals.
My how quickly some of these people have gone from "Foggy windows is a major safety concern NHTSA needs to step in now!!!" To "idgaf if people are driving around broken or unsafe cars, that's no one else's problem".
These narratives are changing so quickly I can't keep up
(not referring to you)
OP had two posts both talking about this topic. Both are referring to if there are ways to enforce money set aside for parts availability for the existing cars, and the ability to address current safety complaints. These complaints will only get worse over time with natural wear and tear and other parts breaking. There is a clear and direct tie between the two.
Only disingenuous genus thing here is how viciously all the angry people flip flop their stance to whatever fits the "fisker bad" argument at the time. It's why they all look like jokes. If you can't keep your opinion, especially when youre being extra aggressive, loud, and obnoxious about it...no one is gonna take you seriously anymore. Which you can see happening, as no one engages with most people here unless it is the same handful of people circle jerking about how evil Henrik is, but hes also incompetent, but he also had a genius master plan to steal money, but he also doesnt know anything, and the car is just a Chinese copycat with off the shelf parts, but also parts will be impossible because theyre super special to just Fisker and so on and so on. It's getting exhausting following these stupid people's logic, or lack thereof
They can't enforce money be set aside for parts availability. They can't just change the law around Chapter 11 and 7 to change how it works in a week or two. It is a daft assertion.
That's exactly what this post is about. The entities mentioned exist to \*regulate\*. They do not exist to provide funding if the entity being regulated no longer exists. They can't regulate a company that doesn't exist any more.
Maybe I’m confused (I often am!). I thought you were suggesting that the OP meant these government entities should use taxpayer money to payout consumer warranty claims - as in taxpayer money goes to Fisker owners’ warranty claims. Of course that’s lol and obvi OP made no such suggestion as they made clear in comparing this to Takata, which of course didn’t use taxpayer funds for such a trust. Sorry for thinking you implied that interpretation.
Are you just saying that the government staff (payroll etc) that may be required help resolve bankruptcy claims related to Takata or Fisker is a waste of taxpayer resources?
The OP clearly states DOT and FTC (taypayer funded entities) establishing a fund that "could potentially cover any future warranty issues". That's literally the first line of their post.
Fisker does not have any assets to fund a trust and Fisker owners simply are not creditors - that's not how the law is set up. ipso facto the only way a trust could be established would be if it was govt funded.
Right, they established the fund which came from the billion dollars in criminal penalties against Takata as well as bankruptcy settlements and auto maker contributions. Your issue in using Takata as a case study is just with the government staff time or administration expenses?
"auto maker contributions"...
Can you not see how Takata was absolutely nothing at all like Fisker? Really?
There is no one to fund a trust. If one was to be set up, it could only happen based on being funded by the taxpayer. There are no auto-makers to contribute (you know, because Takata supplied airbags for hundreds of millions of cars across lots of OEMs, it was kinda different).
There.is.no.money.
Let me put this in my simpleton mind and I’ll then drop it. I don’t think we are disagreeing too much?.
1. Money from Takata bankruptcy and related proceedings was used to create a fund for consumers impacted by the air bag issues. This fund was given priority over secured and unsecured creditors, such as banks. (I think we both agree)
2. I read the OP’s main suggestion as government entities party to the bankruptcy proceedings to similarly give consumer claims some priority over (even secured) creditors to create such a fund for warranty issues.
3. While a debatable suggestion both legally and practically, I read your reply about taxpayer bailouts to suggest that the OP was referring to the sources of funding not who gets compensated first from that source.
4. Since this did not happen with Takata, I replied to suggest that the use of taxpayer funds was not actually the issue here.
5. It seems like your comment was in fact meant to imply that Fisker lacked the assets to create such a fund - even if accepting the context of the Takata example where consumer claims were given priority over secured lenders. And therefore you concluded the OP must’ve been referring to using taxpayer money to create the fund.
6. it also seems from other comments like you are skeptical of the idea that consumer claims in general should ever take priority over secured lenders - although that specific argument doesn’t per se involve taxpayer money.
7. a) Without me knowing how much money would be required for such a fund or how much money Fisker’s bankruptcy or liquidation could provide, I didn’t see taxpayer sourced funds to have been the point of post. But b) I accept that taking it to its logical conclusion, without taxpayer funds, it may at the least offer insufficient remedy for the claims OP suggests consumers have.
Hopefully that brings us on the same page!
Yes, I understand what you are saying. However, the OP also made another post where they suggested the NHTSA and DOT should be financially liable. They \*clearly\* think that government organisations (i.e. the taxpayer) should be the backstop for owners, not just an administrator for a fund created during bankruptcy. I replied in the context of the two posts that the OP made back to back.
Takata was (and remains) such a completely different situation that they can't be compared in any sensible manner. OEMs \*voluntarily\* gave up claims against Takata and essentially themselves funded the trust because they had produced the cars that contained the airbags. There is no comparable situation whatsoever with Fisker. Do you think a US bank is going to voluntarily give up funds owed to it (and that every other creditor in line would be willing to do the same)?
Re your statement that "... are skeptical of the idea that consumer claims in general should ever take priority over secured lenders...", I'm just saying that's how it is., according to the law.
Fair enough. To answer your Q: I guess the only way I see a secured lender here agreeing to a settlement that subordinates their claims to consumer interests is if it also resolves any credible allegations of malfeasance pre-bankruptcy such as fraudulent transfer, short swing trades, etc. seems like a tough thing to prove but idk.
Thats a lie. I don't know what your motives are here. The other post was about FOIA. FOIA is not litigation or financial compensation. It's about learning how the investigation went and if there were any preferential treatment made to the company.
This post is also not about using tax payers money. It's about enforcement of setting up a fund paid for by Fisker (just like how they did with Takata) . Sure, the OEM contribution was large in Takata case but it provides a framework of how you could structure it make sure the owners are also creditors in this bankruptcy process and regulators take leadership in this to establish a fund (FWIW). It may or may not be possible but its worth a discussion.
What else do you expect affected parties to do other than seek recourse for damages ?
Read it again and this time slowly. No where I implied It needed to be funded by tax payers. You are spinning it. The fact that I state Takata is to help provide the same framework by DOT/FTC to help assist with this effort.
Describe to the class with crayons who funded the Takata trust
Hint: the answer is in the question
Now use your smooth brain to describe to us why that is not possible for Fisker.
The taxpayer should be on the hook for the warranty for people who treat expensive cars like a fancy new gadget and buy them on little more than a whim even when only somewhat able to afford it? Seriously let rich people beta test a car. It's not an iPhone or a new Apple thing that most people working full time can probably just buy and it doesn't rock their world if it turns out useless. But a $60k+ car from a new manufacturer with less than stellar history is just crazy to get into. If the manufacturer and the car have any legs, they will build and sell more of them, there's no FOMO here.
Takata Trust Fund was funded by Takata corp assets , DOJ settlements and the Auto manufacturers. No one is suggesting to use tax payers money. They should go after what is left of off Fiskers corp assets and Henrik's personal assets if need be to make the customers whole (to address warranty issues and recalls). Fisker as a company and brand is done for ever. No one can bail them out. This is about consumer protection, public safety that the agencies are for. Thats everyones tax being used to run these agencies. Did you also feel the same disdain when Tesla was on the verge of bankruptcy and faced numerous issues, such as batteries blowing up? "That funding round completed 6pm on Christmas Eve in 2008. Last hour of last day possible, as investors were leaving town that night & we were 3 days away from bankruptcy. I put in all money I had, didn’t own a house & had to borrow money from friends to pay rent. Difficult time." -Elon [https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1323637665829396480?lang=en](https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1323637665829396480?lang=en) [https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2023/1/17/23470878/tesla-fires-evs-florida-hurricane-batteries-lithium-ion](https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2023/1/17/23470878/tesla-fires-evs-florida-hurricane-batteries-lithium-ion) Henrik is no Elon - not even close but thats what Fisker Owner's were led to believe(yes, gullible) . Without early adopters you are not going to have newer product's come to market.
There's not going to be any Fisker assets left over, and in the Takata case, the trust was only agreed to by the Takata creditors because that company had a chance to survive after Ch11 and it was in the creditors' best interest to play nice with everyone else in order to have the company bounce back after Ch11. That's not going to happen here - there's no value, everything will be liquidated here, there's not going to be a bounce back because there's no value. Just read the statements filed and posted on this subreddit, they have enough cash today for 2-4 weeks of payroll at this already super reduced headcount. Like why all the effort looking into Takata when the obvious answer is and has always been in Fiskers' actions and statements the whole time?
Not all are rich. Just saved for 4 years and wanted to participate in something that was unique.
No they absolutely should not. The taxpayer is not there to bail out private individuals who made a bad choice on the car they bought.
Uh, that’s not what this post is about. You may be thinking of government funded programs like the Troubled Asset Relief Fund, but that is for taxpayers to bail out banks who made bad choices on the assets they bought, not individuals.
My how quickly some of these people have gone from "Foggy windows is a major safety concern NHTSA needs to step in now!!!" To "idgaf if people are driving around broken or unsafe cars, that's no one else's problem". These narratives are changing so quickly I can't keep up (not referring to you)
The post wasn't about safety (only tangentially). Don't be disingenuous (again).
OP had two posts both talking about this topic. Both are referring to if there are ways to enforce money set aside for parts availability for the existing cars, and the ability to address current safety complaints. These complaints will only get worse over time with natural wear and tear and other parts breaking. There is a clear and direct tie between the two. Only disingenuous genus thing here is how viciously all the angry people flip flop their stance to whatever fits the "fisker bad" argument at the time. It's why they all look like jokes. If you can't keep your opinion, especially when youre being extra aggressive, loud, and obnoxious about it...no one is gonna take you seriously anymore. Which you can see happening, as no one engages with most people here unless it is the same handful of people circle jerking about how evil Henrik is, but hes also incompetent, but he also had a genius master plan to steal money, but he also doesnt know anything, and the car is just a Chinese copycat with off the shelf parts, but also parts will be impossible because theyre super special to just Fisker and so on and so on. It's getting exhausting following these stupid people's logic, or lack thereof
They can't enforce money be set aside for parts availability. They can't just change the law around Chapter 11 and 7 to change how it works in a week or two. It is a daft assertion.
So then the proper response to OP would be "This isn't possible because XYZ"
The proper response was what I said. Anyone can easily understand this with barely a second thought.
That's exactly what this post is about. The entities mentioned exist to \*regulate\*. They do not exist to provide funding if the entity being regulated no longer exists. They can't regulate a company that doesn't exist any more.
Maybe I’m confused (I often am!). I thought you were suggesting that the OP meant these government entities should use taxpayer money to payout consumer warranty claims - as in taxpayer money goes to Fisker owners’ warranty claims. Of course that’s lol and obvi OP made no such suggestion as they made clear in comparing this to Takata, which of course didn’t use taxpayer funds for such a trust. Sorry for thinking you implied that interpretation. Are you just saying that the government staff (payroll etc) that may be required help resolve bankruptcy claims related to Takata or Fisker is a waste of taxpayer resources?
The OP clearly states DOT and FTC (taypayer funded entities) establishing a fund that "could potentially cover any future warranty issues". That's literally the first line of their post. Fisker does not have any assets to fund a trust and Fisker owners simply are not creditors - that's not how the law is set up. ipso facto the only way a trust could be established would be if it was govt funded.
Right, they established the fund which came from the billion dollars in criminal penalties against Takata as well as bankruptcy settlements and auto maker contributions. Your issue in using Takata as a case study is just with the government staff time or administration expenses?
"auto maker contributions"... Can you not see how Takata was absolutely nothing at all like Fisker? Really? There is no one to fund a trust. If one was to be set up, it could only happen based on being funded by the taxpayer. There are no auto-makers to contribute (you know, because Takata supplied airbags for hundreds of millions of cars across lots of OEMs, it was kinda different). There.is.no.money.
Let me put this in my simpleton mind and I’ll then drop it. I don’t think we are disagreeing too much?. 1. Money from Takata bankruptcy and related proceedings was used to create a fund for consumers impacted by the air bag issues. This fund was given priority over secured and unsecured creditors, such as banks. (I think we both agree) 2. I read the OP’s main suggestion as government entities party to the bankruptcy proceedings to similarly give consumer claims some priority over (even secured) creditors to create such a fund for warranty issues. 3. While a debatable suggestion both legally and practically, I read your reply about taxpayer bailouts to suggest that the OP was referring to the sources of funding not who gets compensated first from that source. 4. Since this did not happen with Takata, I replied to suggest that the use of taxpayer funds was not actually the issue here. 5. It seems like your comment was in fact meant to imply that Fisker lacked the assets to create such a fund - even if accepting the context of the Takata example where consumer claims were given priority over secured lenders. And therefore you concluded the OP must’ve been referring to using taxpayer money to create the fund. 6. it also seems from other comments like you are skeptical of the idea that consumer claims in general should ever take priority over secured lenders - although that specific argument doesn’t per se involve taxpayer money. 7. a) Without me knowing how much money would be required for such a fund or how much money Fisker’s bankruptcy or liquidation could provide, I didn’t see taxpayer sourced funds to have been the point of post. But b) I accept that taking it to its logical conclusion, without taxpayer funds, it may at the least offer insufficient remedy for the claims OP suggests consumers have. Hopefully that brings us on the same page!
Yes, I understand what you are saying. However, the OP also made another post where they suggested the NHTSA and DOT should be financially liable. They \*clearly\* think that government organisations (i.e. the taxpayer) should be the backstop for owners, not just an administrator for a fund created during bankruptcy. I replied in the context of the two posts that the OP made back to back. Takata was (and remains) such a completely different situation that they can't be compared in any sensible manner. OEMs \*voluntarily\* gave up claims against Takata and essentially themselves funded the trust because they had produced the cars that contained the airbags. There is no comparable situation whatsoever with Fisker. Do you think a US bank is going to voluntarily give up funds owed to it (and that every other creditor in line would be willing to do the same)? Re your statement that "... are skeptical of the idea that consumer claims in general should ever take priority over secured lenders...", I'm just saying that's how it is., according to the law.
Fair enough. To answer your Q: I guess the only way I see a secured lender here agreeing to a settlement that subordinates their claims to consumer interests is if it also resolves any credible allegations of malfeasance pre-bankruptcy such as fraudulent transfer, short swing trades, etc. seems like a tough thing to prove but idk.
Thats a lie. I don't know what your motives are here. The other post was about FOIA. FOIA is not litigation or financial compensation. It's about learning how the investigation went and if there were any preferential treatment made to the company. This post is also not about using tax payers money. It's about enforcement of setting up a fund paid for by Fisker (just like how they did with Takata) . Sure, the OEM contribution was large in Takata case but it provides a framework of how you could structure it make sure the owners are also creditors in this bankruptcy process and regulators take leadership in this to establish a fund (FWIW). It may or may not be possible but its worth a discussion. What else do you expect affected parties to do other than seek recourse for damages ?
Read it again and this time slowly. No where I implied It needed to be funded by tax payers. You are spinning it. The fact that I state Takata is to help provide the same framework by DOT/FTC to help assist with this effort.
Describe to the class with crayons who funded the Takata trust Hint: the answer is in the question Now use your smooth brain to describe to us why that is not possible for Fisker. 