Connect with us

Business

SEC has issued a subpoena to bankrupt carmaker Fisker, indicating possible probe

Published

on

SEC has issued a subpoena to bankrupt carmaker Fisker, indicating possible probe

Fisker Inc. has received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission, indicating the bankrupt Southern California electric vehicle maker could be under investigation by Wall Street’s top cop, according to a court filing.

SEC subpoenas, which typically seek either records or testimony, are confidential, but a mention of the agency’s demand for information was included in a U.S. Bankruptcy Court filing this week in Delaware, where the troubled automaker filed for Chapter 11 protection on June 18 under a heavy debt load. The subpoena was included in a list of ongoing legal proceedings against Fisker; the filing did not provide any details about why the agency issued the subpoena.

As the company’s stock price has plummeted, shareholders have experienced large stock losses. Fisker is a defendant in a pending shareholder class-action lawsuit and five shareholder derivative complaints regarding a sharp drop in its stock price last fall. Derivative suits are filed by shareholders on behalf of the company and typically accuse officers or directors of wrongdoing.

Shaneeda Jaffer, a white-collar defense attorney at Benesch in San Francisco, said that although it’s an “absolute possibility” that Fisker is the target of an investigation, the agency also issues subpoenas to parties that might be able to provide information about other probes.

“Or you could be a subject of an investigation where you haven’t necessarily been put in either of those buckets. Companies and individuals receive subpoenas from the SEC all the time,” she said.

Advertisement

If wrongdoing is found, SEC investigations can lead to civil allegations or referrals to the Department of Justice for potential criminal investigation and possible charges.

A spokesperson for the agency said it does not comment on whether it is conducting an investigation. Fisker also declined to comment.

Fisker, based in Manhattan Beach until it moved to Orange County earlier this year, was founded in 2016 by auto designer Henrik Fisker. It went public in 2020 amid a surge of investor interest in electric vehicles, raising about $1 billion in capital, and was valued at close to $8 billion a year later.

Fisker’s stock reached an all-time high of $31.96 in March 2021 before dropping below $10 the next year and falling off a cliff late last year to under $2 a share. It now trades for less than a penny.

Last year, it released its first model, an SUV called the Ocean that was intended to compete with Tesla’s Model Y. But it had trouble meeting production goals at its contract manufacturer in Austria and delivering the vehicles to customers. The car also was plagued by software glitches. The company was reportedly in talks this year with Nissan to build a pickup truck domestically but failed to reach an agreement.

Advertisement

The lawsuits similarly allege that Henrik Fisker, the company’s chairman and chief executive; his wife, Geeta Gupta-Fisker, the company’s co-founder and chief financial and operating officer; and others, including board members, violated their fiduciary duties and/or securities laws. The company declined comment.

The allegations generally stem from a series of events that began with a news release issued in August 2023 that stated Fisker would produce up to 23,000 Oceans that year. However, it disclosed in November that in the third quarter it had built only 4,725 of the vehicles, with 1,097 delivered to customers.

The company also announced in November that its third-quarter results would be delayed due to the departure of its chief accounting officer, whose replacement resigned within days. When it released the results, Fisker said it had to make “material adjustments” to its financials and had identified a “material weakness in internal controls.” The company’s share price fell that month by more than half, to less than $2.

James Lucas, 52, a Fisker shareholder who said he lost more than $100,000 investing in the company, said shareholders also are angry over a series of media appearances by Henrik Fisker during which he touted the company’s prospects, even as its fortunes declined.

“There were a lot of comments made by mostly Henrik Fisker that had these kind of broad visions about the number of vehicles that were going to be produced. Whether it was just a failure to execute, who knows,” said the L.A. County resident. “As an investor you take senior managers’ word on a lot of things.”

Advertisement

Lucas, who participates in a Telegram group of Fisker investors, said he has filed complaints with the SEC against Fisker citing multiple issues and believes other aggrieved investors also have done so.

In March 2023, before the company had released the Ocean, Fisker boasted on CNBC that the automaker would make money on the first cars it shipped because its vehicle was being built by its contract manufacturer. “I can just sit counting the cash,” he said during the interview, which included a projection that Fisker would sell 1 million cars in 2027.

One year later on March 1, Fisker told an interviewer on Bloomberg TV that the company would “conservatively” deliver 20,000 to 22,000 to a new dealer network it had decided to put together. “In fact, we have a few dealers telling us, are you sure you can deliver us enough cars because we think we can sell more cars than what you’re offering us right now,” he said.

That same day, he told Yahoo Finance that he was confident the share price would rise above $1 a share to avoid being delisted from the New York Stock Exchange. “I feel very optimistic about our future,” he said. The shares were delisted the next month.

Fisker produced only somewhat more than 10,000 vehicles before it filed for bankruptcy.

Advertisement

With the stock now trading for less than a penny in bankruptcy, Henrik Fisker has suffered big losses too, with his stake in the company worth little to nothing. But he also sold about $20 million worth of stock in 2021 well before the steep decline.

The company said that Henrik Fisker was not speaking to the media.

Andrew Fiorella, a securities litigator in Cleveland also at Benesch, said it was highly unlikely Fisker shareholders would be able to recover their losses, given that secured debt holders and others with claims against the bankrupt company have priority over common shareholders.

“There’s almost certainly going to be nothing left at the end of the day,” he said.

Fisker is not the only California startup electric vehicle maker that has experienced troubles amid a sales slowdown that is at least partially attributable to a rise in interest rates that has made financing more costly.

Advertisement

Rivian in Irvine and Lucid in the Bay Area, which both went public in 2021, also have seen sharp price declines as the hype over EVs has faded. However, each company has deep-pocketed institutional investors, and both are still operating.

Business

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon

Published

on

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon

President Trump on Friday directed federal agencies to stop using technology from San Francisco artificial intelligence company Anthropic, escalating a high-profile clash between the AI startup and the Pentagon over safety.

In a Friday post on the social media site Truth Social, Trump described the company as “radical left” and “woke.”

“We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again!” Trump said.

The president’s harsh words mark a major escalation in the ongoing battle between some in the Trump administration and several technology companies over the use of artificial intelligence in defense tech.

Anthropic has been sparring with the Pentagon, which had threatened to end its $200-million contract with the company on Friday if it didn’t loosen restrictions on its AI model so it could be used for more military purposes. Anthropic had been asking for more guarantees that its tech wouldn’t be used for surveillance of Americans or autonomous weapons.

Advertisement

The tussle could hobble Anthropic’s business with the government. The Trump administration said the company was added to a sweeping national security blacklist, ordering federal agencies to immediately discontinue use of its products and barring any government contractors from maintaining ties with it.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who met with Anthropic’s Chief Executive Dario Amodei this week, criticized the tech company after Trump’s Truth Social post.

“Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon,” he wrote Friday on social media site X.

Anthropic didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Anthropic announced a two-year agreement with the Department of Defense in July to “prototype frontier AI capabilities that advance U.S. national security.”

Advertisement

The company has an AI chatbot called Claude, but it also built a custom AI system for U.S. national security customers.

On Thursday, Amodei signaled the company wouldn’t cave to the Department of Defense’s demands to loosen safety restrictions on its AI models.

The government has emphasized in negotiations that it wants to use Anthropic’s technology only for legal purposes, and the safeguards Anthropic wants are already covered by the law.

Still, Amodei was worried about Washington’s commitment.

“We have never raised objections to particular military operations nor attempted to limit use of our technology in an ad hoc manner,” he said in a blog post. “However, in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values.”

Advertisement

Tech workers have backed Anthropic’s stance.

Unions and worker groups representing 700,000 employees at Amazon, Google and Microsoft said this week in a joint statement that they’re urging their employers to reject these demands as well if they have additional contracts with the Pentagon.

“Our employers are already complicit in providing their technologies to power mass atrocities and war crimes; capitulating to the Pentagon’s intimidation will only further implicate our labor in violence and repression,” the statement said.

Anthropic’s standoff with the U.S. government could benefit its competitors, such as Elon Musk’s xAI or OpenAI.

Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and one of Anthropic’s biggest competitors, told CNBC in an interview that he trusts Anthropic.

Advertisement

“I think they really do care about safety, and I’ve been happy that they’ve been supporting our war fighters,” he said. “I’m not sure where this is going to go.”

Anthropic has distinguished itself from its rivals by touting its concern about AI safety.

The company, valued at roughly $380 billion, is legally required to balance making money with advancing the company’s public benefit of “responsible development and maintenance of advanced AI for the long-term benefit of humanity.”

Developers, businesses, government agencies and other organizations use Anthropic’s tools. Its chatbot can generate code, write text and perform other tasks. Anthropic also offers an AI assistant for consumers and makes money from paid subscriptions as well as contracts. Unlike OpenAI, which is testing ads in ChatGPT, Anthropic has pledged not to show ads in its chatbot Claude.

The company has roughly 2,000 employees and has revenue equivalent to about $14 billion a year.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

Published

on

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

In mapping out Elon Musk’s wealth, our investigation found that Mr. Musk is behind more than 90 companies in Texas. Kirsten Grind, a New York Times Investigations reporter, explains what her team found.

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Published

on

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.

If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.

All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.

But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.

That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.

Advertisement

The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.

— Katie Martin, Financial Times

Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.

Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.

Advertisement

Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.

But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.

Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.

That hasn’t been the case for months.

”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”

Advertisement

Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.

Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.

It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.

Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”

Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”

Advertisement

Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.

Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.

“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”

I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.

To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.

Advertisement

Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.

The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.

It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.

That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.

Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending