TheEEStory.com

Commoncents --- I like you have never seen any EVIDENCE that KP was one of the redacted names of investors listed in the purchase agreement --- and I must disagree with Bill300 that we can "safely infer" that KP is one ---- I see no reason to believe that KP is or is not one ---- we don't know who these investors are --- we don't know how much stock they own -- it could be a lot or a tiny amount --- we just don't know --- what we do know is that they are not party to the purchase agreement --- they didn't sign it --- but their rights to buy stock (contained in other private contracts or agreements, the details of which we don't know) were effected by the EESTOR/ZENN purchase agreement ---
we also know that ZENN has stated that none of the redacted investors chose to purchase stock when ZENN initially bought stock in 2007

We also know that KP owns "20 something %" according to DW's audio tape -- which tells me they have certainly made more that the 3 mil. previously discussed -- but when and how much we don't know

I've got my own new theory, which I think is plausible, and pretty smart. Who is to say that KP has another type of deal. Maybe they are going to become the primary lending vehicle for all of the different EEStor licensing companies. For instance, today maybe they invest in 20% of EEStor. Maybe they don't want to give up more, but they offer up a list of 10 or so companies that will get exclusive rights to particular markets of EESU usage.

For instance, a new "power tool" company, that provides EESU licensing to all power tool companies, would be an excellent VC investment. No risk, if you think the tech works, and then you essentially get a portion of sale for every power tool sold.

Just imagine if they did this for each viable EESU market? They could get returns on sales of just about anything that uses a battery. Pretty good upside, if you ask me.

What would be better, a slightly bigger chunk of the top, or a big chunk of every level?

---

sully, that is what I was kind of getting at with my questions of the price of common stock vrs. prefered stock. Even though we know KP owns at least 20% of EEStor do we know that they spent more than the $3,000,000 to get it? If that is all they spent and they think EEStor has the "goods" but are not sure of the integrety of the patents maybe they were just happy to stand pat.

Bill300 wrote:

Eeventually, Fiskar is not public. Th!nk Global may be traded in Norway, not sure, but KP is an owner of Th!nk North America.

Bill, I believe KP divested themselves of Th!nk NA several months back.

---

Innovator wrote:

I like the other explanation better, that KP is already maxed out at 20% investment and DW won't allow them to have more of his company. This theory also explains why DW has enough money to build the production line.

It is quite possible that KP never signed a NDA (as company policy) and doesn't know any more than we do. They are in the business of taking risks.

I do not share the same euphoria as some other believers, that EEStor will change the world. It will only have a large impact if it is MUCH cheaper than batteries, since there is the additional cost of the variable DC/DC converter. GM pays LG Chem $500/kwh for their Volt batteries. At this price GM loses money on the sale of the car, and only does so in anticipation of much lower prices in the future. A vast majority of people will not buy electric cars until the price difference (to gas powered) is negligible.

I only classified myself as a believer since I read mounting evidence that the production line is real.

GM pays LG Chem $1,000 per usable kwh for their Volt batteries.

---

hbert --- If I had to guess --- and it would be just a guess -- i think KP probably paid more than 3 mil for 20+% -- probably in several installments over the last few years -- remember IC said that KP came in after ZENN did --- as EEv pointed out in another thread --
http://www.zenncars.com/media/documents/globean...
at the end of the interview

"We have a unique relationship with them because I got it at the angel-investor level. If I'd met them after Kleiner, we wouldn't be having this conversation"

hbert wrote:

Does anybody know the price per share of EEStor common stock?

EEStor is a private company and it is not listed on any exchange. Therefore there is no published price based upon actual transactions for the preferred shares. Hence no price. If someone wanted to buy stock in EEStor, they (or an agent of theirs) would have to contact an existing owner and begin a negotiation to try to arrive at a price, assuming that any existing owner even wanted to sell. Somewhere in all of this, I would imagine that EEStor would have to agree that the new owner was acceptable to them. Also, it is likely that the stock would have to be first offered to EEStor, the other shareholders and/or the Weir family who may well hold the rights of first refusal.

If the question were 'what is the price of the preferred vs the common stock,' this would be a function of the price of the common modified by whatever preferences were afforded along with the shares of preferred stock. No telling without reading the underlying documentation regarding the preferred stock exactly what preferences exist.

evnow wrote:

Any time you have to use multiple conspiracy / inside deal theories to explain someone's behaviour in business (unlike politics) - there would be a simpler explanation that is more probable. Like KP thinking this EESU thing is not real / commercializable.

Except for the fact that these multiple conspiracy / inside deals are frequent and well documented throughout history and to the present day. They are a ubiquitous aspect of business.

---

Innovator wrote:

Bill300, Ah yes, of course since KP must be on the board.

This is another issue I've tried to get a definitive answer on before. Do either of you know, according to American corporate law, whether a director of a company has a legal right of access to any and all facets of the business? In other words, could Dick keep a secret from Mike Long (who is closely tied to KP) if he didn't want him to know?

---

sully wrote:

hbert --- If I had to guess --- and it would be just a guess -- i think KP probably paid more than 3 mil for 20+% -- probably in several installments over the last few years -- remember IC said that KP came in after ZENN did --- as EEv pointed out in another thread --
http://www.zenncars.com/media/documents/globean...
at the end of the interview


"We have a unique relationship with them because I got it at the angel-investor level. If I'd met them after Kleiner, we wouldn't be having this conversation"

Also, keep in mind that Kleiner invested at a time when the valuation of the entire EEStor company was only a few million dollars. It is arguable that today the valuation of EEStor might be greater than it was when Kleiner bought in. Perhaps a lot greater. But then if you asked ee-tom, zawy, Po,tec or a couple of others, it might be a lot less.

Last edited Sun, 02 Aug 2009, 11:12pm by Goooose4

Daniel R Plante wrote:

Except for the fact that these multiple conspiracy / inside deals are frequent and well documented throughout history and to the present day. They are a ubiquitous aspect of business.

What would be a similar example in the last two decades ?

---

Innovator wrote:

It is quite possible that KP never signed a NDA (as company policy) and doesn't know any more than we do. They are in the business of taking risks.

I find it difficult to beleive a VC firm won't sign NDA - considering they will be dealing with potential competetors all the time.

Anyone has experience with this ?

---

YUP,

No one - and I mean no-one - would ever appoint a director to ANY business if that director did not have free and open access to all material information. In the case of a VC appointed director, they are there to ensure the VC's interests are protected and they must also provide a flow of information to their masters.

It is not unusual for management to try to keep one director or more in the dark over certain activities. Then woe betide them if the matter is material and the directors ever get wind of it:-) Managers always try to justify non-disclosure as being due to lack of materiality. Sometimes that works. Sometimes it doesn't.

I can just about guarantee that the inflexibility of dealing with a VC appointed director is more likely to keep DW awake at night than "his writing patents".

I do know about such matters, although completely ignorant about what is going on at either EEStor or ZMC.

evnow,

Yes, I do have experience with VC investors. They generally refuse, but if your deal is the flavor of the month and there is a lot of competition, they will sign an NDA. It is all about the timing. When KP invested, I am not sure of the market climate in this sector.

Further, KP is the gold standard here in Silicon Valley. They play by different rules, meaning they may never have signed an NDA. They are not the snakes that many of their competitors are, but they are not Eagle scouts either.

Dan,

That is stunning to me. The investment was reported in April 2008 and they were still on board in March 2009. It is very unlike a VC to bail out so soon.

Any ideas on why?

no chance of IPO. I suspect loading MT into the mix (then out, then in again) on the board was intended to alter the business plan such that an IPO would be necessary. When DW says "we stopped being a VC company" the more accurate statement might be "we never intended to have a model that fully benefits how VC's make their money."

---

Bill300 wrote:

Dan,

That is stunning to me. The investment was reported in April 2008 and they were still on board in March 2009. It is very unlike a VC to bail out so soon.

Any ideas on why?

This is the only mention of it I've ever seen (from autobloggreen, March 12, 2009):

"Originally, Th!nk North America was established as a joint venture with Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers (25 percent) and Rockport Capital (25 percent). Parent company Th!nk Global owned 50 percent, but then reacquired all of the Th!nk NA shares from the other partners in a non-cash transaction."

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/03/12/think-c...

I have no idea why they would bail so soon, or even if this article was in error and a retraction never printed. I was kind of surprised as well when I first read it. It doesn't say when the buy-back happened either.

---

I didn't think too much of the idea when I first read it but KP wanting to be good friends with IC makes sense. Their other investments in electric car companies can pay off pretty quickly with an eesu popped in. And they will need preference to get the first production runs of the eesu and whoever gets the first ones is going to have a big headstart on the rest of the industry. Along the same line of thinking, maybe Chrysler in its now downsized state will be a possible takeover target for either KP or IC. They have shown three planned evs and don't have the money to invest in heavey battery research so the eesu is the answer to a prayer for them.