Canoo Bankruptcy Controversy: UK Investor Disputes Asset Sale Process
Is Canoo’s bankruptcy asset sale fair and transparent? That’s the pressing question driving headlines after UK-based investor Charles Garson contested the court-approved $4 million asset purchase by Canoo CEO Anthony Aquila. Garson, who offered a substantially higher $20 million bid, claims the bankruptcy process was flawed—prompting many to search for details about the Canoo sale dispute, who Charles Garson is, and whether Canoo’s assets were undervalued. This legal battle over a high-stakes EV startup's liquidation is sparking interest across the electric vehicle investment community, especially with its implications for bankruptcy court ethics, corporate governance, and high-value asset disputes.
Investor Alleges Flawed Process in Canoo’s Bankruptcy Sale
A high-value legal drama is unfolding in Delaware bankruptcy court after a relatively unknown London-based financier, Charles Garson, filed a motion to stop the asset sale of embattled EV startup Canoo. According to court documents, Garson offered $20 million—five times more than the $4 million in cash proposed by Canoo CEO Anthony Aquila. Aquila's offer also included forgiveness of $11 million in loans owed by Canoo to his own financial firm, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest and preferential treatment.
Garson argues that his superior bid was disregarded without due process. His motion to vacate the sale alleges misleading communication from the bankruptcy trustee, who had reportedly told him he had until the end of April to finalize his offer. Yet just days later, the sale was pushed through and closed on April 11, leaving Garson and other interested parties blindsided.
Harbinger Motors and Others Also Raise Red Flags
Garson isn't the only one objecting to the deal. Harbinger Motors, an electric truck startup founded by former Canoo employees, previously lodged its own objections before the judge approved the transaction. Though their protest was ultimately overruled, Harbinger has since appealed the decision—further fueling controversy around what some see as a rushed and possibly unjust sale process.
Legal analysts and high-net-worth investors are closely watching the case, not only for its implications on Canoo’s future, but also for how bankruptcy courts handle competing bids and manage asset sales that may involve insider relationships.
Who Is Charles Garson?
Despite being a central figure in this high-profile legal twist, very little is publicly known about Charles Garson. His LinkedIn profile places him in London, with a background in real estate investment. Records from the UK’s business registry show he’s a director at Garland Holdings Limited, a real estate investment company. His specific interest in Canoo or connections to the EV space remain unclear, and most documents supporting his motion to vacate have been sealed from public view.
However, Garson’s legal filing paints a picture of an investor who believed he was negotiating in good faith—only to have the rug pulled out from under him as the trustee allegedly fast-tracked the sale to Aquila.
Concerns Over Transparency and Foreign Investment
The situation is further complicated by hints of foreign investment scrutiny. Earlier court filings revealed that as many as eight interested parties signed non-disclosure agreements to explore Canoo’s assets. Only a handful moved forward with serious bids, and at least one group raised red flags with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) due to unspecified “foreign ownership.” It's unclear whether Garson’s bid was the one referenced, but the connection raises additional questions about regulatory oversight and national interest in high-tech U.S. assets.
What’s Next for Canoo and Its Legal Disputes?
As Canoo’s restructuring efforts continue under bankruptcy protection, the pending motion to vacate the sale may stall or potentially reverse Aquila’s acquisition. With millions of dollars, strategic intellectual property, and potential CFIUS involvement on the line, this isn’t just about one deal—it’s about how bankrupt companies, trustees, and courts handle competitive bidding and investor transparency.
Whether Garson’s $20 million bid will be reconsidered remains uncertain, but the fallout from this case could influence future EV startup bankruptcies, private equity bidding practices, and even legislative reforms in asset sale governance.
Post a Comment