More

Solyndra Bankruptcy: Were Early Warnings Ignored?

Solyndra

  First Posted: 09/14/11 02:39 PM ET Updated: 11/14/11 05:12 AM ET

This article comes to us courtesy of California Watch.

By Daniel J. Goldstein

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House investigators looking into the failure of Fremont-based Solyndra are likely to focus on why the Obama administration kept giving the troubled solar panel manufacturer taxpayer cash amid multiple warning signs that the company was in serious trouble – including shelving plans to go public and the company's own auditor warning that Solyndra might need to file for Chapter 11 protection.

“You had this cascading series of bad news at Solyndra,” said Salo Zelermyer, a lawyer who helped set up the Department of Energy's loan guarantee program in 2006 when Solyndra first applied for federal help.

Zelermyer, now with Bracewell & Giuliani in Washington, D.C., said House investigators likely will focus on whether last-second efforts by the Department of Energy to save the company showed the Obama administration knew more about Solyndra's troubles than they let on.

“This is going to be the major focus of the House committee's work,” he said.

Jonathan Silver, the Department of Energy's head of the loan guarantee program, along with Jeffrey Zients, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, are scheduled to testify today. Brian Harrison, Solyndra's president and CEO, along with W.G. Stover Jr., the company's chief financial officer, will testify next week after saying they would not be able to appear today.

The oversight panel of the House Energy and Commerce Committee will probe the sudden demise of the solar manufacturing company touted by President Barack Obama during a May 2010 visit as “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” The committee already has requested all the correspondence between the White House and Department of Energy regarding Solyndra.

Solyndra produced cylindrical panels that convert sunlight into electricity using an advanced thin-film technology based on copper indium gallium diselenide, which included no silicone, typically the biggest expense in photovoltaic cell manufacturing.

The company filed for bankruptcy earlier this month, citing more than $783 million in debt, including more than $527 million owed to the federal government. FBI agents raided the Fremont-based company last week and searched executives' homes. An FBI spokeswoman declined to comment on the investigation.

“Solyndra was the hallmark of the president's green jobs program and widely promoted by the administration as a stimulus success story, right up until its bankruptcy and FBI raid,” Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., said in a joint statement before the hearing.

“We had a sense Solyndra was a bad bet from the beginning and its failure raises significant red flags for the entire loan guarantee program,” the two Republicans said.

Solyndra received $535 million in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy in fall 2009, as part of the Obama administration's effort to fund green energy startups under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. But shortly after Obama visited the company in May 2010, Solyndra shelved plans for a $300 million initial public offering and shut down its initial production line, laying off more than 100 workers.

And just two years after receiving the loan, Solyndra closed its doors for good and laid off more than 1,100 workers. The company cited intense competition from China and a drop in silicone costs, which made more traditional products offered by its competitors more affordable.

“Solyndra was the flagship of the Recovery Act green energy loans, and it is often a warning sign when a company delays a liquidity event,” said Kevin Book, an analyst with ClearView Energy Partners in Washington, D.C., who follows green energy financing. “The withdrawal of the planned public stock offering should have occasioned further due diligence” by the Energy Department, he said.

But some question whether that was actually done.

Frank Rusco, an investigator with the Government Accountability Office, who warned the Department of Energy that its loan guarantee program had oversight issues in 2010, said more questions are likely to be asked on how the company was approved for a loan by the government in the first place, despite a history of losses.

“DOE had not followed the processes they held themselves to,” Rusco said in an interview. “We found that very troubling.”

At the same time Rusco's report came out, Solyndra began to run into trouble as the price of silicone dropped and competitors' products become more affordable.

Solyndra's auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, warned in a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission that “the company suffered recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows ... raise(s) substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern,” auditor-speak for a potential failure of the company.

Even as the Energy Department had warned Solyndra in fall 2010 that it would cut off federal financing unless the company worked out new arrangements with its private investors, the taxpayer cash continued to pour in.

According to the Department of the Treasury's Federal Financing Bank records, Solyndra borrowed more than $80 million from October 2010 to February 2011, while the last-ditch private financing round was arranged.

“There were some warning signs,” Bracewell's Zelermyer said. “The company's management was going around Congress at the time saying they were in stable condition, but who was vetting that? Clearly, DOE and OMB were aware that all was not right.”

House members also are likely to question why interest rates for the Solyndra loans on average were sometimes a full percentage point lower than comparable Energy Department loans to other companies. The interest rate averaged about 1.5 percent, compared with other companies, such as Colorado-based Abound Solar Inc., which received a $400 million loan guarantee that year from the Energy Department, but at an interest rate more than double that of Solyndra's.

“With taxpayers potentially on the hook for this half-billion dollar bust, it’s time to sound the alarm about the remaining $10 billion in loan guarantees set to expire September 30. Let’s learn the lessons of Solyndra before another dollar goes out the door,” Upton said in his joint statement.

The questions over the Department of Energy's dealings with Solyndra's final-round financials also may have a cruel twist for taxpayers. In February, the department approved a last-ditch controversial arrangement by Solyndra's private investors to inject an additional $75 million into the struggling company to stave off bankruptcy. In return, the Energy Department gave up the right of “first lien” to the private investors, meaning they would be paid back first over taxpayers, should the company default on its loan, which it did.

“This was the last remaining hope for Solyndra to survive,” Zelermyer said.

With a first lien, the Energy Department would have had first dibs on all the hard assets, equipment, even licensed Solyndra's technology to other companies or taken over and operated the plant itself, if the company went bankrupt and defaulted on its loans.

“As it turns out, not only did the company go bankrupt, these investors are going to get paid before the taxpayer does," Zelermyer said.

Daniel J. Goldstein is an investigative reporter for California Watch, a project of the non-profit Center for Investigative Reporting. Find more California Watch stories here.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST SAN FRANCISCO

This article comes to us courtesy of California Watch. By Daniel J. Goldstein WASHINGTON, D.C. – House investigators looking into the failure of Fremont-based Solyndra are likely to focus on w...
This article comes to us courtesy of California Watch. By Daniel J. Goldstein WASHINGTON, D.C. – House investigators looking into the failure of Fremont-based Solyndra are likely to focus on w...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 27
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
olerealist
retired trial attorney; former member of VA abd Wa
11:07 AM on 09/16/2011
WHAT DO WE LEARN FROM THE GOVERNMENTS FIASCO IN THE SOLAR PANEL INVESTMENT?

First look at the episode from a larger prospective. The government (Dept. of Energy) saw that Solyndra Inc. was in dire financial straits and assumed that it could “bail it out”. This turned out to be throwing “good money after bad, a mistake indeed, causing a loss of several million dollars. At least one executive of the DOE should be fired.

However, this Solyndra Inc. episode should be viewed in a broader prospective by comparing the loss to maybe a trillion dollar group of errors made by our PRIVATE financial and banking community during the latter part of the last decade.

But we can learn from it. This solar panel Co. had a completely unproven record. We need to look back at the experience of the internet. In the beginning this venture required risky investment in a new area. It was very innovative and non-profitable in its early developmental stage. No responsible private firms could afford or were willing to take the risk at the is early stage. Only the government by DIRECT CONTROL AND OPERATION could sponsor and operate the project and succeeded.

Going back to earlier times we see an example by way the federally operasted Tenn. Valley Authority finding innovative paths in hydroelectric power generation. The list is long of enterprises which PRIVATE industry could not have gotten us past the early developmental stages.

Solar energy development is in this category.
photo
KOisGod
To thine own self be true
08:00 PM on 09/15/2011
I watched Solyndra new plant go up. A massive, state of the art facility on 880. Seeing this whole thing go down is sad and maddening. It gives the green movement a black eye and makes President Obama's drive to promote the green economy look like a farce.

Meanwhile, the Asia markets are rushing to install solar, as is Europe. US? We'll just point fingers and claim Green is another scam via Washington.
photo
Barbarian At The Gate
Fortune favors the bold.
08:11 AM on 09/17/2011
The pro-fossil fuel crowd is using Solyndra as an example to vilify the whole industry. The truth is solar energy works. Solyndra used non-silicon thin-film cylindrical shaped solar cells. The technology, when patent protected, could have proved to be very lucrative. Think of Apple becoming the top smartphone vendor and suing Samsung to stop producing similar phones.

In 2008 the cost of silicon was very high and Solyndra's technology made it attractive as an investment to venture capitalists. By 2010-2011 the price of silicon dropped 50% giving Solyndra's competitors a better edge.

There are other U.S. based solar panel producers that have advanced to their IPO stage and are still making competitive products. Hopefully no one tries the whole Green Energy industry in the U.S.
photo
mikey09
Living off the grid.
10:10 AM on 09/15/2011
This kind of mess does not help advance the cause for alternative energy...I read somewhere that this loan was shelved by the DOE in early Jan 2009, and was then fast tracked after Obama took office....probably a wishfull thinking srt of decision. This kind of mess also does NOT lend confidence by voters to the management of our money in DC....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chumbles
Ex Repub who woke up
11:30 PM on 09/14/2011
Almost as bad as the 9 billion cash , shrink wrapped on pallets that was shipped to Iraq and disappeared without a trace, that Obama jeez...Oh wait that was Bush! Oh nevermind then, it's alright........
photo
mikey09
Living off the grid.
10:11 AM on 09/15/2011
Just MORE proof that DC is a bad steward of our money...no matter who sits in the WH.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Karelh
When fact is fiction and TV reality
11:16 PM on 09/14/2011
This whole investigation is a farce. If the Obama administration had any sense they need to frame the argument:
"We made an investment in an American company to create American jobs in the belief that they had a new technology that could be grown and expanded. In hind-site the investment didn't come to fruition, but the intent was always to promote the domestic growth of new technologies to spur our economy forward and promote a business climate that provides access to well paying jobs to Americans."

Now if the congress feels the need to investigate, why not start with the billions in lost cash that are unaccounted for in Iraq and Afghanistan.
03:51 AM on 09/15/2011
A business plan to make a product for $6 then sell for $3 is a plan to fail. This was in Solyndra's business plan and to make a loan guarantee to a company who is planning to fail is not just bad judgment. Solyndra knew before the ground breaking that China had discovered a cheaper way to make these panels and would be selling them for as little as $1-$2 but the administration went ahead with the loan so they could get some photo ops.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Karelh
When fact is fiction and TV reality
08:51 AM on 09/15/2011
The business plan and whether is was good or not was not my point. Obviously it wasn't. The point was to change the framing of the argument to an investment in American and American workers.

And the real question is why do we let the Chinese with their slave labor sell their crap in OUR country for $2, but we can barely import a damn thing into their country at any price....that is the real crime to the american worker!
photo
Barbarian At The Gate
Fortune favors the bold.
08:30 AM on 09/17/2011
Solyndra had a manufacturing facility called Fab 1. They were building another facility called Fab 2 that would be completed in 2 phases. I'm sure the plan was to improve their manufacturing efficiency by building the 2nd plant. Their plan would never be to sell at 1/2 the cost of manufacturing forever. Solyndra's technology was proprietary and current.

China didn't discover a cheaper way to build solar panels. They increased their manufacturing facilities and scale of operations. They used older technology that works but may not be better. The price of raw materials they used dropped.

It is sad to think we should let China make everything and we will be dependent on them. The Germans had rocket and jet technology before the U.S. did but the U.S.A. still developed their own technology. The Russians put humans into outer space before the U.S. but the U.S. continued the space race anyway.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mappy3
Political, dog loving, junkie.
12:02 PM on 09/15/2011
Exactly! Finally, a rational thought. I have also wondered where Everyone was during the Iraq $1.3 Trillion fiasco and the collapse of our Financial Institutions during the Bush years.
Instead, everyone is piling on President Obama as you state was making an "Investment in an American Company"...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
10:36 PM on 09/14/2011
Another Obama success story of using the government as a bank for feel-good liberal programs.
mothergrace
If they knock you down, bite 'em on the ankle.
07:54 PM on 09/14/2011
Am I supposed to take an article seriously that keeps using the word "silicone" for "silicon?"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
danholmes
In the end, it doesn't matter
07:13 PM on 09/15/2011
Must've been the LA writers... =)
04:02 PM on 09/14/2011
A big story the liberal media is doing its best to ignore.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Orange Digit
05:10 PM on 09/14/2011
Which you read on the liberal media. IDIOT!
02:33 PM on 09/14/2011
The phrase "Watermelon Environmentalists" comes to mind: green on the outside, Red on the inside.
03:51 PM on 09/14/2011
The loans weren't based on race rather campaign donations.
04:16 PM on 09/14/2011
What a bumpkin. Green as in money - red as in "red ink". Green projects have been global losers. Where does race come from?
07:32 PM on 09/15/2011
F&F!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan J S
USMC 89-93, Northwestern MBA 2006
02:30 PM on 09/14/2011
Democrats investing. Geez, what could go wrong?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mappy3
Political, dog loving, junkie.
12:03 PM on 09/15/2011
Yep, when we have the conservatives starting wars that they walk away from after 8 years to the tune of $1.5 Trillion. What the heck, huh?
What could go wrong with that?????
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan J S
USMC 89-93, Northwestern MBA 2006
12:44 PM on 09/15/2011
You mean that democrats voted for?