Again: Solyndra scandal based entirely on fiction.

Post Reply New Topic

Politifact? The Tampa Bay Times? Truth-out? These are all lefty orgs. If you don't believe me, search newsbusters dot org .

CLAIM: The Weekly Standard wrote that in the final days of the Bush administration, "OMB [Office of Management and Budget] 'remanded' the application back to DOE for further review and modification. As when the Supreme Court remands a case to lower courts for reconsideration, this step is usually tantamount to killing the application."

FACTS: The Department of Energy's loan guarantee credit committee, not the OMB, remanded the application, saying that that although the Solyndra project "appears to have merit," the committee needed more information. The loan programs staff -- still under the Bush administration -- subsequently developed a schedule to complete Solyndra's due diligence that would approve the conditional commitment in early March 2009 and close it by April 2009. Even FoxNews.com reported that "the Bush officials were still weighing the decision on a loan right up until the handover to the Obama administration." In March the credit committee, staffed with the same career officials that previously remanded the application, recommended approval.

-----

CLAIM: The Weekly Standard claimed: "In March 2009 DOE granted Solyndra's revised application with a 'conditional commitment' for the loan -- one of the first out of the chute -- which is merely the first hurdle to final approval, even though an OMB staffer wrote in an email that 'This deal is NOT ready for prime time.'"

FACTS: The "prime time" email concerned the timing of an announcement, not the merit of the loan guarantee. In response to an email about a potential announcement of the Solyndra loan during the President's visit to California on March 19, 2009, the analyst argued that the presidential announcement should not be made before the loan deal was completed. The email argued that "This deal is NOT ready for prime time" because there were more steps to be completed before the loan guarantee could be finalized -- namely, OMB had to review the credit rating and Solyndra needed to raise an additional $200 million in private capital. President Obama did not announce the Solyndra deal, as the email recommended; the Energy Department announced the conditional commitment in a press release. After the loan guarantee was finalized in September, Vice President Joe Biden announced it via satellite.

-----

CLAIM: The Weekly Standard stated: "DOE staff noted that a credit-rating agency had warned that Solyndra would run out of cash by September 2011."

FACTS: According to the Department of Energy, the email did not warn that Solyndra would run out of cash, but rather that a subsidiary of Solyndra - the "Fab 2 Project company" - "was projected to have relatively low levels of cash in one particular month, and that the parent company would need to make up any potential shortfall." The DOE added that the analysis also showed "the project having millions of dollars in cash the next month, and multiples of that by the end of January of 2012."

-----

CLAIM: The Weekly Standard stated that "the Department of Energy capitulated with a questionable restructuring of the loan guarantee in February of this year that put equity investors ahead of taxpayers in the event of a bankruptcy liquidation, an unorthodox move that may have violated the law. Solyndra argued that the debt subordination was necessary if Solyndra was going to succeed in attracting more private capital. George Kaiser came through with another $75 million, but it clearly wasn't enough."

FACTS: Several private investors, including both Argonaut Venture Capital, a subsidiary of the George Kaiser Family Foundation, and Madrone Capital Partners, which is tied to the Walton family, provided the $75 million in emergency financing. The Walton family is a major donor to Republicans. The New York Times reported that bankruptcy experts "said the decision made by the energy Department in February is routine in the commercial world."

-----

CLAIM: The Weekly Standard criticized DOE's decision to allow Solyndra to restructure the loan, asserting that "Taxpayers would likely have received more of their money back if the plug had been pulled back in February."

FACTS: The Weekly Standard provides no evidence to support this claim. The Department of Energy expects recovery of taxpayer money to be greater due to the restructuring. DOE official Jonathan Silver told Congress that they "determined, as part of the restructuring, that the facility would be more valuable, even in the event of a future liquidation, once complete." Dow Jones' VentureWire also reported at the time that the DOE "squeezed the terms of its loan in its favor" so "that it is now secured by all the assets of the company, including Solyndra's intellectual property."

-----

CLAIM: The Weekly Standard stated of the loan guarantee program: "[T]he bulk of the loan guarantees are for renewable energy and politically trendy outfits like Tesla Motors ($465 million), which is producing a sporty high performance all-electric roadster that you, too, can own for the base sticker price of $109,000."

FACTS: DOE granted Tesla a loan guarantee not to produce its roadster, but to build a factory in California for the production of its lower-priced Model S electric sedan. The loan guarantee portfolio includes nuclear, biofuel, solar generation, solar manufacturing, wind generation, geothermal and efficiency projects. The largest loan guarantees went to Georgia Power Company for nuclear reactors; Ford for upgrades to factories and fuel efficiency technologies; and Areva for a uranium enrichment facility.

-----

CLAIM: The Weekly Standard stated: "The 'green tech' bubble is already bursting; even the New York Times has noticed, with a story in mid-August under the headline 'Number of Green Jobs Fails to Live Up to Promises.' There are actually fewer 'clean tech' jobs in Silicon Valley today than 10 years ago, according to a recent Brookings Institution study."

FACTS: Like the Times article, The Weekly Standard missed Brookings' distinction between "clean economy" jobs, and a smaller portion of those jobs that are in clean technology. The Brookings Institution found that the "clean economy" in the San Jose metropolitan area lost 492 jobs between 2003 and 2010. However, a Brookings Institution researcher explained via email that that clean technology jobs in the area "increased from 2,705 to 6,638" and "grew at an annual rate of 11.9 percent." Just as the Times article cherry-picked the statistic from the South Bay without context, The Weekly Standard does not note that in the surrounding San Francisco Bay Area, clean economy jobs grew from 36,027 to 51,811 and clean technology jobs grew from 9,625 to 13,917.

Wow, you're just going further and further left. If FC was centrist (it isn't), MM would be center-left.

Critics continue to selectively misquote emails to suggest that the credit committee that reviewed the Solyndra loan application during the Bush Administration rejected it. This is simply false.

Here are the facts: On January 9, 2009 the credit committee evaluated the application, determined that it had merit and remanded it to the loan program staff "without prejudice" to allow for additional due diligence. On January 13, the head of the credit committee sent the program staff a note saying he had canvassed the credit committee members, and that they had decided to instruct the program staff "not to engage in further discussions with Solyndra." As Fox News reported last week, contrary to the claims of critics who selectively quote that email chain, the entire chain clear shows that the credit committee wasn't pulling the plug on the application at all. In fact, they were allowing the program staff to complete its due diligence without extra pressure from Solyndra.

Read the emails for yourself. When the credit committee members said that they didn’t want further communication, they were referring to a request by Solyndra's government affairs executive to meet with the members of the credit committee to lobby them. Instead, they made clear that they wanted an independent marketing analysis. Two months later, after the loan program team completed that review and the rest of the added due diligence the committee requested, the career civil servants on the credit committee voted unanimously to send the deal forward.

KEY FACTS: SOLYNDRA SOLAR

On September 1, 2011, Solyndra, a solar energy start-up and recipient of an Energy Department loan guarantee, declared bankruptcy. While this event is deeply disappointing, at the time the loan guarantee was issued, Solyndra was widely seen as a promising and innovative company:

Solyndra was named one of the world’s “50 Most Innovative Companies” in 2010 by MIT’s Technology Review and included in the Wall Street Journal’s “The Next Big Thing: Top 50 Venture Backed Companies.”
Private investors, after conducting their own careful review of Solyndra, put $1 billion of their own private capital behind the company.
Solyndra reported sales growth of 40% from 2009 to 2010, from $100 to $140 million.
This loan was pursued by both the Bush and Obama Administrations.
The Solyndra loan underwent years of rigorous internal and external review before being approved. It attracted venture capital support and was thoroughly vetted by objective, independent validators who believed this project was worthy of investment.
By any measure, solar manufacturing will be a huge market in the coming years – the only question is whether we want to compete for those jobs, or just give up in the face of a setback. The International Energy Agency projects that solar power will grow steadily, producing nearly a quarter of the world’s electricity within four decades.

Conservatively, that means more than $3 trillion worth of solar panels will need to be manufactured – a vast economic and employment opportunity to be seized by countries that succeed in this sector.
Our competitors know this, and are playing to win.

Last year the China Development Bank offered more than $30 billion in financing to Chinese solar manufacturers, about 20 times more than U.S.-backed loans to solar manufacturers.
In 1995, the U.S. produced 40 percent of the world’s solar panels, compared to five percent today.
In the last six years, China’s market share has grown from six percent to 61 percent.
When it comes to clean energy, we have a choice to make. We can compete in the global marketplace – creating American jobs and selling American products – or we can buy the technologies of tomorrow from abroad.

Our loan programs are today supporting a diverse portfolio of more than 40 projects that plan to employ 60,000 Americans and give us a chance to compete and succeed in the global clean energy race. These include the largest wind farm in the world, the first new nuclear power plant in the United States in three decades, and the largest solar generating stations in the world.

Historically, our government has supported emerging industries -- from transcontinental railroads to aviation to the microchip. These investments strengthened our Nation and leveraged the private investments that drove our prosperity. Now is not the time to stop investing in our Nation’s future.

Flashback: Congressional Pressure to Accelerate Loan Program

While some in Congress and the media are now alleging that Department of Energy rushed the application, as far back as 2007 and as recently as July 2010, Republicans in Congress were complaining about the slow pace of reviewing and approving loan applications. In fact, during Secretary Chu’s 2009 confirmation hearings, Republicans in the Senate pressed Secretary Chu to make accelerating the loan program a priority. Learn more.

September 23, 2011 - 5:25pm

Questions have been raised about a quote selectively pulled from an Aug. 20, 2009 email to make it look like Solyndra would run out of cash by Sept. 2011. To be clear, the analysis addressed in that email did not refer to Solyndra’s corporate cash flow, but rather the cash flow for a subsidiary of Solyndra – the “Fab 2 Project Company.” The cash flow models never said that Solyndra (the parent company) would run short of cash in September 2011. The email noted that the subsidiary was projected to have relatively low levels of cash in one particular month, and that the parent company would need to make up any potential shortfall.

It’s also important to note what the projections actually said. While the model showed the project would have a relatively small amount of cash in September 2011, it also shows the project having millions of dollars in cash the next month, and multiples of that by the end of January of 2012.

It’s hard to look at the totality of this analysis and conclude, as some have implied, that the projections prove that the company would go under. In fact, the analysis projected that the project would have tens of millions of dollars in cash by the end of January of 2012.

Finally, it is important to note that this was not the final analysis. One week later, with additional information provided (including making clear that the parent company would be required to make up any cash flow shortfall at the subsidiary), the same DOE employee signed off on the cash-flow projection to send it to OMB.

All of that being the case, the Department of Energy has always maintained that investing in innovative start-up companies carries some risk, but we believe that the risk is offset by the benefits of investing in the kind of game changing technologies that can help American manufacturers compete in the clean energy market of tomorrow.

The Koch-funded political advocacy organization Americans for Prosperity is unleashing another multi-million campaign to play up the Solyndra bankruptcy in key election states.
After the release of 180,000 pages of documents and months of a heavily-politicized Congressional investigation that included testimony from Energy Secretary Steven Chu, there is still no evidence that the loan guarantee issued to the now-bankrupt solar company Solyndra was a political favor, or that any official in the Administration did anything illegal.
In fact, an in-depth investigation of the Solyndra documents conducted by the Washington Post recently found: “The [email] records do not establish that anyone pressured the Energy Department to approve the Solyndra loan to benefit political contributors.”
But rather than stick to the known facts established by an ongoing investigation, AFP seems to believe it has greater insight into the issue than Congress, investigative journalists or the FBI — spending $6 million to spread lies and half truths about the Solyndra affair.
The ad is part of a desperate full-court press by conservatives to keep Solyndra at the top of the headlines:

This $6 million campaign follows a $2.4 million media blitz on Solyndra by Americans for Prosperity last fall. That ad was labeled “mostly false” by the fact-checking organization PolitiFact. But facts be damned, the Solyndra issue will continue to be a central piece of the GOP’s political agenda this year.
Typical of smear ads, this latest Solyndra spot is very “creative” with the truth.
Firstly, the ad grossly misrepresents the timeline of layoffs at Solyndra, claiming “1,100 workers had no idea that they would be fired, but the Obama administration knew. All that mattered was the 2010 election – ‘optics,’ not workers.”
There are still unanswered questions about the timing of the first round of 200 layoffs before the 2010 election. But it wasn’t until 9 months later that company declared bankruptcy and the 1,100 workers were laid off — meaning that event had absolutely nothing to do with the 2010 election.
The ad also features a quote from Barack Obama in an interview with ABC News, in which George Stephanopoulos asked Obama if he regretted touting Solyndra as “the true engine of economic growth.” The President is quoted as saying “No I don’t … overall it’s doing well.”
In fact, the original quote is cut up. The President actually said: “No, I don’t, because if you look at the overall portfolio of loan guarantees that have been provided– overall, it’s doing well.”
And the facts so far have backed that assertion up. An analysis of the loan guarantee program that supported Solyndra by Bloomberg Government found that “the focus on Solyndra is not proportional to its impact.”
But after reporting on the politics of the Solyndra bankruptcy non-stop, not a single major newspaper or television outlet reported on this piece of news — leaving organizations like Americans for Prosperity to fill the gap.

I did not whine,

but "playing to win"? So this is all a game to you?!

Also, AFP is not funded by Koch.

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a group fronting special interests started by oil billionaire David Koch and Richard Fink (a member of the board of directors of Koch Industries). AFP has been accused of funding astroturf operations but also has been fueling the "Tea Party" efforts. [1] AFP's messages are in sync with those of other groups funded by the Koch Family Foundations and the Koch's other special interest groups that work against progressive or Democratic initiatives and protections for workers and the environment. Accordingly, AFP opposes labor unions, health care reform, stimulus spending, and cap-and-trade legislation, which is aimed at making industries pay for the air pollution that they create. AFP was also involved in the attacks on Obama’s "green jobs" czar, Van Jones, and has crusaded against international climate talks. According to an article in the August 30, 2010 issue of The New Yorker, the Kochs are known for "creating slippery organizations with generic-sounding names," that "make it difficult to ascertain the extent of their influence in Washington." AFP's budget surged from $7 million in 2007 to $40 million in 2010, an election year. [2][3]

Iowa City, Iowa -- Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain has cast himself as the outsider, the pizza magnate with real-world experience who will bring fresh ideas to the nation's capital. But Cain's economic ideas, support and organization have close ties to two billionaire brothers who bankroll right-leaning causes through their group Americans for Prosperity.

Cain's campaign manager and a number of aides have worked for Americans for Prosperity, or AFP, the advocacy group founded with support from billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, which lobbies for lower taxes and less government regulation and spending.

The once little-known businessman's political activities are getting fresh scrutiny since he soared to the top of some national polls. His links to the Koch brothers could undercut his outsider, nonpolitical image among people who detest politics as usual and candidates connected with the party machine.

AFP tapped Cain as the public face of its Prosperity Expansion Project, and he traveled the country in 2005 and 2006 speaking to activists who were starting state-based AFP chapters from Wisconsin to Virginia. Through his AFP work, he met Mark Block, a longtime Wisconsin Republican operative hired to lead that state's AFP chapter in 2005. Block is now Cain's campaign manager.

Other aides who had done AFP work were also brought on board. Cain's spokeswoman, Ellen Carmichael, who recently left the campaign, was an AFP coordinator in Louisiana. At least six other current and former paid employees and consultants for Cain's campaign have worked for AFP in various capacities. And Cain credits a Cleveland businessman, Rich Lowrie, who served on an AFP advisory board with helping devise his "9-9-9" plan to rewrite the nation's tax code.

While Cain is quick to promote his career at the helm of the Godfather's Pizza chain, his ties to AFP aren't something the candidate appears eager to highlight. Cain does not include his AFP work on his biography on his website, but spokesman J.D. Gordon said Sunday that Cain was "proud of his business record" and his association with the group.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z1l66Fy688

as the Koch brothers are, libertarians.

CLAIM: Bush Administration Rejected Solyndra’s Application

ABC News: Under Bush administration, credit committee “made a unanimous decision not to offer a loan commitment to Solyndra.” [ABC News, 9/13/11]
Fox Nation: “Bush Admin. Voted AGAINST Solyndra Loan.” [Fox Nation, 9/14/11]
FoxNews.com: Bush credit committee “decided ‘not to engage in further discussions with Solyndra.’” [FoxNews.com, 9/14/11]
America’s Newsroom: “In January of 2009 the Bush Administration considered it. They backed away from it. But then the checks started going out.” [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 9/16/11]
Bill O’Reilly: The Bush administration “shut it down. And then as soon as the president, the current president, Obama took office they started it up again.” [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 9/16/11, via Nexis]
Fox’s David Asman: Bush administration “nixed the loans.” [Fox Business, America's Nightly Scoreboard, 9/17/11, via Nexis]
Fox’s Stephen Hayes: “Bush administration “cut off the discussions with Solyndra.” [Fox News,Special Report, 9/15/11, via Nexis]
FACT: Same Panel Of Career Officials Approved The Loan Guarantee

Bush Admin. Advanced 16 Projects, Including Solyndra, Out Of 143 Submissions. The Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program was created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and expanded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. At a congressional hearing, Jonathan Silver, the Executive Director of Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office, testified that the Bush administration’s DOE [Department of Energy] selected Solyndra from 143 submissions to move forward in the process:

SILVER: The 2006 solicitation resulted in 143 submissions. The loan program staff and others at the department reviewed those for eligibility, which is a thinner review than the full due diligence, and recommended 16 applications to file a full application. A dozen did so. Solyndra was one of those. And the department conducted due diligence on all of those 11. [House Energy and Commerce Committee, 9/14/11, via Nexis]
Under Bush Admin., The Credit Committee Remanded The Project “For Further Development Of Information.” During the final days of the Bush administration, the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee credit committee, consisting of career officials, said that although the Solyndra project “appears to have merit,” the committee needed more information in several areas before it could recommend approval of a conditional commitment. The committee “remand[ed]” the loan “without prejudice” for “further development of information.” [Credit Committee, 9/9/09, via Huffington Post]

DOE Under Bush Admin. Set Out Timeline For Completing Solyndra Review. After the credit committee remanded the project for further information, officials at the Department of Energy under the Bush Administration developed a schedule for due diligence on the Solyndra project, envisioning completion in March 2009. [Department of Energy, 9/14/11]

In March, The Same Credit Committee Of Career Civil Servants Recommended Approval. As Climate Progress noted, in March 2009, “The same credit committee [consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise] approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE’s credit review board – political appointees within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.” [Climate Progress, 9/13/11]

DOE Official: “It’s The Same Group Of Career Professionals That Were On The First Committee.” In his testimony, DOE’s Silver stated that the credit committee that remanded the project during the Bush administration “is also exactly the same credit committee that then approved the transaction several months later.” He added that the loan guarantee “didn’t close until September and so additional due diligence takes place from the conditional commitment through the close of the loan.” [House Energy and Commerce Committee, 9/14/11, via Nexis]
CLAIM: Email Saying Deal Was “NOT Ready For Prime Time” Was Warning About Financial Risk

ABC reported that internal emails “show the Obama administration was keenly monitoring the progress of the loan, even as analysts were voicing serious concerns about the risk involved. ‘This deal is NOT ready for prime time,’ one White House budget analyst wrote in a March 10, 2009 email, nine days before the administration formally announced the loan.” [ABC News, 9/13/11]
CNN claimed “prime time” email showed “some White House budget analysts questioned early on how financially sound Solyndra was.” [CNN, CNN Newsroom, 9/15/11, via Nexis]
Fox’s Neil Cavuto: “Prime time” email was warning that “the loan could be very risky for taxpayers.” [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 9/14/11, via Nexis]
Wash. Examiner: “Prime time” email showed “some officials in the Obama Administration thought the loan was a lousy idea.” [Washington Examiner, 9/14/11]
FACT: The Email Did Not Voice Any Concerns About Risk Of Loan

Email Concerned Timing Of Announcement, Not The Merit Of The Loan Guarantee. Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee released some of the context around this email, which was written by an analyst with the Office of Management and Budget, according to House Republicans. In response to an email about a potential announcement of the Solyndra loan during the President’s visit to California on March 19, 2009, the analyst argued that the presidential announcement should not be made before the loan deal was completed. The email argued that “This deal is NOT ready for prime time” because there were more steps to be completed before the loan guarantee could be finalized — namely, OMB had to review the credit rating and Solyndra needed to raise an additional $200 million in private captial. [House Energy and Commerce Republicans, 9/14/11]

Obama Did Not Announce A Deal During His March California Trip. On March 19, 2009, Obama visited California and held a town hall meeting in Los Angeles. He did not announce the Solyndra deal. The conditional commitment to Solyndra was issued on March 20 and announced by Energy Secretary Steven Chu in a press release. [Department of Energy, 3/20/09]

VP Announcement Came After Loan Guarantee Was Finalized In September. The Solyndra loan guarantee was formally issued by DOE on September 3, 2009. On September 4, Vice President Joe Biden announced the deal via satellite at the groundbreaking of the plant along with DOE’s Chu and Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was the Governor of California at the time. [Department of Energy, 9/4/09;Contra Costa Times, 9/5/09]

OMB Reviews Credit Subsidy Cost; It Does Not Select Loan Guarantee Recipients. From the Congressional testimony of Jeffrey Zients of the Office of Management and Budget:

ZIENTS: Pursuant to Section 503 of FCRA, OMB reviews and must approve credit subsidy cost estimates for all loan and loan guarantee programs, including the credit subsidy cost estimates generated by DOE for the Title XVII program, to ensure that costs are accounted for appropriately. The Title XVII program provides relatively large-dollar guarantees and because their characteristics, terms, and risks vary greatly from project to project, OMB assesses cost estimates on a loan-by-loan basis. This is the same approach OMB uses for loans or loan guarantees of other similar programs that involve large deals or varied structures, such as those administered by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Export-Import Bank.

In performing its statutory role under FCRA, OMB delegates the modeling of credit subsidy costs to agencies, and issues implementing guidance to ensure consistent and accurate estimates of cost. For new programs or programs issuing their first loans or loan guarantees, such as the Title XVII program in 2009, OMB works closely with agencies to create or revise credit subsidy models. Based on these models, OMB reviews and exercises final approval authority over credit subsidy costs to ensure that the costs of direct loans and loan guarantees are presented, and reflect estimated risks, consistently across Federal agencies so that taxpayer funds are invested in a prudent and effective fashion. By contrast, the final decision on whether to issue the loan or guarantee rests with the agency implementing the applicable program – DOE in the case of Title XVII. [House Energy and Commerce Committee, 9/14/11, emphasis added]
CLAIM: Obama Fundraiser George Kaiser Is Personally Invested In Solyndra

ABC’s Brian Ross: “One of Solyndra’s principal investors, George Kaiser, who was a big Obama fund-raiser, visited the White House at least four times before the loan’s final approval.” [ABC, World News with Diane Sawyer, 9/1/11, via Nexis]
AP: “One of the company’s investors, George Kaiser of Oklahoma, helped raised money for Obama’s presidential campaign.” [Associated Press, 9/8/11, via CBS News]
CNN’s Lisa Sylvester: “Records show the main private investor in Solyndra is a man named George Kaiser, a key fund-raiser for Mr. Obama.” [CNN, CNN Newsroom, 9/15/11, via Nexis]
CBS’s John Blackstone: “The biggest investor in Solyndra is Oklahoma billionaire George Kaiser, a major fundraiser for the Obama presidential campaign.” [CBS Evening News, 9/14/11, via Nexis]
Politico: “One of Solyndra’s primary investors is George Kaiser, a bundler who raised $50,000 for Obama’s campaign in 2008.” [Politico, 9/15/11]
LA Times: “Solyndra is backed by one of Obama’s key fundraisers, George Kaiser of Tulsa.” [Los Angeles Times, 9/2/11]
Michelle Malkin: “One of the hugest investors in the massively failed enterprise just happens to be one of Obama’s largest funders, a man named George Kaiser … You got crony capitalism.” [Fox News, Hannity, 9/14/11, via Nexis]
Weekly Standard: “It’s probably not surprising to learn that one of Solyndra’s key investors, Tulsa billionaire George Kaiser, was an Obama campaign bundler.” [Weekly Standard, 9/12/11]
FACT: Kaiser’s Nonprofit Foundation Made The Investments, Along With Conservative Walton Family

George Kaiser Family Foundation Made Investment Through Argonaut Ventures. Tulsa Worldreported:

The filing indicates that Argonaut Ventures, an investment arm of the Tulsa-based foundation [George Kaiser Family Foundation], holds almost 39 percent of Solyndra’s parent, 360 Solar Degree Holdings Inc.

In an emailed statement to the Tulsa World, a representative of the George Kaiser Family Foundation said the organization made the investment through Argonaut.

“George Kaiser is not an investor in Solyndra and did not participate in any discussions with the U.S. government regarding the loan,” the statement said. “GKFF invests in a globally diversified portfolio across many different asset classes.” [Tulsa World, 9/7/11]
Argonaut Is A “Wholly Owned Subsidiary” Of The Foundation. A spokesperson for the George Kaiser Family Foundation clarified that Argonaut is a “wholly owned subsidiary of the foundation” and that money made or lost by Argonaut was made or lost for the foundation. [Phone conversation, 9/19/11]
Second Largest Investor In Solyndra Was A Major Donor To Republicans. The Los Angeles Times reported:

Although Solyndra’s biggest private investor was a venture capital fund affiliated with Kaiser, its second largest investor was a fund linked to the Walton family, of Wal-Mart renown, a major donor to Republicans. Kaiser has denied he ever spoke to the Obama administration about the Solyndra loan.

The chief executive of Solyndra, Brian Harrison, is a registered Republican, according to the San Jose Mercury News. [Los Angeles Times, 9/13/11]
Politico: Solyndra Had “Close Ties To Both Political Parties.” Politico reported:

In fact, Solyndra’s top brass, its board and its paid lobbyists bring close ties to both political parties.

President and CEO Brian Harrison is a registered Republican. Billionaire George Kaiser, an Obama campaign bundler, was one of the venture capitalists who poured private funding into the clean technology startup.

And another venture capital firm, Madrone Capital Partners, which is tied to the GOP-leaning Walton family, was one of 10 firms that helped Solyndra raise about $144 million in November 2008.

In Washington, Victoria Sanville, one of the company’s two in-house lobbyists, had previously worked for four House Republicans: Sam Graves of Missouri, Peter Roskam of Illinois, John Sweeney of New York and George Gekas of Pennsylvania.

When it comes to campaign contributions, Solyndra officials gave much more to Democrats while still giving money to some Republicans, according to a POLITICO analysis of donation data compiled by OpenSecrets.org. [Politico, 9/14/11]
CLAIM: Administration Restructured Loan To Favor Kaiser Rather Than Taxpayers

AP Headline: “Obama admin reworked Solyndra loan to favor donor.” [Associated Press, 9/16/11]
ABC’s Brian Ross: “Even though administration officials knew the company was facing bankruptcy, they agreed to restructure the loan so that in case the company did fail, the first $75 million recovered would go not to taxpayers but to the private investors.” [ABC, World News with Diane Sawyer, 9/14/11, via Nexis]
New York Times reported that Argonaut alone provided $69 million in new loans, before adding a correction. [New York Times, 9/16/11]
Fox’s Andrea Tantaros: “The real scandal” is “that George Kaiser, a bundler for Obama, put $75 million of his own money into the company … and he got preferential treatment over the taxpayers in bankruptcy court.” [Fox News, The Five, 9/16/11, via Nexis]
FACT: Walton’s Firm Also Part Of The Deal, Which DOE Expects Will Result In Higher Recovery For Taxpayers

Memo: Walton Family’s Firm Was Part Of The Restructuring Deal. A memo released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee states that both Argonaut Venture Capital, the fund tied to Kaiser’s foundation, and Madrone Capital Partners, which is tied to the Walton family, “negotiated the terms and conditions of an agreement to restructure the Solyndra loan guarantee”:

In the fall of 2010, DOE told Solyndra that, due to the company’s financial problems, the department would refuse its request for a loan disbursement unless Solyndra obtained additional capital. Solyndra, DOE, and two of Solyndra’s lead investors — Argonaut Venture Capital and Madrone Capitol Partners –began negotiations to restructure the Solyndra loan guarantee agreement. On November 3, 2010, Solyndra announced that it was closing its older manufacturing facility, resulting in the layoff of 135 temporary employees and approximately 40 full-time employees.

From December 2010 through February 2011, DOE, Solyndra, and two of its investors, Argonaut Venture Capital and Madrone Capitol Partners, negotiated the terms and conditions of an agreement to restructure the Solyndra loan guarantee. Throughout this process, DOE consulted with OMB about the proposed terms and conditions of this arrangement.

On February 23, 2011, the parties signed an agreement to restructure the Solyndra deal. Under that agreement, Solyndra’s investors agreed to a $75 million credit facility, with the option of a second $75 million. DOE agreed to extend the term of Solyndra’s loan guarantee from seven to 10 years, and to postpone the first repayment installment by one year, from 2012 to 2013. In addition, the agreement provided that, in the event of the company’s liquidation before 2013, the investors have the senior secured position with respect to the first $75 million recovered. DOE has the second senior secured position with respect to the next $150 million recovered in liquidation. If Solyndra had not liquidated or declared bankruptcy by 2013, the investors would have lost their senior secured position to DOE. [House Energy and Commerce Committee, 9/12/11]
AP: “Two Private Investors” Provided The Emergency Loans. Despite its headline, “Obama admin reworked Solyndra loan to favor donor,” the AP article stated that Madrone Partners LP was also part of the deal:

Under terms of the February loan restructuring, two private investors — Argonaut Ventures I LLC and Madrone Partners LP – stand to be repaid before the U.S. government if the solar company is liquidated. The two firms gave the company a total of $69 million in emergency loans. The loans are the only portion of their investments that have repayment priority above the U.S. government. [Associated Press, 9/16/11]
DOE Determined “That The Facility Would Be More Valuable, Even In The Event Of A Future Liquidation, Once Complete.” In his testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Director of DOE’s Loan Programs Office Jonathan Silver stated that “DOE determined, as part of the restructuring, that the facility would be more valuable, even in the event of a future liquidation, once complete.” He went on to say that “DOE determined that restructuring the loan guarantee gave the U.S. taxpayer the best chance of being repaid”:

SILVER: Unsuccessful in its efforts to raise additional equity, Solyndra approached DOE, in late 2010, asking DOE to increase its loan commitment. DOE refused, indicating that any additional funds would need to come from other sources. Solyndra then sought to secure a new $75 million emergency loan from its current equity investors. The proposed new loan provided terms that were expected to be more favorable to taxpayers than any other financing options that were available to the company at that time. As is typical in cases where distressed companies seek new debt financing, the new financing would have priority, in the event of liquidation, over the company’s existing debt–including the DOE loan guarantee (the investors’ almost $1 billion of original equity investment was, and remains, subordinated to the debt owed to the government).

DOE faced a choice: whether to (1) refuse to allow the restructuring, thereby ensuring that Solyndra would close its doors immediately, and that the U.S. taxpayer would recover only a modest amount of the loan; or (2) allow the company to accept the emergency financing, thereby giving it and its almost 1,000 workers a fighting chance at success, and the government a higher expected recovery on its loan.

The decision was not an easy one, and it was made only after significant analysis and deliberation, using the same sort of tools and rigor that private sector lenders use in such scenarios. DOE had commissioned a new and comprehensive analysis of Solyndra’s prospects in the global solar market (conducted by Navigant, a leading market research firm), and undertook — with the aid of experienced financial consultants — a complete review of the company’s financial condition, business plan, and assets.9 Both the market study and the financial modeling suggested that the company’s value as a going concern was greater than what the government was likely to recover in liquidation at that time. Accordingly, DOE determined that restructuring the loan guarantee gave the U.S. taxpayer the best chance of being repaid on the loan. [House Energy and Commerce Committee, 9/14/11]
DOE Expects Recovery of Taxpayer Money To Be Larger Due To Restructuring. During the hearing, John Dingell said: “I would note that the government’s chance of recovery from that reorganization are better both in amount and certainty than if we had seen Solyndra go into bankruptcy earlier. Is that right?” Silver replied:

SILVER: We expect so. We’ll have to see what happens, actually, in the bankruptcy process. But we have a completed an operating plant fully fitted out, inventory and all kinds of things that did not exist during the first restructuring. [House Energy and Commerce Committee, 9/14/11]
NY Times: Experts Said DOE’s Decision To Restructure “Is Routine In The Commercial World.”From a September 16, New York Times article:

Bankruptcy experts said Friday that the normal pattern was for the management of a bankrupt company to be given first crack at developing a plan, one that would either distribute ownership of the company to its creditors, in some agreed-upon proportion, or end in liquidation. The Energy Department believes that Solyndra has valuable patents.

Experts said the decision made by the Energy Department in February is routine in the commercial world. “It happens all the time,” said Evan Flaschen, head of the financial restructuring group at Bracewell & Giuliani. But, he said, “A new lender coming in is going to want to be the first money out. The new money would want to be senior.”

Martin Bienenstock, of Dewey & LeBoef, said that letting in another lender was often “the smart thing to do even though it’s painful,” because at worst, it would increase the company’s scrap value. [New York Times, 9/16/11]
VentureWire: DOE “Squeezed The Terms Of Its Loan In Its Favor.” VentureWire reported in March:

Making matters worse for the venture backers, the federal government has squeezed the terms of its loan in its favor, in hopes of increasing the chance of repayment even as the loan is being scrutinized. The Department of Energy could change some terms of the loan with each increment that it puts forward.

Solyndra agreed to change the terms of the federal loan so that it is now secured by all the assets of the company, including Solyndra’s intellectual property. Previously, the loan was secured only by the solar panel factory it is helping fund. This is also true of the loan provided by private investors. [Dow Jones VentureWire, 3/3/11, via Factiva]
CLAIM: It Was Obvious Before Loan Guarantee Was Granted That Solyndra Would Fail

Diane Sawyer: “Did a half billion dollars of your taxpayer money go to a company certain to fail? And why?” [ABC, World News with Diane Sawyer, 9/14/11, via Nexis]
Investor’s Business Daily: “Solyndra was not a good investment and the White House knew it.” [Investor's Business Daily, 9/14/11]
Fox’s Trace Gallagher: “[M]any experts say there was nothing about this company that was at all promising.” [Fox News, America Live, 9/15/11]
David Webb on Fox: Solyndra “was never viable.” [Fox Business, America's Nightly Scoreboard, 9/15/11, via Nexis]
Forbes op-ed: “Few, if any, lenders thought that giving [Solyndra] money was a very good idea.” [Forbes.com, 9/13/11]
FACT: Solyndra Was Seen By Many As Promising

Solyndra Raised $1 Billion In Private Capital. Time noted that “in addition to government loan guarantees, Solyndra also scored over $1 billion in private capital–including from GOP-friendly investors like the Walton family of Wal-Mart.” [Time, 9/15/11]

WSJ Ranked Solyndra As The Top U.S. Clean Tech Company. In 2010, the Wall Street Journalranked Solyndra the top clean-tech company with the “capital, executive experience and investor know-how to succeed in an increasingly crowded field.” The “research firm VentureSource (owned by NewsCorp., which also owns Dow Jones & Co., publisher of the Journal) calculated the rankings, applying a set of financial criteria to some 350 U.S.-based venture-backed businesses in clean technology.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/7/10]

WSJ Also Ranked Solyndra In Top Five “Next Big” Venture-Backed Companies. The Wall Street Journal ranked Solyndra number five in a list of the “top 50 venture-backed companies.” The rankings were calculated based on “the track record of success for the venture-capital investors who sit on the company’s board (Board Ranking); the amount of capital raised by the company over the last three years, in comparison to its peers (Total Equity Ranking); the track record of success for the company’s founders and chief executive (Executive Ranking);” “the recent growth in the value of the company (Valuation Ranking)” and the rankings of Dow Jones venture capital reporters and editors. [Wall Street Journal, 3/9/10]

MIT’s Technology Review Chose Solyndra As One Of The World’s 50 Most Innovative Companies. The Technology Review evaluated companies based on their “business model[s], strategies for deploying and scaling up its technologies, and the likelihood of success.” [Technology Review, 2/23/10]

Analyst Cited Solyndra As A Company That Could Have A “Breakthrough Around Cost And Efficiency.” From an April 2009 San Jose Mercury News report:

Craig Irwin, an energy analyst with Merriman Curhan Ford in San Francisco, agrees the current slowdown in the solar industry ”will filter out the most innovative companies and really help promote the next generation of leaders” to produce lower cost solar technologies.

“As the economic equation is really squeezed, people want to see better performing (solar) panels and lower costs,” he said.

Irwin cited Fremont-based Solyndra as a company he believes has some “very interesting technologies that could allow a real breakthrough around cost and efficiency.” [San Jose Mercury News, 4/17/09, via Nexis]
Reuters: Venture Capitalists Point To Solyndra As One Of The Top 10 Companies “Ripest” To Go Public. Reuters reported in August 2009:

An informal poll of venture capitalists and others pointed to six privately held companies as the ripest for acquisition or readiness to go public, out of 34 cited in industries ranging from alternative energy to social networking.

For now, the Silicon Valley Six say they intend to keep growing rather than agreeing to be acquired or go public during the recession.

The top four are business social network LinkedIn, solar panel maker Solyndra, smart grid company Silver Spring, and Zynga, a casual games company whose products run on social networks like Facebook. [Reuters, 8/19/09, via CNNMoney]
Market Conditions Shifted Significantly from 2009 to 2011. A Bloomberg News report noted that Solyndra had “advantages that were more important in 2009 when it received a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee to build a factory” than they are now, noting that the price of the silicon-based panels with which Solyndra was competing “has fallen 46 percent since then.” The article also quoted Julian Hawking of Abound Solar Inc., who stated: “When Solyndra started up it was a completely different time for the industry. Nobody expected the huge drop in polysilicon prices.” [Bloomberg, 9/14/11]

Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/13ixH)

Politifact? The Tampa Bay Times? Truth-out? These are all lefty orgs. If you don't believe me, search newsbusters dot org .