Also, did the owners mislead the government or did the Obama White House force the analysts to make a bad loan?
At the end of the day, I am angry at the loan restructure.
I agree with Andrew Styles:
"The loan-restructuring agreement negotiated in February 2011 gave Solyndra’s private investors priority over taxpayers with respect to the first $75 million recovered in the event of Solyndra’s collapse, potentially in violation of federal statute. Who at DOE was responsible for this decision? And as the recipient of a taxpayer-guaranteed loan, how can you justify this arrangement?
In 2010, when Solyndra’s financial situation had become too dire to ignore, the company entered negotiations with the DOE and two major private investors to restructure the terms of the loan guarantee. DOE claimed that the restructuring agreement positioned the DOE (i.e., the U.S. taxpayer) for “maximum recovery.”
But that wasn’t the case. Documents obtained by committee staff reveal that DOE attempted to “restructure the loan to create a situation whereby investors felt there was a value in their investment.” To that end, private investors were given priority recovery status over the government.
Committee Republicans argue, quite convincingly, that this decision by DOE was in violation of federal statute.
According to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which created the DOE loan program, the government’s loans “shall be subject to the condition that the obligation is not subordinate to other financing.”
Again, the restructure of the loan may turn into the big story.
You can defend the loan guarantee on the grounds that it was a new technology.....you can even argue that the company misled the government.....however, you can not defend the restructure of the loan.
Click this video:
- Tags: Solyndra To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
