Pointing at SpaceX explosion, ULA says Pentagon contracts shouldn’t just go to lowest bidder

The recent explosion of a SpaceX rocket should raise concerns about going with the lowest bidder on sensitive national security launch contracts, the chief of the United Launch Alliance wrote in a letter to top Pentagon officials this month.

Tory Bruno, ULA’s chief executive, urged the Air Force to postpone the deadline for bids, saying it should take time to explore the impact of SpaceX’s rocket failure while also taking into account both companies’ experience and past performance.

The Pentagon should have particular reservations, Bruno wrote, given that SpaceX has now had two of its Falcon 9 rockets blow up, which he said “serve as a reminder of the complexity and hazards intrinsic to space launch services.”

“This strategy defies both law and logic and puts hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and Warfighter mission needs unnecessarily at risk,” he wrote.

The letter is the latest salvo in one of Washington’s most contentious contractor feuds, one that has pitted a pair of the world’s most powerful defense contractors against a brash billionaire looking to shake up a calcified market by offering launches far more cheaply. And it’s the most glaring example yet of a competitor going after SpaceX for its pair of explosions.

Read More

Shareholders Go After Elon Musk’s SolarCity Bailout Plan

Tesla shareholders are suing the company because of its proposed merger with SolarCity, thus creating a challenge for Elon Musk to save the troubled solar energy company.

Tesla Motors Inc. (TSLA:NASDAQ) announced on Sept. 19 four shareholders filed lawsuits alleging that the Tesla board members “breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger.” The shareholders also accuse both companies of unjustly enriching certain individuals through the deal.

“The lawsuits could prevent or delay completion of the merger and result in substantial costs to Tesla and SolarCity,” stated Tesla in a regulatory filing.

The lawsuits were filed by two pension funds (City of Riviera Beach Police Pension Fund and Arkansas Teacher Retirement System) and two individual shareholders (Ellen Prasinos and P. Evan Stephens), according to the filing.

“Other potential plaintiffs may also file additional lawsuits challenging the proposed merger. The outcome of any such litigation is uncertain,” Tesla stated.

In June, Tesla announced its plan to acquire SolarCity Corp. (SCTY:NASDAQ) in an all-stock deal, which valued SolarCity at $2.6 billion as of Aug 1. The merger is controversial, as Elon Musk is the chairman and largest shareholder of both companies and Lyndon Rive, the CEO of SolarCity, is a cousin of Elon Musk.

According to some analysts, the merger doesn’t make financial sense.

“Investors are likely to view this transaction as a bailout for SolarCity and a distraction to Tesla’s production hurdles,” stated Oppenheimer’s analyst Colin Rusch in his report after the merger announcement.

Based in San Mateo, California, SolarCity designs and installs solar panels at residences across the United States. The company sells long-term contracts and it is the market leader.

The company has frequently fallen short of its installation goals. Its operating expenses increased by 55 percent, causing the company to lose $533 million in the first half of 2016.

Read More

Tesla Sued Because ‘Insane Mode’ Isn’t Insane Enough

According to 126 Tesla customers, the Model S sedan P85D performance version can eat dirt, because its “insane mode” isn’t as insane as the company claims.

Bloomberg reports that the customers, who live in Norway, have now filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk’s automotive company. They’re looking for “unspecified reimbursements” because they believe the car’s “insane mode” isn’t exactly as advertised.

“[It] has too low horsepower,” Kaspar N. Thommessen, a lawyer for the customers, told Bloomberg. “And of course, it affects the car’s performance, according to the consumers.” One customer told the Norwegian newspaperDagens Næringsliv that the car’s advertised horsepower—700—and its acceleration claims—0 to 60 mph in roughly 3.3 seconds—were total bullshit. (In 2015, Consumer Reports noted that it took 3.5 seconds.)

Tesla, for its part, said that tests from both the company and outside groups show the stated specifications are indeed accurate. “[The tests have] demonstrated that the Model S P85D’s acceleration and motor-power numbers have always been accurate … [and] confirmed as accurate by European regulatory authorities,” a Tesla spokesman told Bloomberg.

In June, Norway’s Consumer Council ruled against Tesla in a similar case, awarding Model S P85D buyers about $6,000 each over claims the car didn’t meet its power specifications. But as the website Electrek explained at the time, that dispute may have been more a symptom of deceptive advertising rather than outright lying:

The issue revolved around the way Tesla was listing the power of its motors for the Model S P85D, which has two motors. When first introducing the vehicle, Tesla was marketing the vehicle as having a combined motor output of 691 hp (467 in the back and 224 in the front).

While those are indeed the correct outputs of each motor, the vehicle was never able to achieve those numbers due to several other limitations than only the combined potential output of the motors.

Tesla claimed that they always made it clear that the numbers were for the motors and not the vehicle itself. The automaker also highlighted that it didn’t actually change the actual performance ratings of the Model S P85D, but some owners still felt deceived.

Either way, for upwards of $100,000, it’s not surprising at least a few customers are quibbling over the car’s performance. According to Bloomberg, the Oslo District Court will hear the case in mid-December.

The most recent dustup is yet another in Tesla’s long line of new headaches. Yesterday, we reported that hackers were able to infiltrate the Model S from 12 miles away; last week, the company and Autopilot supplier Mobileye got into a public fight over safety concerns. And then there was the lawsuit Tesla filed last week against an oil executive, claiming he impersonated Elon Musk using a dumb Yahoo email address.

Hey, Elon, you doing okay, buddy? Do you need a facial or something? Maybe some wine?

Read More

Musk’s vision at stake in Tesla shareholders’ vote on SolarCity merger

SolarCity’s fate now lies squarely in the hands of Tesla Motors and its shareholders.

A 45-day window in which SolarCity could consider other offers beyond Tesla’s $2.3 billion merger bid closed on Wednesday night, and no other investor or company put a proposal on the table.

That wasn’t entirely surprising. After all, 15 potential buyers or investors looked at SolarCity earlier this summer, while the solar energy company was hammering out the terms of Tesla’s merger offer and trying to see if anyone else would top the electric vehicle maker’s bid.

None did.

Now the big question is whether Tesla’s shareholders buy into CEO Elon Musk’s vision for creating a renewable energy juggernaut that combines electric vehicles with solar energy and battery storage.

Shareholders from both companies still have to vote on the proposed merger. The date of the votes haven’t been set, but it could be as early as October.

Most analysts think the deal will go through. They say many Tesla investors support Musk’s renewable energy vision and are likely to go along with his strategy.

They also tend to downplay the concerns that arose from the regulatory filing about the cash crunch that both companies are facing. Tesla needs to pay $422 million to some of its bond holders by the end of the month, and both companies need to raise billions in new funding to finance their ambitious plans.

The news recently has been better on the financing front. Tesla, which had $3.25 billion in cash on its books at the end of June, reached an agreement this month to borrow up to $300 million from Deutsche Bank to fund its vehicle leasing program.

SolarCity earlier this week raised $305 million in a deal with five institutional investors and an investment fund advised by George Soros.

That fundraising will cover only a portion of the companies’ financing needs, but it shows that their ability to raise funds remains viable.

Still, the worries persist on Wall Street. Since the deal was finalized on Aug. 1, Tesla’s stock is down by 13 percent. SolarCity shares have tumbled by 34 percent.

As a result, a deal that was worth $2.6 billion when it was announced now is worth about $350 million less.

In the deal, SolarCity shareholders will receive Tesla stock worth $22.59 at today’s prices. But because of the liquidity concerns and uncertainty over shareholder approval, SolarCity’s shares are trading at $17.50 – a steep 23 percent discount to the value the Tesla offer places on the shares.

Normally, the discount would be just a few percentage points.

One of the more skeptical analysts following the deal, Gordon Johnson of investment firm Axiom, pegs the odds of the merger passing at 50-50. Johnson, who has a sell rating on SolarCity’s stock and thinks it could fall as low as $7, said Tesla “failed to consider whether another solar company was a better fit,” and noted that none of the three potential suitors who had more extensive contact with SolarCity were willing to make a counter offer, according to a regulatory filing by the companies late last month.

“With a number of solar vendors available currently, at arguably depressed prices … Tesla failed to consider if any other solar companies offered more favorable synergies,” Johnson said in a research note.

Musk, who owns more than 20 percent of the stock in both companies and is SolarCity’s chairman, has argued that no company is a better fit for Tesla than SolarCity. With a commanding market share in the rooftop residential market, Musk has said that SolarCity, run by his cousin, Lyndon Rive, offers the best opportunity to link Tesla’s battery storage capabilities with a leading solar energy installer.

Some analysts wonder if Musk is taking on too much at one time.

“We see a lot more that can go wrong than can go right,” said Jeffrey Osborne, an analyst at Cowen & Co. “The company, while fundamentally well positioned for the long term, has a material amount of execution risk over the next 12 to 18 months.”

Tesla is developing its Model 3 sedan, which will sell for as little as $35,000 and will be its most affordable model, by far. As it moves to ramp up production of the Model 3, Tesla also is opening its battery gigafactory in Nevada.

SolarCity, for its part, is pushing to open its solar panel factory in South Buffalo, which will be the biggest in the Western Hemisphere, with production scheduled to start by the end of June as the company rolls out a new solar roofing product.

“The SolarCity acquisition only adds an additional layer of complexity at a crucial time when the company should be focused on the gigafactory ramp and Model 3 launch,” Osborne said. “We see the potential for delays in the introduction of the Model 3, ramp of the Gigafactory and integration of SolarCity, leading to increased cash burn levels.”

Cash is such a concern because neither Tesla nor SolarCity is profitable, although Musk, in a memo to employees this month obtained by Bloomberg News, urged them to cut costs and deliver “every car we possibly can” to push the vehicle maker closer toward generating more cash than it uses. Hitting that milestone would put Tesla in “a far better position to convince potential investors to bet on us.”

Together, the two companies will have about $5 billion in debt between them. And because neither one has a positive cash flow, they will have to raise billions in new capital to meet their ambitious plans, from opening the battery gigafactory and the Buffalo solar panel factory, to ramping up production of the Model 3.

The big question now, though, is how much interest Tesla shareholders have in approving the deal.

Read More

Tesla-SolarCity deal confronting four hurdles

It has been anything but smooth sailing for Tesla Motors and its $2.3 billion bid to buy SolarCity.

The merger, intended to advance Tesla co-founder and CEO Elon Musk’s vision of creating a renewable-energy powerhouse, has received a lukewarm reception on Wall Street and is facing legal challenges that could delay the deal. And unlike most corporate mergers, it’s not a certainty that the deal will win shareholder approval, especially at Tesla.

Here’s a look at four hurdles that the deal is facing:

 

1. Shareholder lawsuits

The deal is being challenged by four separate lawsuits. While shareholder lawsuits over mergers are common and usually don’t hold up deals, the litigation surrounding the SolarCity acquisition could be different.

Tesla warned that the lawsuits, alleging that the electric vehicle maker’s directors breached their fiduciary duty in approving the deal, could delay the acquisition in a regulatory filing Monday, contending that the cases do not have merit.

Even so, the lawsuits are likely to delay important shareholder votes on the deal until mid-October at the earliest. A hearing on the lawsuits, including one that is seeking an injunction to block the deal, won’t be held until Oct. 18, likely delaying those votes until the Delaware court takes action. Analysts had expected the shareholder votes to take place as early as next month.

 

2. SolarCity’s cash needs

SolarCity already has said that its lenders held back on providing essential financing after Tesla’s interest in buying the solar energy company was first disclosed in late June.

When SolarCity tried to raise $124 million from investors in late August, it offered an unusually high 6.5 percent interest rate on its 18-month debt offering. Even then, Musk and his cousins, SolarCity executives Lyndon and Peter Rive, ended up buying $100 million of the debt.

Its financing picture brightened last week when SolarCity raised $305 million by selling future cash flows from some of its solar projects to a hedge fund advised by billionaire George Soros and secured an 18-year loan from a syndicate of five lenders. Credit Suisse analyst Patrick Jobin estimated that the latest deal reduced SolarCity’s financing costs by almost a full percentage point, compared with a similar offering earlier this year.

SolarCity constantly needs to raise more money from investors to fund a business model that relies on selling rooftop solar energy systems to homeowners at no upfront costs.

“There is a bit more urgency for the Tesla-SolarCity deal to go through sooner so that SolarCity can get the access to capital that it needs,” Barclays analyst Brian A. Johnson said in an Aug. 31 research note, written before the latest fundraising.

 

3. Investor confidence

Stock in SolarCity, which is building a solar panel factory at RiverBend in South Buffalo, now trades for $4 a share less, or 19 percent less, than what Tesla is offering – a gap indicating that investors are uncertain the deal will be completed. If investors are confident that an acquisition will go through, the shares of both companies typically trade within a few percentage points of the price being offered.

 

4. Shareholder support

Analysts generally think Tesla shareholders will back the merger, largely because many of them believe in Musk’s long-term vision for building a company that combines solar power with electric vehicles and battery storage.

And given the gap between Tesla’s offer and SolarCity’s current stock price – $18.35 at Tuesday’s close – SolarCity shareholders are expected to approve the merger.

But approval by Tesla shareholders isn’t considered a sure thing. Some investors and analysts have raised concerns that the deal would give Tesla a company that is losing money and faces major financing needs at a time when it is in the midst of its own costly initiatives, including the rollout of its more affordable Model 3 sedan and the launch of its battery gigafactory in Nevada.

“Recent disclosures highlight SolarCity’s cash needs, which we think may cause pause among Telsa shareholders,” Morningstar analyst Andrew Bischof said.

Read More

Tesla Shareholders File Lawsuit Over SolarCity Buyout

Tesla Motor Inc.’s proposed acquisition of American energy services provider SolarCity Corp. – worth $2.6 billion – has run into troubled waters and could be deferred.

On Monday, Sept. 19, the company revealed that SolarCity’s acquisition could potentially be delayed as Tesla shareholders had filed lawsuits. The four lawsuits against the automaker has been filed by four different shareholders over the imminent buyout and alleges that Tesla’s board members breached fiduciary duty as revealed in a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing.

Read More

Tesla Motors: Will Senate Solar Investigation Put SolarCity Acquisition at Risk?

Yes, says Axiom Capital’s Gordon Johnson who writes that a Senate investigation into solar company tax incentives could derail Solar City’s (SCTY) merger with Tesla Motors (TSLA). He cites this Wall Street Journal article on the investigation by Brody Mullins, Ianthe Jeanne Dugan, and Richard Rubin, which details why it might be a problem:

Bloomberg

In its 2015 annual report, Solar City said that if the government determines that misrepresentations were made, “the Department of Justice could bring a civil action to recover amounts it believes were improperly paid to us.”

Solar City received about $501.2 million in credits through Dec. 31, 2015, so even a 5% adjustment downward “would obligate us to repay up to $25.1 million to our fund investors,” the company wrote.

In Johnson’s words, this is “yet another risk to the Tesla/SolarCity deal closing.”

Shares of Tesla Motors gained 2% to $200.42 today, while SolarCity rose 1.2% to $17.10.

Read More