Fitch Affirms Ratings for Southern Company and Subsidiaries

  Fitch Affirms Ratings for Southern Company and Subsidiaries

Business Wire

NEW YORK -- August 6, 2013

Fitch Ratings has affirmed the Issuer Default Rating (IDR) and security
ratings for Southern Company. In addition, Fitch has affirmed the IDRs and
debt ratings of Southern Company's subsidiaries: Alabama Power Company
(Alabama Power), Georgia Power Company (Georgia Power), Gulf Power Company
(Gulf Power), Mississippi Power Company (Mississippi Power) and Southern Power
Company (Southern Power). The Rating Outlook for all of the subsidiaries is
Stable except for Mississippi Power, which remains Negative. A complete list
of rating actions is provided at the end of this release.

KEY RATING DRIVERS FOR SOUTHERN COMPANY

Southern Company's ratings recognize the relatively stable and predictable
cash generation of its operating subsidiaries and the financial support it
gets from them in the form of dividends for the payment of corporate expenses,
debt-service, dividends to common stockholders, and for other business
matters. Southern Company's regulated utility subsidiaries enjoy relatively
favorable regulatory framework in their service territories and exhibit
limited commodity price risks due to the ability to recover fuel and purchased
power through separate cost trackers.

Its non-regulated generation subsidiary, Southern Power, follows a
conservative business model by signing long-term sale contracts with
creditworthy counterparties and minimal commodity exposure through recovery of
fuel costs through its power supply contracts. Southern Company provides
equity funding to its subsidiaries for their long-term growth and to optimize
their capital mix within a target range. The Stable Outlook for Southern
Company reflects adequate liquidity, financial flexibility, and easy access to
capital markets during a period of high capital investment.

Regulatory risk has increased for Southern Company's utility subsidiaries
given the ongoing rate proceedings at Georgia Power and Gulf Power, return on
equity (ROE) review proceedings at Alabama Power and higher regulatory
scrutiny of Mississippi Power's cost overruns associated with the 580 MW
Integrated Gasification and Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant at Kemper. Favorable
outcomes for Georgia Power and Alabama Power's regulatory proceedings will be
key to sustaining Southern Company's current ratings given that the two
subsidiaries account for approximately 84% of consolidated operating income.

Fitch acknowledges that the downside risk to ROEs is higher for both Georgia
Power and Alabama Power given the national trend of declining ROEs. At the
same time, Fitch recognizes the constructive regulatory regime in both Georgia
and Alabama and low commodity prices that provide a favorable backdrop for
rate negotiation. The last rate case outcome for Georgia Power in 2010 was
quite constructive, which enabled the utility to embark on a heavy capex spend
with strong credit metrics. Fitch believes Georgia Public Service Commission
(PSC) will continue to be supportive of the financial health of the utility.
Furthermore, the expected increase under the Nuclear Construction Cost
Recovery (NCCR) tariff of approximately 1% per year through 2017 lowers the
overall rate pressure on Georgia Power's customers.

For Alabama Power, Fitch's financial projections assume that any downward
revision to the authorized ROE is accompanied by a corresponding increase in
the authorized regulatory equity ratio. A decision by the Alabama PSC is
expected in the third quarter of 2013.

Fitch's rating concerns for Southern Company include significant construction
and regulatory risks associated with the two large baseload projects under
construction, namely the 2,200 MW Plant Vogtle nuclear units 3 and 4 being
built by Georgia Power and the 580 MW Kemper IGCC plant being built by
Mississippi Power. The Vogtle nuclear units have been recovering the financing
costs on construction work in progress (CWIP) through a tracker since 2011.
Fitch expects that any adjustments to the overall project costs will be deemed
recoverable by the Georgia PSC. Significant project cost overruns that cannot
be recovered in rates or unexpected long deferral periods for project cost
recovery would be adverse credit factors.

The Kemper IGCC project has faced significant overruns relative to its
original project costs estimate. The project is now expected to cost $4.7
billion, of which $853 million is subject to exemptions and exceptions from
the regulatory cost cap. Of the remaining $3.87 billion, Mississippi Power
does not intend to seek rate recovery for $990 million of costs incurred above
the $2.88 billion cost cap and has taken an equivalent charge to income in the
year-to-date financial results. Southern Company has committed to inject
equity in Mississippi Power to restore its capital structure.

Southern Company is planning to finance the approximately $1 billion equity
infusion into Mississippi Power largely through equity. Management has
committed to issue equity of $700 million in 2013 and $600 million in 2014.
Management has further committed to issue additional equity in 2015, if
needed, to maintain the consolidated equity ratio at the targeted 44% levels.
The funding of Kemper cost overruns primarily by equity is a key factor for
Fitch's affirmation of Southern Company's IDR and Stable Outlook. It is
Fitch's expectation that any future cost overruns at Kemper will be similarly
largely funded through equity such that the consolidated capital structure
remains within the targeted range. Fitch's financial projections assume that
Kemper becomes operational within the currently projected capital costs and
schedule and that the Mississippi PSC approves the seven-year plan proposed by
Mississippi Power to ensure rate stability for retail customers.

Southern Company's consolidated environmental compliance expenditures remain
significant over Fitch's forecast period. The company is planning to spend
approximately $3.6 billion over 2013-2015 on environment capex. All of
Southern Company's regulated subsidiaries, with the exception of Georgia
Power, have environment trackers. Georgia Power has typically recovered
environment compliance-related costs through base rate case decisions.

For the last 12 months (LTM) ending March 13, 2013, the funds flow from
operations (FFO) to total debt ratio stood at 22%, which includes the benefit
of bonus depreciation, and the adjusted debt to EBITDA ratio stood at 3.8x.
Fitch forecasts Southern Company's coverage ratios to remain strong, over 6x,
which reflects the declining benefit of bonus depreciation subsidies. Fitch
expects Southern Company's adjusted debt to EBITDA ratio to be approximately
3.5x and FFO to adjusted debt to be approximately 21% by 2015. Incorporated in
the ratings is Fitch's expectation that Southern Company's financial measures
will remain weak through the large capex cycle at Georgia Power, its largest
subsidiary.

RATING SENSITIVITY

Positive Rating Actions: Fitch does not anticipate any positive rating actions
for Southern Company in the near future.

Project execution risk: Significant time/cost overrun at the Vogtle and/or
Kemper projects that are primarily debt financed and negative regulatory
actions on the recovery of those costs would also be a trigger for downward
rating actions.

Significant slowdown in sales: Weather-adjusted retail sales have declined
0.7% year-to-date as compared to the same period last year. Residential and
commercial sales have continued to exhibit weakness while industrial sales are
beginning to firm up modestly. Lower than expected sales are a key factor in
both Gulf Power's and Georgia Power's pending rate increase request.
Persistent economic weakness and lower than expected sales across Southern
Company's utility subsidiaries could lead to weak consolidated credit metrics
putting pressure on ratings.

Unfavorable regulatory actions: Less than constructive outcomes in the pending
rate proceedings at Alabama Power and Georgia Power can also lead to negative
rating actions.

KEY RATING DRIVERS FOR ALABAMA POWER

Alabama Power's ratings reflect Fitch's view that the utility will continue to
generate strong credit metrics over the next three years driven by a gradual
improvement in industrial sales and rate increases under the Rate
Stabilization & Equalization (RSE) mechanism and environmental cost recovery
clauses. Alabama Power enjoys a constructive regulatory environment and has
consistently earned more than 13% ROE over the last five years.
Cost-of-service recovery mechanisms provide timely recovery of all prudent
costs through various rates/cost trackers, such as those incurred for fuel,
purchased power, storm costs, environmental expenditures and new generation
facilities.

Informal proceedings being conducted by the Alabama PSC on the authorized
range of ROEs, currently set at 13.0%-14.5%, raise near-term regulatory risk
for Alabama Power. The company earns a high retail ROE in today's low interest
rate environment, although its equity ratio at 44% is on the low side compared
to the national utility average. A final decision by the Alabama PSC is
expected in the third quarter of 2013.

Rating concerns for Alabama Power include a high reliance on the industrial
sector, which makes up for 37% of its total MWH sales. The dominant industrial
customers in its service territory comprise chemicals, pipelines, primary
metals and pulp and paper. Fitch sees enough room in the credit metrics to
absorb a prolonged period of economic slowdown in Alabama Power's service
territory; this was demonstrated during the stressed economic conditions of
the year 2009. Fitch expects adjusted debt to EBITDA ratio to be approximately
3.2x over the next three years. FFO to adjusted debt is expected to moderate
to 22% by 2015 after the benefit of bonus depreciation recedes.

Other rating concerns include Alabama Power's large coal mix (about 55% of
total generation), which leaves the utility exposed to potential higher
environmental expenditures. While Alabama Power has an environmental clause
that allows for recovery of all prudent and mandated expenditures, the retail
electricity rates would rise, reducing the flexibility for Alabama Power to
increase the base rates to earn an attractive ROE.

RATING SENSITIVITY

Unfavorable Outcome in the ROE Review: A favorable resolution to the ongoing
informal ROE proceedings at the PSC is key for ratings stability for Alabama
Power. A less than constructive outcome could lead to negative rating actions.

Weak Industrial Sales: Sharp industrial slowdown in Alabama Power's service
territory that depresses margins as well as curtails its flexibility to
continue to earn attractive ROEs would lead to downward rating actions.

KEY RATING DRIVERS FOR GEORGIA POWER

Georgia Power's ratings are supported by the solid financial profile of the
integrated utility which benefits from constructive regulation in Georgia that
limits regulatory lag. Currently, the utility is in the midst of a significant
capital program that includes the construction of two new nuclear units at the
Vogtle site. The execution risk associated with this significant project and
the attendant external financing needs are also considered in the ratings. The
Stable Outlook reflects the expectation that the company will continue to
receive constructive regulatory treatment of the pre-approved projects
including recovery of costs during the construction period.

In its eighth semi-annual Vogtle Construction Monitoring (VCM) report filed
with the Georgia PSC on Feb. 28, 2013, Georgia Power requested an amendment to
increase the estimated in-service capital cost of the Vogtle units by $381
million to $4.8 billion and to extend the estimated in-service dates to fourth
quarter 2017 and fourth quarter 2018 for Vogtle units 3 and 4, respectively.
The financing costs during the construction period are estimated to be $2
billion. According to a recent stipulation reached with the PSC Staff, Georgia
Power will not seek recertification of the original costs and/or schedule
until the completion of Unit 3 and will withdraw this request included in the
8th VCM. Hearings are in progress and the PSC is expected to rule on the 8th
VCM on Oct. 15, 2013.

Separately, Georgia Power and the other owners of the Vogtle 3 and 4 units are
engaged in litigation with the contractors over the costs associated with the
changes to the Design Control Document (DCD), delays in receiving approval of
the DCD, and issuance of a combined construction and operating license by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Fitch expects that any adjustments to the
overall project costs will be deemed recoverable by the Georgia PSC.
Significant project cost overruns that cannot be recovered in rates or
unexpected long deferral periods for project cost recovery would be adverse
credit factors.

Georgia Power's annual capex is forecast to be in the $2.2 billion-$2.4
billion range over 2013-2015, or approximately 3x depreciation. This is high
relative to peer utilities and is primarily driven by Georgia Power's share of
Vogtle costs. In addition, Georgia Power anticipates spending approximately
$1.1 billion in environmental capex over 2013-2015 mostly for compliance with
the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule. While Georgia regulations do
not allow for automatic recovery of environmental costs, Georgia Power has
historically been granted adequate rate relief on its environmental capex.

Georgia Power's revenue increases resulting from the December 2010 base rate
settlement, bonus depreciation, and significant fuel recoveries have resulted
in strengthening of cash flow credit measures. This has allowed it to embark
on a heavy capital investment program with strong credit metrics. Fitch
expects bonus depreciation benefits to continue to boost funds from operations
(FFO) in 2013 and 2014. Georgia Power recently filed its base rate case for
rates to be effective 2014. The filing requests a $482 million or 6.1% rate
increase based on a ROE of 11.5%. Staff and intervenor testimony is due in
October with the final PSC decision on or before Dec. 17, 2013. Fitch expects
a constructive resolution to Georgia Power's rate case with the assumption
that the PSC will continue to be supportive of the financial health of the
utility.

Fitch anticipates a gradual decline in Georgia Power's credit metrics until
2015 reflecting the pressure from a large construction program despite
expectations of a constructive outcome in the pending rate proceeding. Fitch
forecasts Georgia Power's adjusted debt to EBITDA and FFO to adjusted debt to
be approximately 3.2x and 21.5%, respectively, in 2015. The sales growth at
Georgia Power has lagged expectations due to continued weakness in residential
and commercial electric demand. Persistently weak sales could put additional
pressure on credit metrics through 2015.

RATING SENSITIVITY:

Vogtle Project Execution: Successful execution of nuclear plant construction
and continued regulatory support are key to maintaining rating stability at
Georgia Power. In this regard, Fitch will continue to monitor the construction
timelines, frequency and nature of any license amendment requests to the NRC,
outcome of the 8th VCM report, potential escalations in the estimated
in-service capital costs and/or in-service dates, and outcomes of future VCM
reports filed by Georgia Power at the Georgia PSC. Cost overruns or delays in
the Vogtle project could pressure cash flow and ratings.

Rate Case Outcome: Any adverse outcome in the pending rate case or any adverse
change in Georgia Power's relations with the Georgia PSC, which are currently
not anticipated, could also likely lead to negative rating actions.

Positive Rating Actions Unlikely: Positive rating actions for Georgia Power
are considered unlikely while the Vogtle project is underway.

KEY RATING DRIVERS FOR GULF POWER

The ratings and Stable Outlook for Gulf Power reflect predictable cash flows
from regulated electric operations, a slow but steady improvement in retail
sales after a deep economic downturn, return to a more orderly and
constructive regulatory environment, and steadily improving credit metrics
from 2009 cyclical lows. Gulf Power's service territory continues to see slow
but steady improvement in the local economy with economic indicators such as
housing starts, unemployment and income growth, all showing positive trends.

The utility enjoys several rate riders that provide timely recovery of all
prudent costs related to fuel, purchased power costs and environmental
expenditures. While Gulf Power is dependent on coal fired generation capacity
that must comply with stringent emissions standards, the fuel and
environmental recovery clauses promote timely recovery of associated costs.

Gulf Power recently filed a base rate increase request of $74.4 million based
on 11.5% ROE. High capital expenditures, primarily related to transmission,
and slower than expected sales growth are the main drivers for the rate
increase request. The rate case filing coming so soon on the heels of the last
rate case does induce regulatory uncertainty for the company. In April 2012,
Gulf Power had secured a $64.1 million rate increase and an additional $4
million step-up increase in 2013. The rate increases were based on a midpoint
ROE of 10.25% and an authorized retail ROE range of 9.25%-11.25%.

Fitch forecasts Gulf Power's adjusted debt to EBITDA and FFO to adjusted debt
to be approximately 3.4x and 19.2%, respectively, in 2015, which is in line
with its rating category.

RATING SENSITIVITY

Positive Rating Actions Unlikely: Positive rating actions for Gulf Power are
not anticipated at this time.

Unfavorable Regulatory Outcomes: Negative rating actions could be triggered by
unexpected negative regulatory developments in Florida such as an adverse
outcome in the proposed rate case.

Weak Electric sales: Extended weakness in Florida economy and lower than
expected sales could put pressure on financial measures leading to downward
rating revisions.

KEY RATING DRIVERS FOR MISSISSIPPI POWER

The key near-term uncertainty at Mississippi Power remains the execution risk
associated with the construction of the Kemper IGCC project. Specifically,
Fitch is concerned with the escalation in capital costs of the project, the
possibility of a delay in schedule and, consequentially, the loss of Phase I
tax credits from the IRS, and any potential disallowance of Kemper
construction costs in the prudency reviews to be conducted by the Mississippi
PSC.

Mississippi Power undertook a detailed study of Kemper project costs and
schedule in July and concluded that the project is likely to incur a further
cost overrun of $450 million. This is on top of the $540 million project cost
estimate increase announced by the utility in April 2013. Mississippi Power
does not intend to seek rate recovery for these costs or joint owner
contributions, which will likely contain regulatory backlash to some extent.
The latest project estimate was arrived after a very comprehensive analysis
and detailed cost study undertaken by the company and also reflects
approximately $163 million of contingency. While further costs increases
cannot be ruled out, management believes it has captured a significant
proportion of material and labor related cost increases in its latest
estimate.

The significant risks that still remain are associated with the gasifier
start-up (target date is December 2013) and meeting the scheduled commercial
operations date of May 2014. Any delay in schedule would result in the loss of
$133 million in investment tax credits. A delay also exposes the utility to
additional costs (approximately $15 million-$40 million per month) and greater
regulatory risk. The PSC has set up a schedule for prudency hearings on
project costs incurred through March 2013. The hearings are expected to be
held and a decision to be made in early 2014. All these events combined
elevate the regulatory risks for the utility.

Southern Company is planning to inject equity into Mississippi Power as
necessary to maintain the utility's 50/50 capital structure, which is a key
factor for Fitch to maintain Mississippi Power's IDR at 'A-'. Management has
committed that the parent will continue to underwrite any potential cost
overruns that cannot be recoverable from customers by Mississippi Power.
Hence, the risk of future cost overruns insulates the utility to a large
extent.

The delay in recovery of financing costs has already put significant stress on
Mississippi Power's credit metrics. For the LTM ending March 31, 2013, FFO to
total debt declined to 10.2% and the leverage ratio increased to 8.6x. As part
of Mississippi Power's construction work-in-progress (CWIP) filing,
Mississippi PSC approved a $125 million rate increase effective April 1, 2013
and a subsequent $31 million increase effective Jan. 1, 2014. Fitch's
financial analysis indicates that if the project becomes operational within
the currently projected capital costs and schedule, and based on the
assumption that the Mississippi PSC approves the utility's 7-year plan as
proposed, Mississippi Power's credit metrics are expected to revert to Fitch's
guideline ratios of a low-risk 'A-' rated utility company by 2015-16.

The Negative Outlook reflects still elevated regulatory risks for the company
in addition to the ongoing construction and operational risks associated with
the IGCC project. The key near-term uncertainty at Mississippi Power remains
the project execution risk, the pending approval of the 7-year rate plan in
October, and the outcome of the prudency reviews to be conducted by the
Mississippi PSC. Fitch expects the Negative Outlook to remain until there is
sufficient clarity regarding the final capital costs and time to completion
for the Kemper project as well as successful operational performance of the
plant within the parameters established by the Mississippi PSC.

RATING SENSITIVITY

Recovery of Kemper Project Costs: Fitch will continue to monitor the progress
on the 7-year plan filed by Mississippi Power; the Mississippi PSC approval is
expected in October. Fitch will also monitor the prudency reviews to be
conducted by the MPSC on Kemper capital costs.

Construction and Operational Risks for Kemper: Any cost overrun beyond the
latest project cost estimate of $2.88 billion, if not funded by the parent,
could lead to negative rating actions. The successful operational performance
of the plant within the parameters established by the Mississippi PSC is also
key to maintaining rating stability at Mississippi Power.

Regulatory Environment: Unfavorable changes in regulatory policies for timely
recovery of utility capital investments, fuel and purchased power costs, and
storm-related costs would adversely affect Mississippi Power's ratings.

KEY RATING DRIVERS FOR SOUTHERN POWER

The ratings and Stable Outlook for Southern Power are based upon consistent
credit metrics generated by the company, a disciplined low-risk business
model, visibility of cash flows due to the highly contracted nature of the
generation output, and conservative financial strategy employed by management.

Southern Power sells power primarily under long-term power sales agreements
with investment-grade counterparties. As of March 31, 2013, the company had
contracted an average of 78% of its capacity for the next five years and 71%
of its capacity over the next 10 years. The company is generally able to pass
through fuel costs to its customers under power sales contracts, although it
retains margin exposure to the operating efficiency of its plants. This
results in a high visibility of cash flows and consistent credit metrics over
time.

The company is well-positioned relative to other power generators in the face
of more stringent environmental regulations that affect coal- and oil-fired
generation, as its fleet consists mainly of modern gas-fired power plants.
Fitch expects Southern Power's generation fleet to benefit from potential
retirement of old and inefficient coal capacity in its region.

Southern Power's 2013 capex is expected to be high at approximately $910
million due to the ongoing construction of the 139 MWs Campo Verde and 30 MWs
Spectrum solar projects; Southern Power owns a 90% ownership interest in each.
The total estimated cost of these two projects is approximately $610
million-$620 million. Capex requirements for 2014 and 2015 are expected to be
$752 million and $736 million, respectively, which include potential plant
acquisitions and new construction projects. Fitch expects Southern Power to
finance new projects and/ or acquisitions with 50%-55% debt structure.

Fitch expects Southern Power's credit metrics to remain strong until 2015,
excluding the benefit from bonus depreciation. Fitch expects debt-to-EBITDA
and funds from operations (FFO) to debt metrics to be approximately 3.2x and
21%, respectively, in 2015, both strong relative to Southern Power's rating
category.

Southern Power's Stable Outlook is based on ample liquidity and access to
capital both on its own and as a subsidiary of Southern Company, management's
conservative business strategy, and minimal projected external funding
requirements.

RATING SENSITIVITY

Positive Action: Positive rating actions for Southern Power are not
anticipated at this time.

Significant Deterioration in Power Demand: Negative rating actions can be
triggered by a significant drop in power demand led by protracted weakness in
economic growth, which could negatively affect recontracting of power
generation output once existing contracts mature.

Aggressive Investment or Financial Strategy: Southern Power's credit rating
could be adversely affected if the company adopts a more speculative stance on
new investments, such as buying or building merchant generation assets without
long-term power purchase agreements or taking on major construction or
completion risks on unconventional technologies. An aggressive financial
strategy, such as debt-funded acquisitions or new development, could also lead
to downward rating actions.

Fitch affirms the following ratings with a Stable Outlook:

Southern Company

--Long-term IDR at 'A';

--Short-term IDR at 'F1';

--Commercial paper at 'F1';

--Senior unsecured notes at 'A'.

Southern Company Funding Corp.

--Short-term IDR at 'F1';

--Commercial paper at 'F1'.

Alabama Power Company

--Long-term IDR at 'A';

--Short-term IDR at 'F1';

--Commercial paper at 'F1';

--Senior unsecured notes at 'A+';

--Pollution control revenue bonds at 'A+' and 'F1';

--Preferred securities at 'A-'.

Alabama Power Company Capital Trust V

--Trust preferred stock at 'A-'.

Georgia Power Company

--Long-term IDR at 'A';

--Short-term IDR at 'F1';

--Commercial paper at 'F1';

--Senior unsecured notes at 'A+/F1';

--Pollution control revenue bonds at 'A+' and 'F1';

--Preferred securities at 'A-'.

Gulf Power Company

--Long-term IDR at 'A-';

--Short-term IDR at 'F1';

--Commercial paper at 'F1';

--Senior unsecured notes at 'A';

--Pollution control revenue bonds at 'A' and 'F1';

--Preferred securities at 'BBB+'.

Southern Power Company

--Long-term IDR at 'BBB+';

--Short-term IDR at 'F2';

--Senior unsecured debt at 'BBB+'.

Fitch affirms the following ratings with a Negative Outlook:

Mississippi Power Company

--Long-term IDR at 'A-';

--Short-term IDR at 'F1';

--Commercial paper at 'F1';

--Senior unsecured notes at 'A';

--Pollution control revenue bonds at 'A' and 'F1';

--Preferred securities at 'BBB+'.

Additional information is available at 'www.fitchratings.com'.

Applicable Criteria and Related Research:

--'Corporate Rating Methodology', Aug. 8, 2012;

--'Parent and Subsidiary Rating Linkage', Aug. 8, 2012;

--'Recovery Ratings and Notching Criteria for Utilities', Nov. 13, 2012;

--'Treatment and Notching of Hybrids in Nonfinancial Corporate and REIT Credit
Analysis', Dec. 13, 2012;

--'Short-Term Ratings Criteria for Non-Financial Corporates', Aug. 9, 2012;

--'Rating North American Utilities, Power, Gas and Water Companies', May 16,
2011.

Applicable Criteria and Related Research:

Treatment and Notching of Hybrids in Nonfinancial Corporate and REIT Credit
Analysis

http://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=696670

Recovery Ratings and Notching Criteria for Non-Financial Corporate Issuers

http://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=693773

Corporate Rating Methodology: Including Short-Term Ratings and Parent and
Subsidiary Linkage

http://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=715139

Short-Term Ratings Criteria for Non-Financial Corporates

http://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=714415

Additional Disclosure

Solicitation Status

http://www.fitchratings.com/gws/en/disclosure/solicitation?pr_id=798760

ALL FITCH CREDIT RATINGS ARE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS.
PLEASE READ THESE LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS BY FOLLOWING THIS LINK:
HTTP://FITCHRATINGS.COM/UNDERSTANDINGCREDITRATINGS. IN ADDITION, RATING
DEFINITIONS AND THE TERMS OF USE OF SUCH RATINGS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE AGENCY'S
PUBLIC WEBSITE 'WWW.FITCHRATINGS.COM'. PUBLISHED RATINGS, CRITERIA AND
METHODOLOGIES ARE AVAILABLE FROM THIS SITE AT ALL TIMES. FITCH'S CODE OF
CONDUCT, CONFIDENTIALITY, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, AFFILIATE FIREWALL,
COMPLIANCE AND OTHER RELEVANT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE FROM
THE 'CODE OF CONDUCT' SECTION OF THIS SITE. FITCH MAY HAVE PROVIDED ANOTHER
PERMISSIBLE SERVICE TO THE RATED ENTITY OR ITS RELATED THIRD PARTIES. DETAILS
OF THIS SERVICE FOR RATINGS FOR WHICH THE LEAD ANALYST IS BASED IN AN
EU-REGISTERED ENTITY CAN BE FOUND ON THE ENTITY SUMMARY PAGE FOR THIS ISSUER
ON THE FITCH WEBSITE.

Contact:

Fitch Ratings
Primary Analyst
Shalini Mahajan, CFA, +1 212-908-0351
Senior Director
Fitch Ratings, Inc.
One State Street Plaza
New York, NY, 10004
or
Secondary Analyst
Lindsay Minneman, +1 212-908-0592
Director
or
Committee Chairperson
Glen Grabelsky, +1 212-908-0577
Managing Director
or
Media Relations:
Brian Bertsch, +1 212-908-0549
brian.bertsch@fitchratings.com
 
Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.