Solyndra Sues Suntech Holdings Over Antitrust Claims

Solyndra LLC, the bankrupt solar- panel maker that received a $535 million U.S. government loan guarantee, accused Suntech Power Holdings Co. (STP) and other Chinese panel makers of driving it out of business by running an illegal cartel.

Solyndra, which filed for bankruptcy protection in August 2011, is seeking compensation “for the loss of the $1.5 billion value of its business and more which defendants destroyed,” according to a complaint filed yesterday in federal court in San Francisco.

The defendants schemed with each other, raw material suppliers and certain lenders to flood the U.S. market with solar panels at below-cost prices, the Fremont, California-based company said in the complaint. Panel prices for Wuxi, China- based Suntech, the biggest solar-panel maker, and two other companies moved in tandem, falling 75 percent in four years in the U.S. market, Solyndra said.

“It is obvious that this lawsuit is a misguided effort by Solyndra to find scapegoats for its failure to commercialize its technology at a competitive price point,” E. L. “Mick” McDaniel, managing director of Suntech America, said in an e- mail. The allegations are “baseless” and Suntech will fight them, he said.

Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg

Solyndra LLC, the bankrupt solar-panel maker that received a $535 million U.S. government loan guarantee, accused Suntech Power Holdings Co. and other Chinese companies of destroying it by running an illegal cartel. Close

Solyndra LLC, the bankrupt solar-panel maker that received a $535 million U.S.... Read More

Close
Open
Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg

Solyndra LLC, the bankrupt solar-panel maker that received a $535 million U.S. government loan guarantee, accused Suntech Power Holdings Co. and other Chinese companies of destroying it by running an illegal cartel.

Government Policies

U.S. solar-energy manufacturers have said they were forced to close plants and fire workers because of unfair Chinese government policies. The Commerce Department on May 17 announced preliminary duties ranging from 31 percent to 250 percent on imports of Chinese-made solar cells, after determining that the products were sold in the U.S. below cost.

Solyndra was forced to shut down operations and fire most of its 1,100 workers on Aug. 31, 2011. The solar-panel maker listed $854.1 million in assets and $867.1 million in debt in court papers filed Oct. 31.

The company’s collapse prompted congressional scrutiny of President Barack Obama, who praised Solyndra during a May 2010 tour of its facilities. It was the first company to receive a loan guarantee under Obama’s stimulus program.

Suntech, Trina Solar Ltd. (TSL) and Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. (YGE) raised money from American investors by selling depositary shares to destroy U.S. competitors such as Solyndra, according to the complaint. From 2008 to 2011, the Chinese companies “coincidentally” cut prices, forcing Solyndra and other U.S. solar-panel makers to follow suit, Solyndra claimed.

Trade Groups

The companies met regularly at trade group forums to coordinate their pricing and agreed to flood the U.S. market rather than sell in China, according to the complaint.

An energy trade association, China’s energy administration, Chinese banks and Chinese polysilicon manufacturers are named as co-conspirators in the lawsuit.

The complaint seeks a judgment declaring the Chinese companies’ conduct was an illegal conspiracy to fix prices and create a monopoly and damages of at least $1.5 billion.

The case is Solyndra LLC v. Suntech Power Holdings Ltd., 12-05272, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco). The bankruptcy case is In re Solyndra LLC, 11-12799, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).

To contact the reporter on this story: Karen Gullo in San Francisco at kgullo@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net

Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.

Bloomberg reserves the right to remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.