What's new

Toshiba’s Westinghouse Electric Files for Bankruptcy Protection

contrary to this statement"
Unlike in country such as Australia or UK, you go bankrupt and that's it.

That is wrong
The commonwealth countries (except india that I dont know of) have their own set of similar rules in these regards
They call it RECEIVERSHIP


still not a good thing, a powerhouse and well known name like Westinghouse shouldn't be filing for chapter 11. Imagine Elon musk file for chapter 11 for tesla, it would tank his stocks.



What's the status of it's AP1000 reactors in china??

Sorry mate!
I am not familiar with the nuke industry in China in general
The latest that I read about was we concluded a nuclear plant deal in the UK like this

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37369786

If I may come across any further info I will come back and give you the details

images
 
Last edited:
.
contrary to this statement"
Unlike in country such as Australia or UK, you go bankrupt and that's it.


That is wrong
The commonwealth countries (except india that I dont know of) have their own set of similar rules in these regards
They call it RECEIVERSHIP

You got to love people quoting a part of my post and put it OUT OF CONTEXT and say I was wrong.

First of all, Receivership is not bankruptcy, in fact, common law does not have bankruptcy on company, you goes into insolvency.

Receivership is another process that controlled by either the debtor (voluntary receivership) or court (involuntary receivership)

In common law, a company enter into receivership before that company became an insolvent entity (In other word, bankrupted) When a company cannot be salvage by receivership's restructuring option, that company can only be at that point, become bankrupted. So, for a company to be an insolvent entity, they have to go pass the receivership prior to declaring them to be insolvent.

In US law, a company can file for bankruptcy without actually become insolvent. Due to the amazing fact that US Law does not require receivership or appointed administration prior to filing Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. This is done after declaring insolvency (ie filing for Chapter 11).

Under Common Law , it's ILLEGAL to continue business transaction if a company is in insolvency or prior to insolvency (Given the director know an insolvency is unavoidable). As the transaction will be undervalue, UK law prohibit trading prior to declaration of insolvency, 2 years to a persons/entity with knowledge, 6 months to persons or entity without. Australian Law prohibit trading at the very first sign (No date set) when the company fail balance test and cash flow test.

http://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resou.../directors-consequences-of-insolvent-trading/

It was called Wrongful Trading under UK law.

http://uk.practicallaw.com/0-107-7526

On the other hand, when a company is insolvent (having been filed Chapter 11) in the US trading can be continue, given if the director or persons/entities involved forewarn the situation to potential buyer.

That is what I meant by once you are insolvent/bankrupted, you're done. Business HAVE TO STOP AT THAT POINT regardless of receivership being appointed. It does not matter if the company is going to restructure or wind down or exit.
 
Last edited:
.
Westinghouse Bankruptcy Puts Fate Of Four U.S. Nuclear Reactors In Limbo

ZeroHedge, 2017-03-29

When Westinghouse Electric filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Wednesday morning, few were surprised as the outcome was the only one which allowed the company's troubled, and near-insolvent Japanese parent, Toshiba, to continue operating, even if it meant the bankruptcy of the iconic company. Westinghouse was one of the originators of the nuclear age, building the world’s first commercial nuclear reactor 60 years ago. Its pressurized water reactor design is in 430 power plants and accounts for 10% of electricity generated in the world.

However, few were prepared for the unexpected aftermath of this particular bankruptcy, which has set off a showdown between Toshiba and a major U.S. utility, has left the fate of four half-finished nuclear reactors and is threatening to drive a wedge between the US and Japanese governments over the fate of industries each considers vital.

westinghouse_GA_0.jpg

The Vogtle Unit 3 and 4 site, a Westinghouse project, near Waynesboro, Ga., in February

For those who have missed our previous discussion on the underlying cause for today's default, Westinghouse incurred billions in runaway cost overruns related to four nuclear reactors it is building in the southeastern U.S. These costs from the half-finished reactors had spiraled so large, they threatened the viability of its Japanese parent company, Toshiba, which in turn has been engulfed in a series of accounting and fraud scandals in recent years, has seen its profitability plummet and whose precarious finances have attracted attention of Japan’s government.

Admitting defeat in the nuclear business, Toshiba CEO Satoshi Tsunukawa said that “this is a de facto withdrawal from the overseas nuclear business for us. Therefore, we don’t see any more risk."

Others, however, see substantial risk now that their claims against Westinghouse are reduced to the status of a prepetition unsecured claim. First and foremost, is Toshiba's now former, and quite angry customer, Tom Fanning, CEO of Southern Co., the Atlanta power company and primary owner of two of the reactors being built in Georgia, who on Wednesday characterized the completion of the reactors as an international political issue, calling it a test of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s commitments with President Donald Trump at a summit in February to help create American jobs.

“The commitments are not just financial and operational, but there are moral commitments as well,” Mr. Fanning said in an interview from Tokyo, where he had traveled to lobby for a resolution to the mounting dispute. Quoted by the WSJ, Fanning said there are 5,000 jobs directly at stake at the two Georgia reactors, jobs that could be lost if Toshiba doesn’t commit to paying billions in future costs, which it won't now that it has severed ties with its insolvent subsidiary.

Westinghouse designed the reactors and also is building them for Southern, and contractually had agreed to shoulder cost overruns, at least until its Chapter 11 filing this morning.

Perhaps unaware of the ramifications, Trump administration officials were quiet on the bankruptcy Wednesday.

According to the WSJ, the U.S. Department of Energy, which has provided an $8 billion loan guarantee for the Georgia reactors, said it was in discussions with various companies. “We are keenly interested in the bankruptcy proceedings and what they mean for taxpayers and the nation,” said Lindsey Geisler, an agency spokeswoman.

Ironically, based on a new Westinghouse design, the reactors, the first to be constructed in the U.S. in nearly four decades, were supposed to be an answer to cost overruns and delays that have dogged the nuclear power industry. We say ironically, because it is cost overruns and delays that eventually led to the company's bankruptcy. Worse, these plants are already years behind schedule in addition to causing huge losses for Toshiba.

Toshiba said it expected to lose about $9 billion in the fiscal year ending March 31, largely because it guaranteed nearly $6 billion in Westinghouse’s obligations to Southern and Scana Corp.—the company for which Westinghouse is building the other two reactors in South Carolina.

What happens next is unclear. After the bankruptcy filing, Southern and Scana have said they would finance continued construction of the reactors for 30 days, but weren’t clear where construction funding would come from after that time. Scana also said, for the first time, that it would consider abandoning the two reactors underway if costs changed dramatically.

More problematic are the potential political implications: Southern's CEO has made it clear he intends to escalate this to the level of an international conflict if he must. Fanning, who said he has spoken to Vice President Mike Pence, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Energy Secretary Rick Perry about the importance of completing the reactors, argued that more was at stake economically than the direct future of the facilities.

Westinghouse declaring bankruptcy has national security implications,” said Mr. Fanning, who also happens to be chair of the board of the Atlanta Fed.

Fanning said the estimated cost of the entire project was roughly $16 billion, but cautioned that the companies were unsure of how much more was needed to finish the partially built reactors. The current target dates for completion of the Georgia reactors are 2019 and 2020, three years behind the original schedule.

Richard Nephew, a fellow at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, said Mr. Fanning appeared to be using the Trump administration’s reputation for defending U.S. jobs and taking a tough stance even with allies, to his advantage.

“This is someone who knows what the triggers are for this administration,” Mr. Nephew said. “Everyone now has a sense of what the president’s triggers are and I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of companies use those triggers to gain an advantage in negotiations with foreign companies.”

Another problem is the overall viability of nuclear energy. Toshiba casting away Westinghouse is merely the latest indication of an industry in turmoil, demonstrated recently by Siemens' decision to abandon the industry, Areva SA’s financial and safety problems, the falling market value of China General Nuclear Power Group and the junk-bond status of Russia’s Atomenergoprom.

“I don’t see how this can mean anything but even greater cost growth for the plants under construction and an unacceptable risk for any that are under consideration,” said Fred Beach, assistant director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.

Meanwhile, the biggest threat from the bankruptcy is fallout in the already tense diplomatic relations between the US and Japan.

A Japanese government official said the U.S. had not raised Mr. Fanning’s complaints with the Abe administration and that there had been no request for help to keep the projects alive. “This is a private company’s business and operation,” the person said.

It will hardly remain that way, and it remains to be seen what will happen if and when Trump demands that Japan make whole the US companies that were cheat by Toshiba's decision.
 
. . . . .
Huge nuclear cost overruns push Toshiba's Westinghouse into bankruptcy

WILMINGTON, DEL./TOKYO (Reuters) - Westinghouse Electric Co, a unit of Japanese conglomerate Toshiba Corp <6502.T>, filed for bankruptcy on Wednesday, hit by billions of dollars of cost overruns at four nuclear reactors under construction in the U.S. Southeast.

The bankruptcy casts doubt on the future of the first new U.S. nuclear power plants in three decades, which were scheduled to begin producing power as soon as this week, but are now years behind schedule.

The four reactors are part of two projects known as V.C. Summer in South Carolina, which is majority owned by SCANA Corp <SCG.N>, and Vogtle in Georgia, which is owned by a group of utilities led by Southern Co <SO.N>.

Costs for the projects have soared due to increased safety demands by U.S. regulators, and also due to significantly higher-than-anticipated costs for labor, equipment and components.

Pittsburgh-based Westinghouse said it hopes to use bankruptcy to isolate and reorganize around its "very profitable" nuclear fuel and power plant servicing businesses from its money-losing construction operation.

Westinghouse said in a court filing it has secured $800 million in financing from Apollo Investment Corp <AINV.O>, an affiliate of Apollo Global Management <APO.N>, to fund its core businesses during its reorganization.

For Toshiba, the filing will help keep the crisis-hit parent company afloat as it lines up buyers for its memory chip business, which could fetch $18 billion. Toshiba said Westinghouse-related liabilities totalled $9.8 billion as of December.

Toshiba said it would guarantee up to $200 million of the financing for Westinghouse. Toshiba shares closed up 2.2 percent but have lost half their value since the nuclear problems surfaced late last year.

The Apollo loan needs court approval and is expected to carry Westinghouse for a year, people familiar with the matter said. The funds would support the company's global operations, including its healthier services and maintenance businesses, and pay for construction workers on site in Georgia and South Carolina, the people said.

However, the money cannot be used to repay the liabilities stemming from cost overruns and delays at the projects, the people said.

SCANA told investors on a conference call on Wednesday that 5,000 workers would continue working on its South Carolina site for 30 days while the company weighed options.

"Our preferred option is to finish the plants. The least preferred option is abandonment,” said SCANA CEO Kevin Marsh.

Southern Co said in a statement it would hold Westinghouse and Toshiba accountable for its contract.

State regulators have approved costs of around $14 billion for each project but Morgan Stanley has estimated the final bill of around $22 billion for the South Carolina project and around $19 billion for the Georgia plant.

POSSIBLE SALE

Westinghouse’s nuclear services business is expected to continue to perform profitably over the course of the bankruptcy and eventually be sold by Toshiba, people familiar with the matter said. They cautioned that the sale process will likely be highly complex and litigious.

The bankruptcy could embroil the U.S. and Japanese governments, given the scale of the collapse and the $8.3 billion in U.S. government loan guarantees that were provided to help finance the reactors.

The U.S. Department of Energy expects the parties to honor their commitments, said spokeswoman Lindsey Geisler.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it was inspecting the sites to ensure the facilities met the requirements of the licenses that were issued to units of Southern and SCANA.

Shares of SCANA were down 0.8 percent at $65.64 and Southern Co fell 0.4 percent to $49.90 in trading on the New York Stock Exchange.


NUCLEAR RENAISSANCE

When regulators in Georgia and South Carolina approved the construction of Westinghouse's AP1000 reactors in 2009, it was meant to be the start of renewed push to develop U.S. nuclear power.

However, a flood of cheap natural gas from shale, the lack of U.S. legislation to curb carbon emissions and the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan dampened enthusiasm for nuclear power.

Toshiba had acquired Westinghouse in 2006 for $5.4 billion. It expected to build dozens of its new AP1000 reactors - which were hailed as safer, quicker to construct and more compact - creating a pipeline of work for its maintenance division.
NUCLEAR FALLOUT

Toshiba has said it expects to book a net loss of 1 trillion yen ($9 billion) for the fiscal year that ends Friday, one of the biggest annual losses in Japanese corporate history. Toshiba had earlier forecast a loss of 390 billion yen.

Toshiba will close the first round of bids for its chip business - the world's second-biggest NAND chip producer - on Wednesday. A source with knowledge of the issue said that about 10 potential bidders had shown interest, including Western Digital Corp <WDC.O> which operates a Japanese chip plant with Toshiba, rival Micron Technology Inc <MU.O>, South Korean chipmaker SK Hynix Inc <000660.KS> and financial investors.

Toshiba CEO Satoshi Tsunakawa said offers for the unit are likely to allow Toshiba to maintain shareholder equity. Toshiba believes the unit will be worth at least 2 trillion yen ($18 billion), he added.

The government-backed Innovation Network Corporation of Japan, and Development Bank of Japan are expected to enter later bidding rounds as part of a consortium, sources said.

A separate source said that Foxconn <2317.TW>, the world's largest contract electronics manufacturer, is expected to place an offer which is likely to be the highest bid. Other sources have said the Japanese government is likely to block a sale to Foxconn due to its deep ties with China.


(Reporting by Makiko Yamazaki and Tim Kelly in Tokyo and Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware; Additional reporting by Kentaro Hamada, Yoshiyasu Shida, Taiga Uranaka, Hitoshi Ishida and Sam Nussey in Tokyo, Scott DiSavino and Jessica DiNapoli in New York, Tracy Rucinski in Chicago; Writing by Naomi Tajitsu and Clara Ferreira Marques; Editing by Noeleen Walder, Edwina Gibbs, Bernard Orr and Lisa Shumaker)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/toshi...lear-unit-westinghouse-020157059--sector.html


 
.
The only way out for the plants under construction is to bring in tens of thousands of Chinese engineers, technicians and workers to finish the projects in the shortest time and at the lowest cost possible.

I say:

Fire the Americans, hire the Chinese.

Give both middle fingers to Japanese money and welcome with open arms Chinese capital.

Let the Chinese finance, build, operate and own the damn plants.:D

Happy ever after!:D:enjoy:
 
.
The only way out for the plants under construction is to bring in tens of thousands of Chinese engineers, technicians and workers to finish the projects in the shortest time and at the lowest cost possible.

I say:

Fire the Americans, hire the Chinese.

Give both middle fingers to Japanese money and welcome with open arms Chinese capital.

Let the Chinese finance, build, operate and own the damn plants.:D

Happy ever after!:D:enjoy:

Fire Trumpu, hire Cirr for POTUS :enjoy:
 
.
However, few were prepared for the unexpected aftermath of this particular bankruptcy, which has set off a showdown between Toshiba and a major U.S. utility, has left the fate of four half-finished nuclear reactors and is threatening to drive a wedge between the US and Japanese governments over the fate of industries each considers vital.

Trump will go red hot on this and beat Abe with the golf club (Made by China) that Abe gifted him at the (tremendously) White House.

The only way out for the plants under construction is to bring in tens of thousands of Chinese engineers, technicians and workers to finish the projects in the shortest time and at the lowest cost possible.

I say:

Fire the Americans, hire the Chinese.

Give both middle fingers to Japanese money and welcome with open arms Chinese capital.

Let the Chinese finance, build, operate and own the damn plants.:D

Happy ever after!:D:enjoy:

Then what about MAGA?

China > MAGA > Japan ?
 
.
You got to love people quoting a part of my post and put it OUT OF CONTEXT and say I was wrong.

First of all, Receivership is not bankruptcy, in fact, common law does not have bankruptcy on company, you goes into insolvency.

Receivership is another process that controlled by either the debtor (voluntary receivership) or court (involuntary receivership)

In common law, a company enter into receivership before that company became an insolvent entity (In other word, bankrupted) When a company cannot be salvage by receivership's restructuring option, that company can only be at that point, become bankrupted. So, for a company to be an insolvent entity, they have to go pass the receivership prior to declaring them to be insolvent.

In US law, a company can file for bankruptcy without actually become insolvent. Due to the amazing fact that US Law does not require receivership or appointed administration prior to filing Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. This is done after declaring insolvency (ie filing for Chapter 11).

Under Common Law , it's ILLEGAL to continue business transaction if a company is in insolvency or prior to insolvency (Given the director know an insolvency is unavoidable). As the transaction will be undervalue, UK law prohibit trading prior to declaration of insolvency, 2 years to a persons/entity with knowledge, 6 months to persons or entity without. Australian Law prohibit trading at the very first sign (No date set) when the company fail balance test and cash flow test.

http://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resou.../directors-consequences-of-insolvent-trading/

It was called Wrongful Trading under UK law.

http://uk.practicallaw.com/0-107-7526

On the other hand, when a company is insolvent (having been filed Chapter 11) in the US trading can be continue, given if the director or persons/entities involved forewarn the situation to potential buyer.

That is what I meant by once you are insolvent/bankrupted, you're done. Business HAVE TO STOP AT THAT POINT regardless of receivership being appointed. It does not matter if the company is going to restructure or wind down or exit.

Receivership is similar to the Chapter 11 in the USA wherein any company facing financial difficulties and finding nowhere to resort to can apply for receivership in the Commonwealth countries, Australia included before the nails in the coffin for liquidation sink in. That mean what you said in your above state "Unlike in country such as Australia or UK, you go bankrupt and that's it." is completely WRONG.

Your comments on finance economics and now business law are laughable, just like some other perceived economic "academician" on the forum.

You are showing your lack of the slightest comprehension on the main gist of the similar laws under different jurisdictions.

In receivership, you are allowed to carry on your business under the guidance of an official receiver which can hope to re-organise your business or look for a white knight for a going concern.

BOTH the spirit of receivership and chapter 11 as in the USA serve the same purpose of providing the final breath to the company in great trouble.

Ask your whoever CPAs for more clues before bullshitting.

images
 
.
Receivership is similar to the Chapter 11 in the usa wherein any company facing financial difficulties and finding nowhere to resort to can apply for receivership in the commenwealth countries, australia included before the nails in the coffin for liquidation sink in. That mean what you said in your above state "Unlike in country such as Australia or UK, you go bankrupt and that's it." is completely WRONG

Your comments on finance economics and now business law are laughable, just like some other percieved economic "academian" on the forum

You are showing your lack of the slightest comprehension on the main gist of the similar laws under different jurisdictions

In receivership, you are allowed to carry on your business under the guidance of an official receiver which can hope to reorganise your business or look for a white knight for a going concern

BOTH the spirit of receivership and chapter 11 as in the usa serve the same purpose of providing the final breath to the company in great trouble

Ask you whoever cpas for more clues before bullshitting

images

And you haveproblem understanding basic English

Under receivershio, you, as the director cannot do anythig, the administrator can carry on with business to either wind down or salvage the business, and that is only if the administrator see fit on that road. that is the reason you, as a director have to publish an ad to say your companyi s under administration, at that pount YOU are done

in chapter 11 there are not even receivership involve, how in the worldbcan youbsay the system were the same is beyond me, but that said yiu understand the square sum of zero with US bankruptcy law
 
.
And you haveproblem understanding basic English

Under receivershio, you, as the director cannot do anythig, the administrator can carry on with business to either wind down or salvage the business, and that is only if the administrator see fit on that road. that is the reason you, as a director have to publish an ad to say your companyi s under administration, at that pount YOU are done

in chapter 11 there are not even receivership involve, how in the worldbcan youbsay the system were the same is beyond me, but that said yiu understand the square sum of zero with US bankruptcy law

Of course the steps taken by receivership and chapter 11 are different.

They are from different jurisdictions.

Your English is not improving at all, neither is your comprehension but your bragging continues unabated.

The final purposes of the 2 laws are the same: to keep the troubled company afloat and to avoid complete bankruptcy wherein its business and everything associated with the liquidation will be gone, forever CONTRARY to your bullshit about there is nowhere bla bla something like the usa's chapter 11.

Get it?

20080320-159170~Emperor-Ch-In-Wang-Ti-Travelling-in-a-Palanquin-from-.jpg
 
.
Of course the steps taken by receivership and chapter 11 are different.

They are from different jurisdictions.

Your English is not improving at all, neither is your comprehension but your bragging continues unabated.

The final purposes of the 2 laws are the same: to keep the troubled company afloat and to avoid complete bankruptcy wherein its business and everything associated with the liquidation will be gone, forever CONTRARY to your bullshit about there is nowhere bla bla something like the usa's chapter 11.

Get it?

20080320-159170~Emperor-Ch-In-Wang-Ti-Travelling-in-a-Palanquin-from-.jpg

First of all, what you said has simply show you have no knowledge on how Chapter 11 works.

The final purposes of the 2 laws are the same: to keep the troubled company afloat and to avoid complete bankruptcy wherein its business and everything associated with the liquidation will be gone, forever CONTRARY to your bullshit about there is nowhere bla bla something like the usa's chapter 11.

Wrong, in Common Law, a bankruptcy is not to avoid "Complete Bankruptcy" (Actually, what does that mean by "Complete Bankruptcy" anyway?). Bankruptcy (Or insolvency), by law, with its definition, is to taken the problematic factor away from a trouble company, thus confer to the guardianship of a company by either force, via court order, or by voluntary insolvency. If the matter cannot be solve by taking away the problem, the company will be wind down and liquidated. You are mixing individual bankruptcy law to corporate insolvency law. In common law, the term bankruptcy DOES NOT APPLIES TO COMPANY OR CORPORATE ENTITIES, either you enter into administration, or you goes liquidate.

Receivership in common law also was used in probate court when an administrator of an asset was deemed unsuitable to be in charge of that asset, and thus appointing an administrator for it.

In Chapter 11, there were AT NO POINT WOULD ANY RECEIVER OR ADMINISTRATOR WOULD BE APPOINTED. You, as a director, DOES NOT LOSE CONTROL OF YOUR COMPANY, Administrator will only appointed if you declare a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in the US. Filing Chapter 11 means you notice there are some unhealthy status with your company, it is a warning or precursor to the actual event of insolvency.

I don't ever think You get a warning before you file for insolvency in within Commonwealth country. IN country like UK and Australia where common law works, once you cannot repay your debt (either physical debt or cash flow balance), you will be either enter into voluntary administration or liquidate by court. There are no warning or anything you can do to shield the investor and creditor while you kept running your business.

Hence there are no similar factor between an insolvency declared under common law, and filing a chapter 11 in the US. That would make Chapter 11 unique outside any common law.

But then, this is not what I said in my original post...

In my original post, when I was replying to a member post which said "Elon Musk" will be in deep trouble if Tesla apply for Chapter 11 (Something regarding the stock market). My replied is that in the US, even a CEO file Chapter 11 is not the end of the road for him, he STILL HAS CONTROL over the company, however, in common law, YOU, THE DIRECTOR is done, once a company enter insolvency.

Dancing around Chapter 11 and receivership does not help but rather the more you dig into this topic, the more you show your lack of knowledge on US and Common Law Bankruptcy Law.

Did I brag? I don't think so, just that because you don't understand what I said, does not mean I am bragging, it just mean you have no knowledge on that subject matter to understand.

If I were you, get a taxation textbook and a dictionary, try to read it before you come out here and say stuff like "Complete Bankruptcy" that does not make any sense.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom