Headline came from the submitter, which was me. It's also the headline on the main article linked, which I also wrote, so I'm your source of nefarious clickbait for the day.
I'm really sorry if the headline brought up traumatic associations with 9/11 for you. Clearly I was not anticipating that, and wasn't intending it.
In general I try not to go over the top with headlines, promise! But their function is to make a (hopefully) nuanced, detailed article enticing in as few words as possible. And I actually do agree that war metaphors are used too often in the business, sports, and political press. Guess I should remind myself of that next time.:)
Suppose I can take a crack at this one! I not only posted this article, I am its author. (I'm using the singular because I can't tell which is the second main-page posting in the past few days that touches this topic).
**TL;DR I'm great! Nothing's "with me," how are you tho you seem mad:(**
While I can't quibble with the way you felt the article was constructed or intended - your experience is authentically yours and I respect that - I certainly don't agree with the analysis that this rental-car startup piece was highly biased and driven by an agenda that seeks to make government into an evil, illegitimate actor.
The narrative of the piece roughly flows this way: One rental car startup broke the rules, and got shut down. They decided to run and fight. Another startup doing something similar decided to play by the rules and get the proper approvals. These two companies are part of a trendy sector, which has seen a lot of this battling with local regulators. But now, as they grow up, some of them appear to be playing nice and acting as reasoned, pragmatic businesses rather than striking the libertarian hero pose.
The Uber mention therein is mostly a side note. This article doesn't really have much to do with Uber specifically.
Hi all, author and submitter here. Sorry about the link problems - it's all my fault. I edited the headline to make Sequoia possessive, to avoid confusion with another fund. To be OCD about it, I also added the 'S' to the URL. Which means a ton of you bonked the 404 page when you went to read the article. Never edit before coffee.
So I have changed it back. This one works again: http://www.xconomy.com/national/2013/03/27/kleiner-sequoia-fund-returns-could-be-exposed-in-ca-lawsuit/?single_page=true
Thanks to the other commenters who found the temporarily working link, which is no longer live. That'll teach me.
Well, there are a couple little strings - at least in the government's opinion! It filed paperwork letting the bankruptcy judge know that, because of the federal financing, the government will have a say of some sort in who gets to buy the facilities it underwrote. That's generally thought to be code for "we will have more to say if a Chinese firm submits the winning bid."
More here: http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Bankruptcy/News/2012/11_-_November/U_S__says_A123_sale_requires_its_consent/
I was basing this on the court filings of A123 itself, and there wasn't detail about what the problems actually were. There may be more out there on the public record about what exactly the defects were. But A123 just said there were some problems with the "prismatic" batteries that could lead to problems. Sorry I couldn't get more precise.
The $250M was not a loan guarantee, it actually was a matching grant - for each dollar the company spent on certain qualifying expenses, the feds would match a dollar. A123 eventually drew about $130M of the nearly $250M that was authorized. Press release: http://ir.a123systems.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=403090
The money was free in that sense, but came with strings - the factory that A123 built with help of that federal money means the U.S. government retains an interest and gets a say in what happens to the assets in bankruptcy.
Yeah, they're actually in the "auction" part of the bankruptcy today. JCI is the opening bidder - the "stalking horse" as it's colorfully named. Unsure when the other bids etc will be made public, but there is a hearing scheduled in court on Dec. 11.
Slashdot Mirror
Headline came from the submitter, which was me. It's also the headline on the main article linked, which I also wrote, so I'm your source of nefarious clickbait for the day. I'm really sorry if the headline brought up traumatic associations with 9/11 for you. Clearly I was not anticipating that, and wasn't intending it. In general I try not to go over the top with headlines, promise! But their function is to make a (hopefully) nuanced, detailed article enticing in as few words as possible. And I actually do agree that war metaphors are used too often in the business, sports, and political press. Guess I should remind myself of that next time. :)
Suppose I can take a crack at this one! I not only posted this article, I am its author. (I'm using the singular because I can't tell which is the second main-page posting in the past few days that touches this topic). **TL;DR I'm great! Nothing's "with me," how are you tho you seem mad :(**
While I can't quibble with the way you felt the article was constructed or intended - your experience is authentically yours and I respect that - I certainly don't agree with the analysis that this rental-car startup piece was highly biased and driven by an agenda that seeks to make government into an evil, illegitimate actor.
The narrative of the piece roughly flows this way: One rental car startup broke the rules, and got shut down. They decided to run and fight. Another startup doing something similar decided to play by the rules and get the proper approvals. These two companies are part of a trendy sector, which has seen a lot of this battling with local regulators. But now, as they grow up, some of them appear to be playing nice and acting as reasoned, pragmatic businesses rather than striking the libertarian hero pose.
The Uber mention therein is mostly a side note. This article doesn't really have much to do with Uber specifically.
Hi all, author and submitter here. Sorry about the link problems - it's all my fault. I edited the headline to make Sequoia possessive, to avoid confusion with another fund. To be OCD about it, I also added the 'S' to the URL. Which means a ton of you bonked the 404 page when you went to read the article. Never edit before coffee. So I have changed it back. This one works again: http://www.xconomy.com/national/2013/03/27/kleiner-sequoia-fund-returns-could-be-exposed-in-ca-lawsuit/?single_page=true Thanks to the other commenters who found the temporarily working link, which is no longer live. That'll teach me.
Well, there are a couple little strings - at least in the government's opinion! It filed paperwork letting the bankruptcy judge know that, because of the federal financing, the government will have a say of some sort in who gets to buy the facilities it underwrote. That's generally thought to be code for "we will have more to say if a Chinese firm submits the winning bid." More here: http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Bankruptcy/News/2012/11_-_November/U_S__says_A123_sale_requires_its_consent/
I was basing this on the court filings of A123 itself, and there wasn't detail about what the problems actually were. There may be more out there on the public record about what exactly the defects were. But A123 just said there were some problems with the "prismatic" batteries that could lead to problems. Sorry I couldn't get more precise.
The $250M was not a loan guarantee, it actually was a matching grant - for each dollar the company spent on certain qualifying expenses, the feds would match a dollar. A123 eventually drew about $130M of the nearly $250M that was authorized. Press release: http://ir.a123systems.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=403090 The money was free in that sense, but came with strings - the factory that A123 built with help of that federal money means the U.S. government retains an interest and gets a say in what happens to the assets in bankruptcy.
Yeah, they're actually in the "auction" part of the bankruptcy today. JCI is the opening bidder - the "stalking horse" as it's colorfully named. Unsure when the other bids etc will be made public, but there is a hearing scheduled in court on Dec. 11.
That's professional writin' right there. I got a degree and everything.