DETROIT (Reuters) – Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) Chief Executive Elon Musk raised hopes again on Thursday that he could ride to the rescue of a threatened General Motors Co (GM.N) car plant at the center of a political storm about auto jobs, and GM replied, saying the Ohio factory’s fate depends on union talks next year.… Continue reading Musk, GM weigh fate of Ohio plant Trump wants saved
Tag: Morgan
Cruise control: GM’s No. 2 exec to run self-driving car unit – Herald and News
]]> ]]> SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — General Motors’ No. 2 executive is moving from Motor City to Silicon Valley to run the automaker’s self-driving car operations as it attempts to cash in on its bet that robotic vehicles will transform transportation. GM President Dan Ammann will become CEO of the company’s Cruise Automation subsidiary at… Continue reading Cruise control: GM’s No. 2 exec to run self-driving car unit – Herald and News
Cruise control: GM’s top Kiwi exec to run self-driving car unit – NZME
General Motors’ No. 2 executive is moving from Motor City to Silicon Valley to run the automaker’s self-driving car operations as it attempts to cash in on its bet that robotic vehicles will transform transportation. GM President Dan Ammann, who was born in Hamilton, will become CEO of the company’s Cruise Automation subsidiary at the… Continue reading Cruise control: GM’s top Kiwi exec to run self-driving car unit – NZME
Morgan V8 – The Final Performance
Key facts:• A new video produced by Morgan Motor Company celebrates the final two V8 powered cars to be built• The final Aero 8 and Plus 8 are destined for Morgan’s heritage fleet of vehicles• The final Plus 8 is the 300th Plus 8 to be fitted with BMW’s N62 engine• In 2019 Morgan will… Continue reading Morgan V8 – The Final Performance
Morgan Stanley Predicts Ford to Cut 25,000 Jobs in Overhaul – Bloomberg
Morgan Stanley Predicts Ford to Cut 25,000 Jobs in Overhaul Bloomberg Ford Motor Co.’s $11 billion restructuring could cost 25000 employees their jobs, exceeding the cutbacks General Motors Co. announced last week, according to … Go to Source
Ford Cost-Cutting Plans Could Be More Severe Than GM, Says Morgan Stanley Analyst – MSN Autos
© Ford An analyst for investment bank Morgan Stanley predicts that Ford will follow in the footsteps of General Motors and eliminate thousands from its workforce in 2019 as part of a grand cost-cutting campaign said to total $11 billion. The analyst, Adam Jonas, wrote Monday that he forecasts large-scale job eliminations at Ford, which… Continue reading Ford Cost-Cutting Plans Could Be More Severe Than GM, Says Morgan Stanley Analyst – MSN Autos
Tower Signs a Memorandum of Understanding to Sell its European Operations at an Accretive Value
Tower Signs a Memorandum of Understanding to Sell its European Operations at an Accretive Value
LIVONIA, Mich., Nov. 20, 2018 /PRNewswire/ — Tower International, Inc. (NYSE: TOWR), a leading global manufacturer of engineered automotive structural metal components and assemblies, today announced it has signed a Memorandum of Understanding relating to the sale of all of its European Operations to Financière SNOP Dunois S.A.”FSD”, a privately owned French automotive supplier.
Tower's European Operations include manufacturing facilities in Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Poland and Slovakia and offices in Germany and Italy. Financial results for full year 2018 are projected at revenue of $650 million and Adjusted EBITDA of $55 million. Before fees and other customary adjustments, the anticipated sale price represent an Enterprise Value of €255 million ($298 million at $1.17/Euro) representing an enterprise multiple of 5.4 times Adjusted EBITDA. This transaction multiple is significantly higher than the present multiple for Tower's common stock, which Tower estimates was approximately 4.5 times based on yesterday's closing price.
“This accretive transaction with FSD allows Tower to focus on a North American business with strong organic growth, profit margins and cash flow. It further strengthens Tower's balance sheet and enhances Tower's financial flexibility and accelerates Tower's ability to invest in additional accretive growth, reduce leverage and/or return capital to Tower shareholders,” said CEO Jim Gouin. “FSD and Tower Europe's operations are very complementary from a customer as well as geographic footprint. This combination will allow Tower's assets and colleagues to be better utilized as part of this Pan-European entity.”
The memorandum of understanding signed by the parties together with an unsigned stock purchase agreement, would be the basis on which the parties pursue the signing of a definitive agreement in the next few weeks, once works council consultation has taken place. Completion of the divestiture is expected to take place during the first quarter of 2019 and is subject to approval of the applicable antitrust authorities and other customary conditions. Tower expects to recognize a book loss of approximately $60 million related to the sale of the European operations. This one-time charge will include the reclassification of currency translation into earnings, other fair value adjustments and selling costs.
For this transaction, Rothschild & Co. served as Tower's M&A advisor, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP was Tower's legal advisor, and De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek advised Tower on country specific legal matters. Tower also received advisory services from J.P. Morgan Securities LLC.
Tower to Host Conference Call Today at 2 p.m. EST
Tower will discuss this transaction and other related matters in a conference call at 2 p.m. EST today. Participants may listen to the audio portion of the conference call either through a live audio webcast on the Company's website or by telephone. The slide presentation and webcast can be accessed via the investor relations portion of Tower's website www.towerinternational.com. To dial into the conference call, domestic callers should dial (866) 393-4576, international callers should dial (706) 679-1462. An audio recording of the call will be available approximately two hours after the completion of the call. To access this recording, please dial (855) 859-2056 (domestic) or (404) 537-3406 (international) and reference Conference I.D. #1976027. A webcast replay will also be available and may be accessed via Tower's website.
Non-GAAP Financial Measures
This press release includes the following non-GAAP financial measures: “Adjusted EBITDA”, “Adjusted EBITDA Margin”, “Free Cash Flow”, and “Net Debt.” We define Adjusted EBITDA as net income / (loss) before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization, restructuring items and other adjustments described in the reconciliations provided in this presentation. Adjusted EBITDA margin represents Adjusted EBITDA divided by revenues. Free Cash Flow is defined as cash provided by operating activities less cash disbursed for purchases of property, plant and equipment. Net Debt represents total debt less cash and cash equivalents. We use Adjusted EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA margin, Free Cash Flow, and Net Debt as supplements to information provided in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) in evaluating our business and they are included in this presentation because they are principal factors upon which our management assesses performance. The non-GAAP measures presented above are not measures of performance under GAAP. These measures should not be considered as alternatives for the most directly comparable financial measures calculated in accordance with GAAP. Other companies in our industry may define these non-GAAP measures differently than we do and, as a result, these non-GAAP measures may not be comparable to similarly titled measures used by other companies in our industry; and certain of our non-GAAP financial measures exclude financial information that some may consider important in evaluating our performance. Given the inherent uncertainty regarding mark to market adjustments of financial instruments, fair value adjustments to our pension plan, potential gain or loss on our discontinued operations, potential restructuring expenses, and expenses related to our long-term incentive compensation programs in any future period, a quantitative reconciliation of forward-looking financial measures to the most directly comparable financial measures calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP is not feasible. Consequently, any attempt to disclose such reconciliations would imply a degree of precision that could be confusing or misleading to investors. The magnitude of these items, however, may be significant.
Forward-Looking Statements and Risk Factors
This press release contains statements which constitute forward-looking statements, within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including but not limited to statements regarding the completion of the pending transactions in this presentation, the consequences of that transaction, projected enterprise value, anticipated stock valuation, positioning, projected truck revenues and the outlook for revenue, Adjusted EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA Margin, Free Cash Flow, net new business, net debt and leverage. The forward-looking statements can be identified by words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “plan,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “project,” “target,” and other similar expressions. Forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this presentation and are based upon management's current expectations and beliefs concerning future developments and their potential effects on us. Such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance. The following important factors, as well as risk factors described in our reports filed with the SEC, could cause our actual results to differ materially from estimates or expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements:
global automobile production volumes;
the financial condition of our customers and suppliers;
our ability to make scheduled payments of principal or interest on our indebtedness and comply with the covenants and restrictions contained in the instruments governing our indebtedness;
our ability to refinance our indebtedness;
risks associated with our non-U.S. operations, including foreign exchange risks and economic uncertainty in some regions;
any increase in the expense and funding requirements of our pension and other postretirement benefits;
our customers' ability to obtain equity and debt financing for their businesses;
our dependence on our largest customers;
pricing pressure from our customers;
changes to U.S. trade and tariff policies and the reaction of other countries thereto;
work stoppages or other labor issues affecting us or our customers or suppliers;
our ability to integrate acquired businesses;
our ability to take advantage of emerging secular trends,
risks associated with business divestitures;
costs or liabilities relating to environmental and safety regulations;
our ability to close the pending transaction in accordance with anticipated terms; and
regulatory and other conditions that must be satisfied or, in certain circumstances, waived in order to consummate the pending transaction.
We do not assume any obligation to update or revise the forward-looking statements contained in this press release.
Contact:
Derek Fiebig
Executive Director, Investor & External Relations
(248) 675-6457
fiebig.derek@towerinternational.com
View original content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tower-signs-a-memorandum-of-understanding-to-sell-its-european-operations-at-an-accretive-value-300753352.html
SOURCE Tower International, Inc.
Toronto’s new car-share service Communauto FLEX launches November 24
First company to receive a permit under the City of Toronto’s new free-floating car-share pilot program TORONTO, November 21, 2018 – Communauto FLEX is bringing free-floating car-sharing back to Toronto under the City’s new pilot program. Beginning this Saturday, November 24, Communauto FLEX will operate in the downtown core with 200 cars servicing 50 square… Continue reading Toronto’s new car-share service Communauto FLEX launches November 24
California Looks To Stationary Energy Storage As A Solution To Peaker Plants
Electric Cars
Electric Car Benefits
Electric Car Sales
Solar Energy Rocks
RSS
Advertise
Privacy Policy
Batteries
Published on November 9th, 2018 |
by Kyle Field
California Looks To Stationary Energy Storage As A Solution To Peaker Plants
Twitter
Google+
LinkedIn
Pinterest
Facebook
November 9th, 2018 by Kyle Field
Central California electric utility Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is planning to replace three aging natural gas power plants in its network with stationary energy storage installations from Tesla.
Image credit: Pexels
The approval of the plan to replace three aging peaker power plants with stationary storage installations by the California Public Utilities Commission is the culmination of an effort by the Commission to encourage PG&E to look to stationary energy storage solutions as alternatives to the aging paradigm of natural gas-fired peaker plants.
The effort to transition utilities away from natural gas plants and to stationary energy storage supports the broader state-wide push to source 100% of its electricity from zero-emission sources by 2045, which includes adding 1.3 gigawatts of energy storage to the state’s grid by 2020.
The CPUC approved a plan to install four new stationary energy storage installations in PG&E territory that would see an additional 568 megawatts of new storage being added. The installations are led by an impressive 300 MW/1,200MWh installation by Vistra Energy Corporation that will be the largest battery storage project in the world.
“Vistra is excited for this opportunity to work with PG&E, and the State of California, to develop a world-class battery project on our Moss Landing site, while building industry-leading expertise in the development and commercialization of battery storage assets,” said Curt Morgan, Vistra’s president and chief executive officer. “The Moss Landing battery project will be the largest of its kind in the world and will position Vistra as a market leader in utility-scale battery development.”
esVolta will install and operate a 75 MW / 300 MWh Hummingbird Energy Storage LLC installation in Santa Clara County in Northern California that is planned to come into servce in December of 2020. “esVolta is delighted to be selected by PG&E for the Hummingbird project. PG&E is a leading North American energy company and a key customer for esVolta, and this contract award is an important milestone for our company as we build towards our goal of assembling a large portfolio of utility-scale, advanced energy storage projects,” said Randolph Mann, president of esVolta.
A smaller distributed installation by Micronoc Inc will see an additional 10 MW of capacity being installed across several customer locations to round out the bunch.
Tesla was contracted for the second largest installation of the bunch, with a 182.5 MW facility just to the south of San Jose, California, according to Bloomberg. After the installation by Tesla, PG&E will own the facility in what could be a transition of the operation and maintenance of what are effectively peaker plants from external operators to the utility itself. This highlights yet another advantage of grid scale stationary energy storage facilities which require FAR less maintenance and ongoing care than natural gas peaker plants.
Source: Bloomberg
Support CleanTechnica’s work by becoming a Member, Supporter, or Ambassador.
Or you can buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie or make a one-time donation on PayPal.
About the Author
Kyle Field I'm a tech geek passionately in search of actionable ways to reduce the negative impact my life has on the planet, save money and reduce stress. Live intentionally, make conscious decisions, love more, act responsibly, play. The more you know, the less you need. TSLA investor. Tesla referral code: http://ts.la/kyle623
Back to Top ↑
CleanTechnica Clothing & Cups
Advertisement
Advertise with CleanTechnica to get your company in front of our readers.
Top News On CleanTechnica
Advertisement
Follow @cleantechnica
Join CleanTechnica Today!
EV Charging Guidelines for Cities
Share our free report on EV charging guidelines for cities, “Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure: Guidelines For Cities.”
Advertisement
Cleantech Press Releases
Koben Announces EVOLVE EVSF —Grid-Friendly Modular EV Store & Forward System
The New Danish Climate Plan — Together For A Greener Future
Shift In Navajo Country As Coal Plant That Navajo Community Doesn’t Want Is Dropped
The EV Safety Advantage
Read & share our free report on EV safety, “The EV Safety Advantage.”
The State of EV Charging
Our 93-Page EV Driver Report
30 Electric Car Benefits
Blockchain × Cleantech
Our Electric Vehicle Reviews
Tesla News
Correcting the Cleantech Record
38 Anti-Cleantech Myths
Wind & Solar Prices Beat Fossils
Cost of Solar Panels Collapses
© 2018 Sustainable Enterprises Media, Inc.
Electric Cars
Electric Car Benefits
Electric Car Sales
Solar Energy Rocks
RSS
Advertise
Privacy Policy
This site uses cookies: Find out more.Okay, thanks
Tesla Autopilot Lawsuit May Affect Autonomous Driving Rules
Electric Cars
Electric Car Benefits
Electric Car Sales
Solar Energy Rocks
RSS
Advertise
Privacy Policy
Autonomous Vehicles
Published on November 1st, 2018 |
by Steve Hanley
Tesla Autopilot Lawsuit May Affect Autonomous Driving Rules
Twitter
Google+
LinkedIn
Pinterest
Facebook
November 1st, 2018 by Steve Hanley
Let’s say you are driving down the highway at 80 mph when a stopped vehicle suddenly appears in your lane. What do you do?
A. Swerve?
B. Brake hard?
C. Crash into it and blame the autonomous driving software in your vehicle for the collision?
If you are Shawn Hudson, the correct answer is C. Hudson was driving along a Florida highway in his Tesla Model S in early October, with Autopilot engaged and his speed set to 80 mph, when his car crashed into the rear of a Ford Fiesta that had stalled in his lane. Hudson’s car was heavily damaged as a result, although he escaped with no injuries.
Release The Hounds!
Unimpressed that his Tesla did a fine job of protecting him thanks to its superior crash worthiness, Hudson hired a lawyer and sued Tesla, claiming its Autopilot system failed to perform as advertised. “Through a pervasive national marketing campaign and a purposefully manipulative sales pitch, Tesla has duped consumers” into believing that Autopilot can “transport passengers at highway speeds with minimal input and oversight,” the lawsuit says, according to a report in ArsTechnica. Where have we hard this tale before?
Contacted about the suit, Tesla emailed this comment to ArsTechnica (we didn’t bother to reach out as well since Tesla always provides the same statements to all outlets in controversial cases such as this):
“We don’t like hearing about any accidents in our cars, and we are hopeful that those involved in this incident are recovering. In this case, the car was incapable of transmitting log data to our servers, which has prevented us from reviewing the vehicle’s data from the accident. However, we have no reason to believe that Autopilot malfunctioned or operated other than as designed.
“When using Autopilot, it is the driver’s responsibility to remain attentive to their surroundings and in control of the vehicle at all times. Tesla has always been clear that Autopilot doesn’t make the car impervious to all accidents, and Tesla goes to great lengths to provide clear instructions about what Autopilot is and is not, including by offering driver instructions when owners test drive and take delivery of their car, before drivers enable Autopilot and every single time they use Autopilot, as well as through the Owner’s Manual and Release Notes for software updates.”
Word Of Mouth vs. Reading The Manual & Paying Attention To The Prompts
Stuff and nonsense, says Hudson in his suit. He claims he heard about the wonders of Autopilot and went to a Tesla store to find out more. “Tesla’s sales representative reassured Hudson that all he needed to do as the driver of the vehicle is to occasionally place his hand on the steering wheel and that the vehicle would ‘do everything else,'” the lawsuit claims. Hudson says he was “relaxing” during his morning commute at the time of the crash.
His lawyer, Mike Morgan, stated during a press conference announcing the legal action, “If this had been something more substantial than a Ford Fiesta, he wouldn’t be here. Hudson became the guinea pig for Tesla to experiment their fully autonomous vehicle.” He says the car’s owners manual states, “you can engage it over 50 miles an hour, but if you engage it over 50 miles an hour, it’s got trouble finding stationary objects and stopped cars. To me, that’s a big problem. To me, that means you’re selling nothing.”
“The Law Is A Ass”
No less a personage than Charles Dickens weighed in on the majesty of the legal system some years ago in Oliver Twist. In one passage, Mr. Bumble, a character in the novel, says, “If the law supposes that, the law is a ass — a idiot.” The redoubtable Mr. Bumble may have been right.
The history of liability law in the United States relates back to the famous case — beloved by law students everywhere — of McPherson vs. Buick Motor Company, in which future Supreme Court justice Benjamin Cardozo ruled customers could sue manufacturers directly for injuries related to the use of their products. Prior to that case, decided just over 100 years ago, manufacturers were insulated from liability because they had no direct dealings with the consumer, what the law liked to call at the time “privity of contract.”
They made stuff — like automobiles — which they sold to dealers. The dealers in turn sold them to the end user. Since there was no contractual relationship between the manufacturers and the consumer, how could they be held responsible if their products caused harm? It didn’t take Cardozo long to figure out the answer to that question and then make it the law in New York state. The entire field of American tort law grew out of the McPherson case, which opened the floodgates to the tsunami of tort law litigation that bedevils us today.
The False-Positive Dilemma
Tesla is not alone in struggling to design autonomous driving systems that can navigate on their own. The problem is designing them so they are not constantly applying the brakes whenever something unexpected happens. Today’s systems have difficulty discriminating between a piece of paper on the roadway or a plastic bag being blown across a travel lane and an actual car or — God forbid — a pedestrian. To get around that issue, most emergency braking and self-driving systems today are simply instructed to ignore those inputs — which are known as false positives — and continue on without pausing.
Tesla has been more aggressive about marketing its Autopilot than most, as have Tesla owners. As of this moment, Tesla has a video on the Autopilot page of its website that shows a person driving without a hand on the steering wheel. There are no disclaimers in the video advising viewers that they must remain attentive at all times. Elon Musk has gotten very upset with people who dared question the capabilities of Autopilot, arguing that such carping will result in more highway deaths if people get spooked by the negativity and decide to not engage Autopilot whenever they can.
The Beta Tester Conundrum
Attorney Mike Morgan, despite his grandstanding, has a point. While Tesla owners may arguably consent to being voluntary beta testers for the company (and even pay a premium for it), drivers of the other cars on the road — such as the owner of the Fiesta that Hudson’s Model S collided with — clearly are not part of the Faustian arrangement Tesla and its customers have entered into.
Now, here’s a fine legal point you aspiring attorneys out there can wrestle with. Can a Tesla employee expand the representations made by the company orally? Let’s take an example. A roofing company sends a representative to a home. The salesman presents the homeowner with a brochure promising a 10 year warranty on all new roofs installed by the company. During the sales presentation, the salesman says, “All our roofs come with a lifetime guarantee.”
When the roof starts leaking 10 years and one month after it is installed, is the homeowner covered by a warranty or not?
Courts have wrestled with issues like this for generations and there is no generally recognized answer nationwide. Will the state court in Florida rule the Mr. Hudson could rely on the statements supposedly made by the Tesla salesman even if they go further than the company’s written materials? We simply don’t know.
Volkswagen Proposes An Alliance Of Manufacturers
When an Uber test vehicle ran over and killed a pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona, earlier this year, it set off alarm bells throughout the automotive industry. According to a report by Automotive News, Volkswagen is quietly engaging in conversations with up to 15 other automakers about standardizing autonomous driving protocols. The purpose of the talks is to insulate the companies as much as possible from liability claims.
An unidentified VW executive told Automotive News, “When you are involved in an accident, you have a better chance in court when you can prove that your car adheres to the latest technical standard. How do you create an industry standard? Ideally by getting others to use the same sensor kit and software, so for that reason an overarching cooperation between automakers is one of the options we are examining. The question is: How do we bring products to market that guarantee we made ourselves as small a target for damage claims as possible? Law firms are already in the starting blocks,” the executive said.
When asked if such an alliance would be similar to the Ionity consortium that is bringing high-speed charging stations for electric vehicles to Europe, the executive said autonomy is “another level of complexity entirely.” Ionity is a partnership between Volkswagen, Mercedes, BMW, Ford, and Shell and is basically just about getting high-speed charging stations installed across Europe.
“The gates of history turn on tiny hinges,” my high school history teacher told her students constantly. In 1916, Mr. McPherson drove his Buick into a phone pole. The collision broke the steering wheel, which then proceeded to pierce his chest. The result of that small incident changed American liability law forever.
In 2018, Shawn Hudson’s Tesla Model S drove into the back of a Ford Fiesta on a Florida highway while its Autopilot system was engaged. Could that incident have a similar impact on self-driving technology both in the US and in other countries? “We’ll see,” said the Zen master.
Support CleanTechnica’s work by becoming a Member, Supporter, or Ambassador.
Or you can buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie or make a one-time donation on PayPal.
About the Author
Steve Hanley Steve writes about the interface between technology and sustainability from his home in Rhode Island and anywhere else th..