Last week, TerraForm Power (NASDAQ: TERP) revealed information on its proposal to SunEdison (OTCMKTS:SUNE) to settle claims and set terms for the payout to SunEdison in the event of a sale of TerraForm.
However, on the other side of the table TerraForm Power is facing John S. Dubel as the CEO of SunEdison – a man whose professional career is based on restructuring companies to esnsure the maximum value for creditors, which inherently includes paying as little as possible on other claims.
Today Dubel’s SunEdison issued a statement which, while expressing preference for a collaborative process, laid out that the company is not ready to give up its own claims so easily. In three brief bullet points, SunEdison argues that TerraForm’s presentation does not adequately account for SunEdison’s defenses against legal claims, counter-claims against TerraForm Power, or its contractual rights in other regards.
Regarding its claims against TerraForm, SunEdison notes the value of claims outlined in a recent motion filed by the official creditor’s committee. Additionally, SunEdison appears to think that it may have some contractual leverage to get a little extra out of any sale.
“The premise set forth in the Presentation that SunEdison’s interests in TERP be treated ‘ratably’ with TERP’s other equity interests does not adequately account for SunEdison’s contractual rights and interests and this issue will be addressed in the settlement negotiations,” notes the statement.
SunEdison’s comments end with a reminder of who Dubel is working for. “Overall, SunEdison is focused on maximizing the value of the estate for its creditors, and will continue to do everything it can in furtherance of that objective,” reads the statement. “SunEdison is also pleased that TERP recognizes the benefits of a consensus between TERP and SunEdison as it explores strategic alternatives.”
Correction: This article was corrected at 2:30 AM EST on December 19. The article originally said that the purpose of Mr. Dubel’s career as a professional restructuring officer was to maximize value for shareholders, when it should have instead said “creditors”. This has been changed, and we apologize for the error.