As stated by Scherer (2011), Solyndra was founded in 2005, originally under the business name of Gronet Technologies. Solyndra's exclusive technology was silicon-free, which was originally a costly essential ingredient of other solar panels, and it was easier to install than the other panels (Scherer, 2011). In 2005, the GOP Congress and President George W. Bush passed the 2005 Energy Policy Act, a program that guaranteed loans that invested in various types of nuclear, solar, and wind clean energy, as a response to the advances China was making in new energy technologies as a result of funding by the government entities there (Scherer, 2011). Solyndra ran into major financial problems and had to claim bankruptcy, despite receiving millions in federal loans. Ultimately, the downfall of Solyndra was a result of the market price of traditional, flat solar panels and silicon declining, which made Solyndra's new technology no longer necessary or profitable (Hargreaves, 2012). As a result, the company filed for bankruptcy in 2011 after the Federal Government paid out $527 million in loan money, causing a substantial loss to taxpayers.
Legal Issues Surrounding Solyndra.
One of the legal issues that Solyndra faced was their alleged violation of the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) which requires that corporations provide sixty days of notice to employees prior to plant closings and mass layoffs (Smith, 2012). Not only did Solyndra not provide their employees the required days of advanced notice prior to closing, there was also credible evidence that Department of Energy officials urged Solyndra to delay announcing the layoffs until after the 2010 midterm elections. Solyndra complied with the request and made the announcement of approximately 190 layoffs the day after the midterm elections (Investor's Business Daily, 2011). This political strategic move showed clear evidence that Solyndra was capable of making the announcement sooner than they did and that the Federal Government and affected politicians were acting in their own best interest rather than in the interest of the taxpayers and the law.