|Bid||N/A x N/A|
|Ask||N/A x N/A|
|Day's Range||14.50 - 14.60|
|52 Week Range||11.91 - 15.24|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||0.92|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||17.14|
|Earnings Date||Feb 26, 2020 - Mar 2, 2020|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||0.76 (5.24%)|
|1y Target Est||15.02|
Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") has today downgraded to Baa1 from A3 the senior unsecured rating of SUEZ as well as its junior subordinated debt rating to Baa3 from Baa2. Concurrently, Moody's has affirmed SUEZ's Prime-2 short-term ratings.
Announcement of Periodic Review: Moody's announces completion of a periodic review of ratings of Engie YUL L.P. New York, November 14, 2019 -- Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") has completed a periodic review of the ratings of Engie YUL L.P. and other ratings that are associated with the same analytical unit. The review was conducted through a portfolio review in which Moody's reassessed the appropriateness of the ratings in the context of the relevant principal methodology(ies), recent developments, and a comparison of the financial and operating profile to similarly rated peers.
Could ENGIE SA (EPA:ENGI) be an attractive dividend share to own for the long haul? Investors are often drawn to...
Moody's Investors Service, ("Moody's") today upgraded the rating assigned to Neptune Energy Bondco Plc's $550 million senior unsecured notes due 2025 to B1 from B2 and assigned a B1 rating to its proposed issuance of $500 million senior unsecured notes due 2026. Concurrently, Moody's affirmed the Ba3 Corporate Family Rating (CFR) and Ba3-PD Probability of Default Rating (PDR) of Neptune Energy Group Midco Limited (Neptune).
After looking at ENGIE SA's (ENXTPA:ENGI) latest earnings announcement (30 June 2019), I found it useful to revisit...
Anheuser-Busch InBev (NYSE: BUD), one of the biggest customers in line for hydrogen-powered fuel cell electric trucks from Nikola Corp., is jumping into California's electric truck demonstration race with 21 BYD battery-electric beer delivery trucks. BYD is partnering with the non-profit Center for Transportation and the Environment (CTE), and ENGIE Services U.S. for what BYD said is the largest Class 8 electric truck deployment in North America. Volvo Trucks North America said September 12 that it plans to deliver the first five of 23 Class 8 VNR trucks as part of its Volvo LIGHTS demonstration project before the end of the year.
(Bloomberg) -- Starbucks Corp. won a court fight and a Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV unit lost one over European Union tax orders in decisions that left lawyers puzzling over the impact on Apple Inc.’s chances of toppling a record 13 billion-euro ($14.3 billion) bill.Even though the amounts at stake in Tuesday’s rulings -- about 30 million euros each for Starbucks and Fiat -- aren’t huge, lawyers are now poring over the judgments ahead of multiple appeals as companies, including the iPhone maker, counter EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager’s five-year crackdown on allegedly unfair tax deals.While Vestager generally came out of the latest rulings on top, “what this bodes for the eventual decision in the Apple case is still not clear,” said Howard Liebman, a tax partner at Jones Day, a Brussels law firm. He isn’t involved in the disputes. “There will be no ‘cookie cutter’ decisions relying on broad or sweeping generalizations about paying one’s ‘fair share’ of tax,” he said.The EU General Court in Luxembourg said Tuesday that the EU failed to show that coffee giant Starbucks obtained an unfair tax deal by the Netherlands. The judges threw out a similar challenge by Fiat over its fiscal arrangements in Luxembourg.“The principles laid down in these judgments provide some ammunition for both the taxpayers and the commission in the ongoing investigations,” said Natura Gracia, a lawyer with Linklaters in London.Tax AgreementsChallenges have been piling up at the EU courts since state-aid investigators started work in 2013 to unearth what they deemed to be the most problematic examples of otherwise legal individual tax agreements, known as tax rulings, doled out to companies by member countries.Luxembourg’s finance ministry said it would “analyze the judgment” and pointed out that the government “in the past few years has done numerous reforms to find against fiscal fraud and tax evasion.”The Dutch finance ministry is “glad there is clarity” following the court ruling, deputy finance minister Menno Snel said in an emailed statement. The judgment “means that the tax authorities have not treated Starbucks better or differently than other companies,” he said.Fiat said in an emailed statement that while it’s disappointed with the ruling and considering its next steps, the decision isn’t material to the group.No ‘Special’ TreatmentStarbucks said in a statement that it pays its taxes wherever they are due and that the ruling in its challenge “makes clear” that it “did not receive any special tax treatment from the Netherlands.”The decisions, which can be appealed to the EU Court of Justice, “give important guidance” to the commission on how to apply EU state aid rules in tax cases, and the regulator will study them before deciding on the next steps, according to a statement by Vestager.She said they “confirmed the commission’s approach to assess whether a measure is selective and if transactions between group companies give rise to an advantage under EU state-aid rules based on the so-called ‘arm’s length principle’.”Vestager, who’s set to take on another five-year stint as competition commissioner, said she’ll continue to look at “aggressive tax planning measures under EU state aid.” Ultimately, the goal is that all companies “pay their fair share of tax,” she said.In the Apple case, the EU said Ireland illegally reduced the company’s tax bill, a finding Apple and Irish officials don’t accept.Apple declined to comment Tuesday beyond pointing to its remarks in a hearing in its own appeal at the same court last week. It told judges it’s “now paying around 20 billion euros in tax in the U.S. on the very same profits that the Commission says should also have been taxed in Ireland.”The guidance from judges on the European Commission’s use of state aid law could also have an impact on Vestager’s tax probes, now centering on fiscal deals done by Alphabet Inc. and Ikea.Starbucks and Fiat were targeted on the same day in 2015 by a similar EU order to pay back 30 million euros each over their tax arrangements in the Netherlands and Luxembourg respectively.The EU said at the time the companies did this by setting prices for products and services sold between units -- called transfer prices -- that didn’t reflect market conditions.“These two judgments prove that the court will look at the precise facts of each state aids case brought before it and judge each on their individual merits,” Liebman said in an email.Finding itself at the receiving end of most of the EU’s decisions since then, Luxembourg was ordered to recoup 250 million euros from Amazon.com Inc. in 2017 and 120 million euros in back taxes from energy utility Engie SA, France’s former natural-gas monopoly, previously known as GDF Suez, last year.The cases are: T-636/16 - Starbucks and Starbucks Manufacturing Emea v. Commission, T-755/15 - Luxembourg v. Commission, T-759/15 - Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v. Commission, T-760/15 - Netherlands v. Commission.\--With assistance from Ruben Munsterman and Tommaso Ebhardt.To contact the reporter on this story: Stephanie Bodoni in Luxembourg at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Anthony Aarons at firstname.lastname@example.org, Peter Chapman, Paul SillitoeFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- Apple Inc. may only need to wait until Tuesday to get early clues about its chances of success in the biggest tax case in recent history.The iPhone maker has been arguing its case at the European Union’s General Court to topple a record 13 billion-euro ($14.3 billion) EU tax order. This week the same panel of judges will deliver a ruling on two smaller but related challenges by Starbucks Corp. and a Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV unit.They’re the first in a series of cases to come to a decision as companies rail against EU Competition chief Margrethe Vestager’s five-year crackdown on allegedly unfair tax deals.While the facts of the various appeals differ, Tuesday’s decisions “should have a far-reaching impact, both on the other pending cases and going forward,” said Howard Liebman, a tax partner at law firm Jones Day in Brussels, who isn’t involved in the disputes.The judges’ stance will “presumably establish some precedent as to how far the court is willing to allow the commission to extend its approach of judging tax regimes -– and individual tax rulings –- in the context of a state-aids analysis,” he said.Vestager’s ProbesAppeals have been piling up at the EU courts since state-aid investigators started work in 2013 to unearth what they deem to be the most problematic examples of otherwise legal individual tax agreements doled out to companies by countries. The judges’ verdicts could empower or halt Vestager’s probes, which are now centering on fiscal deals done by Amazon.com Inc. and Alphabet Inc.Starbucks and Fiat were targeted on the same day in 2015 by a similar EU order to pay back about 30 million euros each over their tax arrangements in the Netherlands and Luxembourg respectively.The commission accused Luxembourg and the Netherlands of granting so-called tax rulings to the companies that backed “artificial and complex methods” to calculate their taxable profits that didn’t reflect “economic reality.”The EU said at the time the companies did this by setting prices for products and services sold between units -- called transfer prices -- that didn’t reflect market conditions.“As a result, most of the profits of Starbucks’ coffee roasting company are shifted abroad, where they are also not taxed, and Fiat’s financing company only paid taxes on underestimated profits,” said in a 2015 statement.Back TaxesLuxembourg has since also been ordered to recoup 250 million euros from Amazon.com and 120 million euros in back taxes from energy utility Engie SA, France’s former natural-gas monopoly, previously known as GDF Suez.In the Apple case, the EU said Ireland illegally slashed the iPhone maker’s tax bill between 2003-2014, a finding the company and Irish officials don’t accept.The EU alleged that “Apple paid essentially no tax on earnings in Europe” and “sought headlines by quoting tiny numbers, but this public campaign ignores the taxes Apple pays all across the world,” Apple attorney Daniel Beard said at last week’s hearing.The Dutch finance ministry said it had nothing to add to previous statements criticizing the EU’s approach. Fiat Chrysler, Starbucks, Apple and the commission declined to comment, as did the Luxembourg and Irish finance ministries. EU nations ordered to claw back the allegedly illegal tax aid have accused the commission of overreaching itself by using state aid law to attack individual fiscal arrangements that dated back many years. A key question for the commission in the cases is whether its argument that these tax rulings were selective and unfair stands up in court.“The commission did not identify a single instance where a taxpayer was treated less favorably than Apple,” Paul Gallagher, a lawyer for Ireland, told the judges in the court hearings last week.Luxembourg, which has so far faced the brunt of the EU’s decisions, has attacked the “arbitrary nature” of the commission’s approach which creates “complete legal uncertainty,” their lawyer Denis Waelbroeck said in a court hearing about Fiat’s case last year. Ireland and Luxembourg have supported each other in their respective appeals.The nation was among the first EU countries to be singled out in 2014 over its tax practices, when a group of investigative reporters published thousands of pages from secret arrangements between the tiny nation and companies including Walt Disney Co., Microsoft Corp.’s Skype and PepsiCo Inc. The so-called LuxLeaks publications have been used by EU regulators in their deliberations and EU officials further expanded their probes by seeking new information to find more “outliers” among these tax deals.Still, in a first in the EU’s continued crackdown on “outliers” among these otherwise legal tax rulings, the commission last year closed its probe into the fiscal deal between McDonald’s Corp. and Luxembourg, finding there was no violation of state aid laws.The cases are T-636/16 - Starbucks and Starbucks Manufacturing Emea v. Commission, T-755/15 - Luxembourg v. Commission, T-759/15 - Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v. Commission, T-760/15 - Netherlands v. Commission,(Updates with more on Luxleaks revelations and McDonald’s probe in last two paragraphs.)\--With assistance from Peter Flanagan, Daniele Lepido and Ruben Munsterman.To contact the reporter on this story: Stephanie Bodoni in Luxembourg at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Anthony Aarons at firstname.lastname@example.orgFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") announced today that the proposed changes by Trafigura Securitisation Finance PLC will not, in and of itself and at this time, cause the current Moody's ratings of the debt issued by the Issuer to be reduced or withdrawn.
Approximately CAD 29.3 Million of debt securities affected. Toronto, August 07, 2019 -- Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") today affirmed Engie YUL L.P.'s ("Engie", the "Issuer") A2 senior secured rating. The Services Agreement includes features which ensure a very high level of net cash flow predictability for Engie.