👟The Latest in Fitness Trends (Long Innovation)👟

in , , , ,

There are a lot of venture investors operating under the hypothesis that audio is the next frontier in wearables and that the Apple AirPods were just the opening salvo. Amazon Inc. ($AMZN) is apparently working on pods that double-up as fitness trackers. This is a space worth watching.

Elsewhere in fitness, we’re writing this particular section midweek and yet we literally just walked by someone rocking his NYC Marathon medal. Seems a bit aggressive to still be wearing that thing 72 hours post-race but, whatevs. To each his own. 

Here’s a piece from Reess Kennedy about fitness and marketing, discussing the rise of the Nike Vaporfly 4%, a running shoe that Nike Inc. ($NKE) alleges will enhance performance by…wait for it…4%. Regarding the NYC marathon, he writes, “I’d safely wager that 70% of the men and women running under 3:10 were wearing it.” He adds:

“…Sunday all I was thinking was, “Why and how did Nike win so hard here?! They’ve gobbled up significant market share and achieved one of the most successful product adoption feats in the history of footwear—possibly in the history of product adoption!—and, at $250, they’ve also set a new off-the-chart, ‘luxury’ price point for racing shoes in the process!’”

He concludes that much of the adoption is attributable to FOMO: if your competitors are juicing with the Vaporfly, you should be juicing too.  He writes:

“I think the far more powerful demand ignitor was actually the brazen insertion of a precise performance gain right into the name of the actual product: The Vaporfly 4%.”

“For the first time in history, a shoe company is making a clear ROI claim to buyers. This is the real reason they’ve sold so many.”

“Many runners really struggle over many marathon attempts to break three hours—often, tragically, missing it by only a few minutes on each attempt. A 4% improvement for these folks hovering around three hours would mean about a seven-minute gain! If you’re on the edge of a lifetime goal is it worth it to pay $250 to achieve it? Yeah, probably. â€œ

This begs the obvious question: how long until the release of the “Brooks Boss 6%,” the “Adidas A$$-kicker 7%” or the “Saucony Supersonic 9%”? Will we start seeing distressed players engage in marketing schemes like this to drive traffic? Should we?*

Why aren’t restructuring firms using this tactic? 

THIS IS A PREMIUM MEMBERS POST, WANT TO READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE AND ALL OUR PREMIUM KICK@$$ CONTENT? GET AHEAD OF THE CURVE ALREADY AND SUBSCRIBE HERE!

💰How Are the Investment Banks Doing?💰

in , , ,
3.gif

Greenhill & Co. Inc. ($GHL) reported Q3 earnings earlier his week and, well, they weren’t great. The company had $87mm of revenue for the quarter (flat YOY) and $194.3mm in revenue year-to-date. The latter is down 26% on the back of a poor first half. 

Why the poor performance? The company largely blamed “a very low level of activity in European M&A.” It then asked the analyst community to deploy some Pym Particles and take a time travel trip back to rosier times: 2016-2018. The company’s earnings presentation listed (a) fee paying clients and (b) $1mm+ clients for each of those years but, curiously, did not disclose those numbers for 2019.

ghl q3 snapshot.JPG

Despite the lack of transparency, the firm is nevertheless “[s]till expecting solid full year revenue performance,” particularly with its capital advisory business. Curious how that works. 🤔

As for restructuring, the firm touted its expanded team and noted….

TO READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE, SUBSCRIBE TO OUR PREMIUM KICK@$$ NEWSLETTER HERE.

💰What’s New in Marketing Trends (Long Facebook Inc. ($FB))💰

in , , , ,
1.gif

We’ve often highlighted how distressed retailers may be in for a rude awakening if they think deploying influencer-based social marketing on platforms like Facebook Inc. ($FB) and others will be the cure-all to their woes. And be easy. It won’t be and it’s not. The campaigns require significant expertise to execute and the cost of such campaigns has been on the rise. Until recently, it seems. In Facebook’s recent earnings call, CFO Dave Wehner said: 

“In Q3, the number of ad impressions served across our services increased 37% and the average price per ad decreased 6%. Impression growth was primarily driven by ads on Facebook News Feed, Instagram Stories and Instagram feed.”

Surprisingly, Facebook appears to be driving a large part of that impressions growth rather than Instagram Stories and the Instagram Feed. This means ads are reaching more people on the platform and, yet, the average price of ads decreased. While it’s not clear from the company’s SEC filings nor its earnings call why this is the case, this is a potential positive for retailers looking to deploy social ads. 

TO READ THE REST OF THIS PREMIUM ARTICLE, CLICK HERE.

🤪Malls, Malls, Malls (Long Eccentric High-AF CEOs)🤪

in , , ,

Things continue to get worse for certain players in the mall REIT space.

On October 24th, Washington Prime Group Inc. ($WPG) reported earnings and managed to surpass rock bottom expectations. The above-referenced net operating income decrease came from a $4.3mm “negative impact of cotenancy and rental income from 2018 anchor bankruptcies (Bon-Ton Stores, Sears, Toys R Us), and $2.1mm was attributable to 2019 bankruptcies (Charlotte Russe, Gymboree and Payless ShoeSource).” Occupancy decreased 1.1% to 92.9% during Q3 and the company lowered guidance (negative EPS).

S&P Ratings subsequently downgraded WPG from BB to BB- saying:

…despite slight sequential improvement, same-property NOI growth at tier 1 enclosed properties remained extremely negative, declining 8.8% with negative 7.6% releasing spreads over the past year, affected by co-tenancy clauses and additional bankruptcies/liquidations, with some expected redevelopment deliveries delayed. We believe overall metrics are modestly worse when factoring in the company's 14 remaining tier 2 and noncore malls, which we continue to include in our analysis of Washington Prime. Due to third-quarter results, management downwardly revised its publicly stated operating target for same-property NOI growth in 2019.

Washington Prime Group Inc.'s operating performance has continued to deteriorate such that we now view the company's business less favorably, with weaker cash flow, lower EBITDA margins, and diminishing prospects for stabilization in 2020.

Louis Conforti, WPG’s CEO, took to alt rock to explain the company’s negative performance, saying “[t]ake it from the Strokes, one of my all-time favorite bands, it's not hard to explain” before describing the effects of the #retailapocalypse on performance.

THIS IS A SUBSCRIBING MEMBER’S POST, TO CONTINUE READING THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE (AND MANY MORE KICK@$$ ARTICLES TO COME), CLICK HERE AND SUBSCRIBE.

🍴Declining Restaurant Trends Ripple Through (Short Dinnerware)🍴

in , , ,

There are a number of trends that are taking hold currently that may be disruptive to a company that manufactures and distributes glass tableware (i.e., shot glasses, tumblers, stemware, mugs, bowls, etc.) and ceramic dinnerware products (i.e., servicing utensils and trays) to food service distributors, mass merchants, department stores, retail distributors, houseware stores, breweries and other end users of glass container products. First, people don’t go to department stores or houseware stores anymore (in case you hadn’t heard, check out the stock performance of every department store in the US and, for good measure, Bed Bath & Beyond ($BBBY)). Second, millennials aren’t drinking as much as Generation Z did. Third, people are ordering food more frequently and cooking and hosting dinner parties far less often than they did prior to VC-subsidized companies like UberEats ($UBER), Postmates and Caviar coming along. Indeed, per the company’s most recent report:

In U.S. foodservice, restaurant traffic for Q3 as reported by Black Box was down 3.6% compared to down 1.3% in Q3 of 2018.

All of these things are headwinds to a company like Libbey Glass ($LBY), an Ohio-based company founded in 1888. The longevity of the business is uber-impressive, but the year is currently 2019, and sh*t is unforgiving out there: Libbey is starting to look a bit troubled.

The company reported Q2 numbers back in August and revenue was down across all segments: food service and retail. The company cited “intense global competition” and trade headwinds (in both Mexico and China) as major factors. Net sales were $206.2mm, down 3.5% YOY, and the company reported a net loss of $43.8mm in the quarter (primarily due to a non-cash impairment charge). Notably, business was particularly bad in EMEA: $5.5mm decline. It was the second straight quarter where the business performed poorly on a year-over-year basis.

On the August 1 earnings call, the company noted:

“We do…continue to see declines in U.S. & Canada foodservice traffic, as has been reported by third-party research firms Knapp-Track and Blackbox every quarter since 2012. Our U.S. & Canada foodservice channel is currently performing in-line with market trends. Management expects these trends, and the challenging environment experienced during 2018 and the first half of 2019, to continue for the remainder of the year.”

In particular, one disturbing trend is takeout and delivery:

While this channel continues to adapt to the new norm of takeout and delivery, we've seen our focus on new products and differentiated service begin to pay dividends. In addition to these ongoing efforts, we are adapting our approach and resource deployment to expand into growing and/or underpenetrated segments of the channel, like health care and hospitality. As previously mentioned, we also see a significant opportunity to leverage digital tools to reach end users and further support our distribution partners.

Sure, they did. And they certainly needed to: a quick look at their numbers shows that the second quarter is typically the business’ strongest. This didn’t portend well for Q3 performance.

THIS IS A SUBSCRIBING MEMBER’S POST. TO READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE (AND MORE OF OUR KICK@$$ CONTENT) CLICK HERE.

How Are the Investment Bankers Doing?

in , , ,

PJT Partners Inc. ($PJT) reported fiscal Q3 numbers yesterday and total revenue hit $174.2mm (up 24% YOY) — no thanks to the restructuring group. Per Mr. Paul Taubman, compared to last year, restructuring:

…revenues decreased meaningfully in the third quarter, but held almost even for the nine month period. Given the increase in distress within certain industries, such as energy, media, telecommunications, pharma, consumer retail, our outlook for the full-year has become a bit more positive and we now expect full-year restructuring revenues to be up slightly year-over-year. This activity level combined with restructurings increasing ability to leverage the expertise and connectivity of our Strategic Advisory bankers should result in a stronger backlog heading into 2020 versus a year ago. (emphasis added)

Wait. There’s distress in energy and consumer retail? Who knew. Anyway, this isn’t fake news but it isn’t really big news either: banker assignments close choppy which makes quarterly reporting for restructuring a tough game. Still, if you’re counting on a sizable year-end bonus, you probably don’t want the company CEO singling you out for being a drag on numbers — encouraging guidance notwithstanding.

⚡️Newsflash: PG&E Corporation⚡️

in , ,

You got cute. You invested in the equity. Now you may be up sh*t’s creek.

With each passing day and each damaged structure, a growing administrative expense claim is squeezing any hope of equity value and potentially threatening the backstop commitments received back in…wait…carry the one…FRIKKEN SEPTEMBER. We’re old enough to remember reading this somewhere:

Interestingly, Abrams & Knighthead have conditioned their support on, among other things, two key components: (1) a “wildfire claims cap” of $17.9mm and (2) no “occurrence of one or more wildfires in the Debtors’ service territory after the Petition Date and prior to January 1, 2020 that is asserted by any person to arise out of the Debtors’ activities and that destroys or damages more than 500 Structures.” Will global warming blow up this deal? Note: the Thomas Fire ripped through Ventura and Santa Barbara counties in December 2017, wrecking 281k acres, 1063 structures, and killing 23 people. 

Oh right. That was us: we wrote that. We really wish that hadn’t aged so well.

🎢Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee🎢

in , , ,

⚡️Update: WeWork⚡️

This was us covering the hourly news diarrhea that came out about WeWork in the last 48 hours alone:

cat.gif

Which, we suppose, is better than how the company’s equity and existing noteholders must be managing:

jak.gif

Or the fine bankers over at JPMorgan Chase ($JPM) who are tasked with finding capital markets suckers…uh…investors…who’d be so kind as extend this steaming pile a lifeline:

shuttt.gif

So, sifting through the constant headlines, where are we at?

Okay, right. The hot mess of a liquidity profile and limited amount of debt capacity to get a deal done.  Nothing to see here. All good.

Reminder: it is widely believed that WeWork will run out of cash by the end of the year without a new deal in place. Axios reports:

The company reported $2.4 billion of cash at the end of June, with a first-half net loss of $904 million. At that pace, it should have been able to survive at least through the middle of 2020. But I'm told that it significantly increased spend in Q3, partially due to the lumpy nature of real estate cap-ex, believing it would be absorbed by $9 billion in proceeds from the IPO and concurrent debt deal. One source says that there's probably enough money to get through Thanksgiving, but not to Christmas.

Riiiiiight. So here are the options:

  • A Softbank Group new equity and debt bailout pursuant to which they get control of WeWork and napalm Masa’s former boy, Adam Neumann, in the process. This would reportedly be an aggregate $3b package “to get through the next year” — repeat, TO GET THROUGH THE NEXT YEAR — with the equity component coming significantly cheaper than the previous self-imposed $47b valuation (at a $10b valuation); or

  • JPM arranges some hodge-podge debt package and tests the market’s never-ceasing thirst for yield, baby, yield. The early reports were that the financing package would be $3b, comprised of $1 billion of 9-11% secured debt, $2b of unsecured PIK notes yielding 15% (1/3 cash pay, 2/3 PIK), and letter of credit availability. Wait, 15%?! How does a company with no liquidity even pay that? That’s why the PIK component is so critical: it would simply add 2/3 of the interest due to the principal of the debt. Said another way, the debt would compound annually and creep past $2.5b in two years. Per Bloomberg, “The $2 billion of proposed unsecured debt may carry an additional sweetener for investors: equity warrants designed so that investors could boost their return to around 30% if the company gets to a $20 billion valuation, according to the person who described the structure.” Because debt won’t dilute equity like Softbank’s equity-heavy proposal would, WeWork insiders (read: Neumann) apparently prefer the JPM approach. Regardless of what insiders prefer, however, is whether the market will be receptive to what one investor dubbed, per Bloomberg, “substantial career risk.”

unnamed.png

We’re old enough to remember when WeWork’s notes rebounded a mere five days ago for reasons that were wildly inexplicable to us then and even more so now.

unnamed (1).png

So, to summarize, who are the big winners? IWG/Regus ($IWGFF)(long?). We’re pretty sure they’re loving what’s happening here; we have to imagine that the inbound calls have to be on the upswing. Also, the restructuring professionals. Whether you’re Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP (Softbank), Houlihan Lokey ($HLI)(Softbank), or Perella Weinberg Partners (WeWork’s Board of Directors), you’re incurring more billables/fees than you expected to mere days weeks ago. Somehow, some way, the restructuring pros always seem to come out ahead. And, finally, Goldman Sachs ($GS). Because there’s nothing more Goldman-y than them selling their prop stock right out from under a proposed IPO.

sss.gif

LIKED OUR ARTICLE? CLICK HERE AND SUBSCRIBE TO OUR PREMIUM @$$KICKING BI-WEEKLY NEWSLETTER ON DISRUPTION FROM THE VANTAGE POINT FROM THE DISRUPTED. YOU (AND YOUR BOSS) WON’T REGRET IT.

💊How's GNC Doing (Long Online Supplements, Short Fitness Stores)?💊

GNC Holdings, Inc.
in , , , ,
3.gif

A quick recap of PETITION’s coverage of everyone’s (cough, no one’s) favorite supplements slinger.

In August 2017 in “GNC Holdings Inc. Needs Some Protein Powder,” we wrote:

GNC Holdings Inc. ($GNC) remains in focus as it reported its Q2 numbers this past Thursday. In summary, decreased consolidated revenue, decreased domestic (company-owned and franchised) same-store sales, decreased net income and operating income, decreased manufacturing/wholesale business...basically a hot mess. Limited bright spots included China sales and the new GNC storefront on Amazon. You read that right: the storefront on Amazon. Ugh. The company has $52mm of cash, $163.1mm available under its revolver and a robust $1.5b of long-term debt on its balance sheet. The stock traded down 7% after the announcement (but was up on the week).

In February 2018 in “GNC Makes Moves (Long Brand Equity, Meatheads & Chinese Cash),” we introduced the great strides GNC was undertaking to avoid a bankruptcy filing. These actions included (a) paying down its revolving credit facility, (b) moving towards an amend-and-extend transaction vis-a-vis its term loan, (c) obtaining a $300mm capital infusion by way of issuance of a perpetual preferred security to CITIC Capital, a Chinese investment fund and controlling shareholder of Harbin Pharmaceutical Group, and (d) the formation of a JV in China whereby it would slap its brand on Harbin’s product.

The following month in “GNC Holdings Inc. & the Rise of Supplements,” we highlighted that the amend-and-extend got done. And this:

Concurrently, the company entered into a new $100 million asset-backed loan due August 2022 and engaged in certain other capital structure machinations to obtain $275 million of asset-backed “first in, last out” term loans due December 2022. Textbook. Kicking. The. Can. Which, of course, helped the company avoid Vitamin World’s bankrupt fate.  Goldman Sachs!

We also noted a number of DTC supplements companies that were juiced by financings or acquisitions, citing them as headwinds to GNC and GNC’s nascent DTC business. The stock traded at $3.97/share back then. And we wrote:

Perhaps those restructuring professionals disappointed by Goldman Sachs’ success in securing the refinancing should just put that GNC file in a box labeled “2021.”

We revisited GNC in May 2018 in “GNC Holdings Inc. Isn’t Out of the Woods Yet.” At that time, the stock hovered around $3.53/share and the company reported more bad news including (i) 200 store closures, and (ii) declining revenue, same store sales at domestic franchise locations, and net income. We wrote:

Clearly GNC’s future — now that it has some balance sheet breathing room — will depend on its ability to capture new international markets, e-commerce growth primarily through its private label, innovation around product to combat DTC supplements brands, and continued cost controls. It will also need to execute on its goal of translating e-commerce sales to foot traffic. To accomplish this Herculean task, GNC may just need some supplements.

Last July, we noted that revenue continued its downward trend but earnings generally beat (uber-low) expectations. In August, we highlighted how Goldman Sachs was acting very “Goldman-y,” given that Goldman Sachs Investment Partners was a major investor in DTC vitamins and supplements startup Care/of, which had just raised a $29mm Series B round. We’ve slacked on our coverage since.

So, like, what’s up with GNC now?

It reported earnings back in July and continued to show weakness. Quarterly consolidated revenue and adjusted EBITDA declined meaningfully — the latter down 3% YOY. Same store sales were down 4.6%. E-commerce was down 0.2%. Revenue from franchise locations decreased 1.8%.

The company blamed promotional offers it implemented at the beginning of the quarter for the lousy same-store sales results.

Early in the second quarter, we made some adjustments to some of our promotional offers and our marketing vehicles, and we saw a direct negative impact to the top line. We quickly course corrected and saw sales strengthen throughout the remainder of the quarter.

PETITION Note: somebody must have gotten fired. Hard. Nothing like dropping an idea that is so horrifically bad that it immediately resulted in a “direct negative impact to the top line.” YIKES.

Speaking of yikes, mall performance is, like, YIIIIIIIIIIIKES:

In addition, the negative trends in traffic that we've seen in mall stores over the past several years has accelerated during the past few quarters putting additional pressure on comps. As part of our work to optimize our store footprint, we're increasing our focus on mall locations. And as you know, we have a great deal of flexibility to take further action here due to the short lease terms we have across our store portfolio.

It's important to note that our strip center locations are relatively stable from a comparable sales perspective. As a reminder, 61% of our existing store base is located in strip centers while only 28% reside in malls.

As a result of the current mall traffic trends, it's likely that we will end up closer to the top end of our original optimization estimate of 700 to 900 store closures.

Mall landlords everywhere were like:

THIS IS A PREMIUM MEMBERS POST, TO FINISH READING, CLICK HERE AND SUBSCRIBE TO OUR KICK@$$ NEWSLETTER ON DISRUPTION.

💥Another Gangbusters Quarter from Pier 1 (Long Slow Deaths)💥

Pier 1 Imports
in , , ,

Callback to previous Pier 1 Imports ($PIR) coverage here (Q1 ‘19 earnings summary), here (Q4, fiscal ‘18), and here ($71mm in cash remaining). Unfortunately, this will be our last coverage of the retailer because it appears to have pulled off a miracle turnaround of epic proportions: it CRUSHED Q2 earnings and appears to be well on its way to reclaiming “iconic” status!

1.gif

THIS THING IS A STEAMING TURD.

It’s even worse than we initially tweeted. Gross profit was 16.7% vs. 26.3% last year. The company’s operating loss expanded to $93.1mm compared to $62.5mm a year ago; it reported a net loss of $100.6mm or $24.29/share ($51.1mm and $12.68/share loss last year). The company noted “lower average customer spend” and “decreased store traffic.” And it sank $7mm into professional fees to help it right the ship. Management surely would’ve gotten torn up on the earnings call except, well, only one analyst was actually on the call. Nobody cares anymore. Anywho…

THIS IS A PREMIUM MEMBERS POST. TO READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE AND MORE OF OUR KICK@$$ CONTENT ON DISRUPTION, CLICK HERE.

BEAT YOUR COMPETITION, WITH PETITION.

🎯Experiences Galore: Dave & Buster’s Complains of Cannibalization (Short Arcades)🎯

Dave & Busters HQ
in , ,

We all know the pervasive narrative: when faced with a decision between purchasing expensive new dress shoes (a/k/a “deal sleds”) or tickets to Coachella, a lot of people today opt for those festival tickets. Why? Experiences. Everything today is apparently about experiences.

McKinsey & Company once wrote that:

Over the past few years, personal-consumption expenditures (PCE) on experience-related services—such as attending spectator events, visiting amusement parks, eating at restaurants, and traveling—have grown more than 1.5 times faster than overall personal-consumption spending and nearly 4.0 times faster than expenditures on goods.

This strong growth in demand for experiences had, for some time, shown well for those already situated in the space. The surging demand for experiences, however, has attracted new entrants, and may soon produce winners/losers in the space. Dave & Busters Entertainment Inc. ($PLAY) — a family-friendly chain offering a sports-bar-style setting for American food & arcade games — acknowledges this potential, among other things, in its most recent earnings call, announcing disappointing numbers

THIS IS A PREMIUM MEMBERS ARTICLE, TO CONTINUE READING THIS AND MORE OF OUR KICK@$$ CONTENT, CLICK HERE.

⚡️Update: What's Up With Francesca's ($FRAN)?⚡️

in , , , ,
1.gif

We first wrote about Houston-based Francesca’s Holdings Corp. ($FRAN) back in February when (i) the stock was trading at $0.92/share, (ii) the company had announced that it had retained Rothschild & Co. and Alvarez & Marsal LLC, and (iii) the company was coming off of a quarter where it (a) reported -14% same store sales, -10% net sales, and a net loss of $16mm, (b) acknowledged that 17% of its retail footprint was “underperforming,” and (c) blew out its fifth CEO in seven years. That’s all.

A lot has transpired since then. Going into its second quarter ‘19 earnings, the stock — after declining 80% over the last year — was suddenly and mysteriously on a small August upswing, reaching as high as $5.16/share on September 9 (PETITION Note: the company did a mid-summer 12-for-1 reverse stock split so that mostly explains the recovery from the $0.92/share level we’d previously written about but the upswing continued thereafter).

Then some weird sh*t happened. The company issued earnings and comp store sales were down 5% and net sales decreased 6%. Gross margins were also down.

Here is a snapshot of the company’s sales growth / (decline) over the years:

2.png

The company noted a decrease in margin’s due to aggressive markdowns, here are EBITDA margins over the last few years:

4.png

Here is the overall performance over the years:

5.png

And yet the stock popped on the report:

5.png

That’s right. It got as high as $18.14/share on this report. We know what you’re thinking: “that report sucks, the numbers were terrible.” Yes, yes indeed, they were. But, on a relative basis, this marked a dramatic improvement.

THIS IS A PREMIUM SUBSCRIBER’S ARTICLE. TO READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE (AND THE REST OF OUR KICK@$$ CONTENT) CLICK HERE.

💊Pushed Pills Pressure Purdue Pharma💊

in , , ,
1.gif

Long time PETITION readers should be, if they’re paying attention, identifying recurring themes confronting the various sectors of distress we cover. In retail bankruptcy, for instance, the stories generally contain the same elements: some combination of too much leverage (especially if PE-backed), too large an uneconomical brick-and-mortar footprint, slow adoption of e-commerce, poor supply chain management, awful off-trend product assortment, and disruptors (i.e., Amazon Inc., resale, DTC, etc.). In oil and gas, too much leverage backing capital intensive exploration and production initiatives, an unfavorable commodity environment, bloated SG&A, and too much money chasing outsized returns. In biopharma, new drugs are expensive and time-intensive to produce and often, despite potentially valuable IP and viable use cases, companies run out of money (and/or bust convertible debt) and are unable to continue paying to push their products through the regulatory framework absent a chapter 11. In healthcare, rollups of behavioral health, CCRC, rehab centers, etc., layer on too much debt on top of questionable business models in the face of an uncertain regulatory atmosphere.

And then there is another category: companies with little to no funded debt, minimal trade debt, an ability to fend off competition, and a viable product. What’s their problem? As we’ve seen in recent cases, i.e., Takata Corporation, Imerys Talc America Inc. (also discussed here), Insys Therapeutics Inc., The Diocese of Rochester, those companies tend to get sued into oblivion on the basis of shady-as-sh*t business practices or other general degenerative scumbaggery.

And so it should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone* that Oxycontin manufacturer, Purdue Pharma, has joined the fray, filing for bankruptcy this past week in the Southern District of New York (before the same judge administering the Sears sh*t show). Hold on to your butts people, this one ought to be interesting.

2.gif

Unless you’re a total ignoramus, you know by now that the country has been ravaged by an opioid epidemic. Here is 60 Minutes doing a deep dive into the issue. Here is the White House talking about “[e]nding America’s Opioid Crisis.” And here is John Oliver doing the John Oliver thing while talking about opioids.

We mean, you have to be willfully unaware or just plain stupid if you don’t know that this is a big problem. While numerous companies are implicated in this ever-visible scandal, Purdue Pharma is the biggest fish to fall to date (query how long that lasts). But, as noted above, Purdue Pharma generates a ton of money, has no funded debt, etc. So what it needs — and what it gets from a chapter 11 bankruptcy filing — is a break from the deluge of lawsuits against it. All 2,625 of them.

For the uninitiated, a bankruptcy filing triggers an automatic stay pursuant to section 362 of the bankruptcy code. This is an injunction, of sorts, that draws a line in the sand and prevents creditors from rushing to enforce their claims against a debtor. The idea is that by halting this rush and providing the debtor a “breathing spell,” the debtor will have a better opportunity to configure a go-forward strategy that is not only to its benefit, but also treats similarly situated claimants fairly. As you might imagine in a litigation scenario where there are literally thousands of potential judgement creditors scattered across various state and federal courts across the country, this is a powerful tool. It prevents Mia Wallace, plaintiff #1, from winning a huge judgement and collecting against that judgement to the point of siphoning away all of the debtors’ asset value before Vincent Vega, plaintiff #2, has had his day in court.** It also helps the debtors triage the outrageous expense involved with defending heaps of lawsuits all across the country; indeed, the Purdue Pharma debtors note that they spend $5mm/week — A WEEK! — defending themselves against litigation. They project to spend approximately $263mm on legal and related professional costs in 2019. That’s no typo, folks. Biglaw lawyers charge mint.

Here’s the thing about that “automatic stay” thing, though: there are exceptions to it — including, most relevant here, one that’s commonly referred to as the “police and regulatory power exception” (section 362(b)(4)). To preempt the applicability of this section, the debtors have already filed a “preliminary injunction motion,” seeking to enjoin continued prosecution of active governmental litigation against them (and a long slate of related parties, i.e., the entire Sackler family tree).***

THIS IS A PREMIUM MEMBER’S ARTICLE, TO READ THIS FULL ARTICLE AND MORE OF OUR KICK@$$ CONTENT, CLICK HERE. (YOU AND YOUR BOSS WON’T REGRET IT)

🗞The NYT, New Media Models & Snowflake Subscribers🗞

in , , , ,
1.gif

Take a look at these revenue numbers:

This, ladies and gentlemen, represents the most recently reported revenue from New York Times Co. ($NYT). It’s also evolution, illustrated.

We all know the story: in an age of heaps of free media and secular decline of print, media companies are (a) in the midst of a great pivot away from the ad-based business model and (b) as part of a hybrid model, leaning more heavily upon recurring-revenue-producing subscription (and other) products.

This pivot — and the reason for it — couldn’t be clearer from the reported Q2 ‘19 earnings. As you can see above, advertising revenue is flat, while subscription and “other” revenue is growing.

Generally speaking, the report was sound. The company added 131k net subscriptions; it also separately grew its separate subscription channels for “Cooking” and “Crossword,”* and launched a news series, “The Weekly,” on FX and Hulu (PETITION Note: we can’t help but question the long-term success of this series: who really wants to go to Hulu to watch a NYT news series? In the end, that didn’t work for Vice News on HBO. That said, this series apparently contributed to a 30% increase in “other” revenue in the quarter, so, who knows? Maybe we’re dead wrong). In total, subscriptions were up by 197k and the company now reports 3.8mm digital-only subscribers.

On the negative side, the company’s operating costs are increasing and, in turn, its operating profit is decreasing (down $4mm YOY) as it looks to grow its digital channels, properly analyze and manage its sales funnel, acquire additional journalist talent, etc. Some choice bits relating to subscriptions from the earnings call:

Total subscription revenues increased 4% in the quarter with digital-only subscription revenue growing 14% to $113 million. On the print subscription side, revenues were down 2.5% due to declines in the number of home delivery subscriptions and continued shift of subscribers moving to less frequent and therefore less expensive delivery packages as well as a decline in single copy sales. This decrease in print subscription revenues was partially offset by a home delivery price increase that was implemented early in the year.

Total daily circulation declined 8.5% in the quarter compared with prior year, while Sunday circulation declined 7.1%.

No surprises here. Digital is ⬆️, print is ⬇️, and even where there is print, the average revenue per user is shifting down in large part due to subscribers opting for ⬇️ delivery frequency. Interestingly, people are also buying fewer newspapers on the fly (“single copy sales”).

On the advertising side:

Total advertising revenue grew 1.3% compared with the prior year with digital advertising growing 14% and print declining by 8%. The increase in digital advertising revenue was largely driven by growth in direct sold advertising on our digital platforms, including advertising sold in our podcast and our creative services business. The print advertising result was mainly due to declines in the financial services, retail and media categories, partially offset by growth in technology.

The stock market did not act favorably — note the demarcation below:

Indeed, as of the time of this writing, the share price is down 20% from where it was on the date of the release.

There are some interesting takeaways here. First, podcasts continue to be a source of growth for many a media company — despite the lack of viable analytics across the podcasting space. Second, the second order effects of the decline in retail and media are notable. Third, the company’s purchase of Wirecutter is feeding its “other” revenue which implies — though it is not line-itemed — that affiliate-related revenue is a growing part of the business (long Amazon!).**

As for guidance, the company forecasted continued YOY subscription growth in the low-to-mid single digits, a decrease in ad revenue, and an increase in “other” revenue. Notably, “other” revenue also includes income from subletting office space, commercial printing, and licensing deals (i.e., when the NYT is referenced in a movie, etc.).

It will be interesting to see whether the NYT can continue to demonstrate subscriber growth in the midst of a hyper-polarized political environment. To point, a shift to subscribers is not without its dangers. Recently the NYT came under pressure both for (i) its 1619 Project about slavery and (ii) a headline describing President Trump’s reaction to the El Paso and Dayton shootings. Per The Wrap:

The New York Times saw an increase in subscription cancellations after a reader backlash over its lead headline on a story about a Donald Trump speech on Monday, a Times spokesperson told TheWrap.

The paper has “seen a higher volume of cancellations today than is typical,” the spokesperson said on Tuesday.

In an age of hyper-competition for the marginal dollar, this is a big problem. In a story about the dismal performance of the Los Angeles Times’ digital initiatives (net 13k subscriptions in the first six months of ‘19), Joshua Benton writes for Neiman Lab:

But once you get all those subscribers signed up, you’ve got to prove yourself worthy of their money, over and over again. Churn has always been an issue for newspapers, but it’s even more of one in a world of constant competition for subscription dollars. (“Hmm, Netflix raised their price — do I really use that L.A. Times subscription?”) Retention is critical to making reader revenue the bedrock of the new business model….

That’s what happens when you switch to a subscriber model. Investors care less about ad revenue and more about subscriber growth. Each individual subscriber matters. And retention really matters.

*****

But retention cannot come at a cost. A publication must establish values and live up to them. Take, for instance, this note we received from a reader recently:

“Your writings are done well, interesting, and humorous. However, take it from me and many of my colleagues, your anti-Trump insults are aggravating and misguided.  Some of us are considering unsubscribing because of it.”

He is referring to this piece, “Tariffs Tear into Tech+,” wherein we wrote about the recent escalation in trade hostility as follows:

We’re frankly not sure why this is controversial. All we did was insinuate that the man is intemperate (is that really even debatable?) and describe him in his own words.

President Trump’s policies — for better or for worse — have an impact on the economy. The delivery of those policies infuses volatility into the markets. It affects whether a company will commit to investing millions in coming months; it affects sales; it affects consumer spending which, in case you didn’t notice, is, for now, the only thing keeping GDP afloat. We’re going to write about that. And we’re going to do so in our usual voice. Just like we would if a democrat were in office: we’re equal opportunity snark.***

So, sure, Mr. Orange County, feel free to cancel your Membership if you think we’re misguided. That’s just what we all need: another highly educated person running for the hills because a few words didn’t comport with his sensibilities. Thanks for summing up this country’s current plight of discourse/discord in three sentences.

In conclusion, we won’t be bullied, subscription be damned.

*Impressively, the Cooking product has 250k subscribers and the Crosswords product has 500k subscribers.

**For those who don’t know, an affiliate fee is essentially a referral fee for sending traffic over to an affiliate partner that ultimately results in a transaction. So, for instance, if you go to Wirecutter.com to look up best back-to-school backpack and click on their #1 choice, a L.L. Bean ‘Quad Pack,’ and buy one, Wirecutter earns approximately 4% on that purchase.

***Case and point: we’ve previously asked, “Are Progressives Bankrupting Restaurants?“

💩There’s No End in Sight for Retail Pain (Long the “Playbook”)💩

in , , , ,

Retail, retail, retail.

Brutal. Absolutely B.R.U.T.A.L.

Avenue Stores LLC, a speciality women’s plus-size retailer with approximately 2,000 employees across its NJ-based HQ* and 255 leased stores,** is the latest retailer to find its way into bankruptcy court. On Friday, August 16, Avenue Stores LLC filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in the District of Delaware. Like Dressbarn, another plus-size apparel retailer that’s in the midst of going the way of the dodo, any future iteration of the Avenue “brand” will likely exist only on the interwebs: the company intends to shutter its brick-and-mortar footprint.

What is Avenue? In addition to a select assortment of national brands, Avenue is a seller of (i) mostly “Avenue” private label apparel, (ii) intimates/swimwear and other wares under the “Loralette” brand and (iii) wide-width shoes under the “Cloudwalkers” brand. The company conducts e-commerce via “Avenue.com” and “Loralette.com.” All of this “IP” is the crux of the bankruptcy. More on this below. 

But, first, a digression: when we featured Versa Capital Management LP’s Gregory Segall in a Notice of Appearance segment back in April, we paid short shrift to the challenges of retail. We hadn’t had an investor make an NOA before and so we focused more broadly on the middle market and investing rather than Versa’s foray into retail and its ownership of Avenue Stores LLC. Nevertheless, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, we can now see some foreshadowing baked into Mr. Siegel’s answers — in particular, his focus on Avenue’s e-commerce business and the strategic downsizing of the brick-and-mortar footprint. Like many failed retail enterprises before it, the future — both near and long-term — of Avenue Stores is marked by these categorical distinctions. Store sales are approximately 64% of sales with e-commerce at approximately 36% (notably, he cited 33% at the time of the NOA). 

A brand founded in 1987, Avenue has had an up-and-down history. It was spun off out of Limited Brands Inc. and renamed in 1989; it IPO’d in 1992; it was then taken private in 2007. Shortly thereafter, it struggled and filed for bankruptcy in early 2012 and sold as a going-concern to an acquisition entity, Avenue Stores LLC (under a prior name), for “about $32 million.” The sale closed after all of two months in bankruptcy. The holding company that owns 100% of the membership interests in Avenue Stores LLC, the operating company, is 99%-owned by Versa Capital Management. 

Performance for the business has been bad, though the net loss isn’t off the charts like we’ve seen with other recent debtors in chapter 11 cases (or IPO candidates filing S-1s, for that matter). Indeed, the company had negative EBITDA of $886k for the first five months of 2019 on $75.3mm in sales. Nevertheless, the loss was enough for purposes of the debtors’ capital structure. The debtors are party to an asset-backed loan (“ABL”) memorialized by a credit agreement with PNC Bank NA, a lender that, lately, hasn’t been known for suffering fools. The loan is for $45mm with a $6mm first-in-last-out tranche and has a first lien on most of the debtors’ collateral. 

The thing about ABLs is that availability thereunder is subject to what’s called a “borrowing base.” A borrowing base determines how much availability there is out of the overall credit facility. Said another way, the debtors may not always have access to the full facility and therefore can’t just borrow $45mm willy-nilly; they have to comply with certain periodic tests. For instance, the value of the debtors’ inventory and receivables, among other things, must be at a certain level for availability to remain. If the value doesn’t hold up, the banks can close the spigot. If you’re a business with poor sales, slim margins, diminishing asset quality (i.e., apparel inventory), and high cash burn, you’re generally not in very good shape when it comes to these tests. With specs like those, your liquidity is probably already tight. A tightened borrowing base will merely exacerbate the problem.

TIRED OF GETTING ONLY PART OF THE STORY? US TOO! CLICK HERE AND SUBSCRIBE TO GET UNLIMITED ACCESS TO OUR PREMIUM CONTENT! (YOU WON’T REGRET IT)

💩Yes, Let’s Get Right to It: Retail Blows. The End.💩

in , , , ,
 

You have to respect the brevity deployed by Lolli and Pops Inc., the sweets retailer that filed for bankruptcy in the District of Delaware on Monday. In a shockingly-yet-refreshingly terse 8-page first day declaration, the company and its affiliated debtors’ CRO justified the bankruptcy filing by saying, in effect, the following: retail blows. The funny thing is that the document could have been even shorter. We’ll give it a shot:

WANT TO READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE? CLICK HERE AND SUBSCRIBE NOW

📦Nerds Lament: Subscription Box Company Goes BK📦

in , , , ,

We’re old enough to remember when subscription boxes were all the rage. The e-commerce trend became so explosive that the Washington Post estimated in 2014 that there were anywhere between 400 and 600 different subscription box services out there. We reckon that — given the the arguably-successful-because-it-got-to-an-IPO-but-then-atrocious-public-foray by Blue Apron Inc. ($APRN) â€” the number today is on the lower end of the range (if not even lower) as many businesses failed to prove out the business model and manage shipping expense.

And so it was only a matter of time before one of them declared bankruptcy.

Earlier this morning, Loot Crate Inc., a Los Angeles-based subscription service which provides monthly boxes of geek- and gaming-related merchandise (“Comic-con in a box,” including toys, clothing, books and comics tied to big pop culture and geek franchises) filed for bankruptcy in the District of Delaware.* According to a press release, the company intends to use the chapter 11 process to effectuate a 363 sale of substantially all of its assets to a newly-formed buyer, Loot Crate Acquisition LLC. The company secured a $10mm DIP credit facility to fund the cases from Money Chest LLC, an investor in the business. The company started in 2012.

Speaking of investors in the business, this one got a $18.5mm round of venture financingfrom the likes of Upfront Ventures, Sterling.VC (the venture arm of Sterling Equities, the owner of the New York Mets), and Downey Ventures, the venture arm of none other than Iron Man himself, Robert Downey Jr. At one point, this investment appeared to be a smashing success: the company reportedly had over 600k subscribers and more than $100mm in annualized revenue. It delivered to 35 countries. Inc Magazine ranked it #1 on its “Fastest Growing Private Companies” list. Deloitte had it listed first in its 2016 Technology Fast 500 Winners list. Loot Crate must have had one kicka$$ PR person!

But life comes at you fast.

By 2018, the wheels were already coming off. Mark Suster, a well-known and prolific VC from Upfront Ventures, stepped off the board along with two other directors. The company hired Dendera Advisory LLC, a boutique merchant bank, for a capital raise.** As we pointed out in early ‘18, apparently nobody was willing to put a new equity check into this thing, despite all of the accolades. Of course, allegations of sexual harassment don’t exactly help. Ultimately, the company had no choice but to go the debt route: in August 2018, it secured $23mm in new financing from Atalaya Capital Management LP. Per the company announcement:

This financing, led by Atalaya Capital Management LP ("Atalaya") and supported by several new investors (including longstanding commercial partners, NECA and Bioworld Merchandising), will enable Loot Crate to bolster its existing subscription lines and improve the overall customer experience, while also enabling new product launches, growth in new product lines and the establishment of new distribution channels.

Shortly thereafter, it began selling its boxes on Amazon Inc. ($AMZN). When a DTC e-commerce business suddenly starts relying on Amazon for distribution and relinquishes control of the customer relationship, one has to start to wonder. 🤔

And, so, now it is basically being sold for parts. Per the company announcement:

"During the sale process we will have the financial resources to purchase the goods and services necessary to fulfill our Looters' needs and continue the high-quality service and support they have come to expect from the Loot Crate team," Mr. Davis said.

That’s a pretty curious statement considering the Better Business Bureau opened an investigation into the company back in late 2018. Per the BBB website:

According to BBB files, consumers allege not receiving the purchases they paid for. Furthermore consumers allege not being able to get a response with the details of their orders or refunds. On September 4, 2018 the BBB contacted the company in regards to our concerns about the amount and pattern of complaints we have received. On October 30, 2018 the company responded stating "Loot Crate implemented a Shipping Status page to resolve any issues with delays here: http://loot.cr/shippingstatus[.]

In fact, go on Twitter and you’ll see a lot of recent complaints:

High quality service, huh? Riiiiiiight. These angry customers are likely to learn the definition of “unsecured creditor.”

Good luck getting those refunds, folks. The purchase price obviously won’t clear the $23mm in debt which means that general unsecured creditors (i.e., customers, among other groups) and equity investors will be wiped out.***

Sadly, this is another tale about a once-high-flying startup that apparently got too close to the sun. And, unfortunately, a number of people will lose their jobs as a result.

Market froth has helped a number of these companies survive. When things do eventually turn, we will, unfortunately, see a lot more companies that once featured prominently in rankings and magazine covers fall by the wayside.

*We previously wrote about Loot Crate here, back in February 2018.

**Dendera, while not a well-known firm in restructuring circles, has been making its presence known in recent chapter 11 filings; it apparently had a role in Eastern Mountain Sports and Energy XXI.

***The full details of the bankruptcy filing aren’t out yet but this seems like a pretty obvious result.

⚡️Here a Sale. There a Sale. Everywhere a Sale Sale! (Long Bankruptcy Code Section 363)⚡️

in , , ,

In a nutshell, bankruptcy code section 363 allows a debtor to sell assets free and clear of liens and encumbrances.

https___bucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com_public_images_7d89038a-1e55-452f-a277-4aa20a5c7e8f_245x135.gif

In other words, a company can sell itself and the buyer can leave a bunch of bad sh*t behind. It’s a powerful tool and helps the buyer avoid any sort of “fraudulent conveyance” liability down the road. We’re seeing a proliferation of 363-based bankruptcy cases. In the last week, for instance, Barneys New York Inc., iPic-Gold Class Entertainment LLC, and Perkins & Marie Callender’s LLC all filed with the intent of pursuing sales (PETITION Note: see, also, Jack Cooper Ventures Inc. below).

THIS IS A SUBSCRIBER’S POST, TO READ MORE OF THIS ARTICLE, CLICK HERE AND SUBSCRIBE TO OUR @$$KICKING NEWSLETTER (DISRUPT THE COMPETITION WITH PETITION)

⛽️Halcon Resources Poised to be the Next Oil & Gas Chapter 22 (Long Kerosene)⛽️

in , , ,
https___bucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com_public_images_0a757427-209f-4a8e-90dd-5b28c0fed956_450x253.gif

Nearly three years after its last prepackaged plan of reorganization wiped $1.8 billion of debt off of the company’s balance sheet, onshore E&P company, Halcon Resources Corporation ($HKRS), is once again on the bankruptcy courthouse steps with another prepackaged bankruptcy. This company is burning debt like a baaaaaaaaaaaawse.

In the prior bankruptcy, the company eliminated $1b of 13% ‘22 senior secured third lien notes, $316mm of 9.75% ‘20 senior notes, $297mm of 8.875% ‘21 senior notes, $37mm of 9.25% ‘22 senior notes, and $290mm of 8% ‘20 senior convertible notes. The majority of the equity in the reorganized entity went to the third lien noteholders, with other equity going to unsecured holders (15.5%), convertible noteholders (4%) and common stockholders (4%). That equity holds very little value today. The stock traded publicly up until July 23, 2019, when the Nasdaq delisted the company’s shares ($HR) and the stock began trading on OTC pink sheets under the $HKRS symbol.

Meanwhile, here’s what the company’s current debt sitch looked like this as of the most recent 10-Q:

WANT TO READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE? CLICK HERE AND SUBSCRIBE NOW

⚡️Data, Baby, Data (Long Ambitious Lawyers)⚡️

in , , ,
https___bucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com_public_images_490bc98d-8765-479f-915c-fa8617240560_480x266.gif

Man. The hits just keep on coming for retailers. 

First, a callback to 2014. 

Back in 2014, Twilio Inc. ($TWLO) was a lesser known private company that solved a basic problem: it allowed software developers to programmatically make and receive phone calls, send and receive text messages, and perform other communication functions using its web service APIs. In English? It connected businesses to customers. It was the ultimate "be where your customers are" power move: increasingly, customers are writing or reacting to texts. Twilio enables text message blasts to large groups. This was a total game changer for businesses: it gave them an avenue to connect in a more personal way to their customers and rise above the muck of email (PETITION Note: which is not to say that we don't LOVE email). And now Twilio is an a $18b market cap company:

WANT TO SEE THE REST OF THIS KICK@$$ POST? CLICK HERE TO SEE THE REST OF THE ARTICLE AND MORE @$$KICKING POSTS!