Styles for Less Inc.

• 11/6/17 Recap: Another retailer finds its way in bankruptcy court. Here, the company has 93 retail women's clothing stores in California, Nevada, Texas, Arizona and Florida. The company claims, in its bankruptcy papers, to "offer the hottest trendy clothing, shoes, accessories and more at discounted prices...." Which, naturally, begs the question: well then why the hell did it file for bankruptcy? Well, naturally, the company answers this question in its bankruptcy papers and its the now-typical litany of retail excuses: (i) "increased industry discounting" (read: price and margin compression), (ii) "online penetration" (read: e-commerce), and (iii) "shifts in consumer spending away from 'fast fashion' and toward services and experiences (read: Snapchat...okay, maybe NOT Snapchat...but...millennials!) - all of which have contributed to cash flow pressures and liquidity problems. We make light but this story really is becoming pandemic. And the story includes the closure of 55 brick-and-mortar locations, 311 lost jobs, and decreased pay for those who kept their jobs. To stay alive, the company continues to negotiate with landlords and pursue operational expense reductions. The company will operate using Wells Fargo Bank's cash collateral while it tries to figure out a reorganization plan. Notably, the service list includes representatives of General Growth Properties Inc. ($GGP) and Simon Property Group ($SPG). Nothing to see here.
• Jurisdiction: C.D. of California (Judge Wallace)
• Capital Structure: $915k secured debt (Wells Fargo Bank NA)
• Company Professionals:
  • Legal: Winthrop Couchot Golubow Hollander LLP (Marc Winthrop, Garrick Hollander)

Updated 11/7/17