🔋New Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing - 1515 GEEnergy Holding Co. LLC🔋

1515 GEEnergy Holding Co. LLC

February 14, 2019

Though it took a backseat to the overall oil and gas downturn of a few years ago, the power market has also experienced its share of distress and bankruptcy of late: Illinois Power, ExGen Texas Power, Panda Temple Power, FirstEnergy, Westinghouse, and GenOn are just a few of the power companies that found themselves in a bankruptcy court. Now we can add 1515-Geenergy Holding Co. LLC and BBPC, LLC d/b/a Great Eastern Energy, providers of (i) natural gas and electricity to customers in New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts and (ii) electricity to customers in Connecticut, to the list. (together, the “Debtors”).

What we love about bankruptcy filings is that, unbeknownst to many, they often provide a pithy overview of an industry that is highly informative without getting too into the weeds. Indeed, in the Debtors chapter 11 papers, they provide a solid history of the decades-long process of deregulated power provision. In summary (and per the debtors):

• In 1978, Congress passed the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (“PURPA”), which laid the groundwork for deregulation and competition by opening wholesale power markets to non-utility producers of electricity.

• Following this, in the 80s and 90s, state legislatures passed laws designed to allow competitive retail sale and supply in the nat gas markets.

• Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 1992 which specifically promoted greater competition in the bulk power market. This began to de-monopolize the utility industry by allowing independent power producers equal access to the utilities’ transmission grid.

• By 1996, FERC implemented Orders 888 and 889, which were intended to remove impediments to competition in wholesale trade and bring more efficient lower-cost power to the nation’s electricity customers.

• President George W. Bush later signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which decreased limitations on utility companies’ ability to merge or be owned by financial holdings / non-utility companies. This led to a wave of mergers and consolidation within the utility industry.

• Today, more than 20 states have at least partially deregulated electricity markets whereby energy customers may choose between their incumbent local utility and an array of independent, competitive suppliers. This is commonly referred to as a “deregulated” or “competitive” power market.

All of this, of course, created opportunity for entrepreneurs looking to take advantage of newly opened markets. That’s where the Debtors come in. BBPC started serving nat gas to customers in 2000, leveraging its relationships with various commodity supply companies, pipelines and local utility companies for the purchase, delivery and distribution of power and natural gas to their customers. The debtors acquire customers via various marketing channels, including, among other things, an indirect sales team, a network of hundreds of independent brokers. The debtors have approximately 49k commercial customers and 5k residential customers.

So, why is the company now in bankruptcy? Per the Company:

The competitive retail electric power industry is characterized by high degrees of both fragmentation, competition, and customer attrition because power providers compete primarily on price and have little else available to differentiate their products and services. Particularly in years with high volatility in weather and energy prices, customers paying high electricity and gas bills will tend to seek out other competitive retail electric providers, resulting in higher attrition rates. Also, larger independent retail energy providers have been active in acquiring customer books of their competitors.

More than that, though, is the fact that customers are no longer f*cking idiots about how they get electric and gas service. Indeed, the company notes that they are “becoming more and more sophisticated.” It’s amazing what competition and the democratization of information that’s attendant thereto can do for consumers. With more options and pricing plans to choose from, the debtors have been feeling the effects of price compression. Moreover, this bankruptcy is Google’s damn fault. Per the company:

Small consumers are also using energy-efficient appliances and devices, adopting green building technologies, and taking other actions that help protect the environment, but also lower demand for energy products.

All of these factors converged to decrease the Debtors’ revenue and cause them to default on certain of their obligations.

We’re serious. Among the PETITION team, we own a number of Nest and other smart energy-efficient devices.

Anyway, all of this led to the debtors defaulting under their ~$60mm prepetition credit agreement with Macquarie Investments US Inc., which, after several months of forbearances meant to give the debtors an opportunity to refi out Macquarie and/or sell the company, expired under their own terms. Needless to say, the debtors weren’t successful and have filed the chapter 11 to prevent Macquarie from exercising remedies and afford themselves an opportunity to pursue a sale of substantially all of their assets.

---

• Jurisdiction: D. of Delaware (Judge Carey)

• Capital Structure: ~$60mm secured credit facility (Macquarie Investments US Inc.) + $30.6mm in collateralized LOCs.

• Professionals:

  • Legal: Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP (Morton Branzburg, Dominic Pacitti, Michael Yurkewicz) & (local) McLaughlin & Stern LLP (Steven Newburgh)

  • Financial Advisor: GlassRatner Advisory & Capital Group LLC

  • Claims Agent: Omni Management Group LLC (*click on the link above for free docket access)

• Other Professionals:

🚗New Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing - Total Finance Investment Inc.🚗

Total Finance Investment Inc.

February 13, 2019

We’ve been asking about distress in the automotive industry since our inception and most recently noted in “🚗The Auto Sector is Quietly Restructuring🚗 that activity is picking up in the space. Admittedly, this case isn’t exactly what we had in mind. Nevertheless, earlier this week, Total Finance Investment Inc. and Car Outlet Holding Inc. (and affiliated debtors) filed for bankruptcy in the Northern District of Illinois; the debtors are an integrated chain of buy-here pay-here used vehicle dealerships in Illinois and Wisconsin.

What does “buy-here pay-here” mean? The debtors sold used vehicles, provided financing, AND operated an insurance broker to assist customers with procurement of automobile insurance coverage from third-party insurance providers. They “specifically catered to the fast-growing and underserved population of “unbanked” and “underbanked” Hispanic consumers in Northern Illinois and Milwaukee, which historically made up approximately 70% of the Debtors’ customer base.” There’s just one problem with all of this? Competition is BRUTAL. Per the company:

In recent years, BHPH dealerships have been subject to increasing industry-wide pressures that have negatively impacted their operating results, driving a number of the Debtors’ BHPH competitors out of business. The used vehicle dealership market is highly fragmented and fiercely competitive—with approximately 1,800 used car dealerships in Illinois alone—and the Debtors historically competed with other large used car dealerships like CarMax and DriveTime, as well as other BHPH operations. The fragmented nature of the industry and relatively low barriers to entry have led to steep competition between dealerships, putting significant downward pressure on the margins BHPH dealerships earn on vehicle sales. Further, as a result of a protracted period of increased capital availability, indirect auto lenders such as banks, credit unions, and finance companies have in recent years moved to originate subprime auto loans and offer attractive financing terms to customers with lower than average credit scores, putting pressure on BHPH operators’ market share among their traditional customer base.

Because, like, why not? Nothing has ever gone wrong when there has been excessive competition fiercely pursuing the subprime market. 🙈Ironically, the day before this filing, The Washington Post reported that 7mm Americans have, to the surprise of economists, stopped paying their auto loans. Whooooops. Per the WP:

The data show that most of the borrowers whose auto loans have recently moved into delinquency are people younger than 30 years old and people with low credit scores. Eight percent of borrowers with credit scores below 620 — otherwise known as subprime — went from good standing to delinquent on their auto loans in the fourth quarter of 2018.

No. Bueno. Anyway, back to the debtors. Read this part and tell us you don’t suffer PTSD circa-2008:

…capital markets became increasingly accessible for indirect auto lenders, many of which began to originate subprime loans and offer attractive financing terms to borrowers that historically had been overwhelmingly BHPH customers. The Debtors’ prior management team responded to the change in market conditions by providing larger loans with longer terms, accepting smaller down payments, and accepting transactions with increasingly negative equity in order to increase sales volume. The shift to offering riskier loans to subprime customers ultimately led to the Debtors experiencing historically high delinquency rates and losses beginning in the second half of 2015.

But wait. There’s more:

In addition to increased competition in the auto lending industry, the Debtors have also incurred significant expenses to ensure compliance with new regulations enacted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Furthermore, the political climate following the 2016 presidential election has had a negative impact on the spending habits of the Debtors’ traditional customer base in a manner that negatively impacted the Debtors’ operating results.

The debtors, therefore, suffered a consolidated pre-tax loss of approximately $29.9mm. MAGA!!!

The company has been trying to improve cash flows and operating results for years. One major initiative included, as far back as 2016, tightening underwriting standards to reduce consumer finance portfolio losses. We sure hope that there are others who took similar steps given the Washington Post report. But we digress.

Back in 2017, the debtors also received an $84mm equity infusion from Marubeni Corporation. Nevertheless, the debtors continued to hemorrhage to the point of compromising compliance with certain financial covenants under their senior secured debt facility with BMO Harris Bank NA. Thereafter, the company entered into a series of forbearance agreements with BMO as it attempted to figure out either a refinancing or an asset sale. In the end, the debtors obtained a restructuring support agreement and filed for bankruptcy to liquidate the used auto business and transfer its auto loan servicing business to a third-party servicer (PETITION Note: earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal reported that the mortgage servicing business is en fuego — notwithstanding the Ditech Holding Corporation bankruptcy (see here). We wonder: what sort of demand is there for subprime auto loan servicing businesses?). BMO Harris will fund the estates with a $4mm DIP credit facility.

So we’re left with this question: is this chapter 11 filing the canary in the coal mine for subprime auto lenders?

• Jurisdiction: N.D. of Illinois (Judge Doyle)

• Capital Structure: see below.

• Professionals:

  • Legal: Sidley Austin LLP (Bojan Guzina, William Evanoff, Jackson Garvey)

  • Conflicts Legal: Togut Segal & Segal LLP

  • Financial Advisor: Portage Point Partners LLC

  • Interim Management: Development Specialists Inc.

  • Investment Banker: Keefe Bruyette & Woods and Miller Buckfire & Co. LLC

  • Claims Agent: KCC (*click on the link above for free docket access)

• Other Professionals:

  • Prepetition Lender: BMO Harris Bank NA

    • Legal: Chapman and Cutler LLP (David Audley, Mia D’Andrea)
      

Source: First Day Declaration

New Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing - Imerys Talc America Inc.

Imerys Talc America Inc.

February 13, 2019

Merely a week ago we wrote:

PG&E Corporation's ($PCG) recent liability-based bankruptcy filing got us thinking: what other companies are poised for a litigation-based chapter 11 bankruptcy filing? We think we have a winner. 

Imerys S.A. is a French multinational company that specializes in the production and processing of industrial minerals. Its North American operations are headquartered in Roswell, Georgia and in San Jose, California. Included among Imerys' North American operations is Imerys Talc America. The key word in all of the foregoing is "Talc." 

If only we had purchased a lottery ticket.

Within days, Imerys Talc America Inc. and two affiliated debtors indeed filed for bankruptcy in the District of Delaware. The debtors mine, process and distribute talc for use in end products used in the manufacturing of products sold by third-parties —- primarily Johnson & Johnson Inc. ($JNJ). The debtors have historically been the sole supplier of cosmetic talk to JNJ. And, in part, because of that, they’re getting sued to Kingdom Come. Approximately 14,650 individual claimants are suing the debtors alleging personal injuries caused by exposure to talc mined, processed or distributed by the debtors. The debtors note:

Although personal care/cosmetic sales make up only approximately 5% of the Debtors’ revenue, approximately 98.6% of the pending Talc Claims allege injuries based on use of cosmetic products containing talc.

Whoa. What a number!! What a disparity! Low revenues and yet high claims! What a sham! That just goes to show how absurd these claims are!!

Just kidding. That sentence means absolutely nothing: it is clearly an attempt by lawyers to ignorantly wow people with percentages that have absolutely no significance whatsoever. Who gives a sh*t whether personal care/cosmetic sales are only a small fraction of revenues? If those sales are all laced with toxic crap that are possibly causing people cancer or mesothelioma, the rest is just pixie dust. In fact, it’s possible that 100% of 1% of sales are causing cancer, is it not?

Anyway, naturally, the debtors deny those claims but defending the claims, of course, comes at a huge cost. Per the Company:

…while the Debtors have access to valuable insurance assets that they have relied on to fund their defense and appropriate settlement costs to date, the Debtors have been forced to fund certain litigation costs and settlements out of their free cash flow due to a lack of currently available coverage for certain Talc Claims, or insurers asserting defenses to coverage. The Debtors lack the financial wherewithal to litigate against the mounting Talc Claims being asserted against them in the tort system.

Well that sucks. In addition to the debtors issues obtaining insurance coverage, they’re also apparently bombarded by claimants emboldened by the recent multi-billion dollar verdict rendered against JNJ.. We previously wrote:

While certain cases are running into roadblocks, the prior verdicts call into question whether Imerys has adequate insurance coverage to address the various judgments. If not, the company is likely headed into bankruptcy court — the latest in a series of cases that will attempt to deploy bankruptcy code section 524's channeling injunction and funnel claims against a trust. 

Indeed, given issues with insurance (and JNJ refusing to indemnify the debtors as expected in certain instances), the massive verdict, AND discussions with a proposed future claims representative, the debtors concluded that a chapter 11 filing would be the best way to handle the talc-related liabilities. And indeed a channeling injunction is a core goal. Per the debtors:

The Debtors’ primary goal in filing these Chapter 11 Cases is to confirm a consensual plan of reorganization pursuant to Sections 105(a), 524(g), and 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code that channels all of the present and future Talc Claims to a trust vested with substantial assets and provides for a channeling injunction prohibiting claimants from asserting against any Debtor or non-debtor affiliate any claims arising from talc mined, produced, sold, or distributed by any of the Debtors prior to their emergence from these Chapter 11 Cases. While the Debtors dispute all liability as to the Talc Claims, the Debtors believe this approach will provide fair and equitable treatment of all stakeholders.

The comparisons to PG&E were on point.

• Jurisdiction: D. of Delaware (Judge Silverstein)

• Capital Structure: $14.4mm inter-company payable.

• Professionals:

  • Legal: Latham & Watkins LLP (George Davis, Keith Simon, Annemarie Reilly, Richard Levy, Jeffrey Bjork, Jeffrey Mispagel, Helena Tseregounis) & (local) Richards Layton & Finger PA (Mark Collins, Michael Merchant, Amanda Steele)

  • Financial Advisor: Alvarez & Marsal North America LLC

  • Claims Agent: Prime Clerk LLC (*click on the link above for free docket access)

• Other Parties in Interst:

  • Imerys SA

    • Legal: Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP (Christopher Kiplok, William Beausoleil, George Tsougarakis, Erin Diers) & (local) Bayard PA (Scott Cousins, Erin Fay)

  • Future Claims Representative: James L. Patton Jr.

    • Legal: Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP

    • Financial Advisor: Ankura Consulting Group LLC

😷New Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing - Trident Holding Company LLC😷

Trident Holding Company LLC

February 10, 2019

It looks like all of those 2018 predictions about healthcare-related distress were off by a year. We’re merely in mid-February and already there has been a full slate of healthcare bankruptcy filings. Here, Trident Holding Company LLC, a Maryland-based provider of bedside diagnostic and other services (i.e., x-ray, ultrasound, cardiac monitoring) filed for bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York. What’s interesting about the filing is that it is particularly light on detail: it includes the standard description of the capital structure and recent efforts to restructure, but there is a dearth of information about the history of the company and its financial performance. There is, however, a restructuring support agreement with the company’s priority first lien lenders.

Here’s a quick look at the company’s capital structure which is a large factor driving the company into bankruptcy:

Source: First Day Declaration

As you can see, the company has a considerable amount of debt. The above-reflected “Priority First Lien Facility” is a fairly recent development, having been put in place as recently as April 2018. That facility, provided by Silver Point, includes a $27.1mm prepayment fee triggered upon the filing of the bankruptcy case. That’s certain to be a point of interest to an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. It also contributed to an onerous amount of debt service. Per the company:

In the midst of market and competitive challenges, Trident has significant debt service obligations. Over the course of 2018, Trident paid approximately $26,185,667.75 in cash interest on the Secured Credit Facilities. On January 31, 2019, the Company missed an interest payment of $9,187,477.07 on the Secured Credit Facilities, resulting in an Event of Default on February 8, 2019 after the cure period expired.

But, wait. There’s more. The recent uptick in distressed healthcare activity is beginning to aggregate and create a trickle-down bankruptcies-creating-bankruptcies effect:

Moreover, a number of recent customer bankruptcies – including those of Senior Care Centers, LLC, 4 West Holdings, Inc., and Promise Healthcare Group, LLC – have exacerbated the Company’s liquidity shortfall by limiting the collectability of amounts owed from these entities. A number of other customers who have not yet filed bankruptcy cases are generally not paying the Debtors within contractual terms due to their own liquidity problems. As a result of these collection difficulties and challenges with the new billing system in the Sparks Glencoe billing center, the Debtors recorded $27.8 million of extraordinary bad debt expense in 2018 and $12.7 million in 2017.

Ouch. Not to state the obvious, but if the start of 2019 is any indication, this is only going to get worse. The company estimates a net operating cash loss of $9.1mm in the first 30 days of the case.

Given the company’s struggles and burdensome capital structure, the company has been engaging its lenders for well over a year. In the end, however, it couldn’t work out an out-of-court resolution. Instead, the company filed its bankruptcy with a “restructuring support agreement” with Silver Point which, on account of its priority first lien holdings, is positioned well to drive this bus. And by “drive this bus,” we mean jam the junior creditors. Per the RSA, Silver Point will provide a $50mm DIP and drive the company hard towards a business plan and plan of reorganization. Indeed, the business plan is due within 36 days and a disclosure statement is due within a week thereafter. Meanwhile, the RSA as currently contemplated, gives Silver Point $105mm of take-back term loan paper and 100% of the equity of the company (subject to dilution). The first lien holders have a nice blank in the RSA next to their recovery amount and that recovery is predicated upon…wait for it…

…a “death trap.” That is, if they accept the plan they’ll currently get “ [●]%” but if they reject the plan they’ll get a big fat donut. Likewise, the second lien holders. General unsecured claimants would get a pro rata interest in a whopping $100k. Or the equivalent of what Skadden will bill in roughly, call it, 3 days of work??

The business plan, meanwhile, ought to be interesting. By all appearances, the company is in the midst of a massive strategic pivot. In addition to undertaking a barrage of operational fixes “…such as optimized pricing, measures to improve revenue cycle management by increasing collection rates, rationalizing certain services, reducing labor costs, better managing vendor spend, and reducing insurance costs,” the company intends to focus on its core business and exit unprofitable markets. While it retreats in certain respects, it also intends to expand in others: for instance, the company intends to “expand home health services to respond to the shifting of patients from [skilled nursing facilities] into home care.” Per the company:

Toward this end, Trident conducted successful home health care pilot programs in 2018 in two markets to optimize its Care at Home business model with radiology technicians dedicated to servicing home health patients. Trident hopes to expand this business model to an additional seven markets in 2019.

Like we said, a pivot. Which begs the question “why?” In addition to the debt, the company noted several other factors that drove it into bankruptcy. Chief among them? The rise of home health care. More from the company:

Trident has suffered ripple effects from the distress faced by skilled nursing facilities (“SNF”), which are its primary direct customers. SNF occupancy rates have declined to a multi-year low as a result of structural and reimbursement changes not yet offset by demographic trends. These structural changes include, among other things, patient migration to home health care. The decline in SNF occupancy rates has led to reduced demand for Trident’s services. At the same time, Trident has only had limited success reducing costs in response to lower volumes, as volume declines are driven by lower utilization per facility rather than a reduction in the number of facilities served.

This is a trend worth continued watching. Who else — like Trident — will be affected by this?

Large general unsecured creditors of the business include Grosvenor Capital Management, Jones Day (to the tune of $2.3mm…yikes), Konica Minolta Healthcare Americas Inc., McKesson ($MCK)(again!!…rough couple of weeks at McKesson), Quest Diagnostics Inc. ($DGX), Cardinal Health Inc. ($CAH) and others. They must be really jacked up about that pro rata $100k!!

• Jurisdiction: S.D. of New York (Judge Lane)

• Capital Structure: see above.

• Professionals:

  • Legal: Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP (Paul Leake, Jason Kestecher, James Mazza Jr., Justin Winerman)

  • Independent Director: Alexander D. Greene

  • Financial Advisor: Ankura Consulting (Russell Perry, Ben Jones)

  • Investment Banker: PJT Partners LP (Mark Buschmann, Josh Abramson, Willie Evarts, Meera Satiani, Elsa Zhang)

  • Claims Agent: Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions LLC (*click on the link above for free docket access)

• Other Professionals:

  • Priority First Lien Admin Agent: SPCP Group LLC/Silver Point Finance LLC

    • Legal: Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP (Alan Kornberg, Robert Britton, Lewis Clayton, Aidan Synnott, Christman Rice, Michael Turkel)

    • Financial Advisor: Houlihan Lokey LP

  • First Lien Agent: Cortland Capital Market Services LLC

    • Legal: White & Case LLP (Thomas Lauria, Erin Rosenberg, Jason Zakia, Harrison Denman, John Ramirez)

  • Ad Hoc Group of First Lien Lenders

    • Legal: Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Patrick Nash)

    • Financial Advisor: Greenhill & Co. Inc.

  • Second Lien Agent: Ares Capital Corporation

  • Ad Hoc Group of Second Lien Lenders

    • Legal: Latham & Watkins (Richard Levy, James Ktsanes)

  • Large Creditor: McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc.

    • Legal: Buchalter P.C. (Jeffrey Garfinkle)

  • Large Creditor: Quest Diagnostics

    • Legal: Morris James LLP (Brett Fallon)

  • Equity Sponsor: Revelstoke Capital Partners

    • Legal: Winston & Strawn LLP (Carey Schreiber, Carrie Hardman)

  • Equity Sponsor: Welltower Inc.

    • Legal: Sidley Austin LLP (Andrew Propps, Bojan Guzina)

  • Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors

    • Legal: Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP (David Posner, Gianfranco Finizio, Kelly Moynihan)

    • Financial Advisor: AlixPartners LLP (David MacGreevey)
      
      
      
      

🏠New Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing - Decor Holdings Inc.🏠

Decor Holdings Inc.

February 12, 2019

Source: https://www.robertallendesign.com

Privately-owned New York-based Decor Holdings Inc. (d/b/a The RAD Group and The Robert Allen Duralee Group) and certain affiliates companies filed for bankruptcy earlier this week in the Eastern District of New York. The debtors state that they are the second largest supplier of decorative fabrics and furniture to the design industry in the U.S., designing, manufacturing and selling decorative fabrics, wall coverings, trimmings, upholstered furniture, drapery hardware and accessories for both residential and commercial applications. All of which begs the question: do people still actually decorate with this stuff?!? In addition to private label product lines, the company represents six other furnishing companies, providing tens of thousands of sku options to design professionals and commercial customers. The company maintains a presence via showrooms in large metropolitan cities in the US and Canada as well as an agent showroom network in more than 30 countries around the world. In other words, for a company you’ve likely never heard of, they have quite the reach.

The debtors’ problems derive from a 2017 merger between the Duralee business and the Robert Allen business. Why? Well, frankly, it sounds like the merger between the two is akin to a troubled married couple that decides that having a kid will cure all of their ills. Ok, that’s a terrible analogy but in this case, both companies were already struggling when they decided that a merger between the two might be more sustainable. But, “[l]ike many industries, the textile industry has been hard hit by the significant decrease in consumer spending and was severely affected by the global economic downturn. As a result, the Debtors experienced declining sales and profitability over the last several years.” YOU MEAN THE PERCEIVED SYNERGIES AND COMBINED EFFICIENCIES DIDN’T COME TO FRUITION?!? Color us shocked.

Ok, we’re being a little harsh. The debtors were actually able to cut $10-12mm of annual costs out of the business. They could not, however, consolidate their separate redundant showroom spaces outside of bankruptcy (we count approximately 32 leases). Somewhat comically, the showroom spaces are actually located in the same buildings. Compounding matters was the fact that the debtors had to staff these redundant spaces and failed to integrate differing software and hardware systems. In an of themselves, these were challenging problems even without a macro overhang. But there was that too: “…due to a fundamental reduction of market size in the home furnishings market, sales plummeted industry wide and the Debtors were not spared.” Sales declined by 14% in each of the two years post-merger. (Petition Note: we can’t help but to think that this may be the quintessential case of big firm corporate partners failing to — out of concern that management might balk at the mere introduction of the dreaded word ‘bankruptcy’ and the alleged stigma attached thereto — introduce their bankruptcy brethren into the strategy meetings. It just seems, on the surface, at least, that the 2017 merger might have been better accomplished via a double-prepackaged merger of the two companies. If Mattress Firm could shed leases in its prepackaged bankruptcy, why couldn’t these guys? But what do we know?).

To stop the bleeding, the debtors have been performing triage since the end of 2018, shuttering redundant showrooms, stretching payables, and reducing headcount by RIF’ing 315 people. Ultimately, however, the debtors concluded that chapter 11 was necessary to take advantage of the breathing spell afforded by the “automatic stay” and pursue a going concern sale. To finance the cases, the debtors obtained a commitment from Wells Fargo Bank NA, its prepetition lender, for a $30mm DIP revolving credit facility of which approximately $6mm is new money and the remainder is a “roll-up” or prepetition debt (PETITION Note: remember when “roll-ups” were rare and frowned upon?). The use of proceeds will be to pay operating expenses and the costs and expenses of being in chapter 11: interestingly, the debtors noted that they’re administratively insolvent on their petition. 🤔

Here’s to hoping for all involved that a deep-pocked buyer emerges out of the shadows.

• Jurisdiction: E.D. of New York (Judge Grossman)

• Capital Structure: $23.7mm senior secured loan (Wells Fargo Bank NA), $5.7mm secured junior loan (Corber Corp.)

• Professionals:

  • Legal: Hahn & Hesson LLP (Mark Power, Janine Figueiredo)

  • Conflicts Counsel: Halperin Battaglia Benzija LLP (Christopher Battaglia)

  • Financial Advisor: RAS Management Advisors LLC (Timothy Boates)

  • Investment Banker: SSG Capital Advisors LLC (J. Scott Victor)

  • Liquidator: Great American Group LLC

  • Claims Agent: Omni Management Group Inc. (*click on the link above for free docket access)

• Other Professionals:

  • DIP Agent: Wells Fargo Bank NA

    • Legal: Otterbourg P.C. (Daniel Fiorillo, Jonathan Helfat)

  • Subordinated Noteholder: Corber Corp.

    • Legal: Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP (John Morris, John Lucas)

New Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing - DiTech Holding Corporation

Ditech Holding Corporation

February 11, 2019

Source: PETITION

The benefit of building a track record of writing/reporting is that various themes emerge over time that can be built upon. Ben Thompson, the eponymous writer of Stratechery, often comments about how newsletters are a better forum for writing than books because thought processes can evolve, themes can be strung together and built-upon or amended, and the reader isn’t purchasing a finished product, per se, but a relationship with the writer. And that relationship can grow over time. We hope that our PETITION readers feel similarly.

Apropos, we wrote back in “We Have a Feasibility Problem” back in November 2016 that, in the context of the Paragon Offshore bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy profession may be suffering from what we dubbed a “feasibility problem.” We wrote:

We're thankful this week for Judge Sontchi's decision last week in the Paragon Offshore bankruptcy cases. The decision was more than just a victory for the company's term loan lenders: it was a much-needed warning signal to the restructuring industry. 

First, a quick synopsis of the opinion. In short, Judge Sontchi sustained most, but not all, of the term lenders objections on the basis that the Debtors' (i) deployed unrealistic rig utilization and day rate assumptions and (ii) failed to take into consideration macro considerations that would affect the Debtors' eventual ability to refinance debt upon maturity in 2021 (if they didn't run out of cash before then). 

We added:

Putting aside the specifics of this case, the decision is important for another reason: it highlights the importance of feasibility. Now, granted, the term lenders had to object for Sontchi to arrive at his conclusion in Paragon but there is an increasing likelihood of Judges scrutinizing feasibility. This Fox Business piece notes, "Some critics say bankruptcy judges too often focus on hammering out an agreement without paying enough attention to companies' chances of long-term survival." Will this continue?

Maybe we need Judges to be activists and save us from ourselves. Deals are being cut, sure, but are they for the right reasons? Are they cut to ensure the viability of the companies underneath capital structures or to uphold "castles in the air" theory and line the pockets of distressed investors? Hard to say: seemingly, these deals aren't doing them any favors either. Without greater transparency to the markets, it's hard to know.

Here's what we do know. In the last several years, there have been a number of repeat restructurings: American Apparel LLC. Global Geophysical Services LLC. Hercules Offshore Inc. Essar Steel Algoma Inc. Fresh and Easy. A&P. Sbarro LLC. Revel Casino. Catalyst Paper. Perhaps we all -- judges included -- ought to ask ourselves why that might be.

We’ve since continued that line of inquiry.

Three weeks ago in “⚡️Why is Gymboree an Unmitigated Disaster?⚡️” — a piece worth revisiting — we explained that, in the context of plan confirmation, debtors submit financial projections and either proffer written testimony or provide live testimony to the effect that the projections are realistic and that, therefore, the plan is feasible and compliant with Bankruptcy Code section 1129(a)(11). We also highlighted — of course with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight — that, as it turned out in the Gymboree chapter 11 case, those projections were complete and utter dogsh*t. We deconstructed, nearly line-item by line-item, how amiss the company’s actual performance was vis-a-vis the projections and concluded:

In summary, the actual operating performance has made a joke of the company’s financial projections and a mockery of the evidence presented to the bankruptcy court to satisfy feasibility.

Again, we insist that you revisit the piece. We concluded by snarking:

…perhaps we’ve arrived at the point in bankruptcy proceedings where the bankruptcy court, itself, ought to hire professionals to verify or challenge the evidence presented to it. We could see it now: Judge Nebraska hiring Banker EFF&D to serve as her banker to determine whether the feasibility proffer is a total clusterf*ck like the one here. Why has this not happened yet? Don’t even tell us it’s fee sensitivity.

And then the Sears sale hearing happened. In “Sears Sales Process “Ends” With an Anticlimactic Flourish (Long Strong PR),” we wrote the following as just one small part of our fulsome discussion of the Sears sale approval hearing:

But this part was especially interesting:

Drain made clear during the course of the hearing he was well aware of the uncertainty pertaining to Sears' future viability. That uncertainty however, did not appear strong enough to override a deal that would have saved 45,000 jobs.

"Whether it's a company that used to print educational books or used to sell plus-sized clothes, the internet has changed everything – and any projection is more in doubt than a projection you would have had 15 years ago or 10 years ago," said Drain, seemingly referring to the bankruptcies of Houghton Mifflin and Fullbeauty, respectively.

Wait, what?!? Is a bankruptcy judge calling into question the very idea of projections in retail bankruptcy cases? How does that affect a feasibility analysis? Is this Judge Drain acknowledging that “we have a feasibility problem?”

What we should have said — given that the commentary in Sears related to an adequate assurance analysis — was “how would that affect a feasibility analysis going forward?” It remains a good question.

This is where we add Ditech Holding Corporation to the discussion. Ditech Holding Corporation and its affiliated debtors (the “Debtors”) filed for bankruptcy in Southern District of New York on February 11, 2019. The case will be heard by Judge James L. Garrity Jr., who, in case you were curious, was the judge the last time this company filed for bankruptcy in November of 2017 (under the name Walter Investment Management Corporation). The Debtors, along with certain non-debtor subsidiaries, act as an independent servicer and originator of mortgage loans and servicer of reverse mortgage loans. Per the Debtors via the First Day Declaration of CFO Gerald Lombardo:

For more than 50 years, the Company has offered a wide array of loans across the credit spectrum for its own portfolio and for GSEs (as defined below), government agencies, third-party securitization trusts, and other credit owners. The Company originates and purchases residential loans through consumer, correspondent and wholesale lending channels that are predominantly sold to GSEs and government entities. The Company also operates two complimentary businesses: (i) asset receivables management and (ii) real estate owned property management and disposition.

Lombardo continues:

In recent years, the Debtors’ business has been impacted by significant operational challenges and industry trends that have severely constrained its liquidity and ability to implement much needed operational initiatives. In an effort to address the burden of its overleveraged capital structure—a remnant of its historical acquisitions—the Company consummated a fully consensual prepackaged chapter 11 plan on February 8, 2018. Given the significant liquidity and operational headwinds facing the Company in 2019, it became clear to the Company’s new senior management team that additional relief was needed.

Curiously, though, the very next sentence states:

Beginning in June 2018, the Company began its formal review of strategic alternatives, including a potential merger or sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the Company.

That’s right. Merely four months post-emergence from bankruptcy, the company was already flittering around grasping at straws. Attempts to consummate an out-of-court transaction with a third-party purchaser failed and, faced with “increased uncertainty in 2019, and an anticipated end-of-first-quarter going-concern qualification from its auditors” in December 2018, the company initiated negotiations with groups of holders of approximately $736.6mm of its debt on an in-court recapitalization. These discussions resulted in a restructuring support agreement (the “RSA”) with an ad hoc group of term lenders which will extinguish $800mm in funded debt, transfer ownership of the company to the term lenders, and leave the company with approximately $400mm of term loan debt (plus an exit facility) upon emergence from bankruptcy. Mind you that, in the first go around, the company reduced its debt by approximately $800mm. All in, the Debtors have managed to destroy a significant amount of value over a short period of time.

This last point cannot be overstated. In the prior restructuring, the company: (i) amended and restated its term loan, eliminating $200mm of principal amounts outstanding in the process, (ii) the senior noteholders received $250mm in 9% second lien PIK toggle take-back paper due 2024 (so optimistic!) and 73% of the equity in the reorganized company, extinguishing nearly $300mm of debt in the process, and (iii) the convertible noteholders received the remainder of the equity in exchange for cancelling their $242.5mm of debt. This chart sums up the proposed restructuring:*

First Day Declaration, Walter Investment Management Chapter 11 Filing.

Said another way, all of the parties agreed that, based on the valuation of the company, the fulcrum security was at the senior noteholder level, leaving the likes of Canyon Capital Advisors LLC, CQS UK LLP, Deer Park Road Management Company LP, Lion Point Capital LP, Oaktree Capital Management LP, and Omega Advisors Inc. as the post facto owners of the company.

Docket 57, Walter Investment Management Chapter 11 case.

Well…that didn’t last long. The gist of this new chapter 11 filing is that all of the recoveries secured by the senior and convertible noteholders are now officially wiped out to zero (assuming they still hold the paper and haven’t dumped it on some other unsuspecting fool…uh…”investor”). Now the term lenders** own the company — not without taking quite a haircut themselves. For the debtholders, especially the senior and convertible noteholders, that sure isn’t a great way to start off 2019. Hopefully those 2018 bonuses based on paper gains (assuming some of the holders bought in at super-distressed levels) were pretty. It seems we may also have a valuation problem. 😬

In addition to moving forward with the restructuring transaction governed by the RSA, the company will parallel-path a marketing process and will toggle to a sale transaction if there are viable bids prior to plan confirmation. This could take the form of an all-in asset sale, a sale of a portion of the Debtors’ assets, or a sale of the master servicing business because, like, let’s be honest: we can’t imagine the term lenders want to be in the mortgage servicing business. Or…maybe…gulp…they do?? Apparently the area is hot! Meanwhile, the company has secured $1.9b in DIP warehouse financing to refinance the Debtors existing warehouse and servicer advance facilities.

So, how does so much value get destroyed so quickly? What happened here? Per the Debtors:

Notwithstanding the Company’s efforts to implement its business plan, which included further cost reductions, operational enhancements and streamlining of its business, following emergence from the WIMC Chapter 11 Case, the Company continued to face liquidity and performance challenges that were more persistent and widespread than anticipated. Coupled with the industry and market factors, these performance challenges have resulted in less liquidity, making the implementation of key operational enhancements more difficult—resulting in their postponement.

In other words, the business plan was, prima facie, unrealistic to begin with. Ladies and gentlemen, we appear to be experiencing an epidemic of bad business plans in bankruptcy (PETITION Note: we’re SUPER-DUPER-SURE-WITH-A-CHERRY-ON-TOP that Sears’ Transform Holdco will be the exception.)

Still, to be fair to the Debtors, they don’t control the FED. Interest rate increases had a negative impact on the Debtors’ business. Per the Debtors:

The increase in interest rates has also negatively impacted mortgage originators and servicers generally—the Debtors are no exception. As interest rates have risen, less borrowers are refinancing loans in a higher interest rate environment, resulting in lower origination volume for the Company.

Tack on the Debtors’ still-overlevered balance sheet, its burdensome interest and amortization obligations, and tightening rates from lending counterparties and you’ve got a world of hurt. Due to diminishing liquidity and scheduled amortization payments of approximately $110mm in 2019, the company faced risk of a going-concern qualification from auditors, which would have stream-rolled into even more hurt by way of triggered defaults and terminations throughout the the Debtors’ debt and working capital facilities.

While there’s plenty of talk about a dearth of liquidity, the Debtors conveniently offer little by way of real up-to-date detail in their bankruptcy papers — a curious development to say the least. We’re left with a balance sheet snapshot through September 20, 2018. But even that is enough to see how where the Debtors missed. This is the projected balance sheet used in the first bankruptcy:

Source: Walter Investment Management Disclosure Statement

And this is the September 30, 2018 balance sheet:

Extrapolating out for the full fiscal year, you can see that, among other things, the cash, equivalents and residential loans are below projections and that payables dramatically exceed plan. Whoops!

Now, let’s be clear: the first filing was a fully consensual deal wrapped up in a bow and presented, in a mere matter of months, to the bankruptcy judge. This is not Paragon Offshore, where there was a vehement confirmation objection. There was no evidence on the record to suggest that the business plan and, by extension, the plan of reorganization, were infeasible. And yet it only took four months for that to be the case.

Which begs another question: how in the world did so many smart people get this so wrong?

*The equity recoveries were later adjusted to reflect the fact that the convertible noteholders voted to accept the plan, giving that class 50% of the new common stock. Ah, the beauty of crossholders (see Lion Point and Deer Park above).

**The consenting noteholders in the Walter transaction were, according to public filings, Carlson Capital LP, TAO Fund LLC, Credit Suisse Asset Management LLC, Marathon Asset Management LP, Nuveen, Symphony Asset Management LLC, Eaton Vance Management.

• Jurisdiction: S.D. of New York (Judge Garrity)

• Capital Structure: See above.    

• Company Professionals:

  • Legal: Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP (Ray Schrock, Sunny Singh, Ryan Preston Dahl, Alexander Welch)

  • Financial Advisor: AlixPartners LLP (David Johnston, Clayton Gring, James Nelson)

  • Investment Banker: Houlihan Lokey Capital Inc. (Jeffrey Lewis)

  • Claims Agent: Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions LLC (*click on company name above for free docket access)

• Other Parties in Interest:

  • Prepetition Term Agent: Credit Suisse AG

    • Legal: Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (Brian Resnick, Michelle McGreal)

  • Counsel to the Ad Hoc Group of Term Lenders

    • Legal: Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Patrick Nash, Gregory Pesce, John Luze)

    • Financial Advisor: FTI Consulting Inc.

  • 9.0% Second Lien Senior Subordinated PIK Toggle Notes due 2024 Trustee: Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB

  • Second Lien Ad Hoc Group

    • Legal: Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy LLP (Gregory Bray, Melainie Mansfield)

  • DIP Agent & Lender: Barclays Bank PLC and Barclays Capital Inc.

    • Legal: Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP (Sarah Ward, Mark McDermott, Melissa Tiarks)

  • Nomura Corporate Funding Americas, LLC

    • Legal: Alston & Bird LLP (Karen Gelernt and Ronald Klein) and Jones Day LLP (Ben Rosenblum)

  • Fannie Mae

    • Legal: O’Melveny & Myers LLP (Stephen Warren, Jennifer Taylor and Darren Patrick)

  • Freddie Mac

    • Legal: McKool Smith PC (Paul D. Moak)

🚚New Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing - New England Motor Freight Inc.🚚

New England Motor Freight Inc.

February 11, 2019

New England Motor Freight Inc. (“NEMF”) and its affiliated debtors filed for bankruptcy in the District of New Jersey. NEMF provides less-than-truckload transportation services; its debtor affiliates also provide, among other things, truckload carrier services, equipment leasing, third party logistics services, transportation brokerage services, and non-vessel operation common carrier operations between the US and Puerto Rico. Collectively, the debtors employ approximately 3,450 full-time and part-time employees, of which 1,900 are members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO and are covered by collective bargaining agreements. While the company generated gross revenues around $370mm in each of the last two fiscal years, it filed for bankruptcy to effectuate (a) an orderly liquidation of the majority of its business and (b) the sale of its truckload and third-party logistics businesses (which, together, account for approximately 9% of the company’s revenues). The company has approximately $57.1mm of vehicle financing debt exclusive of interest and fees and another $30.4mm in outstanding letters of credit.

Interestingly, the company notes:

While the company’s operations were profitable for decades since the current ownership group acquired NEMF in 1977, the Debtors have suffered a downward trend over recent years, which was exacerbated in late 2018 by the unexpected loss of key accounts, the shortage of drivers, a new Union contract with onerous retroactive terms, and the L/C Lenders’ ultimate unwillingness to restructure the Debtors’ letters of credit obligations under terms acceptable to the Debtors.

And, here, more on the union situation:

Changes and competition within the industry have had an ongoing negative impact on the Debtors’ revenues. The Debtors’ workforce is made up of approximately 3,450 full-time and part-time employees. The Union workforce consists of approximately: 1,425 truck drivers, and 475 dock workers, for a total of approximately 1,900 Union employees. The non-union workforce consists of, approximately: 145 truck drivers at Eastern, 600 part-time workers (primarily dock workers), and 805 other employees, for a total of approximately 1,550 non-union employees. Employee costs for the Debtors are, in the aggregate, substantially above industry norms. Most of the LTL companies competing with the Debtors operate under non-unionized conditions. At the same time, there has developed an industry-wide shortage of drivers, putting the Debtors, with an aging fleet of vehicles, at a severe disadvantage. (emphasis added)

Given the company’s proximity to New York, its relationship with Amazon Inc. ($AMZN), and the role of unions in the ultimate break-up between New York City and Amazon (which happened a day later), we thought this story was particularly intriguing.

• Jurisdiction: D. of New Jersey (Judge Sherwood)

• Professionals:

  • Legal: Gibbons P.C. (Karen A. Giannelli, Mark B. Conlan, Brett S. Theisen) & (local) Wasserman, Jurista & Stolz, P.C. (Donald Clarke, Daniel Stolz)

  • Financial Advisor: Phoenix Management Services LLC (Vince Colistra)

  • Claims Agent: Donlin Recano & Company (*click on the link above for free docket access)

😷New Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing - SQLC Senior Living Center at Corpus Christi Inc. (d/b/a Mirador)😷

SQLC Senior Living Center at Corpus Christi Inc. (d/b/a Mirador)

2/8/19

We started reading the papers for the bankruptcy filing of SQLC Senior Living Center at Corpus Christi Inc. (d/b/a Mirador) and started scratching our heads. “Have we read this before?” we wondered. The answer is, effectively, ‘yes.’ On January 30th, Mayflower Communities Inc. d/b/a The Barrington of Carmel filed for bankruptcy. As with Mirador, here, SQLC is the sole member of and administrator and operator of The Barrington of Carmel, too. And therein lies the familiarity: the first several pages of Mirador’s First Day Declaration filed in support of the bankruptcy have the exact same description of the continuing care retirement community business as that filed in The Barrington of Carmel case. Which makes sense: there’s the same CRO and financial advisor in both cases. And, so, we have to complement the efficiency: why reinvent the wheel?

Whereas Barrington was a 271-unit CCRC, Mirador — a Texas nonprofit — owns and operates a 228-unit CCRC, comprised of 125 independent living residences, 44 assisted living residences, 18 memory care residences, and 4 skilled nursing residences. Mirador makes all of its revenue from operation of the CCRC. Mirador is a smaller CCRC than Barrington and, similarly, its assets and liabilities are fewer. As of the petition date, the company reported approximately $53mm in assets and $118mm in liabilities, the bulk of which is comprised of $74.5mm of long-term municipal bond obligations (UMB Bank NA) and $13.9mm of subordinated notes.

So what factored into the company’s bankruptcy filing? It blames, among other things, (i) the inability to sustain pricing and the level of entrance fees needed to support its debt, (ii) the Great Recession’s effect on housing prices which had the trickle-down effect of impairing the ability of potential residents to sell their houses and pay the necessary entrance fee (which, in turn, led to below-model occupancy levels and depressed cash flow), and (iii) the competitive senior housing market in Corpus Christi.

To combat these trends, the company lowered its entrance fees to fill occupancy. While that worked, it “also produced the negative effect on the long-term financial ability of the Debtor to pay Resident Refunds as they became due.” See, this complicated things. Per the Debtors:

“The Debtor’s initial Life Care Residents often executed 90% refundable contracts, which resulted in higher Resident Refund obligation. In an effort to maintain occupancy levels, newer Life Care Residents often paid a lower cost Entrance Fee. Thus, as earlier Residents moved out of the Facility and became eligible for Resident Refunds, the Entrance Fees received from New Residents were not sufficient to cover the Debtor’s Resident Refund obligations. This pattern continued such that as of late 2017, the Debtor owed and was unable to pay Resident Refunds of approximately $2 million.”

This appears to be the nonprofit version of a Ponzi scheme, but we digress. In addition to the above, the company also stream-lined costs and curtailed company-wide expenses and administrative overhead. Ultimately, the company hired a slate of bankruptcy professionals and began a marketing process for the assets — a process that, in the end, culminated in the stalking horse offer by Aldergate Trust and Methodist Retirement Community for $20,350,000 in cash plus the assumption of certain liabilities. The agreement also includes the assumption of all Residence Agreements of former residents, preserving those residents’ rights to refunds. With this sale (and the proceeds therefrom) as its centerpiece, the company also filed a plan and disclosure statement on day one.

One last point here: considering that we now have two CCRC bankruptcies in the last two weeks and both are operated by SQLC, we’d be remiss if we didn’t highlight that SQLC also operates four other CCRCs: (a) Northwest Senior Housing Corporation d/b/a Edgemere; (b) Buckingham Senior Living Community, Inc. d/b/a The Buckingham; (c) Barton Creek Senior Living Center, Inc. d/b/a Querencia at Barton Creek; and (d) Tarrant County Senior Living Center, Inc. d/b/a The Stayton at Museum Way. With 33% of its CCRCs currently in BK, it seems that — for the restructuring professionals among you — these other SQLC facilities may be worth a quick look/inquiry.

• Jurisdiction: S.D. of Texas

• Capital Structure: see above.

• Company Professionals:

  • Legal: Thompson & Knight LLP (Demetra Liggins, Cassandra Sepanik Shoemaker)

  • Financial Advisor: Larx Advisors (Keith Allen)

  • CRO: Ankura Consulting (Louis Robichaux IV)

  • Claims Agent: Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions LLC (*click on company name above for free docket access)

• Other Parties in Interest:

  • Indenture Trustee: UMB Bank NA

    • Legal: McDermott Will & Emery (Nathan Coco)

  • Stalking Horse Purchaser: Aldergate Trust and Methodist Retirement Community

New Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing - Avadel Specialty Pharmaceuticals LLC

Avadel Specialty Pharmaceuticals LLC

February 6, 2019

Geez. All the action these days is in busted retail and busted pharma. Here, Avadel Specialty Pharmaceuticals LLC ("ASP") is a MIssouri-based pharmaceutical company engaged in the business of the distribution, sale and marketing of pharmaceutical products focused on chronic urological disorders. It has one product, NOCTIVA. In other words, it is not a manufacturer; it has an exclusive license from Serenity Pharmaceuticals LLC to develop, market and sell NOCTIVA in the US and Canada. The company paid $70mm for the license and Serenity maintained some option value as well, including the right to receive potential milestone payments and royalties from product sales. 

Why bankruptcy? Per the company:

"ASP has experienced several market challenges in its efforts to commercialize and increase sales volume while the overall growth for its product has been slower than anticipated. As a result, ASP has experienced losses since its inception, and as of the Petition Date, has an accumulated deficit, due in part to costs relating to underachieving sales, unanticipated competition, and certain supply agreements. Making matters worse, sales projections based on the current growth trend illustrate a substantially longer period of operating losses than originally assumed."

Or said another way, among other issues, doctors seem unwilling to prescribe NOCTIVA to their worst enemies. Per the company, "health care professionals ahve been unwillint to try (or adop) NOCTIVA." Why not? Well, for starters, there are other agents that physicians use to target the conditions NOCTIVA is formulated to tackle. Moreover, there are "underlying concerns with regard to the potential risks of a serious side effect associated with the active ingredient in NOCTIVA™ (desmopressin acetate), based on prior experience with older formulations of the same active ingredient…." Uh, yeah, that sounds sketchy AF. 

And so this thing has been a money pit. The company's direct (non-debtor) parent has funded approximately $152mm since September 2017 to support the business including $80mm in additional investment that have yielded less than $3mm in net sales. How's that for ROI? As you can probably imagine, that ROI proposition was enough to finally compel ASP's direct parent to stop funding it. 

Consequently, the company sought to perform triage, first by trying (and failing) to locate a co-promoter and, second, by sublicensing its obligations. But, no dice. it filed for bankruptcy to sell its assets and wind down its operations. The bankruptcy constitutes just one part in the overall restructuring efforts of ASP's indirect parent, Avadel Pharmaceuticals plc. The case will be funded, if approved, by a $2.7mm DIP revolving credit facility and $2.7mm unsecured DIP, both provided by the company's non-debtor indirect parent. 

• Jurisdiction: D. of Delaware (Judge Sontchi) 

• Capital Structure: $mm debt     

• Company Professionals:

  • Legal: Greenberg Traurig LLP (Paul Keenan Jr., John Dodd, Reginald Sainvil, Dennis Meloro, Sara Hoffman)

  • Claims Agent: Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions LLC (*click on company name above for free docket access)

• Other Parties in Interest:

  • Avadel US Holdings Inc.

    • Legal: Troutman Sanders LLP (Jonathan Forstot) & (local) Ashby & Geddes PA (Gregory Taylor)

New Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing - Things Remembered Inc.

Things Remembered Inc.

2/6/19

This has been a rough week for "out-of-court" restructurings in the retail space. On the heals of Charlotte Russe's collapse into bankruptcy after an attempted out-of-court solution, Things Remembered Inc. filed for bankruptcy in the District of Delaware on February 6, 2019. We recently wrote about Things Remembered here. Let's dig in a bit more. 

The 53-year old retailer filed with a stalking horse purchaser, Ensco Properties LLC, in line to purchase, subject to a tight 30-day timeframe, a subset of the company's store footprint and direct-sales business. The company writes in the most Trumpian-fashion imaginable:

"Although stores not acquired will need to close, the going-concern sale wills save hundreds of jobs and potentially many more and provide an improved, and significantly less risky, recovery to stakeholders." What does "potentially many more" mean? Don't they know how many people are employed at the locations being sold as well as corporate support? Seems like a Trumpian ad lib of corresponding inexactitude. But, whatever. 

What caused the need for bankruptcy?

"Like many other retailers, the Company has suffered from adverse macro-trends, as well as certain microeconomic operational challenges. Faced with these challenges, the Company initiated multiple go-forward operational initiatives to increase brick-and-mortar profitability, such as store modernization through elimination of paper forms and the addition of iPads to streamline the personalization and sale process, and by shuttering a number of underperforming locations. The Company also sought to bolster the Debtors’ online-direct sale business, including aggressive marketing to loyal customers to facilitate sales through online channels, attracting new customers via an expanded partnership with Amazon, and increasing service capabilities for the business-to-business customer segment."

Read that paragraph and then tell us that retail management teams (and their expensive advisors) have any real clue how to combat the ails confronting retail. Elimination of paper forms? Ipads? Seriously? Sure, the rest sounds sensible and comes right out of today's standard retail playbook, i.e., shutter stores, bolster online capabilities, leverage Amazon's distribution, tapping into "loyal customers," etc. We're surprised they didn't mention AR/VR, Blockchain, "experiential retail," pop-ups, advertising on scooters, loyalty programs, and all of the other trite retail-isms we've heard ad nauseum (despite no one actually proving whether any or all of those things actually drive revenue). 

The rest of the story is crazy familiar by this point. The "challenging operating environment" confronting brick-and-mortar and mall-based retail, specifically, led to missed sales targets and depressed profitability. Naturally there were operational issues that compounded matters and, attention Lenore Estrada (INSERT LINK), "…vendors have begun to place pressure on the supply chain cost structure by delaying or cancelling shipments until receiving payment." Insert cash on delivery terms here. Because that's what they should do when a customer is mid-flush. 

Anyway, shocker: negative cash flows persisted. Consequently, the company and its professionals commenced a marketing process that landed Enesco as stalking horse bidder. Enesco has committed to acquiring the direct-sales business (which constitutes 26% of all sales in 2018 and includes the e-commerce website, hq, fulfillment and distribution center in Ohio and related assets) and approximately 128 stores (subject to addition or subtraction, but a floor set at 50 store minimum). Store closings of approximately 220 stores and 30 kiosks commenced pre-petition. A joint venture between Hilco Merchant Resources LLC and Gordon Brothers Retail Partners LLC is leading that effort (which again begs the question as to how Gymboree is the only recent retailer that required the services of four "liquidators"). The purchase price is $17.5mm (subject to post-closing adjustments). $17.5mm is hardly memorable. That said, the company did have negative $4mm EBITDA so, uh, yeeeeeaaaaah. 

$18.7mm '19 revolving credit facility (Cortland Capital Markets Services LLC); $124.9mm 12% '20 TL. 

The capital structure represents the result of an August 30, 2016 out-of-court exchange that, let's be honest here, didn't do much other than incrementally lessen the debt burden, kick the can down the road and get some professionals paid. If this sounds familiar, it's because it's not all that different than Charlotte Russe in those respects. 

• Jurisdiction: D. of Delaware (Judge Gross)

• Capital Structure: $mm debt     

• Company Professionals:

  • Legal: Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Christopher Greco, Derek Hunger, Angela Snell, Spencer Winters, Catherine Jun, Scott Vail, Mark McKane) & (local) Landis Rath & Cobb LLP (Adam Landis, Matthew McGuire, Kimberly Brown, Matthew Pierce)

  • Legal (Canada): Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP

  • Financial Advisor/CRO: Berkeley Research Group LLC (Robert Duffy, Brett Witherell)

  • Investment Bank: Stifel Nicolaus & Co. Inc. and Miller Buckfire & Co. LLC (James Doak)

  • Liquidators: Hilco Merchant Resources LLC and Gordon Brothers Retail Partners LLC

    • Legal: Pepper Hamilton LLP (Douglas Herman, Marcy McLaughlin)

  • Claims Agent: Prime Clerk LLC (*click on company name above for free docket access)

• Other Parties in Interest:

  • Stalking Horse Purchaser: Enesco Properties LLC  (Balmoral Funds LLC)

    • Legal: Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP (Jeffrey Pomerantz, Maxim Litvak, Joseph Mulvihill)

  • Lender: Cortland Capital Market Services LLC

    • Legal: Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP (David Griffiths, Lisa Lansio) & (local) Richards Layton & Finger PA (Daniel DeFranceschi, Zachary Shapiro)

  • Sponsor: KKR & Co.

  • Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (Jewelry Concepts Inc., Gravotech Inc., Chu Kwun Kee Metal Manufactory, Brookfield Property REIT, Inc., Simon Property Group LP)

    • Legal: Kelley Drye & Warren LLP (Eric Wilson, Jason Adams, Kristin Elliott, Lauren Schlussel) & (local) Connolly Gallagher (N. Christopher Griffiths, Shaun Michael Kelly)

    • Financial Advisor: Province Inc. (Carol Cabello, Sanjuro Kietlinski, Jorge Gonzalez, Michael Martini)

⛽️New Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing - Arsenal Energy Holdings LLC⛽️

Arsenal Energy Holdings LLC

February 4, 2019

This is the week of proposed super-short bankruptcy cases.

Pennsylvania-based natural-gas developer, Arsenal Energy Holdings LLC, filed a prepackaged bankruptcy case in the District of Delaware. Pursuant to its prepackaged plan of reorganization, the company will convert its subordinated notes to Class A equity. Holders of 95.93% of the notes approved of the plan. The one holdout — the other 4+% — precipitated the need for a chapter 11 filing. Restructuring democracy is a beautiful (and sometimes wasteful) thing.

100% of existing equity approved of the plan and will get Class B equity (with the exception of Arsenal Resource Holdings LLC and FR Mountaineer Keystone Holdings LLC, which will both get Class C equity).

The company, itself, is about as boring a bankruptcy filer as they come: it is just a holding company with no ops, no employees and, other than a single bank account and its direct and indirect equity interests in certain non-debtor subs, no assets. The equity is privately-held.

More of the action occurred out-of-court upon the recapitalization of the non-debtor operating company. Because of the holdout(s), the company, its noteholders, the opco lenders (Mercuria) and the consenting equityholders agreed to consummate a global transaction in steps: first, the out-of-court recap of the non-debtor opco and then the in-court restructuring of the holdco to squeeze the holdouts. For the uninitiated, a lower voting threshold passes muster in-court than it does out-of-court. Out-of-court, the debtor needed 100% consent. Not so much in BK.

Given the simplicity of this case, the company hopes to be in and out of bankruptcy in less than two weeks. Which, considering the effort in FULLBEAUTY, begs the question: why is it taking so long?

• Jurisdiction: D. of Delaware

• Capital Structure: $861mm subordinated notes, $116.7mm Seller Notes

• Company Professionals:

  • Legal: Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (Michael Torkin, Kathrine McLendon, Nicholas Baker) & (local) Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP (Pauline Morgan, Kara Coyle, Ashley Jacobs)

  • Claims Agent: Prime Clerk LLC (*click on company name above for free docket access)

• Other Parties in Interest:

  • Ad Hoc Group of Subordinated Noteholders

    • Legal: Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP (Sean O’Neal, Humayan Khalid)

  • Mercuria Investments US, Inc.

    • Legal: Vinson & Elkins LLP (David Meyer, Garrick Smith)

New Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing - FULLBEAUTY Brands Holdings Corp.

FULLBEAUTY Brands Holdings Corp.

February 3, 2019

We’re going to regurgitate our report about FULLBEAUTY Brands Holdings Corp. from January 6th after the company publicly posted its proposed plan of reorganization and disclosure statement and issued a press release about its proposed restructuring. What follows is what we wrote then:

---

FULLBEAUTY Brands Inc., an Apax Partners’ disaster…uh, “investment”…will, despite earlier reports of an out-of-court resolution to the contrary, be filing for bankruptcy after all in what appears to be either a late January or an early February filing after the company completes its prepackaged solicitation of creditors. Back in May in “Plus-Size Beauty is a Plus-Size Sh*tfest (Short Apax Partners’ Fashion Sense),” we wrote:

Here’s some free advice to our friends at Apax Partners: hire some millennials. And some women. When you have 23 partners worldwide and only 1 of them is a woman (in Tel Aviv, of all places), it’s no wonder that certain women’s apparel investments are going sideways. Fresh off of the bankruptcies of Answers.com and rue21, another recent leveraged buyout by the private equity firm is looking a bit bloated: NY-based FullBeauty Brands, a plus-size direct-to-consumer e-commerce and catalogue play with a portfolio of six brands (Woman Within, Roamans, Jessica London, Brylane Home, BC Outlet, Swimsuits for All, and Eilos).

Wait. Hold up. Direct-to-consumer? Check. E-commerce? Check. Isn’t that, like, all the rage right now? Yes, unless you’re levered to the hilt and have a relatively scant social media presence. Check and check.

Per a press release on Thursday, the company has an agreement with nearly all of its first-lien-last out lenders, first lien lenders, second lien lenders and equity sponsors on a deleveraging transaction that will shed $900mm of debt from the company’s balance sheet. It also has a commitment for $30mm in new liquidity in the form of a new money term loan with existing lenders. Per Bloomberg:

About 87.5 percent of the common reorganized equity would go to first-lien lenders, 10 percent to second liens, and 2.5 percent to the sponsor, according to people with knowledge of the plan who weren’t authorized to speak publicly.

Which, in English, means that Oaktree Capital Group LLC, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., and Voya Financial Inc. will end up owning this retailer. Your plus-sized clothing, powered by hedge funds. Apax and Charlesbank Capital, the other PE sponsor, stand to maintain 2.5% of the equity which, from our vantage point, appears rather generous (PETITION Note: there must be a decent amount of cross-holdings between the first lien and second lien debt for that to be the case). Here is the difference in capital structure:

What’s the story here? Simply put, it’s just another retail with far too much leverage in this retail environment.

Of course, there’s the obligatory product strategy, inventory control, and e-commerce excuses as well. Not to mention…wait for it…Amazon Inc ($AMZN)!

“In addition to these operational hurdles, FullBeauty has also faced competition from online retail giant Amazon, Inc. and retail chains, including Walmart Inc. and Kohl’s Corporation, that have recently entered the plus-size clothing space.”

Kirkland & Ellis LLP, PJT Partners ($PJT) and AlixPartners represent the company.

---

We give bankruptcy professionals grief all of the time for what often appears to be fee extraction in various cases. In our view, there have been some pretty egregious examples of inefficiency in the system and, considering a number of our readers are management teams of distressed companies, we feel it’s imperative that we cure for a blatant information dislocation and help educate the masses. This, though, appears to be an extraordinary case. In the other direction.

The company’s professionals here propose to confirm the company’s plan of reorganization at the first day hearing of the case. As Bloomberg noted on Monday, this would “set a new record for emerging from court protection in under 24 hours.” Bloomberg reports:

The previous record for the fastest Chapter 11 process is held by Blue Bird Body Co., which exited bankruptcy in 2006 in less than two days. Fullbeauty and its advisers aim to beat that mark.

“We structured this deal as if bankruptcy never happened for our trade creditors, vendors and employees to avoid further disruption to the company,” attorney Jon Henes at Kirkland & Ellis, the company’s legal counsel, said in an interview. “In this situation, every day in court is another day of costs without any corresponding benefit.”

In fact, this case would be so quick that, as you read this (on Wednesday), Judge Drain may have already given the plan his blessing. This makes Roust Corporation Inc. (6 days) and Southcross Holdings (13 days) look like child’s play. For that reason — and that reason alone — we’ll forgive the company’s professionals for their blatant victory lap: it’s curious that Bloomberg had a completed interview ready to go at 9:26am on the morning of the company’s bankruptcy filing. Clearly Kirkland & Ellis LLP, PJT Partners LP ($PJT) and Houlihan Lokey Capital ($HL) want to milk this extraordinary result for all it’s worth. We can’t really blame them, truthfully. That is, unless and/or until the company violates the “Two Year Rule” a la Charlotte Russe.

Anyway, why so quick? Well, because they can: the entire capital structure is on board with the proposed plan and trade will ride through unimpaired and paid. All contracts will be assumed. There are no brick-and-mortar stores to deal with: this is a web and catalogue-based business. Like we said, this case is extraordinary. Per the Company:

It is in the best interest of the estates that the Debtors remain in bankruptcy for as short a time-period as possible. If FullBeauty is forced to remain in chapter 11 longer than necessary, it may be required to seek debtor in possession financing, which would cost the Debtors unnecessary bank fees and professional expenses. In addition, although January has been relatively smooth in terms of vendor outreach, FullBeauty expects that trade could contract very quickly if the company remains in chapter 11 longer than necessary—particularly because many vendors are in foreign jurisdictions and they do not understand the nuances of prepackaged cases versus longer prearranged or traditional chapter 11 cases. Every day that FullBeauty remains in chapter 11 results in cash spent that could go to developing the business.

Indeed, for once, it appears that the best interests of the debtor company were, indeed, heeded.*

*Which is not to say that we believe the out-of-court bills will be light.

• Jurisdiction: S.D. of New York (Judge Drain)

• Capital Structure: $mm debt     

• Company Professionals:

  • Legal: Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Jonathan Henes, Emily Geier, George Klidonas, Rebecca Blake Chaikin, Nicole Greenblatt)

  • Independent Director: Mohsin Meghji

  • Financial Advisor: AlixPartners LLC

  • Investment Banker: PJT Partners LP (Jamie Baird)

  • Claims Agent: Prime Clerk LLC (*click on company name above for free docket access)

• Other Parties in Interest:

  • Financial Sponsor (69.6%): Apax Partners LLP

    • Legal: Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett LLP (Elisha Graff, Nicholas Baker)

  • Financial Sponsor (26.4%): Charlesbank Capital Partners LLC

    • Legal: Goodwin Proctor LLP (William Weintraub, Joseph Bernardi Jr.)

  • ABL Agent & FILO Agent: JPMorgan Chase Bank NA

    • Legal: Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (Darren Klein, Aryeh Falk)

  • First Lien Agent & Second Lien Agent: Wilmington Trust NA

    • Legal: Shipman & Goodman LLP (Nathan Plotkin, Eric Goldstein, Marie Pollio)

  • Ad Hoc Group of First Lien Term Loan Lenders

    • Legal: Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy LLP (Dennis Dunne, Gerard Uzzi, Nelly Almeida)

    • Financial Advisor: Ducera Partners

  • Ad Hoc Group of Second Lien Term Loan Lenders

    • Legal: Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP (Paul Basta, Elizabeth McColm, Christopher Hopkins)

    • Financial Advisor: Houlihan Lokey Capital Inc. (Saul Burian)

Updated 2/4/19 at 7:03 CT

New Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing - Novum Pharma LLC

Novum Pharma LLC

February 3, 2019

Another day, another pharma company that has filed for bankruptcy. Curious, too: we don’t recall seeing any restructuring professionals predicting that pharma would be the hot restructuring industry of choice. But we digress.

Here, Chicago-based Novum Pharma LLC, a special pharmaceutical company which owns and manufactures a portfolio of topical dermatology products, filed for bankruptcy in the District of Delaware. The company’s bankruptcy papers are interesting in that they provide a solid overview of the distribution channel for pharma products from the manufacturer to the end user. Disgruntled with all of the players taking a piece of revenues along the way, Novum Pharma attempted to disrupt the status quo by deployment of an alternative business model. Clearly it didn’t achieve the result it had hoped for.

Per the company, here’s how the “traditional” distribution channel typically works:

Source: PETITION LLC

As you can see, the PBMs have a significant amount of leverage on account of their ability to determine which pharmaceuticals will be covered by insurance and which won’t. As a result, the company attempted its alternative. This model was predicated upon the concepts of “enhanced patient access” and “hassle free” access. It doesn’t appear that the company achieved that. Here’s how it would work:

Once the healthcare professional writes a script, the patient could get their prescription through one of three ways:

1. Via a nationwide network of specialty pharmacies like Cardinal Health 105 Inc., a specialty pharmacy division of Cardinal Health Inc., that the company sells its products to and that have agreed to comply with the company’s guidelines;

2. If 105 Inc. or the other specialty pharmacies cannot fill the prescription because a PBM denied coverage or otherwise, the pharmacy could transfer the prescription to a “consignment hub,” which is a specialty pharmacy that stocks the Debtor’s products on a consignment or bailment basis and will fill a prescription for a nominal fee (paid by the Debtor); or

3. If a patient seeks to fill the prescription at a pharmacy that doesn’t participate in the company’s network and the PBM denies coverage, the patient will receive the drug for free.

As you might imagine, prescribing physicians are encouraged to provide patients with a hotline number where, no doubt, patients, are encouraged to go route #1. Why? Because the company earns revenue from the specialty pharmacies (read: from Cardinal Health). But, per the company:

In contrast, when a prescription is filled by a pharmacy, the Debtor expends funds to facilitate the transaction. In particular, when a healthcare plan covers some or all of the cost of a Dermatology Product prescription, the Debtor, through its Co-Pay Vendors, pays the amount that is not covered by the healthcare plan. Alternatively, when a healthcare plan rejects a Dermatology Product prescription, the Debtor facilitates the transfer of that prescription to one of its consignment hubs so that the prescription can be filled and mailed to the patient, at no cost to the patient.

Anyone else see the problem with all of this?!? Don’t know about you, but the added friction of calling a hotline and finding some random specialty pharmacy rather than going to the neighborhood CVS is far from “hassle free.”

All of these gymnastics created a company with $19.4mm in assets, the lion’s share of which is its intellectual property. In addition, there are some consulting and sales support contracts and A/R. On the liability side of the balance sheet, the company has $15.2mm due and owing on a secured basis to lender RGP Pharmacap LLC (at a prime plus 9.75% or 14% interest rate, payable in monthly principal installments), and $2.8mm in lease obligations that are secured, in part, by a $500k letter of credit issued by The Huntington National Bank.

Per the company, among the factors that precipitated the company’s bankruptcy were…

…among other things, (i) manufacturing hurdles leading to production delays and product “stock-outs”; (ii) a dispute with Cardinal and CVS regarding the price at which the Dermatology Products can be returned to the Debtor; (iii) managed care actions leading to increased prescription rejection rates for the Dermatology Products; and (iv) market dilution and decreased total prescriptions due to unauthorized generic alternatives being introduced into the market.

In response, the company implemented cost-cutting measures like outsourcing its “back office” function, downsizing its sales force and entering into a more cost-effective lease. But these measures didn’t address the fundamental business challenges confronting the company. The company continued:

The Debtor’s historically low prescription approval rates, compounded by (i) the Debtor’s persistent manufacturing issues which directly damaged the Debtor’s business because the Debtor’s sales force was unable to distribute sample products during a critical product growth period and HCPs were forced to prescribe alternative medications, (ii) the Debtor’s working capital shortages stemming in part from the Cardinal/CVS product return dispute and (iii) generic drug competition (which the Debtor believes is unlawful), led the Debtor to the inevitable conclusion that its business was no longer sustainable and that a restructuring and refinancing of the business would be necessary.

The chapter 11 filing is meant to preserve the company’s assets and provide it with a forum through which to conduct a bankruptcy sale process of the dermatology products to maximize value for the company’s creditors. Based on the various disputes the company has with Cardinal/CVS, there may be some litigation here for an as-of-yet-unformed Creditors’ Committee to pursue as well.

• Jurisdiction: D. of Delaware (Judge Carey)

• Capital Structure: $15.2mm of secured debt, $2.8mm in lease obligations

• Company Professionals:

  • Legal: Cole Schotz PA (David Hurst, Patrick Reilley, Jacob Frumkin)

  • Independent Director: Thomas J. Allison

  • Financial Advisor: CR3 Partners LLC (Thomas O’Donoghue, Layne Deutscher, Cynthia Chan)

  • Investment Banker: Teneo Capital (Chris Boguslaski)

  • Claims Agent: KCC (*click on company name above for free docket access)

• Other Parties in Interest:

  • Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors

    • Legal: Sills Cummis & Gross P.C. (Andrew Sherman, Boris Mankovetskiy) & (local) Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP (Morton Branzburg, Richard Beck, Sally Veghte)

    • Financial Advisors: Goldin Associates LLC (Gary Polkowitz)

Updated 3/9/19

New Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing - Charlotte Russe Holding Inc.

Charlotte Russe Holding Inc.

February 3, 2019

San Diego-based specialty women’s apparel fast-fashion retailer Charlotte Russe Holding Inc. is the latest retailer to file for bankruptcy. The company has 512 stores in 48 U.S. states. The company owns a number of different brands that it sells primarily via its brick-and-mortar channel; it has some brands, most notably “Peek,” which it sells online and wholesale to the likes of Nordstrom.

The company’s capital structure consists of:

• $22.8mm 6.75% ‘22 first lien revolving credit facility (ex-accrued and unpaid interest, expenses and fees)(Bank of America NA), and

• $150mm 8.5% ‘23 second lien term loan ($89.3mm funded, exclusive of unpaid interest, expenses and fees)(Jefferies Finance LLC). The term loan lenders have first lien security interests in the company’s intellectual property.

The company’s trajectory over the last decade is an interesting snapshot of the trouble confronting the brick-and-mortar retail space. The story begins with a leveraged buyout. In 2009, Advent International acquired the debtors through a $380mm tender offer, levering up the company with $175mm in 12% subordinated debentures in the process. At the time, the debtors also issued 85k shares of Series A Preferred Stock to Advent and others. Both the debentures and the Preferred Stock PIK’d interest (which, for the uninitiated, means that the principal or base amounts increased by the respective percentages rather than cash pay interest or dividends being paid over time). The debtors later converted the Preferred Stock to common stock.

Thereafter, the debtors made overtures towards an IPO. Indeed, business was booming. From 2011 through 2014, the debtors grew considerably with net sales increased from $776.8mm to $984mm. During this period, in May of 2013, the debtors entered into the pre-petition term loan, used the proceeds to repay a portion of the subordinated debentures and converted the remaining $121.1mm of subordinated debentures to 8% Preferred Stock (held by Advent, management and other investors). In March 2014, the debtors and its lenders increased the term loan by $80mm and used the proceeds to pay a one-time dividend. That’s right folks: a dividend recapitalization!! WE LOVE THOSE. Per the company:

In May 2014, the Debtors paid $40 million in dividends to holders of Common Stock, $9.8 million in dividends to holders of Series 1 Preferred Stock, which covered all dividends thus far accrued, and paid $65.7 million towards the Series 1 Preferred Stock principal. The Debtors’ intention was to use a portion of the net proceeds of the IPO to repay a substantial amount of the then approximately $230 million of principal due on the Prepetition Term Loan.

In other words, Advent received a significant percentage of its original equity check back by virtue of its Preferred Stock and Common Stock holdings.

Guess what happened next? Well, after all of that money was sucked out of the business, performance, CURIOUSLY, began to slip badly. Per the company:

Following fifteen (15) consecutive quarters of increased sales, however, the Debtors’ performance began to materially deteriorate and plans for the IPO were put on hold. Specifically, gross sales decreased from $984 million in fiscal year 2014 with approximately $93.8 million in adjusted EBITDA, to $928 million in fiscal year 2017 with approximately $41.2 million in adjusted EBITDA. More recently, the Debtors’ performance has materially deteriorated, as gross sales decreased from $928 million in fiscal year 2017 with approximately $41.2 million in adjusted EBITDA, to an estimated $795.5 million in fiscal year 2018 with approximately $10.3 million in adjusted EBITDA.

Consequently, the company engaged in a year-long process of trying to address its balance sheet and/or find a strategic or financial buyer. Ultimately, in February 2018, the debtors consummated an out-of-court restructuring that (i) wiped out equity (including Advent’s), (ii) converted 58% of the term loan into 100% of the equity, (iii) lowered the interest rate on the remaining term loan and (iv) extended the term loan maturity out to 2023. Advent earned itself, as consideration for the cancellation of its shares, “broad releases” under the restructuring support agreement. The company, as part of the broader restructuring, also secured substantial concessions from its landlords and vendors. At the time, this looked like a rare “success”: an out-of-court deal that resulted in both balance sheet relief and operational cost containment. It wasn’t enough.

Performance continued to decline. Year-over-year, Q3 ‘18 sales declined by $35mm and EBITDA by $8mm. Per the company:

The Debtors suffered from a dramatic decrease in sales and in-store traffic, and their merchandising and marketing strategies failed to connect with their core demographic and outpace the rapidly evolving fashion trends that are fundamental to their success. The Debtors shifted too far towards fashion basics, did not effectively reposition their e-commerce business and social media engagement strategy for success and growth, and failed to rationalize expenses related to store operations to better balance brick-and-mortar operations with necessary e-commerce investments.

In the end, bankruptcy proved unavoidable. So now what? The company has a commitment from its pre-petition lender, Bank of America NA, for $50mm in DIP financing (plus $15mm for LOCs) as well as the use of cash collateral. The DIP will roll-up the pre-petition first lien revolving facility. This DIP facility is meant to pay administrative expenses to allow for store closures (94, in the first instance) and a sale of the debtors’ assets. To date, however, despite 17 potential buyers executing NDAs, no stalking horse purchaser has emerged. They have until February 17th to find one; otherwise, they’re required to pursue a “full chain liquidation.” Notably, the debtors suggested in their bankruptcy petitions that the estate may be administratively insolvent. YIKES. So, who gets screwed if that is the case?

Top creditors include Fedex, Google, a number of Chinese manufacturers and other trade vendors. Landlords were not on the top 30 creditor list, though Taubman Company, Washington Prime Group Inc., Simon Property Group L.P., and Brookfield Property REIT Inc. were quick to make notices of appearance in the cases. In total, unsecured creditors are owed approximately $50mm. Why no landlords? Timing. Despite the company going down the sh*tter, it appears that the debtors are current with the landlords (and filing before the first business day of the new month helps too). Not to be cynical, but there’s no way that Cooley LLP — typically a creditors’ committee firm — was going to let the landlords be left on the hook here.

And, so, we’ll find out within the next two weeks whether the brand has any value and can fetch a buyer. In the meantime, Gordon Brothers Retail Partners LLC and Hilco Merchant Resources LLC will commence liquidation sales at 90+ locations. We see that, mysteriously, they somehow were able to free up some bandwidth to take on an new assignment sans a joint venture with literally all of their primary competitors.

• Jurisdiction: D. of Delaware (Judge Silverstein)

• Capital Structure: $22.8mm 6.75% ‘22 first lien revolving asset-backed credit facility (ex-accrued and unpaid interest, expenses and fees)(Bank of America NA), $150mm 8.5% ‘23 second lien term loan ($89.3mm funded, exclusive of unpaid interest, expenses and fees)(Jefferies Finance LLC)

• Company Professionals:

  • Legal: Cooley LLP (Seth Van Aalten, Michael Klein, Summer McKee, Evan Lazerowitz, Joseph Brown) & (local) Bayard PA (Justin Alberto, Erin Fay)

  • Independent Director: David Mack

  • Financial Advisor/CRO: Berkeley Research Group LLC (Brian Cashman)

  • Investment Banker: Guggenheim Securities LLC (Stuart Erickson)

  • Lease Disposition Consultant & Business Broker: A&G Realty Partners LLC

  • Liquidating Agent: Gordon Brothers Retail Partners LLC and Hilco Merchant Resources LLC

  • Liquidation Consultant: Malfitano Advisors LLC

  • Claims Agent: Donlin Recano & Company (*click on company name above for free docket access)

• Other Parties in Interest:

  • DIP Lender ($50mm): Bank of America NA

    • Legal: Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP (Julia Frost-Davies, Christopher Carter) & (local) Richards Layton & Finger PA (Mark Collins)

  • Prepetition Term Agent: Jefferies Finance LLC

    • Legal: King & Spalding LLP (Michael Rupe, W. Austin Jowers, Michael Handler)

  • Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (Valueline Group Co Ltd., Ven Bridge Ltd., Shantex Group LLC, Global Capital Fashion Inc., Jainson’s International Inc., Simon Property Group LP, Brookfield Property REIT Inc.)

    • Legal: Whiteford Taylor & Preston LLP (Christopher Samis, L. Katherine Good, Aaron Stulman, David Gaffey, Jennifer Wuebker)

    • Financial Advisor: Province Inc. (Edward Kim)

Updated 2/14/19 at 1:41 CT

New Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing - Arpeni Pratama Ocean Line Investment B.V.

Arpeni Pratama Ocean Line Investment B.V.

February 1, 2019

Dutch-based non-operating single-purpose-entity, Arpeni Pratama Ocean Line Investment B.V., filed a prepackaged bankruptcy case in the Southern District of New York to effectuate a restructuring of its $141mm Floating Rate Guaranteed Secured Notes due 2021 (HSBC Bank USA NA, as agent), the issuance of which is the legal entity's sole reason to exist. The Debtor's plan sponsor, PT Arpeni Pratama Ocean Line Tbk, is the owner and operator of a fleet of Indonesian flagged dry bulk vessels and a guarantor of the debt. It operates 14 wholly-owned and 2 chartered vessles, the use of which is to provide coal transportation and jetty management services to one of Indonesia's largest power plants. 

Why is this company in bankruptcy? Per the Company:

"...the Debtor is a single purpose entity created for the purpose of issuing the Senior Secured Notes. Accordingly, the Debtor is wholly dependent on its parent company, the Plan Sponsor, to generate sufficient revenues so as to permit for the repayment of the Senior Secured Notes. The Plan Sponsor, who derives substantially all of its revenues its drybulk shipping operations, has operated in an increasingly challenging market since the financial crisis of 2008 where operational costs have continued to increase and revenues for drybulk shipping have remained at historic lows. These factors, coupled with increasing competition from smaller and less leveraged drybulk shippers, has made it more difficult for the Plan Sponsor to service its existing indebtedness, including the Senior Secured Notes."

Accordingly, the Debtor and the Plan Sponsor have agreed to equitize substantially all of the Debtor's and the Plan Sponsor's indebtedness "to permit the Plan Sponsor to position itself on a more level landscape to its competitors to better prepare itself to weather the continuing uncertainty in the shipping industry." Pursuant to the Plan, holders of the notes will receive common shares in the Plan Sponsor, warrants, and a small cash payment. 

• Jurisdiction: S.D.N.Y. (Judge Bernstein)

• Company Professionals:

  • Legal: Paul Hastings LLP (Pedro Jimenez)

  • Financial Advisor: Fulcrum Partners Asia

  • Claims Agent: Prime Clerk LLC (*click on company name above for free docket access)

• Other Parties in Interest:

New Chapter Bankruptcy Filing - SAS Healthcare Inc.

SAS Healthcare Inc. 

January 31, 2019

Dallas/Fort Worth-based mental health facilities operator filed for bankruptcy last week in the Northern District of Texas. The more we read about these healthcare bankruptcies, the less and less assured we feel about healthcare generally. Holy sh*t a lot of them have hair on them. 

Here, the debtors operate three mental health treatment facilities — in Arlington, Dallas, and Fort Worth. Therein, the debtors provided — and we mean, "provided" — in-patient and out-patient mental health care to children, adolescents and adults struggling with substance abuse and addiction, mental health disorders and behavioral and psychological disorders. Why the past tense? Because thanks to an investigation by the Tarrant County District Attorney and subsequent indictments, the debtors ceased operations in December 2018. 

The debtors —owned in in equal 1/3 parts by three individuals — has $8.26mm in secured debt (Ciera Bank), a $503k drawn secured revolving line of credit with Ciera Bank, a $4.3mm secured term loan with Southside Bank (exclusive of another $3mm in unpaid principal and interest), a $5.6mm construction loan with Southside Bank (exclusive of another $4.3mm in unpaid principal and accrued interest); a $850k secured loan with Southside, a $400k second lien secured bridge note with REP Perimeter Holdings LLC, and $1.325mm subordinated secured note from the owners. 

Back to those closures. The grand jury investigation led to a lot of negative publicity which, in turn, led to an abrupt end in patient referrals from the two largest referral sources. The end effect? Decimated revenue. The company secured its bridge loan and performed operational triage but the second indictment proved to be a death knell. Without ongoing operations and with all of that debt, the debtors had to file for chapter 11 to trigger the automatic stay and buy itself time to conduct a marketing and sale process to sell their assets to stalking horse purchaser and prepetition lender, REP Perimeter Holdings LLC. 

• Jurisdiction: N.D. of Texas (Judge Mullin) 

• Company Professionals:

  • Legal: Haynes and Boone LLP (Stephen Pezanosky, Jarom Yates, Matt Ferris)

  • Financial Advisor: Phoenix Management Services LLC (Brian Gleason)

  • Investment Banker: Raymond James & Associates Inc. (Michael Pokrassa)

  • Claims Agent: Omni Management Group (*click on company name above for free docket access)

• Other Parties in Interest:

New Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing - Consolidated Infrastructure Group Inc.

Consolidated Infrastructure Group Inc. 

January 30, 2019

Nebraska-based Consolidated Infrastructure Group Inc. filed for bankruptcy last week in the District of Delaware; it provides underground utility and damage prevention services to players in the underground construction, digging and maintenance space. It serves or served large telecom and utility companies, such as AT&T, Cox Communications, and Comcast. it also currently has contracts with the Northern Indiana Public Service Company, the City of Davenport in Iowa and with ONE Gas Inc. 

The company has little in the way of assets and liabilities. Relating to the former, the company has the above-noted contracts, a $3mm receivable from AT&T, some intellectual property and interests in insurance policies. Liabilities include two letters of credit, and a small unsecured advance by prepetition equityholder and now-postpetition DIP lender ($3mm), Parallel149, a private equity firm. 

The company has been embroiled in drama since its inception in 2016. It was formed by former employees of USIC LLC, a much-larger competitor, and the two have been locked up in litigation relating to, among other things, breach of contract (non-compete). 

The company filed for bankruptcy to pursue a going concern 363 sale and liquidating plan. It also hopes to recover the AT&T receivable. Finally, it also contends that a sale of the contracts would avoid a public safety crisis in the communities where the company's contracts are located. 

• Jurisdiction: D. of Delaware (Judge Shannon)

• Capital Structure: $mm debt     

• Company Professionals:

  • Legal: Richards Layton & Finger PA (Daniel DeFranceshi, Russell Silberglied, Paul Heath, Zachary Shapiro)

  • Financial Advisor: Gavin/Solmonese LLC

  • Claims Agent: Omni Management Group (*click on company name above for free docket access)

• Other Parties in Interest:

  • Parallel149

    • Legal: DLA Piper LLP (Richard Chesley, Jade Williams, Jamila Justine Willis, R. Craig Martin, Maris Kandestin)

😷New Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing - Mayflower Communities Inc. (d/b/a The Barrington of Carmel)😷

Mayflower Communities Inc. (d/b/a The Barrington of Carmel)

January 30, 2019

Mayflower Communities, Inc. (d/b/a The Barrington of Carmel), a non-profit senior living retirement community of 271 units in the State of Indiana, filed for bankruptcy in the Northern District of Texas earlier this week. As a continuing care retirement community (“CCRC”), Barrington provides a battery of services to its residents ranging from recreational activities to assisted living, memory support, skilled nursing, and rehabilitation. Residents can get apartment homes on site.

The business model, however, is…well, interesting. Per the Company:

CCRCs, however, are often operationally and financially complex. More specifically, CCRCs can be challenging to operate because they require the maintenance of a broad range of services to seniors in varying stages of the aging process. Additionally, CCRCs require a steady flow of new residents in order to maintain day-to-day operations and to remain current on financial obligations, including, most importantly, obligations to current and former residents.

New residents = new revenue, which is also needed to meet debt obligations and comply with resident refund obligations.

Revenue comes from entrance fees ranging from approximately $316k to $650k, monthly serve fees from $2,800 to $7,600, and other per diem fees for skilled nursing, optional services fees and unit upgrade fees. In exchange, however, Barrington takes on a significant commitment. Per the company:

Unlike a pure rental retirement community, whereby a resident pays monthly fees for services (which fees may increase as the resident’s needs change), the Continuing Care Contract is a life care residency contract whereby a resident will pay an Entrance Fee and fixed monthly fees for Barrington’s commitment to provide life care services for the duration of the resident’s life, regardless of whether (i) the resident’s needs change over time which may require additional services to be provided by Barrington, or (ii) the costs of providing such services increase for Barrington. Significantly, Barrington’s commitment to provide life care services continue even if the resident’s financial condition deteriorates and is unable to continue to make its payments.

Non-profit, indeed. That sounds like a recipe for fiscal disaster.

The company reported $96.5mm in assets and $151.9mm in liabilities, including oversight fees owed to its management company, $52.4mm in resident refund obligations, $92.7mm (plus accrued interest) of long-term municipal bond obligations and $4.1mm of subordinated note obligations.

The aforementioned debt is a big problem. Compounding matters is the fact that the senior housing market in the geographic vicinity is “very competitive” which led to rental price and, by extension, margin, compression. Lower-than-projected revenues combined with the debt led to Barrington defaulting on its municipal bond obligations back in November. Consequently, the Bond Trustee commenced a receivership action. To forestall the Bond Trustee’s subsequent efforts to, among other things, displace the board and sole member, pursue a sale of the facility, and potentially reject continuing care contracts, the company filed for bankruptcy wherein it will leverage the “automatic stay” and “potentially pursue a sale of the Facility.”

• Jurisdiction: N.D. of Texas

• Company Professionals:

  • Legal: DLA Piper LLP (Thomas Califano, Rachel Nanes, Andrew Zollinger)

  • Financial Advisor/CRO: Ankura Consulting LLC (Louis Robichaux IV) & Larx Advisors Inc.

  • Investment Banker: Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc.

  • Claims Agent: Donlin Recano & Company (*click on company name above for free docket access)

• Other Parties in Interest:

New Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing - Maremont Corporation

Maremont Corporation

January 22, 2019

Michigan-based Maremont Corporation, a subsidiary of publicly-traded non-debtor automobile component manufacturer Meritor Inc. ($MTOR), has filed for bankruptcy along with three affiliates in the District of Delaware. The company was a manufacturer, distributor and seller of aftermarket auto products — many of which contained asbestos; currently, it has no ongoing operations and its only assets are an intercompany receivable, a rent-producing commercial property with Dollar General as a tenant, a few bank accounts, and some insurance assets. In contrast, the company has significant liabilities — notably asbestos-related liabilities including defense and other costs associated with defending 13k pending personal injury and wrongful death claims.

The company, in consultation with its parent and committees of Future Claimants and current Asbestos Claimants, arrived at a prepackaged plan under section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. The plan envisions a personal injury trust to be funded, in large part, by Meritor (via the repayment of a remaining receivable, a contribution of intercompany payables and a $28mm settlement payment) and a channeling injunction that protects the company (and Meritor) from future suit and liability arising out of the company’s asbestos legacy. Instead, any and all asbestos-related personal injury claims may only be pursued against, and paid from, the personal injury trust.

Meritor, like most of the stock market, got beaten up yesterday. There’s no telling whether the multi-million dollar payout here had anything to do with that.

Source: Yahoo!

---

For the uninitiated, this (horrifically boring) bankruptcy filing presents us with a good opportunity to highlight a potential structure (and its limitations) for any imminent Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG&E”) chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. PG&E’s issues — as have, by this point, been extensively documented — largely emanate out of (i) some oppressive California state liability laws (inverse-condemnation — definitely), (ii) man-made global warming and resultant mudslides and wildfires (probably), and (iii) at least a glint of negligence (probably). While the company has $18.4b of (mostly unsecured) debt, the catalyst to bankruptcy may be its multi-billion dollar liability from the aforementioned CA-state laws and years of environmental disaster.

Similar to Maremont, PG&E is likely to end up with some kind of plan of reorganization that features a litigation trust (for affected claimants) and a channeling injunction. Except, as John Rapisardi and Daniel Shamah of O’Melveny & Myers point out, there are limitations to that structure. They write:

There is one significant obstacle to any PG&E bankruptcy: the likely inability to discharge liabilities associated with wildfires that have not yet occurred. There have been numerous mass tort bankruptcies in the past that have been resolved through the formation of a litigation trust and channeling injunction, forcing litigants into a single forum where claims are satisfied through trust assets. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. §524(g) (channeling injunction for asbestos debtors); In re TK Holdings, Doc. No. 2120, Case No. 17-11375 (Bankr D. Del.) (confirmation order with channeling injunction for debtor that manufactured airbags with defective components). But that structure only works for claims based on prior conduct or acts. PG&E, in contrast, faces perennial liability associated with wildfires and inverse condemnation. It may be challenging to discharge the inverse-condemnation liabilities associated with a post-petition wildfire. See 28 U.S.C. §959(a) (debtors-in-possession may be sued “with respect to any of their acts or transactions in carrying on business connected with such property.”).

Prior conduct or acts, huh? A discontinued product that happened to contain asbestos fits that bill. Likewise, a remedied airbag (the TK Holdings referenced above refers to Takata Airbags). Sadly — especially for Californians, there is nothing prior about environmental issues. Those are very much a present and future thing.

• Jurisdiction: D. of Delaware (Judge Carey)

• Company Professionals:

  • Legal: Sidley Austin LLP (James Conlan, Andrew O’Neill, Alison Ross Stromberg, Blair Warner, Alex Rovira) & (local) Cole Schotz PC (Norman Pernick, J. Kate Stickles)

  • Claims Estimation Advisor: Alvarez & Marsal Disputes and Investigations LLC

  • Claims Agent: Donlin Recano (*click on company name above for free docket access)

• Other Parties in Interest:

  • Future Claimants Representative: James L. Patton Jr.

    • Legal: Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP

    • Claims Estimation Advisor: Ankura Consulting Group LLC

𝟚𝟚 New Chapter 22 Bankruptcy Filing - Gymboree Group Inc. 𝟚𝟚

Gymboree Group, Inc.

January 16, 2019

So, uh, THAT didn’t age well.

Let’s be clear here: the Gymboree situation is an unmitigated disaster and, in our view, has not — in the wake of all of the news surrounding Sears Holding Corporation ($SHLDQ) and PG&E Corporation ($PCG) — gotten the attention it deserves. That’s where we come in. Let’s hop in the DeLorean.

TO READ THE REST OF THIS REPORT, YOU MUST BE A MEMBER. BECOME ONE HERE.

• Jurisdiction: E.D. of Virginia

• Capital Structure: $79.1mm senior secured ABL (Bank of America NA), $44.5mm LOCs under ABL, $89mm TL

• Company Professionals:

  • Legal: Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy LLP (Dennis Dunne, Evan Fleck, Michael Price) & (local) Kutak Rock LLP (Michael Condyles, Peter Barrett, Jeremy Williams, Brian Richardson)

  • Independent Directors: Eugene Davis, Scott Vogel

  • Financial Advisor/CRO: Berkeley Research Group LLC (Steven Coulombe)

  • Investment Banker: Stifel Nicolaus & Co. & Miller Buckfire & Co.

  • Claims Agent: Prime Clerk LLC (*click on company name above for free docket access)

• Other Parties in Interest:

  • Gymboree Canada

    • Legal: Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP

    • Proposal Trustee: KPMG Inc.

      • Legal: Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP

  • ABL Agent: Bank of America NA

    • Legal: Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP

  • Prepetition Term Loan Agent (Goldman Sachs Specialty Lending Group Inc.) & Term DIP Agent and Term Lender (Special Situations Investing Group Inc.)

    • Legal: King & Spalding (W. Austin Jowers, Christopher Boies, Michael Handler) & (local) McGuireWoods LLP (Dion Hayes, Douglas Foley, Sarah Boehm)