⚾️Are "Distressed SPACs" Still a Thing?⚾️

Our coverage of Mudrick Capital LP’s second SPAC began with a detailed analysis of his first, Hycroft Mining ($HYMC).

TLDR: Mudrick’s first SPAC engineered a path forward for one of his long-held illiquid holdings in the 11th hour before the fund would have needed to return cash to investors. We tuned into a YouTube interview with Mudrick’s CIO, Jason Mudrick, where he speculated about a second SPAC vehicle, but insisted that his focus was “on making Mudrick Capital Acquisition I a success” before launching SPAC II.

Reasonable people can disagree on the definition of “success.” Success could be simply launching a SPAC in the first place. Or it could be successfully de-SPAC’ing into a viable merger candidate. Or it could be the post-merger entity shooting to the moon a la Draftkings Inc. ($DKNG). Pick your barometer but suffice it to say that many people wouldn’t choose “down 60% post-IPO” topped with “weak FY 2021 guidance” as their winning metric.

But past performance is not indicative of future performance. Nor is one investment enough to taint what otherwise appears to be an impressive investing run. And so surely Mudrick wasn’t going to let the absolute dumpster fire that is HYMC get in the way of launching SPAC II and then, in impressive short order, making a big announcement.

On April 6, 2021, Mudrick Capital Acquisition Corporation II announced the purchase of The Topps Company, Inc. Topps is a NY-based manufacturer of collectibles, chewing gum, and candy. A slide from the merger presentation breaks down the company’s mix of offerings:

A. Ownership Structure

Founded originally in 1938, Topps was acquired in October 2007 by The Tornante Company LLC (run by former Disney CEO Michael Eisner) and Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC for $385mm. The NYTimes stated that the original Tornante x MDP collab was “a bet on a brand that elicits an “emotional connection” as strong as Disney…” Topps’ content partners certainly fit that strategy; the company’s roster includes organizations and brands such as MLB, UEFA, The Formula One Group ($FWONA), Star Wars, Marvel, and World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. ($WWE). Tornante Chairman Michael Eisner’s connections were no doubt invaluable in helping Topps make inroads. Disney properties include Star Wars and Marvel, and Tornante owns an equity stake in Portsmouth Football Club.

Pro forma for the Mudrick acquisition, Tornante retains 36% equity ownership in Topps. MDP and the existing management team will own 8%. Mudrick Capital will own 7% of the “Founder Shares,” while SPAC investors will own 28%. Filling out the cap stack is a $250mm PIPE offering, which accounts for 21% of the equity. Per the press release, the PIPE is led by Mudrick and names GAMCO Investors, Inc. and Wells Capital Management as co-investors. Based on merger presentation financials, Mudrick and friends are recapitalizing Topps at a 12.5x Pro Forma 2021 Adj. EBITDA multiple.

B. Segment Breakdown

Physical Sports & Entertainment is Topps’ largest segment. At $314mm of 2020 revenue, the segment makes up 55% of Topps’ total full year revenue. The business focuses on trading cards, stickers and “curated experiences” such as experiential events in partnership with UEFA Champions League.

In FY 2020, the Physical S&E segment grew 50% YoY. Topps’ estimates the segment will hit $398mm and $454mm in revenue for FY21 and FY22, growing 27% and 14% respectively. Topps has been able to quickly capitalize on the hot consumer flavor of the month, whether it was Star Wars: The Mandalorian, the WWE, Bundesliga, or Godzilla, aligning with the most recent film release. Additionally, Topps has driven margin growth through some preeetty aggressive pricing strategies. FinTwit was all over it:

Alright, which one of you suckers is the one buying this $25k box of cards on the bottom right?$MUDShttps://t.co/SSwWuLf7tE pic.twitter.com/dSQGdXjhdP

— 1 Main Capital (@1MainCapital) April 6, 2021

Topps’ Confection Segment printed $198mm of revenue in FY 2020 and was ~35% of the business. Topps calls its brands, including Bazooka Gum, RingPop, PushPop, Baby Bottle Pop, and Juicy Drop Pop, “Edible Entertainment.” (This compilation for Baby Bottle Pop ads triggers all the early-90s nostalgia we can handle.) These brands are sold in major retail locations in the U.S. and Internationally, including 7-Eleven, Inc., BJs Wholesale Club Holdings Inc. ($BJ), Dollar Tree, Inc. ($DLTR), Kroger Co ($KR), Walmart Inc. ($WMT), Target Corporation ($TGT), Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. ($WBA), and Carrefour S A F, REWE Group, and Tesco PLC. Topps confections are outperforming the broader confections category, and three of Topps’ products are in the top 5 best-selling non-chocolate items in U.S. Retail.

In 2020, the Confections segment was down 10% YoY, likely impacted by COVID-19: apparently the category gets some tailwinds from screaming toddlers demanding candy in the checkout aisle of the local grocery store. Damn you DoorDash Inc. ($DASH). Anyway, Topps sees that segment bouncing back 14% in FY21 before moderating to 5% in FY22.

C. Steak & Sizzle

Topps’ Digital Sports & Entertainment and Gift Cards together make up 10% of Topps’ total revenue. We’ve previously shared our thoughts on gift cards; we find it fascinating that between 6 - 10% of prepaid gift cards are never used by the customer, resulting in ‘breakage income’ at 100% margin to the business. But if Topps’ Physical S&E and Confections are the ‘steak’ of the investment thesis, Digital is certainly the “sizzle.”

Digital Sports & Entertainment provides app-based, digital collectibles and games with the ability to print on-demand. This segment grew 72% YoY as Topps directly monetized the Intellectual Property of its partnerships through its mobile apps. Per the merger presentation, daily active users on Topps’ apps have grown at a ~50% CAGR from January 2019 to January 2021. Per a NYTimes article, Tornante, MDP, and company management have been prioritizing this shift:

“In the years since Mr. Eisner’s initial purchase, Topps has focused on a shift to digital, starting online apps for users to trade collectibles and play games. It also created “Topps Now,” which makes of-the-moment cards to capture a defining play or a pop culture meme. (It sold nearly 100,000 cards featuring Senator Bernie Sanders at the presidential inauguration in his mittens.) And it has moved into blockchain, too, via the craze for nonfungible tokens, or NFTs.”

While we have no f*cking clue what’s going on with NFTs, there’s no question pandemic lockdowns have fueled a resurgence across all of memorabilia. The article continues with some comments from Mr. Mudrick and Topps’ current CEO Michael Brandstaedter:

“The secondhand market is particularly hot, with a Mickey Mantle card recently selling for more than $5 million. “Topps probably made something like a nickel on it, 70 years ago,” said Jason Mudrick, the founder of Mudrick Capital. NFT mania will allow Topps to take advantage of the secondhand market by linking collectibles to digital tokens. Topps is also growing beyond sports, like its partnerships with Marvel and “Star Wars.”

It continues to see value in its core baseball-card business, as athletes come up from the minor leagues more quickly. “The trading card business has been growing for the last several years,” Michael Brandstaedter, the chief executive of Topps, said. “While it definitely grew through the pandemic — and perhaps accelerated — it did not arrive with the pandemic.” (emphasis added)

Topps’ foray into NFTs through its collaboration with Wax Blockchain on ‘Garbage Pail Kids’ has been wildly successful, selling out in 27 hours with $100k+ in revenue. But the reported numbers indicate Topps derives limited value from digital today:

But that looks set to change. Perhaps quickly. It looks highly likely that Topps is going to do some exciting digital things with the likes of the Anaheim Angels’ Mike Trout and Shohei Ohtani, among others; it signed both to long-term card and autograph deals that, while the details are not entirely clear, likely includes some sort of digital element to it (at least with Trout given the timing).

Topps is innovating in real time. The Verge reported on Major League Baseball’s latest initiative earlier this week:

Major League Baseball has announced its latest move to cash in on the NFT craze: official blockchain-based versions of classic Topps baseball cards. Topps is selling the new NFT baseball cards through the WAX blockchain, which the company has used for its earliest blockchain-based collectibles.

The first “Series 1” cards will be sold starting on April 20th, with 50,000 standard packs (containing six cards for $5) and around 24,000 premium packs (offering 45 cards for $100) set to be sold in the first wave. Topps is also offering a free “exclusive Topps MLB Opening Day NFT Pack” to the first 10,000 users who sign up for email alerts for new releases.

It’s a similar idea to the NBA’s white-hot Top Shot NFTs, which offer fans purchasable video clips (called Moments) in card-like packs. Top Shot Moments are already a massive business — some have sold for upwards of $200,000, and more than 800,000 accounts have yielded over $500 million in sales so far.

Not too shabby.

While the future may be digital, Mudrick’s investment thesis as outlined in the NYTimes’ article is focused on the longevity and stability of the physical business.

“That resilience is part of the bet that Mudrick Capital is making on the 80-year old Topps. It’s a surer gamble, Mr. Mudrick said, than buying one of the many unprofitable start-ups currently courting SPAC deals.”

PETITION and other public investors only have a limited period of financials to digest, so we can’t refute Mr. Mudrick’s claims of Topps’ financial resilience. From the financials we can see, Topps is growing and profitable. FY20 revenue of $567mm represented growth of 23% from prior year levels, and the company projects — ah, the beauty of SPACs, go-forward projections! — those trends to continue. FY21 and 2022 are estimated to grow to $692mm and $777mm, or 22% and 12% respectively. EBITDA margins expanded considerably in 2020, from 11% to 16%, and CapEx is incredibly low.

The largest part of Topps’ business is growing with the highest EBITDA margins – a positive sign.

But is Topps really the sort of business Mudrick Capital intended to acquire with MUDS II? On one hand, the S-1 spins a different story:

“Our business strategy is to identify, combine with and maximize the value of a company that has either recently emerged from bankruptcy court protection or will require incremental capital as part of a balance sheet restructuring. In particular, we believe that many post-restructured companies suffer from a valuation discount due to their opaqueness, complexity, non-long term ownership base and overall illiquidity. We believe that our in depth understanding of restructurings and post-restructuring company analysis, coupled with the more liquid publicly traded vehicle the company offers in an initial business combination, could result in significant value creation for our stockholders. Creating value for our stockholders is the ultimate goal of this business strategy.” (emphasis added)

It's clear from the language that Mudrick Capital Acquisition Corporation II was intended to be a distressed-oriented SPAC. But Mudrick & Co. went in the complete opposite direction. Comparing Topps and Hycroft Mining, this couldn’t be a more divergent duo of companies; we liken the two businesses to ‘apples and napalm grenades’. The market seemingly concurs. Juxtapose this ⬇️ with the Hycroft chart ⬆️:

Par owners have less and less reason to sell. Turning into Restructuring as a Service (RaaS).

to reclaim distress for the edgier investor we will need some really unfavorable rulings https://t.co/U9jrHJRL1f pic.twitter.com/ax6h9K1lIw

— Halcap (@HalCapLLC) April 8, 2021

Just to piss in everyone’s faces, Ares Management Corp’s CEO Michael Arougheti added (in a conversation with Bloomberg’s Kelsey Butler):

“There’s underlying stress that will find its way into the markets but I don’t think that’s anytime soon,” Arougheti said at a virtual Bloomberg News event this week. Default rates are “artificially low” and asset prices are buoyant because “there’s so much liquidity masking that default rate that we’ve all grown accustomed to seeing at this point in the cycle that we’re probably two to three years out before we start seeing a traditional default cycle play out.”

And so maybe Topps should be viewed in the same lens as the infamous Howard Marks’ ‘Something of Value’ investor letter — a sign of capitulation among notable distressed managers. We’re taking a more passive view on this. From our perspective, turning around a distressed businesses today requires a significant investment in both capital and time. And there’s huge terminal value risk – many distressed businesses models are structurally challenged and may not exist in the next 5 – 10 years. In that context, Mudrick’s move to acquire a stable, healthy business at a full valuation makes intuitive sense. Why not sacrifice a few basis points of alpha to write a big check that doesn’t cause heartburn for a decade? (Side note: we think Starboard Value’s acquisition of Cyxtera ties back to this theme, which we previously covered here).

As times change, so must distressed managers. In our humble opinion, Topps and Hycroft are worth paying attention to not only as interesting businesses in their own right, but as bellwethers for capital flows.

Of course, as we continue to evaluate all of this, we may get some additional data points:

From late yesterday: Mudrick Capital Management is mulling a third SPAC, which could be $300-400m, to invest in a distressed or restructured company. Scoop with @KatLeighDoherty pic.twitter.com/vJw1NsrcCp

— Allison McNeely (@allisonmcneely) April 13, 2021

💥Distressed Debt Investors Need a Reset: 2020 Can’t Come Fast Enough💥

As hedge funds continue to get decimated and investor money shifts rapidly to private equity and private credit, the negative news for distressed investors is piling on heading into the new year.

Here is an excellent Financial Times piece about GSO, the massive $142b fund manager that is in the midst of significant senior management transition. Among many interesting tidbits, the article cites the problems that GSO is having trying to keep committed capital as “key man” managers depart and performance suffers:

Blackstone set about trying to persuade investors to keep faith with its $7bn distressed debt fund, but matters were complicated by heavy losses on distressed debt investments linked to GSO’s energy franchise, which Mr Scott used to run. One of the troubled energy companies, Oklahoma-based Tapstone Energy, whose board Mr Scott previously sat on, this month missed an interest payment on its debt.

The setbacks wiped out most of the gains made by investors in Capital Solutions II, a previous fund that investors viewed as similar.

PETITION Note: it probably won’t help matters when Tapstone Energy definitively files for bankruptcy. Tick tock, tick tock…it should be any day now.

What the piece illustrates is that, for many funds, energy-related performance in the middle of the decade has since taken a dramatic turn for the worse — wiping out gains that, at one time, helped (a) make various investors much richer via bonuses and (b) follow-up funds raise cash.

Between June 2013 and the end of 2017, the predecessor fund had notched up annual gains of 14 per cent, securities filings show. By the end of September 2019, however, Blackstone’s portfolio valuation indicated that those profits had all but disappeared, leaving investors with net internal rate of return of just 1 per cent.

The ramifications of this extend beyond having to discount fees in order to maintain funds. Perception risk — elevated by an extraordinary amount of coverage in the mainstream and other media outlets about “manufactured defaults” — is now apparently front-of-mind for GSO.

---

THIS IS A SUBSCRIBER’S POST, TO READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE, SUBSCRIBE TO OUR KICK@$$ BI-WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.

⚡️Update: Forever21 Inc.⚡️

Forever21 Inc. is forever filing motions to reject sh*t. On Friday, the company followed up its Store Closing Motion (which, itself, had two supplements) with its fourth rejection motion of non-residential real property leases. By our count, somewhere between 100-150 different lease (or sublease, as the case may be…looking at you Belk Inc.) counterparties have been affected now by the bankruptcy. That’s a lot of landlords and lessors looking for tenants and subtenants, respectively.

Who is bearing the brunt of this? By our count (in approximate numbers):

---

TO SEE OUR PREMIUM INSIGHTS ON WHICH MALL REITS ARE GETTING SH*T ON BY FOREVER21 & MORE, CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE (ISN’T TIME YOU GOT AHEAD? DISRUPT YOUR COMPETITION WITH PETITION!)

🚛Dump Trucks🚛

Manufacturing, Trucking & the Ports

We’re old enough to remember a narrative that went something like this:

• Amazon Inc. ($AMZN) is dominating retail with 2-day (now 1-day) shipping +

• Traditional brick-and-mortar retailers are converting to e-commerce +

• Digitally-native-vertical-brands are cutting out brick-and-mortar and going direct-to-consumer =

• Increased need for logistics and shipping capabilities.

Because of these developments, among others, this country — it was said — was suffering from a trucking shortage relative to the demand and so wages rose rapidly and seemingly every retailer reported that rising shipping expenses were harming the bottom line. Given this, you’d think truckers would be crushing it.

Maybe…not? At least anymore.

In August we noted the following:

ACT research reflects two straight quarters of negative sector growth and DAT reported a 50% decline in spot market loads, with no category immune to the declining trend. Van load-to-truck is down 50%, flatbed load down 74.5% and reefer load down 55.5%. Some fear this may be a leading indicator of recession. Alternatively, it may just be the short-term effects of tariffs and the acceleration of orders into earlier months to avoid them. 

Still, the trucking industry is worried. 

Van spot rates were down 18.5%, flatbed spot rates down 18.4%% and reefer spot rates down 16.8%. The word “bloodbath” is now being bandied about. Per Business Insider:

“There has been a spate of trucking companies declaring bankruptcy this year, too. The largest was New England Motor Freight, which was No. 19 in its trucking segment. Falcon Transport also shut down this year, abruptly laying off some 550 employees in April.

"We have become increasingly convinced that freight is likely to remain weak through 2019 followed by falling truckload and intermodal contract rates in 2020," the UBS analyst Thomas Wadewitz wrote to investors in a June 18 note.

Trucking's biggest companies have been slashing their outlooks. Knight-Swift and Schneider both cut their annual outlooks earlier this year.”

Will this trend continue as manufacturing numbers continue to slip?

That was a good question. And, indeed, manufacturing does continue to slip — at least according to the ISM Manufacturing PMI report:

With the foregoing context, take some more recent news:

1. Hendrickson Truck Lines Co.

The family-owned trucking company recently filed for bankruptcy in the Eastern District of California (a chapter 22, actually). The company is on the smaller side: liabilities between $10-50mm; roughly 90 trucks and 100 drivers; operations in 10 states. Per FreightWaves:

“The company said its financial problems started in January with a sharp decline in overall freight tonnage. This, combined with excess truck capacity, resulted in a 21% rate drop compared with 2018, resulting in a $400,000 per month revenue drop, according to its petition.  

Two of the carrier’s top customers, which accounted for nearly 50% of its business, switched to lower-cost providers, the company said.” (emphasis added)

The company also blamed a poor truck leasing deal for its filing.

2. Truck Orders Are Down

The Wall Street Journal recently reported:

Order books for heavy-duty truck manufacturers are thinning out as a weaker U.S. industrial economy pushes fleet operators to put the brakes on plans to expand freight-carrying capacity.

Trucking companies in November ordered 17,300 Class 8 trucks, the big rigs used in highway transport, according to a preliminary estimate from industry data provider FTR. That was down 39% from November 2018 and a 21% decrease from October, providing a weak start for what is typically the busiest season for new-equipment orders.

The orders last month were the lowest for a November in four years, and analysts said they expect a backlog at factory production lines that has been dwindling this year to pull back even more.

It continued:

Truck-equipment makers have started scaling back production and laying off workers this year as demand for new trucks has weakened.

Daimler Trucks North America LLC said in October it planned to lay off about 900 workers at two North Carolina Freightliner plants as “the market is now clearly returning to normal market levels.”

Engine-maker Cummins Inc. cut its annual revenue forecast in October and the company last month said it plans to lay off about 2,000 workers early next year. “Demand has deteriorated even faster than expected, and we need to adjust to reduce costs,” the Columbus, Ind.-based manufacturer said in a statement.

What’s going on here? Well, yes, manufacturing is down. But “global trade tensions are weighing on transportation demand.” More from the WSJ:

U.S. factory activity contracted in November for the fourth straight month, according to the Institute for Supply Management.

Freight volumes and trucking prices have been on the decline. U.S. domestic freight shipments fell 5.9% in October compared with the same month last year, while truckload linehaul rates were down 2.5% year-over-year, according to Cass Information Systems Inc., which handles freight payments for companies.

🤔

3. Trade, Declining Truck Orders, and Imports (Short the Ports?)

We’re curious: if tariffs and trade wars are trickling down to trucking, what must this mean for ports in this country? Per Transport Topics:

Three West Coast ports saw significant drop-offs in cargo volume last month, the latest indication that the United States’ long-simmering trade dispute with China is impacting operations at the nation’s ports.

The Port of Los Angeles, the nation’s busiest facility, saw a 19.1% decline in 20-foot-equivalent units (TEUs) container volume, moving 770,188 compared with 952,553 in the same period a year ago. Imports and exports were both down 19%. The drop-off also means the Los Angeles port is 90,697 TEUs behind last year’s record pace, having processed 7,861,964 TEUs through the first 10 months, compared with 7,723,159 at this point last year.

Port Executive Director Gene Seroka and other officials were in Washington on Nov. 12, and he is sounding the alarm over the damage being done to the economy because of the ongoing trade battle and the resulting tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of products.

And this, apparently, isn’t isolated to the West Coast:

Rough October at Port of NY&NJ as loaded container imports fell slightly and loaded exports dropped 2.7%. The fall's East Coast shipping surge didn't get that far.

— Paul Page (@PaulPage) December 3, 2019

Will we start seeing some port distress in the near future? Fewer trucks and fewer trains mean lower revenue. 🤔

4. Celadon Group Files for Bankruptcy

Indianapolis-based Celadon Group Inc. ($CGIPQ) is a truckload freight services provider with a global footprint. Founded in 1985, the company professes to have pioneered the commerce trail between the United States and Mexico. Thereafter, it IPO’d and used the proceeds for growth capital, expanding its freight-forwarding business with the acquisition a UK-based company and another 36 companies thereafter. Not only did these acquisitions expand its geographic footprint, but they also expanded the company’s freight capabilities, opening up revenue possibilities attached to refrigerated and flatbed transportation. In all, today the company operates a fleet of 3300 tractors and 10000 trailers with 3800 employees. Its primary focus continues to be NAFTA countries; its customers include the likes of Lowes Companies Inc. ($LOW), Philip Morris International Inc. ($PM), Walmart Inc. ($WMT), Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV ($FCAU), Procter & Gamble Inc. (($PG) and Honda Motor Co Ltd. ($HMC).  

All of the above notwithstanding, it is now a chapter 11 debtor. Worse yet, it will, in short order, wind down and no longer be in existence. In an instant, the aforementioned 3800 employees’ livelihoods have been thrown into disarray.

Not that the signals weren’t there. The company has been in trouble for some time now. In addition to macro woes, it has a large number of self-inflicted wounds. 

Back in July, the company teetered on the brink of bankruptcy but it bought itself a short leash. On July 31, 2019, the company refinanced its term loans held by Bank of America NA ($BAC), Wells Fargo Bank NA ($WFC) and Citizens Bank NA ($CFG) with a new facility agented by Blue Torch Finance LLC* that counted Blue Torch and Luminus Partners Master Fund as lenders.** The new lenders provided $27.9mm of new term loans and, in exchange, received $8mm in original issue discount and fees. The banks, it appears, got out just in the knick of time. Indeed, the company and its lenders have been engaged in an endless stream of negotiations, concessions and waivers ever since: the credit docs have been amended ad nauseam ever since the initial transaction because the company was in constant danger of breaching its covenants.

Why so much drama? Per the company:

“The need to file these chapter 11 cases was a result of a confluence of factors including industry-wide headwinds, former management bad acts, an unsustainable degree of balance sheet leverage and an inability to address significant liquidity constraints through asset sales and other restructuring strategies. In mid-2019, the trucking freight market began to soften. The combination of a decline in overall freight tonnage and excessive truck capacity in the market led to a significant decline in freight rates, and customers began to take bids at lower freight rates. Compared to the year immediately prior, 2019 showed a steady decline in freight rates, including spot freight rates and contractual rates. In addition to declining freight rates, volumes of loads in freight have experienced decreasing numbers for a significant portion of 2019.”

Sound familiar? Well, these issues alone should have been enough to present problems but they were accentuated by the fact that the company’s prior senior management allegedly engaged in some shady a$$ sh*t. That shady a$$ sh*t ultimately led to a Deferred Prosecution Agreement and a $42.2mm fine. While only $5mm has been paid to date, that $37mm overhang is substantial.

With all of these issues piling up, the company ultimately defaulted on its revolver. Consequently, MidCap Financial Trust, the company’s revolver lender, froze lending and the company’s already-growing liquidity problem became a wee bit more problematic. With barely enough money to fund payroll and payroll taxes, the company had no choice but to file for chapter 11. To put an exclamation point on this, the company had merely $400k of cash on hand when it pulled the trigger on bankruptcy. 

So what now? The company ceased operations and will commence an orderly wind down of its businesses, preserving only Taylor Express Inc. as a going concern. Taylor Express is a NC-corporation that the company acquired in 2015; it is a dry van and dry bulk for-hire services provider, operating principally for the tire and retail industries and primarily in the South and Southeast regions of the US. To fund the cases, the debtors secured a commitment from Blue Torch for $8.25mm in DIP financing. The DIP mandates that any sale order relating to the liquidating business be entered by January 22. 

As for the employees? Well: 

Yeah, they’re understandably pissed. For starters, they were laid off en masse with no notice. One employee, on behalf of all employees, filed an Adversary Complaint alleging a violation of the WARN Act, which requires 60 days’ advance written notice of a mass layoff and/or plant closing. In response, the truckers have formed a “Celadon Closure Assistance and Jobs” group on Facebook. It has 1300 members. Per Fast Company, 

“Truckers in [a] Facebook group are posting about having 20 minutes to clear out their trucks and go. CBS also reported that some drivers “were stranded when their company gas cards were canceled.”

YIKES. All told, this is a hot mess. Per SupplyChainDive:

“’This is noteworthy because of the size of the fleet,’ Donald Broughton, the principal and managing partner at Broughton Capital, told Supply Chain Dive in an interview.  ‘It’s noteworthy because less than 10 years ago Celadon was known as one of the most active, prolific and successful at salvaging small fleets that were struggling and in trouble.’

The failure of Celadon represents the largest trucking failure this year and ‘certainly one of the largest in history,’ Broughton said.”  

“Largest [insert industry here] failure” is not an honor that anyone wants.

*Blue Torch Finance LLC was also active in another DLA Piper LLP bankruptcy, PHI Inc., as DIP lender. 

**Blue Torch hold a priority right of payment on the term loan collateral with Luminus second and revolver lender, MidCap Financial Trust, third. 

⚡️Update: PG&E Corporation ($PCG)⚡️

Per The Wall Street Journal:

PG&E Corp. has reached a settlement with victims of the wildfires that pushed California’s largest utility into bankruptcy, agreeing to pay them $13.5 billion in damages.

The pact removes a significant obstacle to PG&E’s emergence from chapter 11 protection and includes reforms meant to address criticism that the company enriched shareholders while leaving customers exposed to danger from aged, unsafe equipment.

PG&E bowed to demands for more money for fire victims and gave in to pressure from California Gov. Gavin Newsom to improve its corporate governance and implement stricter safety protocols.

The best part: the settlement is payable half in cash and half in stock. All we have to say is:

---

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

🥈Second Order Effects Are Real (Long #retailapocalypse Victims)🥈

We’ve spent a considerable amount of time discussing the possible and/or actual second order effects of disruption. For instance, waaaaaaay back in December 2016, we queried to what degree the scanless technology that Amazon Inc. ($AMZN) had then launched in its AmazonGo concept might affect grocers and quick service restaurants. We noted the following possibilities:

[Our] list of losers: manufacturers of conventional scanners...plastic separator bricks...cash registers...conveyer belts; landlords (maybe? - less square footage required without the cashier and self-checkout stations); print media/candy manufacturers/gift cards - all things that benefit from lines and impulse buys at checkout; human capital; people on the wrong end of income inequality.

Three years later, you don’t hear much about AmazonGo. Sure, it’s grown: there are now reportedly 20 locations with more on the way, but it hasn’t exactly taken the world by storm and caused mass disruption to either grocers or QSRs. It’s still worth watching though: the possible second order effects are countless.

An example of actual second order effects is Cenveo Inc., which filed for bankruptcy in February 2018. At the time we wrote:

…it's textbook disruption. Per the company, 

"In addition to Cenveo’s leverage issues, macroeconomic factors, including the introduction of new e-commerce, digital substitution for products, and other technologies, are transforming the industry. Consumers increasingly use the internet and other electronic media to purchase goods and services, pay bills, and obtain electronic versions of printed materials. Moreover, advertisers increasingly use the internet and other electronic media for targeted campaigns directed at specific consumer segments rather than mail campaigns." 

Ouch. To put it simply, every single time you opt-in for an electronic bank statement or purchase a comic book on your Kindle rather than from the local bookstore (if you even have a local bookstore), you're effing Cenveo.

To close the trifecta, we’ll again highlight the recent pain in the SMA space. Catalina Marketing and Acosta Inc. both became chapter 11 filers while Crossmark Holdings Inc. narrowly avoided it. Why? Because CPG companies are taking it on the chin from new and exciting direct-to-consumer e-commerce brands, among other things, and have therefore shifted marketing strategies.

So, on the topic of second order effects, imagine being in the C-suite of a company that, among other things:

• Prints signage, displays, shelf marketing and other promotional-print-material for brick-and-mortar retailers including the likes of, among others, struggling GNC Inc. ($GNC), Gap Inc. ($GPS), and GameStop Inc. (GME), all of which are shrinking their brick-and-mortar footprint;

• Creates menu boards, register toppers, ceiling danglers and more for QSRs and fast casual restaurants who are competing with food delivery services more and more every day; and

• Services consumer packaged goods companies by creating end cap promotions, shelf marketing, floor graphics and more.

Uh….YEAAAAAAAAAH. Some high risk exposure areas right there, folks.😬 And, so you’ve got to imagine that revenues of this “hypothetical” C-suiter’s company are declining, right? Particularly given that print is a highly competitive price-compressed industry?

Luckily, you don’t have to stretch the imagination too far.

---

LIKE THIS SO FAR AND WANT TO READ THE REST? YOU CAN, BY SUBSCRIBING TO OUR PREMIUM BI-WEEKLY KICK@$$ NEWSLETTER, HERE.

💥Good Retail Numbers. Bad Malls.💥

⚡️Update: CBL & Associates Properties ($CBL)⚡️

We did a deep dive into Tennessee-based CBL & Associates Properties ($CBL) back in March’s “Thanos Snaps, Retail Disappears👿” and, in the context of Destination Maternity’s bankruptcy filing, followed-up in an October update. To refresh your recollection, CBL is a real estate investment trust (REIT) that invests primarily in malls based in the southeastern and midwestern US. At the time of the aforementioned “Thanos” piece, the REIT’s stock was trading at $1.90/share; its ‘23 unsecured notes were priced around $80 and its ‘24 unsecured notes around $76. In case you haven’t noticed — all Black Friday ($7.4b in online sales, $2.9b via mobile ordering) and Cyber Monday (a record $9.2b) talk about gangbusters retail sales notwithstanding — the malls haven’t particularly fared much better since Q1. To put an exclamation point on this, early reports are that brick-and-mortar stores saw an overall 6% decline in sales over Black Friday.

When it reported Q3 earnings at the end of October, CBL’s numbers weren’t pretty. Revenue fell approximately $20mm YOY, net operating income declined 5.9% YOY, and same-center mall occupancy, while up on a quarter-by-quarter basis, was down 200 basis points YOY.

On Monday, the company announced that “it is suspending all future dividends on its common stock, 7.375% Series D Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock and 6.625% Series E Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock.” The company’s CEO, Stephen Lebovitz said:

“We anticipate a decline in net operating income in 2020 as a result of heightened retailer bankruptcies, restructurings and store closings in 2019. Offsetting these declines by retaining available cash is necessary to maintain the market dominant position of our properties and to reduce debt. CBL has also made significant efforts over the past 18 months to reduce operating costs, including executive compensation and overall corporate G&A expense, as well as execution of a strategy to utilize joint venture and other structures to reduce capital expenditures. Ultimately, we believe these actions will allow the Company to return greater value to its shareholders.”

Given the above, it’s worth revisiting the alleged benefit of REITs to investors. Among them are that:

• post 1960, REITs provided small investors with an opportunity to benefit from commercial property rental streams; and

• they are, typically, high dividend payers — considering that by law, they must distribute at least 90% of their taxable income to shareholders as dividends.

WOMP. WOMP. Not so much these days, it seems. But, we bet you’re asking: how can it terminate its dividend while maintaining its REIT status? From the company:

“The Company made this determination following a review of current taxable income projections for 2019 and 2020. The Company will review taxable income on a regular basis and take measures, if necessary, to ensure that it meets the minimum distribution requirements to maintain its status as a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT).”

Umm, that doesn’t portend well. The answer is: it may not have “taxable income.” B.R.U.T.A.L.

How did the market react?

The stock market puked on the news. The stock was down 6% with a general market drawdown, but after-hours, upon the announcement, the stock gave up an additional ~30% on Monday and closed at $1.02/share on Tuesday:

Meanwhile, the preferred stock also obviously traded down (lots of Moms and Pops chasing yield, baby yield, getting burned here), and the ‘23 unsecured notes and the ‘24 unsecured notes, at the time of this writing, last sold at $72.75 and $64.1, respectively.

The GIF above says it all about this story. And, worse yet: it may get uglier.

🛏KKR Tips Hand re Art Van Furniture (Short Midwest Mattresses)🛏

n “💩Acosta = Not a Good Look, Carlyle💩,” we noted how FS KKR Capital Corp ($FSK), a publicly-traded business development corporation placed its Acosta Inc. loan “on nonaccrual” because it was, well, clearly sh*tting the bed. Ultimately, after riding the mark down to the basement, FSK offloaded the position. It wasn’t the only stain in its portfolio. In fact, as of the end of the third quarter, approximately 1.7% of the portfolio was on nonaccrual, up from 1.2% at the end of Q2. While this, in and of itself is hardly alarming, it does mean that there are other potential restructurings sitting on FSK’s books. Indeed, one loan contributing to this uptick was to a company called Art Van Furniture.

Founded in 1958, Michigan-headquartered Art Van Furniture is a furniture retail store chain with approximately 190 company-owned stores in nine states operating, thanks to various tack-on acquisitions, under various brands: Art Van Furniture, Art Van PureSleep, Scott Shuptrine Interiors, Levin Furniture, Levin Mattress and Wolf Furniture. The tack-on acquisitions were, presumably, part of the company’s growth strategy after being acquired by private equity overlords Thomas H. Lee Partners.

The Columbus Dispatch recently reported on Art Van’s strategy annnnnnnd it’s definitely a bit counter-intuitive:

---

THIS IS A SUBSCRIBING MEMBER’S ARTICLE, TO READ THE REST, CLICK HERE.

🔥David's Bridal = Chapter 11.5🔥

One year, three different capital structures and two restructurings — one in-court and one out-of-court. This has been a hell of a twelve-month stretch for David’s Bridal Inc. Clearly performance continues to sh*t the bed.

A year ago at this time the company was pre-bankruptcy. It had 311 stores, 9,260 employees and a $775mm capital structure split among (i) approximately $25.7 million in drawn commitments under its Prepetition ABL Agreement; (ii) an estimated $481.2 million in outstanding principal obligations under its Prepetition Term Loan Agreement; and (iii) an estimated $270.0 million in outstanding principal obligations under its unsecured notes. It filed a prepackaged bankruptcy on November 19, 2018. It confirmed its plan of reorganization in early January and the plan went effective almost 60 days after the filing.*

Under the plan of reorganization, the company shed hundreds of millions of debt, wiping out its private equity overlord, Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, LLC (except to the extent they owned unsecured notes). The company emerged from bankruptcy with (i) a $125mm asset-backed loan from Bank of America NA (the “ABL”), (ii) a $60mm “Priority” term loan agented by Cantor Fitzgerald and (iii) $240mm L+800bps “Takeback” term loan paper (also Cantor Fitzgerald). The term lenders — including, Oaktree CLO Ltd., a collateralized loan obligation structure managed by Oaktree Capital Group** — walked away as owners with, among other things, the takeback paper and the common stock in the reorganized entity. The unsecured noteholders received a pinch of common equity and warrants. The initial post-reorg board was reconstituted to include a representative from Oaktree, a former executive from Ralph Lauren, a former banker, a senior partner from Boston Consulting Group, and a venture capitalist with experience in the early stage consumer products space.

It didn’t take long for cracks to form. In May, S&P Global Ratings downgraded David’s Bridal’s credit rating into junk territory; it noted that the company’s performance "remained significantly weaker than anticipated after emergence from bankruptcy" and it “expect[s] poor customer traffic will pressure operating performance and lead to added volatility.” The ratings agency gave both term loans the “Scarlet D” for downgrade, noting that the capital structure was “potentially unsustainable based on its rapidly weakening operating performance, which makes it vulnerable to unfavorable business and financial conditions to meet its commitments in the long term.” The term loan quoted downward. The rating proved to be prescient.

Six months later and eleven months post-confirmation, it is clear that the balance sheet was NOT right-sized to the performance of the business. On Monday, the company announced that it obtained a new $55mm equity infusion from its existing lenders. Lenders unanimously exchanged “$276mm of its existing term loans into new preferred and common equity securities” leaving the company with $75mm of funded debt exclusive of the untapped $125mm ABL. The equity that CD&R and the other unsecured noteholders received are clearly worth bupkis today. Those warrants? HAHAHA. Wildly out-of-the-money. Peace out CD&R!

The question is why did this situation flame out so quickly? On a macro level, there are secular changes taking precedence in the marriage space: things just aren’t as formal as they used to be. On a micro level, clearly the company continues to suffer from operational challenges that were not addressed during the filing. Nor post-emergence. Per Bloomberg:

David’s lost its way with customers under prior management, Marcum said in the interview. When the company launched its online marketplace, it was a separate e-commerce profit that had different pricing and marketing promotions than the stores. “Consumers today are very smart and they see that,” [CEO James] Marcum said. “It caused a lot of friction” and an “extremely poor experience” for customers.

Ummm, okay, but wasn’t that supposed to have been fixed by now??

The company underestimated the negative impact that Chapter 11 would have going into its strongest selling period, and the competition “took advantage of it,” Marcum said.

Clearly the lenders underestimated the impact, too. How else do you explain the thinking around 10+% paper?

Given that the paper steadily quoted down for months leading up to this transaction, it’s obvious that (i) brides-to-be were steering clear from David’s Bridal after seeing media clips about other brides getting burned by bankrupted dress sellers, (ii) consequently, the lenders saw a constant stream of declining numbers, and (iii) as they learned more about the state of the business, lenders scrambled to try and dump this turd before a wipeout transpired. Spoiler alert: it has transpired.

As for the capital structure, clearly this thing came out of bankruptcy over-levered: it looks like the take-back paper was driven, in part, by CLOs in the capital structure. Callback to just a few weeks ago when, in “💥CLO NO!?!?💥,” we wrote (paywall):

…most CLO fund documents also don’t permit CLOs to take on new equity in restructurings. This limitation, by default, pushes CLOs towards “take-back paper” (read: new debt) in lieu of equity. If you’re a regular-way lender on an ad hoc group full of CLOs, then, this makes for an interesting dynamic: you may prefer — and have the latitude — to (i) swap debt for equity, thereby taking turns of leverage off to right-size the reorganized debtor’s balance sheet and (ii) give the reorganized entity a fighting chance to survive and drive equity returns. Your CLO counterparts, however, have different motives: they’ll push for more leverage. This misaligned incentive can sometimes get so bad that ad hoc groups will have to negotiate amongst themselves the go-forward capital structure without even getting management input. In this scenario, management projections are besides the point. If you’re looking for some explanation as to why there appears to be a rise in Chapter 22 filings, well, this might be one.

Not everything will have to file for bankruptcy a second time. But, as a practical matter, the result is the same here in terms of a capital structure refresh. Call this a Chapter 11.5.***

*Shockingly, the company didn’t boast of a “successful restructuring” like every other retailer-destined-for-a-chapter-22 tends to do. Perhaps retailers are now taking PETITION’s “Two-Year Rule” into account? 🤔😜

**The term lenders that made up the Ad Hoc Term Lender Group included a hodgepodge of private equity funds, hedge funds and CLOs.

***We really struggled with a witty thing to label a fact pattern where, within a year of bankruptcy, a company has to do a an out-of-court balance sheet refresh without going into a formal Chapter 22. Any ideas? Email us.

💥What to Make of the Credit Cycle. Part 31. (Long the Consumer)💥

It appears that the fear of recession is receding a bit:*

Given the recent data on manufacturing and services, a recession can really only be avoided thanks to the consumer (and interest rates, perhaps). It looks likely they’re ready to do their part:

Apropos, Deloitte released its “2019 holiday retail survey,” forecasting “that holiday retail sales will increase 4.5-5 percent this year. E-commerce holiday sales are projected to grow 14-18 percent over 2018.” They estimate that online purchases will account for 59% of holiday spending. That doesn’t bode well for brick-and-mortar retailers already feeling a world of hurt (or city streets). Here are some of the survey’s key takeaways:

• Short-term consumer sentiment is positive and that confidence is likely to translate into spending this holiday season. However, “[f]or the first time since 2012, fewer than 40 percent of consumers expect the economy to improve in 2020. This is a 12 percent drop from 2018.” 

• Shoppers are increasingly attuned to product, price and convenience. They want high-quality differentiated product……

---

THIS IS A SUBSCRIBER’S POST, TO READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE, SUBSCRIBE TO OUR KICK@$$ BI-WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.

⚡️Update: CBL & Associates Properties Inc.⚡️

In our recent newsletter, “🇺🇸Forever 21: Living the (American) Dream🇺🇸,” we highlighted the exposure that landlords have to Forever21:

The company currently spends $450mm in annual rent, spread across 12.2mm total square feet. The company will close 178 stores in the US and 350 in total.

We highlighted how the company noted the impact this plan will have on large mall landlords, the company said:

Forever 21’s management team and its advisors worked with its largest landlords to right size its geographic footprint. Four landlords hold almost 50 percent of its lease portfolio. To date, Forever 21 and its landlords have engaged in productive negotiations but have not yet reached a resolution.

Two of those landlords were the largest unsecured creditors, Simon Property Group ($SPG) and Brookfield Property Partners ($BPY). But another, CBL & Associates Properties Inc. ($CBL), also has exposure. In “Thanos Snaps, Retail Disappears,” we discussed CBL’s issues: bankruptcy-related store closures are something that CBL is very familiar with. Management said last February that things were going to turn around but, instead, things just keep getting worse as more and more retailers go out of business.

Forever 21 is one of CBL’s top tenants, occupying 19 stores (plus 1 store in “redevelopment phase”). Per CBL’s FY 2018 10-K, Forever 21 accounts for roughly 1.2% of CBL’s revenue or $10 million.

Of those 20 stores, 7 are subsumed by a motion by Forever 21 to enter into a consulting agreement to close stores (see bankruptcy docket (#81 Exhibit A):

On October 14, 2019, partly due Forever 21’s bankruptcy, Moody’s downgraded CBL’s corporate family rating to B2 from Baa3 and revised its outlook to negative. Moody’s explained:

CBL's cushion on its bond covenant compliance is modest, particularly the debt service test, which requires consolidated income to debt service to annual debt service charge to be greater than 1.50x. The ratio has declined from 2.46x at year-end 2018 to 2.27x at Q1 2019, and 2.25x at Q2 2019 due principally to declining operating income during these periods. CBL's same-center NOI growth was -5.3% for Q2 2019 YTD and CBL projected same-center NOI growth to be between -7.75% and -6.25% for 2019, which means that the debt service test will likely weaken further.

The chart below reflects the company’s capital structure and debt prices. It is not doing well. In fact, the term loan and the unsecured notes have priced down considerably since March:

Here is the company's stock performance:

The last thing CBL needed — on the heals of the downgrade — was near-instantaneous bad news. It got it this week.

Yesterday, the bankruptcy court granted interim approval authorizing Destination Maternity Corporation ($DEST) to assume a consulting agreement with Gordon Brothers Retail Partners LLC. Gordon Brothers will be tasked with multiple phases of store closures. Among those implicated? CBL, of course:

CBL is landlord to DEST on 16 properties that are slated for rejection. Considering that DEST cops to being party to above-market leases, this ought to result in a real economic hit to CBL as (a) it will lose a high-paying tenant, (b) it will take time to replace those boxes, and (c) it is highly unlikely to obtain tenants at as favorable rents.

Let’s pour one out for CBL, folks. The hits just keep on coming.

🤪Lending, Lending, Lending🤪

The ranks of US "Weakest Links" - issuers rated B- and below with negative outlook - is as high now as anytime since 2009. Why might that matter? The default rate on Weakest Links is 8x the broader #highyield universe https://t.co/XitgKf6o03 pic.twitter.com/SrSrvEWBsV

— Leveraged Loans (@lcdnews) October 22, 2019

Sunday’s looooooong special report, “CLO NO!?!?,” about Deluxe Entertainment, collateralized loan obligations (and their limitations), leveraged lending, EBITDA add-backs and other fun lending stuff sparked A LOT of interest. If you’re not a Member, you missed out and now thousands of people you’re competing with for business are officially smarter than you. Go you!

One thing we didn’t have time (or, given the length, space) to note is how private credit lenders take exception to being lumped in with the syndicated leveraged loan market and, by extension, CLOs. Indeed, “leveraged loans” are a rather broad category and there are differences between lenders that ought to be acknowledged: private credit vs. public BDCs vs. private BDCs vs. syndicating banks, etc., etc.

Regardless of distinctions, however, there’s clearly a ton of green out there looking for some action. To point, back in September, Bloomberg noted:

Globally, private credit, which includes distressed debt and venture financing, has ballooned from $42.4 billion in 2000 to $776.9 billion in 2018. By one estimate, the total is likely to top $1 trillion in 2020.

Public pension funds, insurance companies and family offices are some of the biggest investors putting money to work in private credit. Private equity firms themselves have also flooded into the space, forming their own credit arms or raising cash for private credit vehicles, along with private equity funds of funds from these investors. The frenzy has turned some lending start ups into heavyweights almost overnight. Owl Rock Capital Partners — a New York firm founded by Blackstone, KKR and Goldman Sachs veterans — has amassed $13.4 billion of assets since it started in 2016.

Bloomberg continued:

An influx of new lenders and fresh cash in the space has contributed to cutthroat competition and looser covenants -- terms lenders impose on borrowers to help protect their investments -- in addition to thinner returns. Regulators in Europe have taken note of private credit’s boom, saying its growth has been accompanied by signs of increased risk-taking. UBS credit strategists have called private credit “ground zero” for concerns due to the increased leverage on direct loans. Covenants can also be undermined when borrowers goose their earnings by, for instance, claiming savings from ambitious cost-cutting programs that may never come to pass. Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, has also said some non-bank lenders may not survive an economic slump because they’re holding lower-quality loans -- and their disappearance could leave some borrowers “stranded.”

Hmmm. It sure sounds like the aforementioned distinctions may be without a difference given the market dynamics.

In response, the private credit guys — and, yes, they’re overwhelmingly dudes — love to say that they’re not necessarily overrun by the supply/demand imbalance that generally exists elsewhere in credit. “We have proprietary credit analysis techniques,” they’ll say, thumping their vested chests in the process. “We have specialization in category XYZ,” they’ll argue in an attempt to de-commoditize themselves. Boasts notwithstanding, any actual or alleged competitive differentiation hasn’t, in fact, insulated most lenders from macro market trends where sponsors have the power and lenders capitulate on the regular. No doubt, private equity sponsors are playing competing BDCs and private credit providers against one another to get deals done with favorable terms. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be reading about EBITDA add-backs, and cov-lite or cov-loose, etc.

Still, they’re combative. “Credit quality is more important than documentation,” they’ll say, highlighting how they loan with the intent to satisfy the life cycle of the paper rather than dole it out or ditch it. Management. Industry. Financials. No cyclicality. The documentation is less relevant when these things line up, they’ll say. Do that right and they won’t have to worry about what happens when the thing goes sideways. Counterpoint: restructurings wouldn’t exist if underwriting was 100% bullet-proof.🤔 

Alternatively they’ll deploy the Trump defense. “Sure, sure, our docs suck. But the worst private credit doc is better than the best syndicated loan doc.” Or they’ll argue that they’re able to get favorable pricing in exchange for the lax nature of the docs. Maybe. We suppose we’ll also see in due time if that pricing properly compensates lenders for the risks they’re taking.

Look, we get that the type of loans that now constitute “private credit” fared relatively well in the last cycle. We also understand priority and acknowledge that top-of-the-capital-structure loans ought to be, from a recovery perspective, fine places to play. But to cavalierly play it like there isn’t reason for concern is disingenuous.

Apropos, Golub Capital just hired new Workout Counsel. He — and his ilk — may be busier than these private credit lenders care to admit.

💥CLO NO!?!?💥

On October 3rd, Deluxe Entertainment Services Group Inc., a content creation-to-distribution video services company (whatever the hell that means), filed a prepackaged bankruptcy case in the Southern District of New York. The purpose? To address the company’s over-levered capital structure ⬇️.

That’s right, even “content creation-to-distribution video services” companies have no trouble loading up over $1b of debt.

Gotta love these markets. Anyway, it’s not the capital structure itself that’s interesting here. Rather, it’s the parties playing in that capital structure.

In its bankruptcy papers, the company took pains to note that it thought it would get an out-of-court deal done. In July, it secured a loan — the $73mm “Priming Term Loan” above — to enhance liquidity and bridge the company to a transaction that would substantially reduce its debt obligations by equitizing the “Existing Term Loans.” Shortly thereafter, as all parties were working towards consummating the transaction, it became apparent to all that the company would need $25mm in incremental liquidity. While this is curious from a 13-week cash flow management perspective (), this shouldn’t have been a show stopper.

But then the ratings agencies had to go and screw everything up.

On August 5th, S&P Global Ratings downgraded the company’s debt three notches into junk territory to CCC- from B-. Per the Wall Street Journal:

S&P primary credit analyst Dylan Singh said the ratings were lowered because Deluxe has faced challenges in refinancing its debt structure, a problem that could increase the likelihood of a default.

Although the new $73 million loan will give additional liquidity to Deluxe, Mr. Singh said he doesn’t expect the company to be able to repay its ABL facility when it comes due in November and believes the business will try to extend the maturity before then. The current capital structure is unsustainable, he said.

Crossing over to the CCC threshold is a big problem for a lot of lenders — specifically, CLOs. For the uninitiated, here is a decent CLO primer about what CLOs are and how they work. For purposes of this briefing, it’s important to note that most CLOs are forbidden by their foundational fund docs from holding an allocation of more than 7.5% of their portfolio in CCC-or-lower-rated debt. This effectively handcuffed most of the CLOs in Deluxe’s capital structure from providing the necessary new money.

---

THIS IS A PREMIUM SUBSCRIBER’S POST, TO CONTINUE READING, CLICK HERE AND SUBSCRIBE TO OUR KICK@$$ NEWSLETTER ON DISRUPTION. DISRUPT YOUR COMPETITION, WITH PETITION.

🎢Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee🎢

⚡️Update: WeWork⚡️

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

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

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

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

At most, WeWork has the capacity to issue a little more than $1 billion in secured debt and $2.56 billion of unsecured debt: @XtractResearch This is substantially less than some of the estimates floating out there regarding potential loan commitments.

— Lisa Abramowicz (@lisaabramowicz1) October 14, 2019

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

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

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

Riiiiiight. So here are the options:

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, like, what’s up with GNC now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mall landlords everywhere were like:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the overall performance over the years:

And yet the stock popped on the report:

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

---

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

PG&E Picks Up the Pace (Long Seth Klarman)

Well, that sure didn’t last long. In “Is it a Plan or a Placeholder?,” we discussed the recently proposed plan of reorganization filed by PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company ($PCG). We wrote:

Moreover, the plan also depends on the “Subrogation Wildfire Claims” — claims “held by insurers or similar entities in connection with payments made to others on account of damages or losses arising from such wildfires” — coming in at a max $8.5b.[] Will these numbers hold? We suspect the answer is an emphatic ‘no.’

As much as we like being right, we certainly weren’t expecting it to happen so soon.

A mere few days after filing its plan of reorganization, PG&E announced an $11b settlement with parties representing 85% of the Subrogation Wildfire Claims. This settlement, still subject to the approval of the Bankruptcy Court, “would satisfy and discharge all insurance subrogation claims against the Debtors arising from the 2017 Northern California wildfires and the 2018 Camp fire.” Per Reuters:

The company also amended its equity financing commitment agreements to accommodate the claims, and reaffirmed its $14 billion equity financing commitment target for its reorganization plan.

One amendment was an increase in the “Wildfire Claims Cap” to $18.9b from $17.9b. The debtors understand the signaling here: with the subrogation claimants almost immediately getting $2.5b more than what was in the plan, they prudently indexed higher to account for wildfire claimant expectations.

Despite the assumption of $3.5b more in liabilities (exclusive of earlier settlements), this is a net positive for PG&E. They removed one constituency from the board (assuming they don’t trade out of their claims and blow up the settlement), got a legitimate impaired accepting class to help usher the plan through, and moved themselves closer to a global settlement.

Anyway, the stock — somewhat mysteriously considering the marked INCREASE in liabilities — reacted favorably to the news, up over 11% on the week and erasing Monday’s post-plan blistering:

---

THIS IS A SUBSCRIBER’S POST, TO READ MORE, CLICK HERE AND GET OUR KICK@$$ BI-WEEKLY NEWSLETTER COVERING BANKRUPTCY, DISRUPTION, AND MORE (YOU AND YOUR BOSS WON’T REGRET IT)

⚡️What to Make of the Credit Cycle. Part 28. (Long Financial Ingenuity.)⚡️

Nobody questions that we’re late stage at this point. Lest you have any doubt, consider the following:

1. Enhanced CLOs

Per The Wall Street Journal:

A growing number of money managers are embracing a new strategy designed to benefit from volatility in junk-rated corporate loans, a sign of building worries about riskier borrowers and the market that supports them.

Since November of last year, three different money managers have issued $1.6 billion of so-called enhanced collateralized loan obligations that are set up to hold a much larger amount of loans with extremely low credit ratings than typical CLOs. At least two more managers are expected to follow suit in the coming months.

The emergence of the enhanced CLOs underscores investors’ growing belief the U.S. economy is due for a recession after more than a decade of expansion. It also reflects particular concerns about corporate loans, starting with a decline in their average credit ratings. Since 2011, the amount of loans rated B or B-minus—just above near-rock bottom triple-C ratings—have ballooned to 39% of the market from 17%, according to LCD, a unit of S&P Global Market Intelligence.

CLOs are weird beasts with certain idiosyncratic limitations. As just one example, many CLOs are limited to a portfolio that includes no more than 7.5% of CCC-rated loans. Upon a rash of downgrades during a downturn, this would force these CLOs to sell their holdings, pushing supply into the markets and inevitably driving down loan prices. An opportunistic buyer could stand to benefit from this opportunity. These newly established CLOs won’t have these constraints; they could “stock up to half their portfolios with triple-C debt.”

By way of example:

Investors say there is ample evidence that the limited ability of CLOs to hold triple-C loans creates unusual price moves in the $1.2 trillion leveraged loan market.

In one example, the price of a loan issued by the business-services company iQor Holdings Inc. dropped from around 98 cents on the dollar to 85 cents last summer immediately after Moody’s Investors Service and S&P Global Ratings downgraded the loan to triple-C. Data showed CLO holdings of the loan falling sharply at the time.

Ellington Management Group, Z Capital Group and HPS Investment Partners are the funds looking to take advantage of these market moves.

2. Retail CDOs

Ahhhhhh, Wall Street. JP Morgan Chase & Co. ($JPM) apparently wants to expand markets for credit derivatives, including synthetic CDOs. Per the International Financing Review:

The US bank launched its Credit Nexus platform earlier this year, according to a person familiar with the matter. The platform is designed to simplify the cumbersome process investors usually face to trade derivatives, including credit-default swaps, CDS options and synthetic collateralised debt obligations, according to a client presentation obtained by IFR.

---

WANT TO READ THIS AND PART 29? CLICK HERE AND GET THAT EXTRA EDGE YOU’VE BEEN LOOKING FOR!

⚡️Update: Trickle-Down Healthcare Distress (Long Electronic Beds, Short Nana). Part I.⚡️

We scoured far and wide to see whether there might be some businesses that would get hammered by the uptick in healthcare distress we’ve all witnessed of late. In early June, we took a bit of a stab in the dark (Members’-only access):

There has been notable bankruptcy activity in the healthcare industry this year — from continuing care retirement communities to the acute care space. When end users capitulate and need to streamline operations and cut costs, who gets harmed farther down the chain? It’s a good question: after all, there’s always some trickle down effect.

Our internal search for answers to this question recently brought us to Charlotte-based Joerns Healthcare, a “premier supplier and service provider in post-acute care.” The company sells supportive care beds, transport systems, respiratory care solutions and more.

Among other things, we noted how the Joerns’ term loan maturing May 2020 “was among one of the worst performing loans in the month of May — quoted in the low 70s, down approximately 15% since April.” We insinuated that a bankruptcy filing may not be too far away.

We didn’t expect it to be in court a mere six weeks later.

On Monday, Joerns WoundCo Holdings Inc. and 13 affiliated entities filed a prepackaged bankruptcy in the District of Delaware. Among other reasons provided to explain its capitulation into bankruptcy court is “post acute sector disruption.” Now that’s music to our ears.

Credit Default Swaps (Short Windstream’s Management, Puffery & Stupid F*cking Ideas)

Here is a late-to-the-party rant by William D. Cohan in the New York Times about the deleterious effect of credit default swaps and how they caused Windstream Holdings to file for bankruptcy. Here’s Cohan’s prescription to cure CDS ails:

What can be done about these perverse incentives? First, the Securities and Exchange Commission should immediately require greater disclosure of credit-default swap positions held by creditors. It’s the only way for a company, its investors and its employees to have a transparent understanding of a creditor’s motivations.

Ok, sure. What form would this disclosure take? How often would it have to be made? To whom should it be made? Is there a distinction to be made between CDS to hedge a debt position or naked CDS? So many questions.

He continues:

Once those positions are disclosed, the S.E.C. should help companies protect themselves from hostile creditors. The agency could, for example, allow companies to revise the terms of their bond agreements so that creditors with credit-default swaps don’t have the same voting rights as creditors who want a company to succeed. The definition of “failure to pay” and other conditions that might set off a default could also be revised to make it harder for a hedge fund to push a company into technical default. Judges can also play an important role, by taking the creditors’ motivations into account as more of these cases inevitably wind up in the courts.

What. The. F*ck.

---

WANT TO WHAT ELSE WE HAD TO SAY ABOUT WILLIAMS RANT? SUBSCRIBE HERE AND DISCOVER MORE WITH PETITION.