🍿Sears = The Gift That Just Keeps Oooooon Giving🍿

in

The Sears estate and Eddie Lampert are at it again

popcorn.gif

Oh, Sears. We just can’t quit you.

On Sunday in “Sears is Such a Drama Queen (Long Contract Interpretation Issues),” we discussed how — SHOCKER!! — there are already problems brewing between Transform Holdco (ESL’s buyer entity) and the debtors’ estate (the seller). Transform Holdco delineated a laundry list of beefs it had with the estate and filed a motion seeking mediation — a thoughtful strategy given that White Plains already foreshadowed how it might come out on any APA interpretation issues. Knowing full well that we were only getting one side of the story — and Eddie Lampert being Eddie Lampert — we hedged a bit:

Given all of the evidence pointing towards administrative insolvency to begin with, any obstreperousness on the part of the sellers (if true, as alleged) is wildly counter-productive: again, the estate is more likely than not administratively insolvent!! It would seem, then, that mediation would be a no brainer (though we reserve judgment for when the sellers respond — which we’re sure will be an entertaining dig at how much they think Lampert is retrading on certain parts of the deal…time to ramp up those PR machines again!!).

Now was that an easy call or was that an easy call?

On Monday night, the debtors responded with a motion to enforce the APA (and the automatic stay) and compel turnover of estate property — the main crux of which is the debtors allegation that Transform Holdco is in breach “by refusing to deliver $57.5 million that are the property of the Debtors….” They allege:

The Buyer’s request for mediation is nothing more than an attempt to delay turning Estate property over to the Debtors by conflating unrelated post-closing disputes (to which the Debtors have fully responded) with the Buyer’s refusal to deliver $57.5 million that plainly belongs to the Debtors per the APA, despite the Debtors’ repeated demands.

And jab:

…the Buyer is well aware of the extent to which the Debtors have limited resources to engage in protracted litigation. The $57.5 million in funds improperly retained by the Buyer are critical to maintaining administrative solvency and the Buyer is jeopardizing the Debtors’ ability to timely file a chapter 11 plan by withholding these funds. Rather than simply turn over the Estate assets, or seek guidance from this Court (which is intimately familiar with the APA and its terms), the Buyer instead conflates its obligation to turn over Estate property with a litany of unsubstantiated claims of misrepresentations and breaches by the Debtors, and requests a mediation that would, at best, delay resolution of any of these issues by more than a month.

And jab, cross:

…if there is a dispute, the Debtors would prefer to keep these issues front and center with this Court, which is most familiar with the APA and the issues facing the Debtors and their Estates, as well as the dynamics currently affecting the Estates. The Motion to Mediate should be seen for what it is: the Buyer’s transparent attempt to delay the transfer of Estate assets to gain leverage in its ongoing effort to sidestep the liabilities which Buyer assumed under the APA, including the $166 million in assumed accounts payable that this Court previously indicated the Buyer would be very unlikely to avoid.

There it is: the ever-controversial $166mm in assumed accounts payable. Can someone please pass the butter for our popcorn?

Is there any wonder that the estate would like to keep any and all disputes in White Plains? The judge’s fingerprints are all over this deal; he’s incentivized to make sure that it proceeds without dispute, that a plan of reorganization gets filed, and that creditors get some sort of shot at a recovery — a shot that diminishes each day given the magnitude of fees that are accumulating in this case. Case and point:

Still, we can’t help but to question certain of the Debtors’ decisions here. This bit was…imprudent…maybe?:

Prior to the time of Closing, the Buyer advised that it had not done the work necessary to implement its own cash management system or to set up its own bank accounts. Meghji Decl. at ¶ 6. As a concession to the Buyer—in order to alleviate the risk to Closing and in an effort to help facilitate a seamless transition of the going-concern business in the interests of, among others, the Debtors’ employees and key stakeholders—the Debtors agreed to give the Buyer possession and control of the Debtors’ cash management system, including its bank accounts as of the Closing Date. Id. ¶ 7.

What is that old cliche about possession and the law? And that one about the road to hell being paved with good intentions? How is it that ESL hadn’t done the work necessary to set up bank accounts? HE HAD TEN FRIKKEN YEARS.

Anyway, to be fair to the debtors, they thought they had contracted around the issue, putting into place a protocol for the repayment of pre-closing-accrued funds that landed in the cash management account post-closing. Nevertheless, apparently ESL and their financial advisors, E&Y, be like:

And so money is apparently due and owing on both sides and the debtors want their money and ESL wants clarification on certain liabilities and trust has apparently broken down in the process. ESL — knowing that Judge Drain will be none-too-pleased — wants a mediator and all the while cash registers are ringing and the estate becomes more and more administratively insolvent.

Like we said on Sunday, “Like…does ANYTHING ever go easy for Sears?”

Eddie Lampert Speaks (Short Sears, Long Principled Kidnappers)

in ,

This week William Cohan and Vanity Fair released a once-in-fifteen-years piece with the infamous Sears Holding ($SHLD) investor, Eddie Lampert. It’s a whopper and worth a read.

The mess that is Sears is quantified here:

“But today those triumphs are largely obscured by his worst mistake: the 2005 merging of Sears, the iconic retailer whose doorstop mail-order catalogue was once a fixture in nearly every American home, with the downmarket Kmart chain, which he had brought out of bankruptcy in 2003. Twelve years on, this blundering into retail has made him a poster boy for what some people think is wrong with Wall Street and, in particular, hedge funds. Under his management the number of Sears and Kmart stores nationwide has shrunk to 1,207 from 5,670 at its peak, in the 2000s, and at least 200,000 Sears and Kmart employees have been thrown out of work. The pension fund, for retired Sears employees, is underfunded by around $1.6 billion, and both Lampert and Sears are being sued for investing employees’ retirement money in Sears stock, when the top brass allegedly knew it was a terrible investment.”

To put this in perspective, people are in an uproar about the liquidation of Toys R Us which has 33,000 employees. Sears, while still in business, has had attrition of 6x that. But wait. That’s just on the human capital side. What about the actual capital side:

“In 2013, Lampert, who was chairman of the board, had himself named C.E.O. of Sears Holdings, as the combined company is known. He’s had a rough four years since then. The company has suffered some $10.4 billion in losses and a revenue decline of 47 percent, to $22 billion.”

And on the financial side:

“…Sears Holdings stock price has slumped to $2 a share, down considerably from the high of $134 per share some 11 years ago. Sears Holdings now has a market value of around $250 million, making Lampert’s nearly 60 percent stake worth $150 million.”

How. The. Eff. Is. This. Business. Still. Alive. Well, this:

“The vultures are circling, waiting for Lampert to throw in the towel so they can try to make money by buying Sears’s discounted debt. But Lampert continues to claim that’s not going to happen if he can help it.”

Gotta give the guy credit for perseverance.

For those who may be too young or too weathered to remember, KMart was actually a successful turnaround for the first few years after Lampert converted his (acquired) debt position into equity. Operating profit was $1.3 billion in 2004 and 2005. But then he decided to combine KMart and Sears. Thereafter, the big issues began.

Interestingly, the piece suggests that Lampert was “ahead of his time” by de-emphasizing investment in the in-store experience and focusing on e-commerce. But shoppers didn’t buy online. Cohan writes,

“At the time they were just not comfortable enough with the technology to do so. Whatever the reason, Sears’s Web site never remotely rivaled the sales in the stores. Or on Amazon.”

Maybe because, even today, the website is a cluttered mess that will give even those with the most robust heart arrhythmia. In that respect, the online experience mirrors the offline experience. And this runs afoul of current theories of retail. Jeremy Liew of Litespeed Venture Partners writes about new “omnichannel” retailers like Bonobos, Allbirds, Away, Modcloth and Glossier and the new “customer acquisition channel”:

“All retailers need to be wherever their customers are. And for all retailers, their best customers are in every channel. This is just as true for DNVBs. For Bonobos for example, customers who buy first in store spend 2x more and have half the return rate. But more importantly, they spend 30% more online over the next 12 months.

But these DNVBs think about physical retail in a very different way than incumbent retailers. They are not measured purely on “four wall profitability” or $/sq foot, some of the traditional metrics in retail. Many of the stores are showrooms, they don’t carry full inventory. Most support iPads or other ways to browse the online catalogue.

These brands understand the importance of experiential marketing, and they see their physical spaces as a platform to engage deeply with their customers. In short, they see physical retail as customer acquisition channels for their online business. In some cases, a contribution positive customer acquisition channel. In others, a customer acquisition channel whose costs you can compare to Facebook, Instagram, Google or other customer acquisition channels. But always the online business grows.”

For this to work, Everlane’s Michael Preysman says you “must make it look good.” If only Lampert bought in to this premise. Instead, Sears’ online experience mirrors the offline experience: horrible user experience + dilapidated stores = a wholesale contravention of, as Liew points out, everything that successful retailers are doing today. It’s the customer rejection channel. Hence the suspicions from outsiders — which Lampert vehemently denies — that he’s treating Sears like a private company, milking the company for his own benefit, and slowly liquidating it to the point of bankruptcy. Once in bankruptcy, Lampert will allegedly be able to leverage his place in the capital structure to own the company on the backend. It would be a leaner version of Sears — free of debt, onerous leases and pension obligations. Why invest in customer or employee experience now if this is a possibility later? Good question.