Subscribe to JCK Magazine
Cutting Remarks   


Link This | Email this | Blog This | Comments (10)


Two Bidders for Whitehall?
July 17, 2008


There may be two bidders who want to buy Whitehall Jewelers, according to this bankruptcy hearing transcript (go to "docket," and then "349").

On page 9 of the hearing, a Whitehall lawyer notes:


... we do have one actual serious written offer from a going concern bidder and another seriously interested strategic buyer that has been at the company, and we’re hoping to get something out of them shortly.

 

However, that lawyer also mentions ...

 

... the going concern bid that we did receive ... is a hybrid bid. It contemplates a go-forward relationship for a core amount of stores, but for the unprofitable stores, they have partnered up with a liquidator. (p. 30)

 

Later in the hearing (p. 163), a lawyer for Gitanjali USA announces that it is the "going-concern" bidder, together with Gordon Brothers. Gitanjali, an India-based sightholder, also owns Samuels and Rogers; its interest in Whitehall has been previously reported. The second bidder was not identified. The auction is set to take place July 31.

 

Most of the latter part of the hearing was taken up with consignment issues, which I’ve talked about here and here and are still up in the air. Whitehall's arguments are here (docket 314); I also commend this analysis which argues that, if Whitehall is able to lay claim to consignment goods, it will hurt other jewelers that depend on memo merchandise. 

There is a lot to digest in the transcript, but I was struck by this interchange between Whitehall CFO Peter Michielutti and Alan Kolod, counsel for the creditor’s committee:

 

Q: Are you aware of how many chief executive officers the company has had in the past few years?

A: I am.

Q: How many?

 

A: Seven.

 
Q: Seven. All right, and in what period of time?

 
A: Since early 2005.

 

Q: Is that a typical situation for a public company?

 

A: I am not aware of another situation where there’s been seven chief executives, but there could be.


And if there was, I wouldn’t be surprised if they ended up in the exact same situation Whitehall’s in now.

 

 


Posted by Rob Bates on July 17, 2008 | Comments (10)


July 17, 2008
In response to: Two Bidders for Whitehall?
Mall Jewelry Boy commented:

So there's hope for at least some of the stores to continue (and thus, employees to continue their employment). But even if Whitehall is bought by Gitanjali, we might still see a large number of store closures. I wonder how many of the Friedman's/Crescent stores are still profitable with Whitehall/Lundstrom merchandise and credit systems?




July 21, 2008
In response to: Two Bidders for Whitehall?
stuart kerzner commented:

if the judge in this case allows the memo goods to be sold (and even to segregate the funds until he makes a decision) this judge should be held accountable for stupidity and judicial fraud. merchandise that does not belong to a bankrupt company must be returned to its rightful owner, what so hard for this idiotic judge to understand. if you provide the name and address of this judge I will write my opinion to him directly




July 28, 2008
In response to: Two Bidders for Whitehall?
CrankyDave commented:

I would be quite surprised if the judge did not rule in Whitehall's favor. They've far more "legal" ground than simply the use of 2 "L's" as seems to be being painted. Not suggesting its "right" or "wrong". It was a good analysis. Thanx for the link. I do disagree with the point that it will be more "difficult, if not impossible" to receive consignment goods going forward. It will however, cause the way unsecured credit (consignments) agreements are structured. The tail has been wagging the dog with the consignors dictating terms. A ruling in Whitehall's favor could most likely change this. Not necessarily a bad thing




July 30, 2008
In response to: Two Bidders for Whitehall?
IY commented:

Second bidder is the current Whitehall Presidents group with more Investors. close all underperforming stores, and leave open the few whitehalls and lundstrums that turn a profit along with the friedmans they bought. Buy at the blowout sale and reopen profitable as can be! They are praying the Indian group folds .




July 31, 2008
In response to: Two Bidders for Whitehall?
peace out commented:

last comment. i sure wish i knew where you got your info. i hope you are someone who is telling the truth. i know you wont reveal yourself..but please tell how viable your info is?




July 31, 2008
In response to: Two Bidders for Whitehall?
soon2be? commented:

Hey, Peace out probally will never know where the info came from, if it came from any source..... or they just don't have the A-- to back it up !!!!!




July 31, 2008
In response to: Two Bidders for Whitehall?
IY commented:

Downtown Chicago




July 31, 2008
In response to: Two Bidders for Whitehall?
peace out commented:

downtown chicago tells me that you ae in our corporate office. this news is good for all of us who were in the friedmans acquisition. do you think they will retain all of the friedmans locations even if we have done poorly since the acquisition..and if so does this mean that the big guns are aware that the Friedmans stores have bascially been ignored and do not have the proper tools to be successful?




August 1, 2008
In response to: Two Bidders for Whitehall?
soon2be? commented:

So true Peace Out, With the old Friedmans sign still up, (inside and out) no Whitehall fliers to distribute no one has the incentive to sell,how can the employee's care about a sale when your not even sure that you will get paid for your efforts!!! with the conditions as they have been it's really hard to go into a store and get excited about ANYTHING !!!




August 1, 2008
In response to: Two Bidders for Whitehall?
IY commented:

Yes, those are good solid stores that everyone knows have been "parked" for now. Sorry the same can't be said for 70% of the whitehall stores. Many,many will be closed, quickly. There are malls with the two names (lundstrum & whitehall) that will both close due to poor leases and subpar sales that have been allowed to deteriorate without addressing it. Unfortunately this is the only way to get rid of these unprofitable stores. Hopefully a good solid company emerges with people that actually know what these stores should be selling.





POST A COMMENT
Display Name or Registered Users Login Here.
Please restrict submissions to less than 7,000 characters (including any HTML formatting).

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above. Note the letters are case sensitive:


Advertisement

Advertisements



Directory/Buyers Guide

JCKstyle



©2008 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Please visit these other Reed Business sites