⚡️Update: Pier 1 Reports Horrific Numbers⚡️

And then there is the “ghastly” sh*tshow that is Pier 1 Imports Inc. ($PIR). Back in January, we asked “Is Pier 1 on the Ropes? (Short “Iconic” Brands)” — a question that a lot of retail analysts now seem to be asking in the wake of a horrendous earnings report. How horrendous was it? Comp sales decreased 13.7% YOY, net sales decreased 19.5% YOY, and the company had a net loss of $68.8mm (or $0.85/share). And apropos to the discussion above, the company indicated that it’s considering closing 45 stores in fiscal 2020 due to lease expirations — a number that could rise by upwards of 15% if the company’s new cost-cutting action plan (to the tune of $110mm) doesn’t bear fruit. The company hired A&G Realty to help with this initiative.

So, about that action plan. Here’s what the company has to say about it:

Pier 1 is implementing an action plan designed to drive benefits in fiscal 2020 of approximately $100-$110 million by resetting its gross margin and cost structure. Approximately one-third of the benefits are expected to be realized in gross margin, with the remaining two-thirds coming from cost reduction. After reinvesting in the business, the Company believes it will be positioned to recapture approximately $30-$40 million of net income and $45-$55 million of EBITDA in fiscal year 2020. The Company expects to capture efficiencies and drive improvement in the following areas: 1) Revenue and Margin; 2) Marketing and Promotional Effectiveness; 3) Sourcing and Supply Chain; 4) Cost Cutting; and 5) Store Optimization.

As part of the $100-$110 million of benefits discussed above, the Company has identified approximately $70-$80 million of selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) savings opportunity for fiscal 2020, the majority of which is expected to be realized in the second half of the year. This SG&A savings opportunity for fiscal 2020 reflects an expected annual run-rate of approximately $95-$105 million.

The subsequent earnings call was…uh…interesting. Led off by an outside investor relations firm, the company’s interim CEO then took over the call by sharing, in the first instance, that an AlixPartners’ restructuring MD is now serving the company as interim CFO. Awesome start. Recent retail quals include Bon-Ton Stores and Gymboree. The team then went on at length about all of the various improvements they hope to instill in the business.

The analysts on the call were…shall we say…NOT EVEN REMOTELY convinced.

Beryl Bugatch, an analyst from Raymond James & Associates pounded the team with questions…

What is the guidance? The company declined to guide.

Where is the delta between the $100mm in cost savings and the $55mm in EBITDA improvement going? The company abstractly answered “we are reinvesting a portion of the savings back in the business.”

Where though? Marketing? The company responded, “assortment strategy, our talent and capability and efficiencies and things to drive efficiency in the plan.” READ: HIGH PRICED ADVISORS.

What’s liquidity look like? The company said it had $55mm in cash, $50mm in the FILO tranche and an undrawn revolver — enough to get through fiscal 2020.

But how clean is the inventory?

By this point the company was like:

---

WANT TO READ THE REST OF THIS? SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER HERE.

Bankruptcy, Transparency and the White Knight: McKinsey (Short Logic)

Another week, another chapter in the Jay Alix and McKinsey drama. And, seriously, folks, this sh*t is fiercer than a White Walker facing off against some dragons so hold on to your seats.

On Tuesday, Law360 reported:

Restructuring consultant Jay Alix again urged a New York bankruptcy court on Tuesday to let him investigate McKinsey & Co. over alleged conflicts of interest in the SunEdison Inc. Chapter 11 case, just days after McKinsey revealed that it paid $17.5 million to SunEdison’s estate to resolve nearly identical claims.

Tuesday’s motion comes as U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stuart M. Bernstein is considering whether to take additional action in the SunEdison case, or let the $17.5 million settlement end matters as far as McKinsey is concerned.

And on Wednesday:

Alix’s filing in the SunEdison case comes as a Texas bankruptcy court rejected his pleas to dig further into McKinsey in the case of the Westmoreland Coal Company, which emerged from bankruptcy last month and is another McKinsey client.

The conflict of interest claims Alix raised in that case forced McKinsey to disgorge $5 million in fees in a settlement with Westmoreland’s estate, but on Wednesday U.S. Bankruptcy Judge David R. Jones shot down Alix’s request for an “emergency order” that would allow him to conduct further discovery.

Indeed, Mr. Alix sought an “emergency motion” for entry of an order compelling McKinsey to disclose all of the investments of its affiliate MIO Partners Inc. Mr. Alix wrote:

The time to move forward on Mar-Bow’s objection and determine whether McKinsey is qualified to serve as a professional in this matter is long overdue. It is notable that McKinsey has never denied the MIO’s holdings in the Debtors’ estates or in interested parties. Accordingly, this emergency motion seeks prompt and highly discrete relief: an order compelling McKinsey to (a) identify all equity or debt investments held or managed by it or any of its affiliates (including MIO) in any Debtor, or in any party in interest, competitor, customer, or supplier; and (b) disclose information sufficient to allow the Court to evaluate the amount and nature of those investments.

The judge — perhaps a bit miffed that his docket had been completely overrun by motion practice relating to the Alix/McKinsey dispute…you know, rather than issues specific to the actual Westmoreland Coal Company matter — summarily dismissed the motion. In an order issued on Wednesday April 10, 2019, he wrote:

At best, the motion represents a self-created emergency with no underlying substance. At worst, the motion constitutes an improper collateral attack on the Court’s prior order at Docket No. 1427 for an illegitimate purpose. Counsel are advised that they are responsible for the words and allegations contained in pleadings on which their names appear. Candor and professionalism must never be sacrificed in the name of overzealous advocacy.

ZING!

Of course, we find this language to be a wee bit hypocritical coming from a Judge who has skewered professionals of all types — lawyers, service providers, whomever — from his perch on the Bench. As just one example, recall this classy bit from an August 4, 2016 hearing in the matter of Sherwin Alumina Company LLC (that related to the Noranda Aluminum matter too):

You are on my radar screen. The financial transaction that ought to be being discussed a first-year business student can see. I’m not the smartest guy in the world, and I see it. I have been reading pleadings. And I cannot express the degree of disappointment that I have in the professionals that have been running these cases. If this case is going to fail, if the Noranda cases are going to fail, then so be it. But that’s going to create a block of time, and I’m going to use all of my education, all of my training, all of my experience in deciding where to lay the blame for this failure. That’s not a threat; it’s a promise. And if anyone wants to test my resolve, I encourage them to do it. Anyone doubts my commitment? Noranda’s local counsel spent a lot of years with me. They know exactly how I can be. You all are a talented group of people. I find it offensive that egos have gotten in the way. If we really want to try and have a contest as to who’s got the biggest set, I promise you I will win that battle.

“That’s not a threat; it’s a promise.” Really?

WANT TO GET VALUABLE INFORMATION TO GAIN THE “BIGGEST SET”? CLICK HERE AND GET IT.

McKinsey Keeps Getting Burned (Long Newspaper Relationships)

We’ve previously covered the pending lawsuit by Jay Alix against McKinsey here. It’s next level and totally worth refreshing your recollection. You’ll recall the sequence of events: first, a Wall Street Journal article highlighted McKinsey’s failure to disclose potential conflicts in a variety of restructuring engagements and then Jay Alix immediately launched his lawsuit alleging racketeering, bribery, etc. Curious timing, as we said at the time. We wrote:

In “McKinsey Gets Thrown Under the Bus (Long Relationships with the WSJ),” we began,

Okay, this WSJ article is bananas. What are the chances that Jay Alix has a direct line in to Gerard Baker?

Given that the WSJ piece is now front in center in the “Complaint and Jury Demand” filed by Jay Alix in Alix v. McKinsey & Co. Inc., et al (page 4, paragraph 11), wethinks the chances are pretttttttty prettttttty high (we’re 100% speculating here so take this with the usual PETITION grain of salt).

Well, for McKinsey, the hits just keep on coming.

Subsequent to the above, the Wall Street Journal reported that a McKinsey retirement fund held investments that hinged on the result of some of the very bankruptcy cases that McKinsey RTS worked on. WHOOPS.

This week, Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona asked the director of the U.S. Trustee Program, a Justice Department unit, for clarity on the requirements governing how bankruptcy professionals comply with the Bankruptcy Code’s “disinterestedness” standard. Per The Wall Street Journal, Representative Biggs is “concerned that undisclosed conflicts at McKinsey & Co.’s restructuring unit may be compromising the nation’s bankruptcy system.” With all due respect to Mr. Biggs, there are greater dangers to the integrity of the bankruptcy system than the disclosure of McKinsey’s client list. Like some of the points made here (conflicts, generally). And here (independent directors). Or here (professionals’ fees). Or here (venue shenanigans and judges “playing ball”). This wouldn’t be the first time that a Congressman exhibited a negligible understanding of an issue. But we digress.

Anyway, like clockwork, Jay Alix pounced. This week, as (also) reported in The Wall Street Journal (which seems conveniently all over this drama), Mr. Alix filed papers in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Richmond Virginia asking the bankruptcy judge to consider reopening the bankruptcy case of Alpha Natural Resources, a case that confirmed eons ago. Per the WSJ:

The revelation that McKinsey had a financial interest in the outcome of Alpha’s bankruptcy warrants reopening the case and revisiting whether the firm failed to properly disclose potential conflicts of interest, according to Mr. Alix.

First, HAHAHAHAHA. Right, ok. We’re sure the judge will reopen the case on this basis.

Second, the article is entitled “Disclosure Advocate Seeks to Reopen Coal Miner’s Bankruptcy.” Therein, the WSJ deadpans:

Mr. Alix has been relentless in his battle with McKinsey. He is currently pursuing litigation against the firm in several courts, hiring some of the country’s top lawyers and ethics experts to help him take on the consulting giant.

Mr. Alix has denied McKinsey’s accusation that he is seeking a competitive advantage for AlixPartners, the prominent restructuring firm he retired from in 2006 but retains a minority ownership stake in.

Right. Of course he isn’t looking to take out a competitor (that once poached his employees) and/or juice his equity. Promise.

He’s a mere “disclosure advocate.”

Pharma (Short Generics): Aceto Corporation

Aceto Corporation ($ACET) reported earnings last week and followed them up with a 10Qthis week. The company, in coordination with a new interim CFO from AlixPartners and advisors from PJT Partners and Lowenstein Sandler LLP, is seeking strategic alternatives. Meanwhile, the company was recently non-compliant with its maximum net leverage and minimum debt service coverage ratios under its credit facility and obtained a waiver for the quarter. There is no waiver for the next quarter and so June will be interesting — particularly given downward trends across the board in consolidated net sales, gross profit, gross margins, etc. Not to mention a rise in SG&A...

To continue reading, you must be a PETITION Member. Become one here.

Toys R Us is a Dumpster Fire

All Signs Point to the Big Box Retailer Being in Serious Trouble

This week AlixPartners LLC released its latest "Retail Viewpoint" and its "Monthly Retail and Economic Update." Both documents cover retail results from the ever-important holiday season. Alix says this in its preface:

"The year 2017 may have been one of apocalyptic headlines, but a lot of forecasts—including ours—still predicted that retailers would have a good holiday performance.

No one thought it would be this good.

According to advance and preliminary numbers from the US Census Bureau, retailers brought the noise this past holiday-shopping season. Core retail sales increased 6.3% over 2016's, blowing past the National Retail Federation's forecast—and ours too. Sales in November and December were absolutely explosive, accounting for 17.2% of annual sales, the largest percentage since 1999.

Every core retail sector performed significantly better than it did the rest of the year (figure 1). Not even public enemy number one—e-commerce pure plays—could stop other sectors from increasing 2.3% during the holiday season compared with the rest of 2017. There must have been a lot of happy little kids (and bigger kids) gathered 'round the tree, because the poster children of recession-era bankruptcies, electronics and sporting goods/hobby/book/music stores, had the largest increases of all: 7.4% and 4.7%, respectively."

While there may have been "a lot of happy little kids," we're guessing they were NOT "Toys R Us kids." 

Consider this week's Toys R US-related operational news: 

• The Washington Post reports that 182 stores will close, with CEO Dave Brandon acknowledging "operational missteps" during the holiday season. The article cites various issues including (i) confusion around the bankruptcy filing, (ii) fear of buying gifts that can't be returned, (iii) weak marketing, and (iv) ineffective email promotions. An analyst at BMO Capital Markets notes that holiday sales in North America were down more than 10%. On the bright side, Reuters reports that all 83 stores in Canada will remain open.
• Quartz notes that the company seeks permission to pay store closing bonuses to those employees who help the company wind down the aforementioned 182 stores (which, for the record, is roughly 20% of the US footprint). Notably, neither the company nor Quartz is estimating the sheer number of jobs these closings affect. But it will be a meaningful number. #MAGA!!
• Bloomberg reported that the company obtained court approval to pay landlords' fees and expenses related to the Chapter 11 case in exchange for additional time for the company to decide whether to assume or reject leases. Nerd alert: the bankruptcy code imposes a 210-day deadline for a company to decide a course of action vis-a-vis its non-residential real property leases. These promised payments were in exchange for an extension of that timeframe. 

And consider, further, this week's Toys R Us-related financial news:

• Per RetailDive, Toys R Us won't release holiday sales results. 
• Per Debtwire, Toys R Us circulated a limited holiday performance snapshot for its international enterprise. The report didn't include number after December 23. Yes, Christmas is on December 25. 

We wonder: why the reluctance to release numbers? Our suspected answer: they must be ugly AF. In the period of October 29 - November 25, the company reported a net deficit (disbursements > receipts) of approximately $53mm. Later this week, we should see the company's monthly filing for the period covering Christmas. We don't like to speculate, but we can only imagine that the deficit will be even greater; we suspect that the company is burning cash like nobody's business. And we're wondering whether a liquidation of the US side of the business is out of the question given all of the "missed opportunities." 

For now, what we KNOW is that - through no fault of its own - Alix' assessment is incomplete. The fine folks over there may want to amend their report after we hear more from Toys R Us in coming days. 

**********

By extension of the above - and now is as good a time as any to remind you that nothing we write should be construed as investment advice - we'd think it's also safe to assume that this Bloomberg piece about efforts by Hasbro Inc. ($HAS) and Mattel Inc. ($MAT) to innovate is, maybe, a wee bit too rosy. While, yes, they may be pivoting towards mobile and less dependence on brick-and-mortar, how many times have we heard that a transition is slower and harder than anticipated? That excuse is cited in virtually every retail "First Day Declaration" of the past two years. We don't have high hopes for Q4 reports (Mattel supposedly reports Q4 earnings on 2/1 followed by Hasbro on 2/7). Along those lines, Meisheng Cultural Co. may want to wait and see what happens to Jakks Pacific's ($JAKK) numbers before it overpays. 

One last related note: Sphero, the Disney-backed ($DIS) maker of STEM toys like a robotic BB-8 that you can buy at...wait for it...TOYS R US, announced earlier this week that it was laying off 45 staff members globally "following a holiday season that failed to live up to expectations." Curious. Maybe it was too dependent upon a certain big box toy retailer? 

Like #Tech, Corporate Restructuring Has a Gender Imbalance

Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you've probably noticed the controversy that embroiled Silicon Valley over the July 4th weekend. In a nutshell, some super brave and bada$$ women came forward and accused a variety of high-powered men of sexual harassment and improper behavior. First, The Information reported (firewall) a story backed by the accounts of six women recounting the behavior of Justin Caldbeck of Binary Capital. He soon stepped down (as did his two partners, thus thwarting the close of BC's second fund). Then The New York Times published a piece implicating Chris Sacca (of Shark Tank fame) and Dave McClure of the venture capital firm, 500 Startups. The former had already given up on investing (and Shark Tank); the latter first stepped down as CEO of the firm, then, in a matter of days, stepped down as General Partner as well. Silicon Valley's gender imbalance has been in the spotlight for some time now. Now we're learning more and more why that imbalance exists in the first place. 

Before we get ahead of ourselves, we'll be upfront here: what we're about to say is in no way meant to imply that sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior runs rampant in the restructuring community. But, let's be honest: there is a wild gender imbalance in firm partnership ranks, conference room negotiations, and bankruptcy courts. The industry's most lucrative and prolific restructuring law firm has exactly one woman partner. One of the industry's top restructuring advisory IBs has exactly zero women partners and, yet, that didn't stop the leader of that group from being honored by Her Justice, an organization that provides legal services to NYC women in need. And those are just two examples. Suffice it to say, there are many.

Now there are exceptions to the general rule: AlixPartners LLC, for one, and Greenberg Traurig LLP, for another (see below), in that they are led (or co-led as the case may be) by women. Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, as another example, includes a number of women partners on its roster. But there should be more. Industry-wide. And charity honorees should be the women who have risen through the ranks - despite the odds - AND cultivated other women to follow in their footsteps. Overall, the industry can do much much better.

Want to tell us we're morons? Or praise us? Cool, either way: email us.