Toys 'R' Us—Not the Last LBO Shoe to Drop
Apparently, Toys "R" Us has been suffering from many of the maladies that affect traditional retailers today, and that environment has contributed to the many insurmountable obstacles facing the toy and children's retailer, writes Charles M. Tatelbaum.
September 28, 2017 at 10:11 AM
5 minute read
With the somewhat surprising recent Chapter 11 filing for Toys “R” Us, renewed skepticism concerning the fate of brick and mortar retailers emerges. However, a closer examination of the causes for the Toys “R” Us reorganization attempt points a finger not solely at the retail environment, but, more importantly, at the underlying and inherent anatomy of a leveraged buyout (LBO). Apparently, Toys “R” Us has been suffering from many of the maladies that affect traditional retailers today, and that environment has contributed to the many insurmountable obstacles facing the toy and children's retailer. Moreover, an analysis of the structure and foundation of an LBO points to a prescription for a potential financial disaster when monstrous LBO debt burdens a brick and mortar retailer.
An LBO occurs when a profitable publicly held company receives a tender offer from an acquirer (usually a hedge fund or some other investment vehicle). Shareholders of the target company are offered a multiple of net worth of the company as an inducement to sell their shares and relinquish their ownership interests in the profitable entity. In order to finance the purchase of the shares of stock, the acquirer has the target company borrow the funds necessary to purchase the stock from the public shareholders and uses the assets of the company as collateral for the loan.
An example will demonstrate why most LBOs (especially those that have a retail component) are destined to fail. Suppose that the target company has a net worth of $1 billion. That means that its assets are $1 billion greater than its liabilities, and in a perfect world, if the company were to be liquidated, the shareholders would divide the $1 billion. In an LBO scenario, shareholders demand a premium in order to sell their shares. For this example, we will use a premium which is three times a multiple of the net worth. Thus, for the calculations, the acquiring entity will need to pay $3 billion in order to acquire the shares of stock in order to affect the leveraged buyout and take the company private. In order to do so, the acquiring entity will cause the company to borrow the $3 billion to purchase the shares, with the company's assets serving as collateral for the loan. Since loans of this nature are traditionally high risk, the interest charged on the loan will be substantially above market. Thus, the company will now be required to pay interest and reduce the principal of the debt where the company received no benefit from the massive loan.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
4 minute readGrowing Referral Network, Alternative Fees Have This Ex-Big Law’s Atty’s Bankruptcy Practice Soaring
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250