"Cooper remains upbeat about Krispy Kreme's prospects. In his first interview since his arrival last January, Cooper told BusinessWeek on Nov. 18 that none of the company's short-term challenges was insurmountable."
So what about medium and long-term challenges, are they not insurmountable also?
"He's confident the current lenders, who stepped forward with $225 million in April, will grant him time to fix the problems even if his auditors can't make enough headway on Krispy Kreme's backlog of missed earnings reports by the December deadline. "
So, is the problem then that the auditors are incompetent, he doesn't have enough, or what? Couldn't he hire some more, or more competent ones?? Are the accounting issues also not insurmountable?? Lol.
<<Cooper is strictly monogamous in his audience choice: the BODs of troubled companies, period.>>
Your statement is directly in line with the blogger assessment also...
From the protectors blog...
The Board of Directors has, in our view, adopted a bunker mentality that is more focused on the personal liability of its members than on fixing the company. Its selection of KZC over the many other companies with more applicable skill sets which vied for this assignment supports the view that concerns about its members were paramount to concerns for the future of the company. If the Board is exercising its good offices to improve the business model, we have yet to see sufficient actions taken in that direction. A new VP of Operations is a good step, but not enough and not timely.
Mung, I think what di_vur is trying to say is we've finally reached a stage where the lenders and cooper do not see eye-to-eye - That Cooper may want to wait a bit longer to find a flipee, while they're not optimistic of finding a flipee before restatements are complete.
But assuming you're right cooper/sp are still one and the same:
Wouldn't they both still be setting up a show together depicting SP as bad guys? SP also don't care about the public's perception of them. It all looks like standard procedure. SP may have told Cooper: "look we might foreclose on you soon, so if you wanna do your thing there where you prepare the world for the bk, blame it on creditors...etc, and get rid of your liability to shareholders, go ahead..".
but questions are left:
- why didn't he disclose it in a PR if liability is so important?
- why exactly does he have to prepare the world in advance? is it too shocking to do it in the ch.11 filing or the "restatements late" PR? is this being done to potentially find a flipee from now until the 15th?
- di_vur, assuming SP/cooper are still still together, who does cooper want his audience to be? what is his precise goal? and why now?
If the lenders had signed off on a waiver (or agreed to), wouldn't Cooper have said?
Why would the lenders have agreed to a waiver? They haven't even seen the q3 rolling cebitda (which a few of us have stated should put them out of compliance with the covenants, maybe severely so).
imo, it sounds like p scooper is setting up the lenders to be the bad guys. He's saying, "Hey, we can fix this if you give us more time", so after the fact he can say it wasn't his fault.
Here's his direct quote to rationalize the lender's willingness to waive:
"The lenders lent us the money without financials being available," says Cooper. "That gives you a sense of the value they see in Krispy Kreme."
imo, the value the lenders saw in March was in Kroll, not kkd. The financial performance since March and the various disclosures have been significantly worse than even I expected. Surely the lenders can figure this out, too. Assuming that the cash burn rate is horrendous (it was terrible even when the franchisees were paying royalties), the lenders have little incentive (assuming they don't have skin in the game beyond the loan) not to foreclose.
So, my guess is that the lenders now know they made a big mistake in lending without the financials; for the financials to still not be available, especially if the burn rate is bad, SHOULD be enough to foreclose.
At any rate, it's a fascinating study in game theory.
I've already said why, I don't think he would have dropped such a casual reference to missing the December filing without mentioning financial difficulties if he didn't know SP was in the bag. I don't think he would have referenced missing the deadline at all unless he knew an SP waiver was in the bag. I guess we'll see in a few weeks.