Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Toys R Us Cancels Bankruptcy Auction, Plans To Revive Brand (theglobeandmail.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the near-death-experiences dept.

Toys "R" Us may not be dead after all. According to Reuters, "The top lenders of Toys "R" Us have decided to cancel the bankruptcy auction of its brand name and other intellectual property assets and instead plan to revive the Toys "R" Us and Babies "R" Us brand names." From the report: The bankrupt retailer's debtors aim to open a new Toys "R" Us and Babies "R" Us branding company that maintains existing global license agreements and can invest and develop new retail shops. The lenders also plan to expand its international presence and further develop its private brands business. The bids were not superior to the plan to revive the brand as it did not offer "probable economic recovery" to creditors as well as benefits to stakeholders who would maintain the brands under the new independent U.S. business, the court filing showed. Under the intellectual property auction, the company had planned to sell its assets, including the brand names of Toys "R" Us, Babies "R" Us, registry lists, website domains, Geoffrey the Giraffe and other assets. The company filed for bankruptcy protection in September last year, but later said it would sell or close all 800 of its U.S. stores.

43 of 87 comments (clear)

  1. Ah yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't have to grow up!

  2. That was the plan all along. by Blinkin1200 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Get rid of all the the 'problems' and start over.

    The Halloween stores in my area are going to be disappointed.

    1. Re:That was the plan all along. by Notabadguy · · Score: 2

      Get rid of all the the 'problems' and start over.

      The Halloween stores in my area are going to be disappointed.

      My wife says this is the most genius thing she's seen in ages.

  3. I wonder what the "problems" were by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    for Hostess it was Unions and Pensions. Toys R Us' rank & file didn't have those things. Maybe somebody in their supply chain did? Or maybe it let them clean out the old, older management without an age discrimination suit. I don't think it wipes the debt, does it?

    Anyone know enough about financial shenanigans to know?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I wonder what the "problems" were by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      well when you attend trump u you too can learn all about how to make big $$$ when you file for bankruptcy and you don't even have to give up your home or car.

    2. Re:I wonder what the "problems" were by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      The creditors wanted to erase the debtors from the leveraged buy out. I'm not sure if they get to erase the books of the suppliers as well, but that'd be a pretty neat trick...

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    3. Re:I wonder what the "problems" were by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They were bained:
      http://theweek.com/articles/761124/how-vulture-capitalists-ate-toys-r

      Bain Capital bought Toys R Us with borrowed money. They then made Toys R Us pay back the loan and interest plus pay them huge "management" fees. Bain made a lot of money off the management fees. Toys R Us and the creditors got screwed.

      Before Bain bought them they had $2 billion in the bank. They weren't making huge profits, but they were making a profit. Toys R Us wouldn't have gone bankrupt if Bain hadn't bought them.

    4. Re:I wonder what the "problems" were by sjames · · Score: 2

      Hostess was mis-management, including an 80% raise for the entire C level the year before. The union trouble only started when the union worked out that the concessions they were being asked for would be hoovered out of the dying company, which would still die.

      When a company blames pensions, usually what they actually mean is that the pension funds which were supposed to be prudently invested so they would be sufficient to cover pension were instead plundered and now there's not enough to cover it.

      It's the corporate version of blowing the rent money in Vegas.

    5. Re:I wonder what the "problems" were by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not this shit again.

    6. Re:I wonder what the "problems" were by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      Some people blamed Amazon but that wasn't the cause.

      Part of the problem was that it tied up stock with toys that no one wanted -- such as The Last Jedi.

      THE biggest problem was that it was saddled with *Billions* of dollars in debt. Namely $5.2 Billion and negative equity of $1.3 Billion. While Microsoft can dump $2 Billion into the XBox or BING program until it is profitable Toys R Us didn't have the capital to do that.

      TL:DR;

      * Huge debt
      * Couldn't pay interest
      * Declining sales
      * Bad management
      * Got bought by Private Equity firms - stripped the company of cash
      * Arrogance of thinking it didn't need an internet presence

      References:

      * https://www.quora.com/What-are...
      * https://www.usatoday.com/story...

    7. Re:I wonder what the "problems" were by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      I don't know why /. are allowing adverts to be posted as articles (we had one for MS crap yesterday, and another which was a session of licking Gates' arsehole), and in the comments like this one. It's getting tedious, and I'm getting less and less inclined to come here.

    8. Re:I wonder what the "problems" were by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      well when you attend trump u you too can learn all about how to make big $$$ when you file for bankruptcy and you don't even have to give up your home or car.

      The whole point of bankruptcy is so you can escape crushing debt without having to give up any hope of making a livelihood or of having any place to live. That's why civilized countries created the concept of bankruptcy.

      I mean, if you think debtor's prisons and workhouses were better, OK, but I don't agree.

    9. Re:I wonder what the "problems" were by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      In short Toys R Us borrowed a lot of money to expand. When it was time to pay off their debt they hadn't grown as much as they hoped too. So they couldn't pay their debt. A good simple you tube explanation on it
      Not so much Evil corporate underhanded activities. They took a risk, and it backfired.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re:I wonder what the "problems" were by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Amazon is a factor in the equation though. A lot of the debt and influx of money went into growth. Competition with Amazon may had slowed down the profit from growth, so they couldn't pay the interest.

      With Amazon nearly a click away, I actually think Toys R Us keeping with the retail stores may have been a better investment, it is nearly impossible for a company to go head to head online with Amazon. Investing into an online presence may had been a total waste of money.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    11. Re:I wonder what the "problems" were by Mnemennth · · Score: 1

      Yup... just what I was thinking. Another "zombie" company; filing for bankruptcy but not actually changing anything except screwing somebody out of some legitimately owed debt, like GM getting out of having to pay back the pension funds previous CEOs raided like it was their personal piggy bank.

      Toys R Us, etc wouldn't have to worry that much about age discrimination lawsuits, I suspect; from what I saw, a large number of their store help were already retirees working for minimum wage.

      mnem
      Yey Geoffrey the Giraffe! - The new face of Business as Usual :facepalm:

    12. Re:I wonder what the "problems" were by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Amazon wasn't that big of a factor and is only gaining ground because the entire industry is a mess on the retail side. This is an industry where look and feel, something that is next to impossible to accurately convey online, is a dominant factor in sales. The negative reviews on Amazon are absolutely hilarious - people spend $20 on a $5 toy from 10 years ago and complain that it is much smaller than they expected based on the price. Even with accurate pics and specs (not necessarily the norm), people still won't be able to figure out what they're looking at until they have it in hand. It's just the nature of the industry.

      What nobody is talking about is the fundamental shift in the industry that resulted from the recession. Compared to 10 years ago, the market is less diverse in terms of branding and products are designed to boost profit margin at the expense of quality. Stock is more limited, empty shelves are common, and clearance stock is much rarer. These are all changes initiated on the manufacturing side to keep the toy makers afloat as consumers tighten their belts and they've been successful enough that there's been no reason to change back as spending increases.

      The confusing part of this is that the different phases of the product life cycle are so far apart in time that the changes to manufacturing didn't flow through to the sales floor until consumer spending had rebounded. Which is also the exact same time that sales at Toys R Us tanked. It's a bizarre inverse correlation until you realize that the product on the shelves had changed in such a way that TRU's strengths - large variety of stock on the shelves where people could see it up close - no longer gave it an advantage or even put it at a disadvantage.

      Think about it - less product diversity in the market hits the retailer with the most diverse product selection the hardest. Inconsistent restocking and a less reliable product release schedule leads to less popular items crowding out the hot sellers because, unlike Walmart or Target, a toy-only retailer can't weather extended periods of empty toy shelves. That in turn hurts your foot traffic as people stop expecting to find anything worth buying there and just swing by the toy sections of stores they'll be in to get other things or switch to online shopping if they're looking for something specific.

      And that's when the Bain situation brings about a quick death. Heavy debt loading leaves little room for capital improvements or inventory restructuring. Staffing and training take a hit as well, turning the stores into dingy wastelands of misfit toys. And then the bankruptcy speculation kills your supply chain because nobody wants to ship products to a company that may not be around long enough to pay for them. At that point, it's a death spiral that can't be escaped.

    13. Re: I wonder what the "problems" were by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The real financial problems were caused by the LBO in 2005. KKR and Bain Capital (Mitt Romney's former company) bought out Toys R Us for $6.6B and assumed $1B debt. The way the buyout was structured Toys R Us had to acquire $6.3B in debt. For those that don't know, most LBOs are structured so that the company being bought has to take on the debt. It is perfectly legal.

      Many people would assume that the company merely lost out to Amazon but that's not the whole story. With $6.3B in debt, the company was severely hampered in what it could do to compete with Amazon. Improving server infrastructure, buying new stores, practically anything was limited by the fact that they couldn't borrow any more money. And a large portion of the revenue that was earned had to pay off the debt so it couldn't spend any real capital either.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    14. Re:I wonder what the "problems" were by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Some people always have a knee jerk reaction to blame the unions. In most cases of these troubled companies the unions did make big concessions already, only to see 20-30% of the money the workers give up go directly into bigger C-level bonuses. So when management comes around a second or third(!) time and says "you need to give up even more, and it looks like those pensions that should already be paid for don't exist -- your fault for not giving up more earlier" it should be no surprise that an honest worker would dig in their heels. There is no real reason anymore to believe playing nice, yet again, with such overt swindlers will save the company.

    15. Re:I wonder what the "problems" were by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      I literally just saw a post on here today with someone still claiming that Obama isn't a citizen. Can't bitch about "my team" when "your team" is still bitching about the last guy.

  4. Prepare for Bankruptcy Anyway by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

    The news on the massive Toys R Us data breach from abandoned employee information in a defunct store didn't go anywhere because who's going to get sued?

    Looks like Toys R Us is opening the door back up to litigation.

  5. Brick and Mortar changes to Zombie Web by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    We have seen this before. Companies become some kind of generic clearinghouse with the face of an old brand.

    Examples include CompUSA, Circuit City, Polaroid

    1. Re: Brick and Mortar changes to Zombie Web by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Except that's not the whole story. Toys R Us was under massive debt from a LBO.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  6. massive? by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    It was whoever worked for the store. We're talking about 100, 200 people max?

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  7. The debt and problems started well before by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That article acts as though the problems started ten to fifteen years later than they really did.

    For a long time, Toys R Us was the #1 toy retailer in the US. It was the first big box toy store, and the only one in many cities. They "kept doing what has been successful" (rested on their laurels) as other competitors emerged. In the early 1990s Target and especially Walmart starting taking a big chunk of that market. The aging Toys R Us stores didn't attract customers, who could get the same toys at Walmart while doing their weekly shopping.

    By 1998, Walmart sold more toys than Toys R Us. The internet was also eating a growing chunk of the market.

    In 2000, the company hired CEO John Eyler to reinvigorate the company. Eyler decided the way forward was to remodel all the stores and open new, bigger stores. They spent and borrowed a lot of money to do that. They had already been having financial difficulties in the 1990s, then Eyler added more debt, which mean lahe debt payments. The company started losing money faster.

    By 2005, the strategies were very obviously not working. Yet they did have a very recognizable brand. Some private investors thought they could salvage the company by more effective management. That's where the LA Times article picks up the story. Unfortunately for the private investors, 2005 was a very bad time to invest in struggling brick and mortar retailer with no signifocant online presence. That's the year Amazon introduced Amazon Prime, with free two-day shipping. The next year, Amazon launched Fulfillment by Amazon, which had thousands of retailers selling through Amazon.com. Amazon beat Toys R Us handily.

    1. Re:The debt and problems started well before by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Informative

      By 2005, the strategies were very obviously not working. Yet they did have a very recognizable brand. Some private investors thought they could salvage the company by more effective management. That's where the LA Times article picks up the story. Unfortunately for the private investors, 2005 was a very bad time to invest in struggling brick and mortar retailer with no signifocant online presence. That's the year Amazon introduced Amazon Prime, with free two-day shipping. The next year, Amazon launched Fulfillment by Amazon, which had thousands of retailers selling through Amazon.com. Amazon beat Toys R Us handily.

      Wrong.

      The problem was Bain Capital and a leveraged buy out that added the $6.2B in debt buying itself out. (For those who don't know, a leveraged buy out is where you use an asset as leverage to get a loan. IN this case, Bain Capital needed $6B to buy TRU. So what asset did they use? Well, TRU! Thus they bought TRU using a loan backed by the company itself. ).

      They had an online presence. In fact, they were among the first stores to actually have a website, and while it's not as slick as Amazon was, they were holding their own.

      2005 might have been a bad time, but they weathered through it, which means it's not the financial crisis that did them in. It's the debt - $6.2B is a lot of debt that corporate raiders added to them. They struggled, but their cashflow was enough to pay off their obligations, until 2015-2016 when they didn't make enough money to cover their obligations. Things spiraled from there.

      "Private investors" my ass. It was Bain Capital and leveraged buy outs that did them in. Their numbers reflect this. You only call it "private investors" as a way to dodge the truth of the "investment".

      Amazon, Wal-Mart, and Target were all competitors, and yet they still managed. The only reason right now they can think of revival is after Bain Capital left and got the real investors screwed over. But once they got paid out, hey, no more crushing debt. Then again, those investors pretty much should've known they were buying into a Bain Capital investment.

      Anyhow, it's all screwy, because you know who else owns the name? A bunch of financial investors in Canada who bought over the Canadian operations and still run it today. And you can bet they likely want their share of the US operations (TRU Canada loaned TRU corporate a bunch of money that actually put TRU Canada in trouble in 2015-2016 because TRU corporate defaulted. Except TRU Canada came out of it thanks to good revenue).

    2. Re:The debt and problems started well before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The only disagreement I have with your write-up is that while they did have an online presence, they /really/ didn't have one. Early on, they didn't trust the internet, and didn't think it was a valid way to increase sales. They actually out-sourced their website and online sales to .... Amazon! The original agreement was that Amazon was going to promote the Toys-R-Us brand on their website and would drive people to Toys-R-Us hosted merchandise. That really only happened for a short while -- and eventually Toys-R-Us stuff got mixed in with everything else on the Amazon website. Eventually the TRU brand disappeared completely from the Amazon website (this was 2011-ish). Toys-R-Us didn't invest in their own shopping cart and web presence until way too late. They weren't able to capture the customers and Amazon was actively showing customers on the TRU website competitor's products. Toys R Us didn't launch their own website to capture sales until 2015.

  8. Hooraaaay! by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    Maybe my bonus points will still be good.

  9. Pro Tip if your Brand is Babys R Us by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    Don't donate to planned parenthood this time.

    1. Re:Pro Tip if your Brand is Babys R Us by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Political BS: OFF
      A lot of Babies R Us sales are from Grand parents and other family members getting stuff for Baby Showers. Planned Child Birth allows for longer term planning and normally greater family involvement in the process, thus more sales.
      Vs. Someone who accidentally got pregnant with some jerk. And half of her family has sunned her for her mistake.

      Political BS: ON
      I don't want to see abortions I believe it is akin to murder. However we need to make conditions where someone would want or need to have abortions lower. Just making it illegal, will not work. There is too much Demand for it. We need to fix our society and its support systems to deal with this reality. Having a child shouldn't be an economic problem, because in Macro Economics it is a net benefit, but in Micro Economics it is an expense. Society shouldn't exclude unplanned parents, and proper education in prevention with realization Sex will happen.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Pro Tip if your Brand is Babys R Us by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Marketing or Politics wise, giving money to an organization who's primary purpose is killing children is not a plus. People who are buying for a little one don't want to think about them being killed.

  10. Re:Archie bunker outs himself as a fucking moron by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    You think one location had paperwork for the entire organization? This was one local store that said fuck it and didn't dispose of employee records. Yeah they totally stumbled into the Toy R Us datacenter and copied all the stored credit cards...

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  11. Fucking lick and promise! by Chas · · Score: 1

    If they go through this and I still have to grow up, some fuckers ARE GONNA DIE!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  12. had to be done by luther349 · · Score: 1

    toyr r us was doing fine until people bought the brand with basically a ton of loans. so of course all that debt became the company's debt. leveraged buyouts never work. going bankrupt and rebooting the brand deletes that debt.

  13. Re:Archie bunker outs himself as a fucking moron by hai_Priesty · · Score: 1

    But if that store was any indication of how sloppy they're in handling of the wound down, you can expect more breaches uncovered.

    If I'm not wrong, this one store made it into news only because someone obtained permission of the current landlord to document everything she found inside that is abandoned by Toy R Us.

  14. Zombie Company! by The123king · · Score: 1

    *Plays Michael Jacksons Thriller*

    *dances like a zombie*

    --
    If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
  15. So no real change then? by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

    I always assumed that the idea was to sell the brand names to someone who would then license that brand name to companies like those operating the Toys 'R Us stores in Europe. Actual stores and inventory that hasn't already been liquidated is obviously going to be auctioned off as planned and thus the only change to the plan is that it's the creditors themselves, or more specifically a company set up by them for this purpose, who are going to be licensing out the name rather than somebody else.

    If this goes trough some old stores will probably re-open, but they'll be under new ownership and just licensing the brand rather than actual Toys 'R Us stores and may incorporate some major changes in concept. However more probably than not most of the stores will just be generic toy stores with a new brand to draw in customers.

    --
    "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    1. Re:So no real change then? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      I would expect a concept change, they were already trying to have more community event type stuff, birthday celebrations, etc. Probably something with a smaller footprint, or at least less inventory, and places to play around with the new items, and a web order pickup, like what Best Buy has become. I still think Sears missed an opportunity to become something like that, but the last time I was in there the employees were quite literally surprised someone was trying to buy something instead of passing through to the mall. I had come in because they've been emailing generous coupons with no minimum purchase; from what the staff were up to when I tracked them down I think they're just trying to organize everything for liquidation.

  16. Had to close hundreds of stores in 2004 by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's the political narrative, and then there's history.

    Here's an article about the failure of Toys R Us from 2004
    https://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...

    Eyler's strategy to fix their "running out of money" problem was - spend a ton more money. He had come from FAO Swhartz, which went bankrupt twice. He would have been a good choice if you wanted someone to show you how to go bankrupt.

    > Amazon, Wal-Mart, and Target were all competitors, and yet they still managed

    Amazon, Walmart, and Target operate toy specialty stores? You know the actual competitors are in that space? KB Toys, FAO Swhartz, all the toy store chains are gone, because that model doesn't work.

    Yes, when you get a loan to buy a house, the house is collateral - the bank will take the house if you don't make the payments. When you get a loan to buy a car, the car is collateral - the bank will take the car if you don't make the payments. When you get a loan to buy a struggling specialty retailer ...

  17. Re:Epic Fail if you ask me. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Start Small, and work up again.
    The Toy's R Brand is well known. Brand recognition is 80% of the battle.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  18. Just stop wasting money by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    Just stop wasting money on buying all that Star Wars garbage. You'll do OK this time.

  19. Re:Great....now by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Livin' in my momma basement so Ill always be fed!

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  20. Re:This is exciting news! by GoTeam · · Score: 1

    I was shocked to read that they consider Geoffrey the Giraffe an asset...

  21. OOPS! by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    Toys R Us didn't die because of financial mismanagement or poor sales. It was bought by investors, who borrowed a lot of money to complete the sale, and then made Toys R Us pay back the loans. The downturn of 2008 was just too much The creditors kind of got what they had coming, agreeing to such a highly leveraged deal.

    These creditors then dug their hole deeper by deciding to sell off the real estate used for the stores...before finally coming to their senses and realizing they were throwing something valuable away. Now they'll have to rebuild a lot of what was already lost. Toys R Us may come back, but it won't be as big or as good for quite some time.