Translate

2016-01-15

American Apparel rejects takeover bid from Hagan - Silver Creek

American Apparel rejects takeover bid - source - RTRS
14-JAN-2016 11:59:16 PM 
By Aurindom Mukherjee Jan 14 (Reuters) - Bankrupt teen apparel retailer American Apparel Inc's APPCQ.PK board has rejected the latest takeover offer involving the company's controversial founder, Dov Charney, a source told Reuters. Earlier this week, the Los Angeles-based company received a $300 million bid from a group of investors who are backing the return of Dov Charney.
Hagan Capital Group and Silver Creek Capital Partners said their proposal included $90 million of new equity and a $40 million term loan, and backs a business plan from Charney, who was fired as chief executive in December 2014. American Apparel is open to a revised offer from the funds, the source said. (http://bloom.bg/1lbRGeX) Bloomberg reported the news first on Thursday.

Chad Hagan from the Hagan Capital Group said they are confident that American Apparel will accept their "superior business model that centers on long term value, ethical management and preserving American manufacturing jobs"

Silver Creek Capital Partners were not immediately available for comment. Representatives of Dov Charney declined to comment. American Apparel, which has not been profitable since 2009, filed for bankruptcy in October, joining a list other teen-focused retailers including Wet Seal and Body Central Corp that have struggled with changing tastes. Charney founded American Apparel in 1989, but was fired in December for allegedly misusing company funds and failing to stop a subordinate from defaming former employees. He has denied the allegations. 

LSE Essay - On Cost


Remarks upon certain aspects of the theory of costs
by LIONEL ROBBINS
A lecture delivered before the Nationalökonomischen Gesellschaft, Vienna, 7 April 1933. First published in the Economic Journal (March 1934).

The theory of costs is not one of those parts of economic analysis which can properly be said to have been unduly neglected. It has always occupied a more or less central position, and in recent years it has been the subject of a quite formidable body of new work. There is, indeed, no part of his subject about which the contemporary economist may legitimately feel more gratified, either as regards the quality of the work which has been done or as regards the temper in which it has been undertaken. Yet, in spite of this, the present state of affairs in this field is not altogether satisfactory. The various problems involved have been tackled by different sets of people; and the conclusions which have been reached in one part of the field have sometimes a rather disquieting appearance of incompatibility with conclusions which have been reached elsewhere. No doubt some of this apparent incompatibility is real. It is not to be expected that here—any more than elsewhere—economists should have reached finality. But some of it is probably illusory; and if in discussing these matters we were to state more decisively the problems which we are attempting to solve, and the assumptions on which we proceed, it seems likely that not only should we be able to clear up our outstanding real points of difference more quickly, but that, in the course of doing so, we should also discover that many of them depended essentially upon subtle differences of object and assumption, hitherto insufficiently stated. At any rate, it is in the belief that this would be so that these very tentative remarks are put forward.

http://www.econlib.org/library/NPDBooks/Thirlby/bcthLS2.html