Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Hi,
In Atlanta, we have Einstein Bagels. Their locations are in good areas with good traffic.
Also, there are 2 EB's on major college campuses...GA Tech and Emory University. I like EB a lot. They have great sandwiches too.
That's my personal DD. :)
ENBBQ BK Docket History
2:00-bk-04448-CGC ENBC CORP.
Case type: bk Chapter: 11 Asset: Yes Vol: v Judge: Charles G. Case II
Date filed: 04/27/2000
Date terminated: 12/20/2005 Date of last filing: 12/20/2005
History
Doc.
No. Dates Description
-- Filed & Entered: 04/27/2000
Receipt for Petition Filing Fee
1 Filed & Entered: 04/27/2000
Chapter 11 Voluntary Petition
1 Filed & Entered: 04/27/2000
List of Twenty Largest Unsecured Creditors
2 Filed: 04/28/2000
Entered: 05/02/2000
~Generic~ Order
3 Filed & Entered: 05/12/2000
Statement of Financial Affairs
4 Filed & Entered: 05/12/2000
Schedules
5 Filed & Entered: 06/05/2000
Notice of Filing
6 Filed & Entered: 06/05/2000
Notice of Filing
7 Filed & Entered: 06/05/2000
Notice of Filing
8 Filed & Entered: 06/05/2000
Notice of Filing
9 Filed & Entered: 06/06/2000
Notice of Filing
10 Filed & Entered: 06/20/2000
Notice of Filing
11 Filed & Entered: 06/20/2000
Notice of Withdrawal
12 Filed: 07/10/2000
Entered: 07/12/2000
Notice of Appearance
13 Filed: 07/10/2000
Entered: 07/12/2000
Affidavit of Service
14 Filed: 08/01/2001
Entered: 08/03/2001
Notice of Rescheduled Hearing
15 Filed: 12/27/2001
Entered: 01/04/2002
Motion to Withdraw Document
-- Filed & Entered: 12/20/2005
Close Chapter 11 Case - Final Decree
BK Summary:
2:00-bk-04448-CGC ENBC CORP.
Case type: bk Chapter: 11 Asset: Yes Vol: v Judge: Charles G. Case II
Date filed: 04/27/2000
Date terminated: 12/20/2005 Date of last filing: 12/20/2005
Case Summary
Office: Phoenix Filed: 04/27/2000
County: Maricopa Terminated: 12/20/2005
Fee: Paid Discharged:
Origin: 0 Reopened:
Previous Term: Converted:
Disposition: Standard Discharge Dismissed:
Joint: n Confirmation Hearing:
Flags: PreBAPCPA, CLOSED
Party 1: ENBC CORP. (84-1294908) (Debtor)
Atty: J. ERIC IVESTER Represents party 1: Debtor Phone: 312-407-0700
Atty: CHARLES ROBERT STERBACH Represents party 1: Debtor Phone: 602-445-8000
Fax: 602-445-8628
Email: sterbachc@gtlaw.com
Location of Case File(s):
Volume: CS1
The case file may not be available.
Here is a ton of info I have been into today on this one!
New World sees future growth with Einstein/Noah Bagel buy
The Denver Business Journal - March 1, 2002
by Patrick Sweeney
Denver Business Journal
When New World Restaurant Group Inc. announced it would acquire the beleaguered Golden-based bagel chain Einstein/Noah Bagel Partners, it raised a few eyebrows within the restaurant industry.
Formed in 1995, Einstein had carved a niche for itself in the growing "quick casual" restaurant segment with its flavored bagels and cream cheese spreads. But the company soon found itself making headlines for its April 2000 bankruptcy filing instead of its trademark bagels.
Still, New World CEO Tony Wedo said his company saw the potential to resurrect the brand that many restaurant industry watchers had dismissed.
"We saw the Einstein brand as a terrific vehicle for our future growth," Wedo said. "And we liked that it was already positioned firmly in the day market."
Einstein emerged from bankruptcy protection in June 2001 after New World came in as the highest bidder for the cash-strapped company in an auction held at U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Phoenix.
New World spent $160 million in cash for ownership of the Einstein/Noah brands.
The deal that Wedo said took nearly a year to put together almost didn't happen. At one point in the bidding, Einstein announced that it was going to sell to a New York-based private equity firm called Three Cities Research. Three Cities had bid $145 million in cash for the bagel maker, but the court bidding process requires the seller to accept the highest offer.
"I think what it meant to Einstein is that they got a great partner in the New World Co. as it relates to experiencing the true and total growth of the concept," Wedo said. "I think both sides benefited from this transaction. When both sides win, it's a strong indicator for future success."
Wedo said he was not concerned about what analysts and other industry insiders thought of the acquisition that forced his company to assume Einstein's $30 million worth of liabilities. Despite its bankruptcy, Wedo said, Einstein had cultivated "a very big gourmet sandwich business.
"We recognized a terrific base business that was in place," Wedo said.
As part of the deal, New World acquired 460 bagel stores operating under the Einstein/Noah brand in 29 states. The Eatontown, N.J.-based New World also got a bagel manufacturing plant in Los Angeles, a support center in Golden and ownership of all trademarks.
New World now operates 800 bagel locations across the country, making it the largest bagel baker in the nation.
Along with the Einstein/Noah brands, New World also owns and operates four other restaurant brands, including the Chesapeake Bagel Bakeries, Manhattan Bagel, Noah's New York Bagels, New World Coffee and Willoughby's Coffee.
New World is looking to establish Einstein as a leader in the restaurant franchise industry. He added that the company is looking to add 50 to 100 Einstein/Noah locations to its portfolio and that initial interest is already high.
"We're operating to win this war over the next 10, 15, 20 years, not over the next few years," Wedo said.
A typical Einstein location is between 2,200 and 2,500 square feet with a seating capacity for 40 people. Wedo said each location posts about $800,000 in annual sales.
The demographic for the average Einstein customer is a college-educated professional between 25 and 54 years old with an annual household income of about $50,000. The stores tend to be slightly more popular among women then men.
Along with launching a new marketing campaign, Wedo said New World has several other plans on the horizon to further promote the Einstein/Noah brand.
"I would anticipate that we have three types of potential growth with licensings, franchising and company store development," Wedo said. "We will build approximately 10 company stores in 2002, and we will build approximately 18 additional licensed stores for a total of 30 by the end of 2002."
Einstein parent reduces loss by almost 20 percent in 2005
The Denver Business Journal - February 23, 2006
New World Restaurant Group Inc. of Colorado continued in the red for its fiscal 2005, ended Jan. 3, 2006.
But the owner of the Einstein Bros. Bagels restaurant chain, among others, cut its net loss for the year by 19.5 percent to $14 million, or $1.42 per share.
The company reported a loss of $17.4 million, or $1.77 a share, in 2004.
There are no analysts' estimates on the company.
New World boosted 2005 revenue 4 percent to $389.1 million from $373.9 million a year earlier.
Same-store sales increased 5.4 percent last year, compared to 5.6 percent in '04, offset by a .2 percent drop in transactions.
Same-store sales -- also called comparable-store sales -- are sales at stores that have been open a year or more. They are a key performance measure, allowing investors to see what component of overall sales growth came from new store openings.
Based in Golden, New World (Pink Sheets: NWRG.PK) operates fast-casual restaurants under the Einstein Bros., Noah's New York Bagels and Manhattan Bagel brands. The company has 626 locations nationwide -- including 435 company-owned, 121 franchised and 70 licensed restaurants.
For last year's fourth quarter, New World reported a net loss of $723,000, or 7 cents a share -- down sharply from $2.1 million, or 21 cents a share, in 2004's last period.
Fourth-quarter revenue increased nearly 7 percent to $103.9 million from $97.3 million for the same quarter a year earlier.
New World's long-term debt for 2005 remained relatively flat compared to the previous year, at $160.6 million.
"New World achieved positive results in virtually all its key performance categories in 2005. ... We have made important improvements in all facets of our operations and laid the groundwork to pursue continued growth ...," Paul Murphy, company CEO and president, said in a statement.
The restaurant company also hoped to spark growth with the October 2004 introduction of its Einstein Bros. Cafe concept, designed to "move the brand beyond the bagel" by creating more sit-down-type restaurants. The cafes offer broader menus and table service.
New World said then it planned to build new cafes and convert existing Einstein Bros. Bagel locations, market by market, to cafes. It hoped to convert more than 370 bagel restaurants to cafes by the end of 2007.
But only eight cafes have opened since late 2004 -- five in the Denver area and three in Colorado Springs -- according to the Einstein Cafe Web site.
bostq
Published: May 28, 1998
Boston Chicken Inc. said yesterday that it had hired the investment banker Morgan Stanley to help the company sell some or all of its interest in the Einstein/Noah Bagel Corporation. Boston Chicken owns 17.3 million shares, or 52 percent, of Einstein/Noah Bagel. At Einstein/Noah's closing price on Tuesday, the shares would be worth $95 million. Einstein/Noah, based in Golden, Colo., franchises 200 bagel stores under the names Einstein Brothers and Noah's New York Bagels. Boston Chicken, also based in Golden, franchises more than 1,600 Boston Market fast-food restaurants.
http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com/cases/bc/bci2_mailed%20notice_04192006.pdf
In 1999, Boston Chicken began looking to sell its interest in ENBC, but no buyers were immediately forthcoming. A new chief financial officer for ENBC, Paula Manley, was appointed in June of that year, and she was able to report encouraging financial results for the early quarters of the year. Revenues were increasing and net losses decreasing, attributable to increases in per store sales and reductions in the work force. Despite its troubled relationship with majority shareholder Boston Chicken, ENBC remained the company's top bagel shop as a new century approached
http://www.chicken-stock.com/
Chicken' inks licensing deal with Heinz
Nation's Restaurant News, May 3, 1999 by Richard L. Papiernik
Bankruptcy court must approve pact
GOLDEN, COLO. -- Put the soup on the back burner, can the Ken-L Ration, hold up those Weight Watchers and cap the ketchup.
Make room for Boston Chicken to flap its grocery-store wings among those and all the other "57 Varieties" that have made Pittsburgh-based conglomerate H.J. Heinz Co. one of the largest packaged-food suppliers in the world.
Boston Chicken Inc. -- now in bankruptcy reorganization -- and Heinz have signed a 10-year licensing agreement that would give Heinz an exclusive right to "the manufacture and sale" of packaged-food products under the Boston Chicken and Boston Market brand names.
Related Results: Boston Chicken reorganization approval
Boston Chicken: All over but
the carving...
MCDONALD'S TO BUY BOSTON
MARKET.... More
Video
Steve Bailey, The Boston Globe
More
Though numerous details. including specifics on the packaging and naming of the products, have not vet been revealed, the deal is expected eventually to put Boston Chicken's prepackaged goods into thousands of supermarkets. convenience stores and warehouse sales operations throughout the country.
Heinz, which has annual sales of $10 billion and a marketing presence in some 200 countries, said it would begin getting the Boston Chicken products into test markets later this year if mandatory bankruptcy court approvals are cleared.
Upon completion of the tests, Boston Chicken would join a growing list of restaurant companies marketing branded packaged goods in grocery stores. Among them are Pizzeria Uno, Marie Callender's, Starbucks, White Castle and Taco Bell. Several of the chains work with manufacturing firms, such as Kraft and Procter and Gamble, to put their foods in the retail markets.
Advertisement
Heinz officials said they ordinarily would not reveal such information so far in advance of a product introduction, but the proceedings of Boston Chicken through bankruptcy court have made those revelations necessary.
Boston Chicken has asked the bankruptcy court to keep the details of the Heinz contract sealed because of proprietary and competitive concerns.
Looks like someone got the trademark. I recently saw a TV ad for frozen chicken dinners "just like you get in the resturant." I never went to any of the resturants, thou there were several here in the Seattle area. Its easier to get a chicken at the market, wash it, put coat the skin with salt, pepper and garlic salt, then put in in the oven on a wire screen over a cast iron skillit at 350 degrees for an hour and a half as I surf the 'net. If you put in a couple of potatoes on the side, you can invite your favorite honey home for dinner, and eat till your full. Wine, of course will top the meal.
In early April the trustee of the Boston Chicken Bankruptcy Plan Trust, as holder of a majority of the outstanding common stock of ENBC, filed a reorganization plan for the bankrupt concern. New World, ENBC's largest creditor, supports the plan but said its affiliate made the bid for the company in the event that the trustee's reorganization plan isn't confirmed.
ENBC is a Delaware corporation, with 34,083,681 shares of common stock outstanding as of March 17, 2000. The Trustee, as successor in interest to BCI under the Boston Chicken Plan, owns approximately 51% of the outstanding equity of ENBC. The remaining equity is publicly held. On the Effective Date, the existing common stock of ENBC will be canceled and New Common Stock of the Reorganized ENBC will be issued as described herein and in the Plan.
Bagel Partners is a Delaware limited partnership. ENBC and the General Partner (a wholly owned subsidiary of ENBC) currently own 77% and 1% of the Interests in Bagel Partners, respectively. The balance of the Interests in Bagel Partners is held by Bagel Funding and certain other persons including former members of management of the Area Developers. These limited partners and their approximate percentage ownership of total partnership units of Bagel Partners are as follows: ENBC-76.8%, Bagel Funding-21.68%, BC Detroit, L.P.-0.11%, BC Chicago, Inc.-0.27%, Douglas Henzlik-0.02%, Edwin Brownell-0.02%, Noah Alper-0.04%, and Pearce Tucker-0.02%.
ENBC, through a wholly owned subsidiary, is also the sole manager of Bagel Funding, the Holder of approximately 21.5% of the Interests in Bagel Partners.
D. THE BAGEL FUNDING PUT RIGHT
In addition to providing for certain matters concerning Bagel Partners' formation, governance, and ownership, the Partnership Agreement included provisions relating to Bagel Funding's nontransferable Put Right to, "put" its limited partnership Equity Interests in Bagel Partners (the "Bagel Funding Units") to Bagel Partners or ENBC under certain circumstances and subject to certain conditions. The Put Right modified a put right that had existed previously in connection with the Area Developer structure before the 1997 Transactions.
The Put Right is not an absolute right, and it was not unconditionally and immediately exercisable. Rather, certain procedural and time-based conditions are required to be met or satisfied before the Put Right can be exercised.
As more fully described below, as of the Petition Date, conditions to the exercise of the Put Right had not been satisfied.
If it were to have been properly exercised without violating the automatic stay, Bagel Funding Units are to be sold to either Bagel Partners or ENBC (as designated by Bagel Partners) at a formula price, and for the consideration provided for in the provisions governing the Put Right. The "Put Price," defined in Section 4.7(b), is a formula equal to 6.5 times annualized post-royalty store level cash flow reduced by any outstanding indebtedness (and increased by any cash) of Bagel Partners. Id. ss. 4.7(b). Calculated as of the Petition Date, the "Put Price" would be approximately $54.4 million.
The Partnership Agreement specifically provides who must respond to a properly exercised Put Right and what consideration may be given to Bagel Funding in exchange for the Bagel Funding Units:
-12-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Upon receipt of a Put Right request from Bagel Funding, Bagel Partners decides whether it or ENBC will be responsible for satisfying the Put Right. Partnership Agreement, ss. 4.7(c). Bagel Funding cannot, at its discretion, unilaterally impose the Put Right on either Bagel Partners or ENBC; that decision belongs to Bagel Partners alone (and is subject to the automatic stay in ENBC's Case).
b. Whoever is designated to satisfy the Put Right by Bagel Partners may do so, at its option (not Bagel Funding's), by delivering the Put Price either in (i) Cash (if allowed under the Prepetition Credit Facility), or (ii) shares of ENBC common stock, par value $0.01 per share, or (iii) any combination of the foregoing. Id.
The Prepetition Credit Facility currently prohibits, and has always prohibited, the payment of the Put Right in Cash. Thus, if the Put Right were deemed to be exercised today, the obligation under the Partnership Agreement could only be satisfied by a distribution of ENBC common stock. Section 4.7(c) of the Partnership Agreement further provides:
In the event the Put Price is paid in whole or in part by the delivery of shares of ENBC Common Stock, (i) the value of such shares shall be equal to the number of shares delivered multiplied by an amount per share equal to the average of the closing sales prices per share of ENBC Common Stock, on the principal stock exchange or quotation system on which such common stock is traded or quoted, for the twenty trading days ending with the second Business Day preceding the day on which shares are delivered ... and (ii) ENBC will use its reasonable best efforts to cause a registration statement with respect to the resale of such shares ... to be filed and become effective...
Id. In the twenty days prior to the Petition Date, ENBC common stock traded at approximately 22.41 cents per share. As of the Petition Date, there were approximately 34,083,681 outstanding shares of ENBC common stock (and at December 26, 1999, ENBC had 9,866,698 shares of ENBC's common stock reserved for issuance upon exercise of outstanding options and warrants). ENBC's certificate of incorporation authorizes it to issue up to a total of 200 million shares of common stock. Thus, after deducting total outstanding shares and shares reserved for issuance, ENBC is currently authorized to issue another 156,049,621 shares of common stock. Based upon Section 4.7(c), ENBC could deliver these shares of ENBC common stock to Bagel Funding in payment of $34,970,720.06 of the Put Price (156,049,621 multiplied by 22.41 cents) if the Put Right were deemed to have been exercised as of the Petition Date. Since the Petition Date, the trading price of ENBC common stock has dropped significantly, thus reducing the amount of the Put Price that could be paid through the issuance and delivery of ENBC common stock and increasing the percentage of residual equity held by Bagel Funding in Bagel Partners following payment of the Put Price in ENBC common stock.
The Partnership Agreement does not constitute a guarantee that Bagel Funding will receive value equivalent to the Put Price under all circumstances; nor does it guaranty a return, or rate of return, to Bagel Funding on its capital. Indeed, neither the Put Right nor the Put Price are given a preference upon or even provided for in liquidation; nor are they mentioned or provided for in the sections regarding merger, dissolution or wind up of Bagel Partners (or, for that matter, in any other sections of the Partnership Agreement). See, e.g. Partnership Agreement, ss. 9.1 (regarding dissolution).
-13-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than guarantee the value of the Put Right or Bagel Funding's Interests in Bagel Partners, the Partnership Agreement clearly contemplates a situation in which (i) payment of the Put Right in Cash is prohibited by the Debtors' financing agreements and (ii) ENBC has insufficient ENBC common stock to satisfy the Put Right in full. In this situation, Section 4.7(e) of the Partnership Agreement requires ENBC to "issue the maximum number of shares of
[ENBC] Common Stock in satisfaction of the Put Price that it is permitted to issue without obtaining prior stockholder approval" and the Put Right is "deemed exercised only with respect to that portion of [Bagel Funding] Units held by
[Bagel Funding] equal to the portion of the [Bagel Funding] Units ... equal to the aggregate Put Price actually paid by the issuance of such Common Stock . . . ." Id. ss. 4.7(e). Thus, because only approximately $3 5 million of the Put Price could be paid as of the Petition Date through ENBC common stock, as stated above, Bagel Funding would retain 35.67% of its Bagel Funding Units, or 7.8% of the total equity of Bagel Partners. The Put Right would remain unexercised as to remaining Bagel Funding Units owned by Bagel Funding.
On March 28, 2000, Bagel Funding formally requested that Bagel Partners seek to terminate Bagel Partners' obligations to pay royalties (and any obligation of ENBC to provide services) pursuant to all franchise and license agreements between Bagel Partners and ENBC. Bagel Partners, in turn, forwarded the letter request to ENBC for response. As of July 27, 2000, ENBC had not consented to such termination of franchise and license agreements.
On March 30, 2000, contrary to the terms of Section 4.7(a) of the Partnership Agreement, Bagel Funding sent a letter to Bagel Partners purporting to exercise the Put Right. In its letter, Bagel Funding further stated that "
t [was] apparent from the statements and actions of ENBC that it [had] rejected the license termination . . .", and, Bagel Funding asserted that it had an immediate right to exercise the Put Right. Bagel Funding further demanded (again, contrary to the Partnership Agreement) immediate cash payment of the Put Price because, in its view, "ENBC [had] no right to issue worthless stock in satisfaction of Bagel Partners' obligation to purchase the [Bagel Funding Units]." Bagel Funding has also demanded that Bagel Partners issue to it a promissory note in satisfaction of the Put Right. The Debtors challenged the claims of Bagel Funding under the Put Right on the grounds it is (i) not provided for in and is contrary to the Partnership Agreement, (ii) prohibited by the Prepetition Credit Facility without the consent of the lenders thereunder, and (iii) under the circumstances, invalid under Delaware law. Bagel Funding disputes many of the Debtors' characterizations and conclusions.
Bagel Funding asserts that the Put Right entitles Bagel Funding to an Interest in the Bagel Partners case in the approximate amount of $54.4 million and, furthermore, regardless of whether Bagel Funding's rights under the Put Right are determined by the Court to be characterized as a Claim or an Interest, the Put Right entitles Bagel Funding to receive a distribution equal to the full amount of the Put Price (calculated by the Debtors' accountants to be $54.4 million as of December 31, 1999) before either (i) any distribution may be made on account of the partnership interests in Bagel Partners held by ENBC or the General Partner; or (ii) any distribution may be made for the Bagel Partner's estate or its assets for the benefit of ENBC or its Creditors, including the Debenture Holders.
-14-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bagel Funding further asserts that any determination by the Bankruptcy Court that the Put Right had any value might render the Plan unconfirmable.
As stated above, the Debtors and the Proponent dispute Bagel Funding's allegations.
On July 20, 2000, the Court conducted a hearing to determine the value of, and other issues associated with, the Put Right. On August 7, 2000, the Court entered a written memorandum opinion and order (the "Put Right Ruling") determining that it is appropriate to classify the Put Right as an Equity Interest in Bagel Partners' Case and any rights that Bagel Funding may have do not constitute Claims against ENBC.
Bagel Partners is a Delaware limited partnership. ENBC and the General Partner (a wholly owned subsidiary of ENBC) currently own 77% and 1% of the Interests in Bagel Partners, respectively. The balance of the Interests in Bagel Partners is held by Bagel Funding and certain other persons including former members of management of the Area Developers. These limited partners and their approximate percentage ownership of total partnership units of Bagel Partners are as follows: ENBC-76.8%, Bagel Funding-21.68%, BC Detroit, L.P.-0.11%, BC Chicago, Inc.-0.27%, Douglas Henzlik-0.02%, Edwin Brownell-0.02%, Noah Alper-0.04%, and Pearce Tucker-0.02%.
ENBC, through a wholly owned subsidiary, is also the sole manager of Bagel Funding, the Holder of approximately 21.5% of the Interests in Bagel Partners.
Then by all means keep going and good luck with that.
I agree that everything I have come up with is with NWRG and the old ENBC that started Einstein has nothing to do with the planned growth. However, if ENBBQ loses the Q one of these days....then something is definately up! It would be nice to talk to Hartnett to find out who is in control of the shell now.
I would like to find something in regards to the reorganization proposal with the bankruptcy court!
That website has been up for quite some time now. If you keep doing your DD you'll see that nothing is going on here.
http://www.einsteinbros.com
Read this info I just found!!
From New World Restaurant Group 8-k on 5-17-07
Rick Dutkiewicz CFO added, "Our improved financial results, combined with lower intrest payments, have strenthened our ability to advance our expansion plans in 2007. We are curretnly focused on building 11 to 15 new company owned restaurants, including Einstien Bros. Bagels in the east, midwest, and south and Noah's New York Bagels in California and the Pacific Northwest. In addition, in 2007 we intend to upgrade approx 25 of our current retaurants with enhancements such as self service coolers, expanded coffe bar, a seperate station for to go items and improved ordering systems.
http://www.einsteinbros.com/index.cfm
Welcome to Einsteinbros.comEinstein Bros. To enter the Einstein Bros® Neighborhood, you'll need to make sure you have:. A working computer hooked up to that new-fangled Internet ...
www.einsteinbros.com/ - Jun 2, 2007 - Similar pages
ENBC website active today!!! Noahs is now redirecting www.noahs.com.
Welcome to Einsteinbros.comEinstein Bros. To enter the Einstein Bros® Neighborhood, you'll need to make sure you have:. A working computer hooked up to that new-fangled Internet ...
www.einsteinbros.com/ - Jun 2, 2007
Something is going on here!!!!
Buyer found for Einstein/Noah bagel chain
The Denver Business Journal - February 12, 2001
Print this Article Email this Article Reprints RSS Feeds Most Viewed Most Emailed
Golden-based Einstein/Noah Bagel Corp. will seek bankruptcy court approval for its sale to ENB Acquisition LLC, an affiliate of the New York-based company Three Cities Fund III LP.
ENB Acquisition has agreed to pay $167.7 million for the assets of Einstein/Noah Bagel Corp. and the assumption of $22.7 million in liabilities. The sale is pending approval of a Phoenix bankruptcy court where the Chapter 11 case motion was filed.
Einstein/Noah Bagel Corp. filed its Chapter 11 petition in April 2000 after filing a reorganization plan.
Robert Hartnett, chairman and CEO of Einstein/Noah Bagel Corp. said in a written statement that the sale to Three Cities was the best alternative for the two financially beleaguered companies.
"The boards concluded that the sale provides fair value in cash to stakeholders," Hartnett said.
A ruling on the sale is expected to be delivered on Feb. 26, the same day a hearing is scheduled to consider bidding procedures and related matters.
Einstein/Noah Bagel Corp. operates 461 bagel stores in 29 states under the Einstein Bros. and Noah's New York Bagels brands. The companies are known for their bagels, cream cheese spreads, soups, sandwiches and salads.
Three Cities Fund III LP is a private equity firm specializing in investing in securities chosen by an investment committee.
Think this one really has some nice potential, need to get in contact with someone who can tell us what is going on here!!
MM's really want you shares, hence the crazy spread the week or two, little buying presure and this move very quickly, therfore it must have a tiny float!
Will be doing some work on this one this week!
ENBBQ - up .006 today so far. Low volume though. e
Hey Hdohtx...I have been out of town for a few days. I havent had a chance to follow any leads....have you come up with any new info?? I see yesterday did some volume, but today looks dead. We need to get this one going!!
Have you tried this person:
Loomis Sayles & Co LP
Person Signing this Report on Behalf of Reporting Manager:
Name: Geraldine Leahy
Title: Trading Compliance Manager
Phone: 617-960-2010
Loomis Sayles has served the investment needs of institutional and mutual fund clients for over 80 years. The company's rich tradition has earned it the trust of clients worldwide for which it manages more than $105 billion in equity and fixed income assets.
Over eight decades, we have never lost sight of our key strength—security selection driven by independent research. Research underlies the investment process of each strategy and our portfolio managers rely on the timely and unbiased opinions of our experienced career analysts. Interaction between portfolio managers and analysts creates a healthy rapport to challenge ideas, ensuring that only the best ones make it into client portfolios.
With a powerful combination of proprietary research and experienced investment professionals, we offer a diversified series of actively-managed strategies and provide clients with access to traditional and highly specialized asset classes. By employing an opportunistic approach to investing—balanced with disciplined, bottom-up research—we strive to produce above-average returns across all asset classes and categories.
MM's plaing games here, hiding bids, been trying to get a few this morn to ave down, had bid at .001 for 30 min, then upped it to .0015 now for another 30 min, no show on l2, can't believe they brought this thing down 75% yesterday on only 10K shares, I think these mm's trying to scare people into dumping for a loss, gonna have to slap those mm's around a bit!!
Pure speculation! Just trying to connect the dots....NWRG bought all the assets from ENBC back in 2001, so we are trying to identify why ENBBQ resurfaced recently?? I would doubt very seriously that ENBBQ would be the vehicle that is used to take BAGL public however!
I will do more diggin tomorrow..........I just wonder where the initial volume came from......I know the rest is from the few who are watching, but someone started it.
My calls and mails have gotten me nowhere, but I am still trying...........Hope everyone is well and had a great weekend!
Hi guys - I don't have much time, but what is the connection between that and ENBBQ? Cheers, R.
Hey hdogtx...thanks for getting that reply from 4858...I was hoping he knew those guys, oh well....
I don't know too much from my DD yet...It fell off quite abit Friday as far as volume goes.....We'll see what happens this coming week...
I think Paul A. Strasen could tell us what's going on...I have the phone number for two Paul A. Strasens...one in Colorado and one in Kansas City. I believe this all started back in KC years ago and now NWRG is in CO so I bet one of those numbers is good.
ENBC was riddled with debt years ago, but now it possibly is clean and with NWRG looking for a vehicle to take BAGL public...who knows???
NO Love! Left detailed messages with Mari Shimokawa with Loomis Sayles, a couple of different ppl @ Lasalle Bank, the last known CEO(Robert M. Hartnett), and the secretary(Paul A. Strasen), no one has returned my call.
The volume is down today and PPS has fallen from HOD. It does however, seem to move freely(possible low float); with any interest here, it could rocket to new highs.
Will advise if I get any call backs.
hdogtx...can you PM ...4858 and see if he knows any of these guys...I can't PM...thanks!
Robert M. Hartnett, President/CEO
W. Eric Carlborg, CFO
Paul A. Strasen, Secretary
Hartnett, Robert M
2522 Last Ave
Kingman, AZ 86401-4762
(928) 753-5171
Possibly the CEO from 2001??
Strasen, Paul A
6 White Alder
Littleton, CO 80127-3598
(303) 971-0576
Strasen, Paul A
221 W 48th St
Kansas City, MO 64112-2680
(816) 531-0456
The Sec from 2001??
Keep me posted........I will do the same..........and thanks for digging
Ive tried to call Loomis Sayles and the TA of record from 2001...left messages...I am going to try and get a number for the trustee from the BK Gerald K. Smith...
Yes, so that is why I sent the links along with my mail.......I will call him again when he gets in. He was kind to return my call, but i would like to hear his explaination of the links.
I thought it was at .02, but I think my streamer is wrong.....011x.02
Jay is with Phieffer? They are the IR for NWRG...if they do know something, they won't say. If by chance this has something to do with BAGL.....he wouldn't tell us.
I could not understand why Jay knew nothing, thus the e-mail...........
Up to a penny now! I called the TA, left message for Greg to return my call ASAP.
Jay called me yesterday after I left a message and said that they have nothing to do with ENBBQ.........so I sent this e-mail back...........He has not replied.
Thanks for the call Jay......................My trail is below, so I guess I am still wondering!
So I noticed this ticker through a volume scan:
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=enbbq&sid=0&o_symb=enbbq&....
Which lead me here:
ENBC Corp
1687 Cole Blvd.
Golden, CO 80401
United States
Tel: 1/303/215-9300
URL: http://www.einsteinbros.com
Which lead me here:
http://www.nwrgi.com/
Which lead me here:
http://www.pfeifferhigh.com/Contact/contactus.html
So this is why I am curious as to how it is all connected!
All my best,
David
Ok so it looks like this thing just pops from time to time. Sometimes it pops hard and sometimes it goes about as high as it went today then comes back. I have no idea how far this could run if we actually gave it some volume.
The Pink Lawyer, what do you see?
I like what I see. ENBBQ won't see subpenny again. IMO
One thing I find hysterical is the court documents where The BAGEL company sues the CHICKEN company. I can't help but chuckle about it.
Is BAGL going to R/M into ENBBQ? Sorry if I sound like a know nothing.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 8-K
CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): July 11, 2001
ENBC CORP.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware 0-21097 84-1294908
(State or other (Commission (IRS Employer
jurisdiction of File No.) Identification No.)
incorporation)
1687 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401
(Address of principal executive offices)
(303) 568-8000
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)
EINSTEIN/NOAH BAGEL CORP.
(Former name or former address, if changes since last report)
Item 5. Other Events.
On July 11, 2001, Einstein/Noah Bagel Corp. filed an amendment to
its Restated Certificate of Incorporation, pursuant to Section 303 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law, changing the name of the corporation to
ENBC Corp. The name change was made in connection with the sale of
substantially all of its assets to Einstein Acquisition Corp., an affiliate
of New World Coffee - Manhattan Bagel, Inc., on June 19, 2001.
SIGNATURE
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf
by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.
Dated: July 11, 2001
ENBC CORP.
By: /s/ Paul A. Strasen
-----------------------
Paul A. Strasen
Senior Vice President
New to these kinds of deals but would like to help.
Fogg, Let me know if I can call anyone or help with DD.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL
OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Argued and Submitted on June 21, 2001
at Phoenix, Arizona
Filed - July 16, 2001
Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Arizona
Honorable Charles G. Case II, Bankruptcy Judge, Presiding
_____________________
Before: RUSSELL, PERRIS, and RYAN, Bankruptcy Judges.
RUSSELL, Bankruptcy Judge:
EINSTEIN/NOAH BAGEL CORP.,
Appellant,
______________________________________________________ OPINION
v.
GERALD K. SMITH, Plan Trustee,,
Appellee.
______________________________________________________
The appellant filed an administrative claim against a chapter 11(1) debtor in possession ("DIP") from whom it had subleased office space. The basis for the claim was an alleged postpetition breach of the sublease by the DIP-sublessor for which liability was premised on § 365(d)(3) and § 503(b). After confirmation, the plan trustee objected to the claim and moved for summary judgment. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in the trustee's favor based on a finding that § 365(d)(3) applied only to debtor-lessees and not to debtor-lessors. This appeal followed. We AFFIRM.
I. FACTS
This appeal involves two restauranteurs, appellant Einstein/Noah Bagel Corporation ("ENBC"), a retailer of bagels and associated foods, and Boston Chicken, Inc., a purveyor of home-style meals. Boston Chicken owns half of ENBC's outstanding shares and in 1996, the two companies entered into various agreements relating to the infrastructure and operations of ENBC. Two of these agreements were for accounting and computer services to be performed by Boston Chicken on ENBC's behalf. The third was a five-year lease agreement under which ENBC subleased from Boston Chicken 38,000 square feet of the Golden, Colorado, office building where the latter maintained its headquarters. Boston Chicken itself was leasing the entire building from the Prudential Insurance Company.
Boston Chicken and ENBC amended the sublease agreement in May 1998 so that ENBC retained only 27,000 square feet. Included in the amendment was a provision requiring Boston Chicken to use its "best efforts" to obtain a non-disturbance agreement from Prudential. Such an agreement would serve to prohibit Prudential from disturbing ENBC's rights under the sublease in the event that ENBC remained current on it and Boston Chicken defaulted on the master lease with Prudential.
In October 1998, Boston Chicken, along with its affiliates, filed a chapter 11 petition and became a debtor in possession. According to ENBC, in the time leading up to the petition and thereafter, Boston Chicken became unable to consistently perform its service obligations to ENBC. As a result, ENBC asserts, it began an initiative to ensure its survival in case Boston Chicken abandoned these contractual obligations. This initiative involved the separation of ENBC's facilities from those of Boston Chicken. Boston Chicken had not obtained the non-disturbance agreement from Prudential and ENBC claims that it feared immediate eviction from its subleased offices in the event that Boston Chicken or Prudential terminated the master lease. To avoid this perceived risk, ENBC relocated its offices at the end of 1999.
In March 2000, Boston Chicken moved for an order authorizing rejection of the ENBC sublease. ENBC did not oppose the motion and the bankruptcy court issued the order that next month. Under the terms of the order, Boston Chicken was deemed to have rejected the ENBC sublease upon the filing of the motion.
Boston Chicken's third amended plan was approved in May 2000. The plan provided for the sale of most of its assets to a subsidiary of the McDonald's Corporation. It also provided for the appointment of appellee Gerald K. Smith as plan trustee. Mr. Smith's duties included the collection, administration, and distribution of the sale proceeds as well as any retained assets.
Before Boston Chicken's plan was approved, ENBC had filed a "Request for Payment of Administrative Expense."(2) This request was really three administrative claims totaling $1,883,000. The first two claims were based on costs incurred due to Boston Chicken's alleged failure to perform obligations under the agreements for accounting and computer services. The third and largest one, in the amount of $1.5 million, rested on Boston Chicken's alleged breach of the sublease provision regarding the non-disturbance agreement. ENBC maintained that Boston Chicken did not use its best efforts to obtain this agreement with Prudential, thereby causing uncertainty regarding ENBC's continued occupation of its offices and ultimately, the company's relocation at a cost of $1.5 million.
In a single pleading, Boston Chicken objected to ENBC's three claims. As for the one relating to the agreement for accounting services, it urged that ENBC had no right to claim damages under the agreement except those resulting from willful misconduct or gross negligence, neither of which ENBC had asserted. As for the claim relating to the agreement for computer services, Boston Chicken maintained that the parties had terminated the agreement in February 2000 and that ENBC had expressly released Boston Chicken from any claims arising under the agreement as of termination. Finally, as for the claim relating to the sublease provision regarding the non-disturbance agreement, Boston Chicken contended that its court-approved rejection of the sublease meant that any claim by ENBC arising from a breach of the sublease would be deemed a prepetition, unsecured one under §§ 365(g) and 502(g).
ENBC disputed the first two objections and responded to the last one with the following:
The Trustee misses the mark. ENBC's claim is not a rejection claim; it does not assert damages resulting from a breach of prospective obligations under the . . . [s]ublease or damages arising for termination of that sublease. Rather, ENBC's claim is for damages resulting from [Boston Chicken's] failure to perform a postpetition obligation to exercise best efforts to obtain a nondisturbance agreement from Prudential.
Einstein/Noah Bagel Corp.'s Response to Trustee's Objection to Administrative Claim, Aug. 21, 2000, p. 8. Boston Chicken's liability, it asserted, rested on § 365(d)(3), which requires the trustee (or DIP) to "timely perform all the obligations of the debtor" arising from and after the order for relief under any unexpired lease of nonresidential property. While ENBC acknowledged that § 365(d)(3) was usually invoked by landlords of debtor-lessees to enforce rent obligations, it argued that "debtor" in this section could be read to include debtor-landlords.
The trustee moved for summary judgment on his objections to ENBC's three administrative claims. Serving as grounds for his motion were the above-mentioned objections themselves. ENBC opposed the motion, restating in large part its § 365(d)(3) argument.
A hearing on the motion was held in September 2000. The bankruptcy court denied summary judgment as to the trustee's objection to ENBC's claim relating to the agreement for accounting services and granted summary judgment as to his objection to ENBC's claim relating to the agreement for computer services. Neither of these dispositions is the subject of this appeal.
On the matter of summary judgment as to the trustee's objection to ENBC's claim relating to the sublease, the court deferred ruling in order to allow it, as well as ENBC, to review case law discussed by the trustee at the hearing, but not cited in his pleadings. With the court's permission, ENBC filed a responsive brief, at which time the matter was taken under advisement. The court subsequently issued an order in which it granted summary judgment in favor of the trustee based on a finding that § 365(d)(3) applied only to debtor-lessees.
Though ENBC timely appealed, the court's order was not final because it merely granted the trustee's motion. Therefore, we remanded for the entry of a final, appealable order. Such an order was entered in March 2001 and stated that any claim of ENBC based on the sublease was "not entitled to administrative priority under 11 U.S.C. §§ 503(b), 365(d)(3) or any other provision of the Bankruptcy Code." ENBC's notice of appeal then took effect under Rule 8002(a).
II. ISSUE
Whether the bankruptcy court properly determined that ENBC's claim relating to the sublease was not entitled to administrative priority.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This appeal presents a question of law. We review such questions under the de novo standard. In re Black, 222 B.R. 896, 899 (9th Cir. BAP 1998)(citing In re Kirsh, 973 F.2d 1454, 1456 (9th Cir. 1992)).
IV. DISCUSSION
ENBC argues that its claim relating to the sublease was indeed entitled to administrative priority under § 365(d)(3) and § 503(b). We disagree.
1. Administrative Priority under § 365(d)(3)
Section 365(d)(3) provides in pertinent part:
The trustee shall timely perform all the obligations of the debtor, except those specified in section 365(b)(2), arising from and after the order for relief under any unexpired lease of nonresidential real property, until such lease is assumed or rejected, notwithstanding section 503(b)(1) of this title. The court may extend, for cause, the time for performance of any such obligation that arises within 60 days after the date of the order for relief, but the time for performance shall not be extended beyond such 60-day period. This subsection shall not be deemed to affect the trustee's obligations under the provisions of subsection (b) or (f) of this section. Acceptance of any such performance does not constitute waiver or relinquishment of the lessor's rights under such lease or under this title.
It is ENBC's position that this section obligated Boston Chicken, the DIP, to timely perform its contractual obligation to use its "best efforts" to obtain a non-disturbance agreement from Prudential. ENBC contends that it failed to do so and that this failure gives rise to administrative liability as surely as if Boston Chicken were a debtor-lessee who did not pay rent.
The court, however, determined that this was not the case, holding that § 365(d)(3) applied only where the debtor was a lessee, not a lessor like Boston Chicken. It first traced the genesis of this section, added by Congress in 1984, to concerns by commercial landlords that the bankruptcy process held them hostage by requiring them to continue extending credit to debtor-lessees during the pendency of reorganization. Specifically, the court cited the following statement from Sen. Orrin Hatch describing the landlords' situation:
A second . . . problem is that during the time the debtor has vacated space but has not yet decided whether to assume or reject the lease, the trustee has stopped making payments due under the lease. These payments include rent due the landlord and common area charges which are paid by all the tenants according to the amount of space they lease. In this situation, the landlord is forced to provide current services--the use of its property, utilities, security, and other services--without current payment. No other creditor is put in this position.
130 Cong. Rec. S 8891, 8895 (daily ed. June 29, 1984)(statement of Sen. Hatch), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 576, 599.
Turning to § 365(d)(3) itself, the court highlighted the last sentence of the section, stating:
Here, the final sentence of section 365(d)(3) very strongly suggests that it is limited to protecting the rights of lessors and the legislative history clearly confirms that conclusion. Indeed, the wording is highly suggestive: "Acceptance . . . does not constitute waiver . . . of the lessor's rights." Had the intent been more limited, the sentence should have referred to "a" lessor's rights. The use of "the" underscores the conclusion that the entire section is designed to protect lessors' right to payment and other performance, during the period that they would otherwise have been "held hostage."
Under Advisement Order re: Motion for Summary Judgment, Oct. 16, 2000, pp. 5-6 (emphases in original).
ENBC attacks the court's analysis, asserting that the court misconstrued § 365(d)(3). It urges that the plain language of § 365(d)(3) does not limit the application of the section to instances where the debtor is a lessee. Because the plain language is conclusive, ENBC argues, the court's reliance on legislative history in the form of Sen. Hatch's statement was erroneous. In its view, the "clear text" of § 365(d)(3) should have ended the court's inquiry. As authority for this position, ENBC cites the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Ron Pair Enters. Inc., 489 U.S. 235 (1989).
ENBC continues by stating that even if reference to legislative history were proper, such history demonstrates that § 365(d)(3) was not intended to apply only where the debtor is a lessee. It chronicles various, unenacted predecessors to § 365(d)(3), which would have required the trustee to timely perform obligations of the "tenant," rather than the "debtor." The use of the word "debtor" in the enacted version, ENBC maintains, demonstrates that Congress intended to include not only lessees in the reach of § 365(d)(3), but also lessors.
ENBC's points are largely academic for the final sentence of § 365(d)(3), as the court noted, indicates that it is limited to instances where the debtor is a lessee. To reiterate, that sentence provides:
Acceptance of . . . performance does not constitute waiver or relinquishment of the lessor's rights under such lease or under this title.
It is clear from this language that it is the rights of the lessor that are being protected, not those of the lessee. Even if the statutory language were not clear, we agree with the bankruptcy court that the legislative history supports that interpretation. As the bankruptcy court pointed out, § 365(d)(3) was intended to address the problems of debtor-tenants who have stopped making rent and other required payments to the landlord. To reiterate, Congress was concerned that, pending the decision whether to assume or reject the lease,
the landlord is forced to provide current services--the use of its property, utilities, security, and other services--without current payment. No other creditor is put in this position.
130 Cong. Rec. S 8891, 8895 (daily ed. June 29, 1984)(statement of Sen. Hatch), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 576, 599. By requiring the trustee to perform the debtor's obligations under a lease of nonresidential real property, § 365(d)(3) was viewed as "insur[ing] that debtor-tenants pay their rent, common area, and other charges on time pending the trustee's assumption or rejection of the lease." Id.
Accordingly, ENBC's argument that both lessors and lessees are encompassed by § 365(d)(3) must be rejected.
2. Administrative Priority under § 503(b)
The bankruptcy court stated that ENBC "[did] not claim traditional administrative claim priority under section 503(b)." Under Advisement Order re: Motion for Summary Judgment, Oct. 16, 2000, p. 3. Boston Chicken cites this observation and, if true, it is not possible for us to consider ENBC's 503(b) argument on appeal. As a general rule, we will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal. See In re Berg, 186 B.R. 479, 482 (9th Cir. BAP 1995).
ENBC, however, did indeed raise a § 503(b) argument below. The record contains ENBC's post-hearing responsive brief, filed with permission of the court, to address case law discussed by the trustee at the hearing, but not cited in his pleadings. In this document, ENBC contended that even if § 365(d)(3) did not apply to debtor landlords, its claim relating to the sublease was entitled to administrative treatment. Specifically, it alleged that "a nondebtor party to a contract with a debtor is entitled to obtain administrative priority treatment for any postpetition benefit provided to the estate under an executory contract prior to assumption or rejection of such contract." Einstein/Noah Bagel Corp.'s Surresponse in Opposition to Trustee's Motion for Summary Judgment, Oct. 5, 2000, p. 2. According to ENBC, it had "undisputably conferred a postpetition benefit upon the [Boston Chicken] estate; it performed its obligations (mainly by paying rent each month to [Boston Chicken])." Einstein/Noah Bagel Corp.'s Surresponse in Opposition to Trustee's Motion for Summary Judgment, Oct. 5, 2000, p. 3.
We note that counsel for ENBC advanced this position orally in the bankruptcy court as well, stating the following:
I mean we kept on paying rent, we paid every month and they didn't perform their obligation to exercise best efforts to get this non-disturbance agreement. So either--whether you look at § 365(d)(3), which I think is clearly applicable to debtor/landlords when you take a look at its place in the code and the other provisions that are right next to it and it is also appropriate that this claim survives under a 503(b)(1) analysis, too, as well.
Transcript of Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment, Sept. 28, 2000, p. 20.
Thus, we are able to address ENBC's § 503(b) argument, though the court did not do so. Initially, we observe that, as a matter of law, it is true that a non-debtor party (like ENBC) to an executory contract with a debtor is entitled to an administrative claim equal to the value of any postpetition benefit conferred on the estate before assumption or rejection of that contract. In re El Paso Refinery, L.P., 220 B.R. 37, 45 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1998)(citing NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U.S. 513, 531 (1984); United States Postal Serv. v. Dewey Freight Sys., Inc., 31 F.3d 620, 624 (8th Cir. 1994)). It does not follow from this proposition, however, that ENBC is entitled to an administrative claim in the amount of its relocation costs.
The flaw in ENBC's reasoning involves the nature of its claim. It does not seek recovery of rent, which was a benefit conferred on the Boston Chicken estate for which ENBC received the right to use office space under the sublease. Rather, ENBC seeks recovery of its relocation costs, which did not benefit the estate. It was exactly these costs on which ENBC's claim was based. The proof of claim provided:
[Boston Chicken] failed to exercise best efforts to obtain a nondisturbance agreement from Prudential Insurance Company of America (the "Master Landlord") to recognize ENBC's right to maintain possession of its former support center facility space, as [Boston Chicken] was required to do under Section 11 of the first amendment to the Support Center Sublease. As a result of this failure, the related uncertainty surrounding whether ENBC would be able to continue to occupy this space, and ENBC's need to construct data center operations that would not be exposed to a risk of immediate eviction, ENBC was forced to find alternative space for its support center and has paid or expects to pay approximately $1.5 million to move its support center from its former facility into its new space.
Request for Payment of Administrative Expense (Schedule A), Mar. 16, 2000. p. 3.
In the end, then, ENBC's § 503(b) argument, like its § 365(d)(3) one, must be rejected. The logic gap in the former is simply not bridgeable.
V. CONCLUSION ENBC's claim relating to the sublease is not entitled to administrative priority under § 365(d)(3) or § 503(b). The bankruptcy court properly determined such. We AFFIRM.
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all chapter, section, and rule references are to the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1330, and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Rules 1001-9036.
2. ENBC's own chapter 11 petition followed soon after this filing.
It's the corporation that used to house the Einstein/Noah Bagel Corp.....New World Restaurant Group bought the assets from a bankruptcy proceeding in 2001 or 2002. Now, it's a shell that is showing signs of life. Tomorrow I will try and find out more by making some calls....
New World to Receive Additional Proceeds From ENBC Corporation Bankruptcy Estates; Court Approves Settlement Regarding Asset Distribution
2002 Aug 20 8:16 PM
New World Restaurant Group announced that the Bankruptcy Court with jurisdiction of the proceedings of ENBC Corporation (formerly Einstein/Noah Bagel Corp.) and ENBP, L.P. (formerly Einstein/Noah Bagel Partners), approved a settlement of the litigation concerning the distribution of the assets of the two estates. Under the settlement agreement approved by the court, $17.1 million is to be paid to creditors of ENBC, of which approximately 49%, or $8.3 million, is to be paid to New World. Distribution of the proceeds from the ENBC and ENBP estates approved in the U.S.
Can anyone explain what is going on with the company? Thanks in advance.
Yep, That Works -e-
Swwweeeeeeet!
April 10, 2007 - 4:52 PM EDT
close Email this News Article
Your Name
Your Email
Friend's Name
Friend's Email
Receive Copy: yes
NWRG 17.00 0.00
Today 5d 1m 3m 1y 5y 10y
New World Restaurant Group Files Registration Statement for Proposed Public Offering
GOLDEN, Colo., April 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- New World Restaurant Group, Inc. (OTC: NWRG) today announced that it has filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to a proposed public offering of up to $125,000,000 of its common stock. The number of shares to be offered and the price range for the offering have not been determined. New World will use the proceeds of the offering to pay down its existing indebtedness.
Application has been made to list New World's common stock on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol 'BAGL.'
New World is the largest owner/operator, franchisor and licensor of bagel specialty restaurants in the United States with approximately 600 restaurants in 36 states and the District of Columbia under the Einstein Bros. Bagels, Noah's New York Bagels and Manhattan Bagel brands. New World's restaurants specialize in high-quality foods for breakfast and lunch in a café atmosphere with a neighborhood emphasis.
Morgan Stanley and Cowen and Company will be the joint book-running managers for the offering and Piper Jaffray & Co. will be co-manager.
The offering will be made only by means of a prospectus, which, when available, may be obtained from:
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated Cowen and Company, LLC
Prospectus Department c/o ADP, Prospectus Department
180 Varick Street 2/F 1155 Long Island Avenue
New York, NY 10014 Edgewood, NY 11717
Telephone: 1-866-718-1649 Telephone: 631-254-7106
Email: prospectus@morganstanley.com
Piper Jaffray & Co.
Prospectus Department
800 Nicollet Mall, Suite 800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: 1-877-371-5212
A registration statement relating to these securities has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission but has not yet become effective. These securities may not be sold nor may offers to buy these securities be accepted prior to the time the registration statement becomes effective. This news release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of any offer to buy, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any state or jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such state or jurisdiction.
Statements contained in this press release that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Forward-looking statements, including statements regarding the completion of the proposed public offering and any of the terms thereof, are inherently uncertain and subject to risks that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expected by the management of New World.
SOURCE New World Restaurant Group, Inc.
No....go to quote search and in the pull down box, select historical...put in any date, its been around....but its definitely a bankruptcy situation that for some reason, did a lot of volume today and in the past week has had huge gains...Something seems to be up, but these days, who knows! I have seen many phantom companies rise from the ashes and look like something is happening, only to see it descend as mysteriously as it was resurrected.
It also looks like its gone up 1500% on 1.5 million in volume. So what like a thousand bucks? The float must be nothing.
It looks like this thing has only been trading for 3 days?
Hey True...I am trying to find out more myself. I dont know much yet, But Its definately not Einstein Bros. I'm trying to change the name of the board now...However, NWRG 'may' have knowledge of what is going on...
Followers
|
5
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
58
|
Created
|
05/17/07
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |