Home | MyMauMau: Log In / Register | Ask Franny
Log In / Register | Jul 4, 2009

Bennigan's, Steak & Ale Go on the Chopping Block

Plano, Tex. (Blue MauMau) - S & A Restaurant Corp., a subsidiary of Metromedia Restaurant Group announced yesterday that its two restaurant chains will file Chapter 7, a bankruptcy filing procedure marking the intent to liquidate some 150 company-owned Bennigan's as well as its Steak & Ale restaurants. Metromedia is a franchising conglomerate that also franchises such brands as Bonanza & Ponderosa steakhouses.

The franchising arm of Bennigan's and Steak & Ale concepts was quick to announce today that franchise owners were independent companies and not part of the Chapter 7 filing. The 138 domestic and international franchisee-owned restaurants will remain open and fully operational.

The company announced that Bennigan's Franchising Company, L.P. and Steak & Ale Franchising Company, L.P. will continue to provide high quality support services to its franchisees and remain focused on maintaining and maximizing the value of the franchise brands for its franchisees and their loyal customers.

Bruce Shaeffer, an attorney specializing in tax and company valuation issues, emphasizes that Chapter 7 liquidates the company as opposed to Chapter 11 in which the management of a firm seeks protection from bankruptcy by the court. Shaeffer conjectures, "My guess is the Chapter 7 trustee will try to sell off assets including its trademarks and goodwill. My other guess is that the franchisees will find it in their best interest to buy the chain."

"This has happened before," agrees Craig Tractenberg, a partner with Nixon Peabody LLP who specializes in franchise mergers and acquisitions of distressed franchise systems. "My firm was counsel to franchisees who bought the operating assets out of the Ground Round bankruptcy. They cherry-picked the best corporate stores that were closed by Ground Round. That is one of many strategies that can be exercised [by the chain's franchisees]."

Ground Round Inc. is a casual dining chain founded by Howard Johnson's that nearly collapsed from an overextension of restaurant units and then was bought out by a group of franchisees joining together.

Technomic, consultants and analysts for the food industry, thinks the difficulties facing S & A Restaurant Corp. and many other casual dining chains have been apparent for some time.

Bennigan's and Steak & Ale have had lackluster menu concepts with little recent innovation. That helped exacerbate their problems wrestling with high food costs and a soft economy. Credit has also been tight.

Technomic thinks that Bennigan's may not be alone. The top 20 casual dining chains in the same category that Bennigan’s operated had unit growth of 45 percent during the most recent five-year period, well beyond the growth in demand. “These restaurants share many subtle and complex challenges that extend beyond this difficult economic climate,” says Ron Paul, president of Technomic. “To some extent, they’ve become victims of their own success—a mature category with too many units and not enough differentiation, at least in the eyes of consumers.”

Nonetheless, the consultancy feels that strong unit economics, excellent execution in food quality and service, and the ability to convey a strong price/value perception with consumers, regardless of the total amount spent is what makes some restaurants in the casual food sector stand out.

“In terms of achieving differentiation, it’s hard to underestimate the importance of the food element,” says Paul. “Consumers are naturally drawn to unique, signature menu items. When the chain can also layer in excitement through new or limited-time offerings, they help create an environment where consumers want to come back. A good experience can generate all-important buzz around the concept.”

Still, industry-watchers expect more restaurant chains to follow Bennigan's. The question is who.

Mr. Tractenberg hints that there may be more trouble to come but identifying who will be next is difficult. "I don't think anyone can identify a single restaurant brand any more than they can pick a single retailer who will go under. It's just a bad economy for retail."

0
  • Franchise topic:
  • Enter Your Own Tag:

40 Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Atalaya Capital Management LP

Takes over Bennigan's franchise system. 

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

michael webster's picture

Verifying News Stories

Most of the time the print media does a good job on business stories, but sometimes franchise and bankruptcy stories are harder because the involvement of complex law.

In this case, there are three online tools that you need to use: pacer.gov to check on the bankruptcy filings, caleasi to check on the franchise circular, and the US trademark database.  (Pacer.gov requires an account and printing pages is 0.08 per page.)

I checked on pacer.gov on the status of the bankrupcty of S & A Restaurants.

There are only 40 entities involved, including  Bennigan's Gift Card company. (Which presents a whole other problem for the franchisees.)

The owner of the Bennigan trademark , however is S &A Restaurant Corporation, according to the US Trademark Database. 

Whoever the new owners are have not registered the assignment, yet.

But the franchisor, Bennigan's Franchise LP is not in bankrupcty.

There is one other mystery, correctly reported by the Indiana report:

"The chain's parent, Plano, Texas-based Metromedia Restaurant Group, seeks to liquidate its assets and shut down, citing $550 million in assets and about $150 million in debt."

I confirmed this with bankruptcy filing: the actual filing is less precise, but it shows that S & A is solvent!  Having more assets than debt.

Colour me deeply confused, at this point.

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

RE: Verifying news stories

Michael

Since you looked at the filing, how much of the $550 mil are 'intangible' assets, that may be overvalued on the books?

michael webster's picture

Good Point

jd, cannot really tell because it is simply a form.  But you are probably right, meaning that they intend to "retire" on or two of the brand names - taking a hit on goodwill.

But this is clearly more of a chapter 11 than 7: some crappy locations were toasted, and the prime asset of the bankrupt, the trade marks, were assigned, all the while with the franchisor holding the franchisee contracts unaffected.

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

Don Sniegowski's picture

Why Bennigan's Is Important

Peter Romeo of Nation's Restaurant News explains in his blog why Bennigan's is an important company in the restaurant industry. He helps explain the media coverage.

. . . the industry knew S&A Restaurant Corp. on a far more emotional level. For many of casual dining’s best and brightest, the company was the finishing school where they learned the business.

A cautionary tale?

Don –

I could be wrong but doesn’t this situation look like a cautionary tale/prime example of a group of franchisees who had that feeling in their collective gut but failed to be proactive by forming a real association and planning? There are various stories today of these franchisees claiming to have associations, etc. but there is no real evidence of a cohesive group existing.

An organized group would have been ready with a PR statement that would have benefited franchisees and announced their plans – and issued it yesterday morning. The whole “taken by surprise” is evidence enough of the disorganization and a lack of a plan.

As multiple experts have pointed out on these boards, bankruptcies can move fast and those with their ducks in a row usually prevail.

As noted above - franchisees who organize and are proactive have a better shot at controlling their own destinies.

Time will tell.

As far as other QSR owners who likely to throw in the towel - a glance at the balance sheets will tell the story. D/E ratios, acid test, evidence of rapid expansion financed with junk debt etc. will show those most in danger of default and BK. It is harder to find this data for the non-public/hybrid QSR chains as they usually disclose only the franchise division financials. Anyone with public docs, please share them with the group!

Don Sniegowski's picture

What Happens to a Franchise When The Franchisor Goes Under?

Dan makes a good point about Bennigan's being a cautionary tale. Journalist John Tozi of BusinessWeek yesterday wrote this question about the events.

So what happens to a franchise when the franchisor goes under?

Some Bennigan's franchisees actually see the liquidation as a good thing, according to a report in the Post-Tribune, of northwest Indiana. Larry Briski, the local owner of several Bennigan's who also runs the franchisee association, tells the paper that a firm in Atlanta will buy Bennigan's name and continue the franchise operation. Briski says he expects better marketing and branding, calling the change "a very good thing for the franchisees."
- BusinessWeek

Is the leader of Bennigan's franchisee association just wishfully thinking that the new owner of the trademarks cannot do much more harm than the old?

It sounds like the trademarks were sold to the Atlanta firm. And the franchisee leader was conferenced in after the fact. This quote from Indiana's Post-Tribune stands out in regards to Bennigan's corporate closing down:

"I was surprised by what they did today. I thought I was more or less in the loop," he [Briski] said.

They are free at last

The franchisees can pretty much do what they please without paying royalties now. Of course whatever the supply chain was will have to be maintained.

They may or may not be able to use the name, but it'd be a stretch to say that they cannot use the concept. There are only about 4575 other restaurant cocepts that are exactly the same. Heck, the bankruptcy estate would exhaust itself by trying to prevent the zees from using the name unless it was bale to sell it to someone else for some ral money. Given that it went bankrupt in the first place, and the prevalence of ubiquitous indistinguishable competition, that seems unlikely.

michael webster's picture

Doing what they want.

Guest writes: "The franchisees can pretty much do what they please without paying royalties now."

This seems to be a common misunderstanding. 

Suppose the franchisor was in bankruptcy, which in this case is not true - it appears that only the franchisor's corporate stores held in a separate company are being liquidated.

Once in bankruptcy, the trustee takes over the assets.  Franchisee agreements are one such asset, leases are another.

But the simple assignment of your franchise agreement to the trustee doesn't relieve you of any duties: nor is it a breach of the franchise agreement for the franchisor to go bankrupt, unlike what would happen to you if your company went bankrupt.

Franchisees whose franchisor is in bankruptcy need to organize and do so quickly if they want to bring about any changes - otherwise it will be business as usual.

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

Re: Doing what they want.

I would think the Zor has an obligation to maintain the integrity of the restaurant names. With what has been splashed across the news the last few days, it would appear they have failed in a duty.

(and yes,I realize a suit would have to be filed. Zor holds a lot of the cards)

Re: Re: Doing what they want.

Guest writes - I would think the Zor has an obligation to maintain the integrity of the restaurant names. With what has been splashed across the news the last few days, it would appear they have failed in a duty.

(and yes,I realize a suit would have to be filed. Zor holds a lot of the cards)

Reply -  Well your assumption is wrong!

Where is this "duty" you reference in the franchise agreement. I haven't seen a provision in any franchise agreement I've read that requires a franchisor to maintain the integrity of the name or brand.

 

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

Bob Frankman's picture

Franchisors Not Legally Required to Maintain Brand

"I haven't seen a provision in any franchise agreement I've read that requires a franchisor to maintain the integrity of the name or brand." - TIF

 If that is true, that is terrible.

Re: Franchisors Not Legally Required to Maintain Brand

Bob be frank man! What does your franchise agreement say about this burning issue?

Why is it so terrible that the agreement is silent about what a franchisor does with its property (brand)?  

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

RE: They are free at last

Wrong!

Franchisees are as much controlled by the contract as they were before the bankruptcy since the franchisor entities in both cases are NOT bankrupt.

And even if the franchisor entities were bankrupt in either Chapters 7 or 11 the franchisees would be required by the franchise agreement to continue in all their obligations to the franchisor and the bankruptcy cout. The franchise agreements are not just pieces of paper they are assets that are part of the estate that the bankruptcy trustee will collect monies owed by franchisees on behalf of the estate to the benefit of creditors.

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

Counting angels on the head of a pin?

You are correct in a very technically legal sense, but not in a practical sense.

If the Zor cannot supplyn the Zees, what happens? What happens when the trustee is tasked with the advertising schedule? Nothing, that's what. It is a 7, not an 11 so there IS no trustee managingt he business and running it. The court only administers a sal. That is all tghat is being managed.

If the assets sold at bankruptcy auction are bought by someone who is similarly incapable of managing the brand, who is going to force the franchisees to do anything? No one.

If the Zor could not make enogh money off the royalties from the franchise agreements to keep afloat, it is not very likely that someone else will want to pay anything of value for themas a going concern. If they are sold for pennies, maybe someone ca make a run of it, but I would not expect it. If the reale state were valauble, maybe it makes sense. Maybe.

Mr. Blue MauMau's picture

Moved

This comment, Counting angels on the head of a pin, has been moved here. It is off topic.

michael webster's picture

Practical Sense

I have probably a great deal more practical experience with franchisor bankruptcies than you do.

What you don't realize is that in a bankruptcy, precisely in order to stop a mad creditor's rush, legal and self help actions are stayed by order, and to disobey the court risks a finding of contempt. 

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

Re: Practical Sense

Michael with all respect intended I have experience as a creditor in a number of bankruptcies and as franchisor DIP.  

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

michael webster's picture

Re Practical Sense II

TIF, I wasn't disagreeing with any of your comments about bankruptcy. 

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

RE: RE: Practical Sense II

Got it!

It gets confusing and difficult to follow threads with unregistered posters on BMM. 

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

michael webster's picture

Comments

@TIF 

There is a technique which some blogs use in which when you reply to a person, automatically the person's comment is linked.

So in this case, my opening line is:

@TIF, with "@TIF" linking to your comment.  No matter how many comments appear in between.

It is probably a good practice to start, until Mr. BMM gets this as a plug-in.

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

Pratical sense of failure?

TIF, if your law school taught you to emotionally react so worngheadedly just to favor a misguided Zor bias, you need to get your money back.

Besides, the Zor's legal dept canned you, didn't it? If you had a lot of Zor experience in bankruptcy court, you and your Zor were failures.

RichardSolomon's picture

TIF has a law degree?

That explains a lot.

What is 18 inches long and dangles in front of an arsehole?

A lawyer's necktie.--

Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com,  has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School

re: Re: Re: tif has a law degree?

"That explains a lot.

What is 18 inches long and dangles in front of an arsehole?

A lawyer's necktie.--"

I guess you meant "tif's necktie?"
Right on.

RE: TIF has a law degree?

As Elephant Man would say; I am not a lawyer!  

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

Re: Pratical sense of failure?

Are you out of your mind? 

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

Outta my mind!

Yup!

Just taking a playful jab, see what happens. It can't be personal, because we don't know each other.

Don Sniegowski's picture

Who Is Next for Bankruptcy?

"Still, industry-watchers expect more restaurant chains to follow Bennigan's. The question is who."

What franchise restaurant chain do you think is on the precipice of bankruptcy? Why?

Re: Who Is Next for Bankruptcy?

My guess would be Quiznos Sub at the rate their stores are closing.

Re: Who Is Next for Bankruptcy?

I know a guy who owns several DD and he is having big problems, he has new equipment requirements and the zor's are making all the stores buy new coffee machines and donuts boxes. He doesn't know what to do. He tells me things are not good for him and his fellow zees. He is debating filing and he dislikes the zor he would rather hold up this matter in court then hand over the stores to them.

Quiznos a possibility

When Quiznos implements policies that benefit only corporate and destroy individual franchise owners (delivery, $5.00 large sub), you realize quickly they are in survival mode.

Quiznos is next

If you add up the number of stores that have closed, and the greatly reduced sells at the remaining stores, and the number of stores that have stopped paying the royalties (because they have no money left), Quiznos revenues must be way down. That's probably why they are trying to force stores to open earlier and close later ( even if it costs the owner plenty of money to stay open with no customers) so they can get a few extra royalty dollars here and there. It makes no business for the owners to be open when there are viretually no customers but for corporate it costs them nothing for a chance at a few extra dollars.

What are zees' options?

RE: They are free at last
TIF wrote: Submitted by Truth in Franchising on Thu, 2008/07/31 - 06:25.
Wrong!
Franchisees are as much controlled by the contract as they were before the bankruptcy since the franchisor entities in both cases are NOT bankrupt.
And even if the franchisor entities were bankrupt in either Chapters 7 or 11 the franchisees would be required by the franchise agreement to continue in all their obligations to the franchisor and the bankruptcy cout. The franchise agreements are not just pieces of paper they are assets that are part of the estate that the bankruptcy trustee will collect monies owed by franchisees on behalf of the estate to the benefit of creditors.

I understand your point, but don't the franchisees have SOME type of recourse, since the zor is driving the brand into the ground? They aren't fulfilling their original goal of helping / improving / aiding the zees, and at least the zees should sue the zor to stop payments, since they are no longer getting anything of value for their fees?

Franchisee is free if Franchisor cannot meet his obligations

if the Franchisor is bankrupt and can't fullfill his obligations under the contract with the Franchisee, then they are in default of the contract, and the contract can be terminated.

Paul Steinberg's picture

Zee obligations to zor in "breach" or BR

Guest writes: if the Franchisor is bankrupt and can't fullfill his obligations under the contract with the Franchisee, then they are in default of the contract, and the contract can be terminated.

Not so fast.

Not paying royalties is almost ALWAYS a very very bad idea.

Whether done individually or collectively ("royalty strike"), the situation is a bit more complicated than "Guest" would have us believe.

  1. First: generally the Franchise Agreement requires the zee to notify the zor in writing of any alleged breach, and to give time to cure.
  2. Second: even assuming that your contract is terminated, there is still the matter of the non-compete provision which generally survives termination. Now before everyone gets into ways around this, I would note that this is a matter which is both fact-specific and governed by state law.
  3. Third: you cannot use someone else's property without their permission, and you cannot use someone else's property without paying for it. If you are using the "Bennigans" name or even if you change the name but continue with the same decor or menu--- you are using the franchisor's intellectual property without paying for it. That will land you in federal court.

There are some idiot lawyers out there who have in the past indeed advised franchisees that since their franchisor breached the contract, the franchisee is free to simply stop paying royalties. But BMM readers should know better.

Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400

michael webster's picture

Bankrupt Franchisors

Guest writes:  "if the Franchisor is bankrupt and can't fullfill his obligations under the contract"

Generally, bankruptcy doesn't entail that the franchisor cannot meet his obligations.

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

Re-read Michael's Post

The franchisor did not file bankruptcy.

General Comment

My comment about the Franchisee being free was a general comment, and was not specific to this case (Brannigan's or Quiznos). However, if the surviving company that holds the Franchisee Contracts is only a "shell" company or "holding" company, it may not have the resources available to meet it's obligation once the "operating" company goes bankrupt (Chapter 7). In that case they would eventually default on the contracts and the Franchisees would be "Free.

michael webster's picture

General Comment is Wrong

Guest writes: "However, if the surviving company that holds the Franchisee Contracts is only a "shell" company or "holding" company, it may not have the resources available to meet it's obligation once the "operating" company goes bankrupt (Chapter 7)."

The good franchise agreements will be assigned for value, and the bad ones disclaimed.

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News