Kmart Buys Sears

> Wonder how this will affect their tool offerings?

Martha Stewart chisels in designer colours? Each size of chisel would come
in a different yet complimentary colour, that way you know at a glance which
chisel to use for opening Martha Stewart designer colour paint cans, and
which chisel to use for scraping burnt food residue from the bottoms of
Martha Stewart designer tri-ply stainless steel cookware.

"mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> might revive it.. there were a lot of rumors in the retail biz last
> year that sears was considering selling the Craftsman brand to raise
> capitol..

I don't know about that, but you can buy Crapsman hand tools other places
than Sears. Acme Electric Tool Crib of the north has Crapsman hand tools in
stock.
Greg

In article <[email protected]>,
Too_Many_Tools <[email protected]> wrote:

> Wonder how this will affect their tool offerings?

<<ALF>Attention K-Art Choppers!</ALF>

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 00:26:18 -0500, GregP <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 02:43:12 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:26:11 -0500, GregP <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>
>You're right about the fighting back, but your lawyer
> may swallow up a hefty percentage of what you are
> trying to protect. Also, at least one article that I read
> claimed that in many bankruptcies the Chapter 11
> lawyers do do this on a recovery basis, but maybe
> it was wrong.

Some very low end bankruptcy lawyers will operate on a percentage
basis, but basically they're bill collectors with a law degree.
They're not going to be representing large clients unless perhaps the
grownups have farmed the junk out to them. In that case the same
reasoning would apply in spades. They're bottom feeders and they're
not going to give you a fight.

One of the problems with operating on a percentage basis in a Chapter
11 is figuring out what constitutes 'recovery' and how you're going to
get paid. In a business 11 the 'assets' are likely to be somewhat
nebulous. What did the attorney actually recover and what was already
in the estate, for instance. Then there's the fact that a business 11
involving a corporation usually involves very little cash. Lawyers
don't like to take stock and such in lieu of cash. They prefer a firm
claim against the estate for X amount of dollars.
>
>>>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 20:10:23 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is done to prevent (or at least mitigate) blatant fraud by the
>>>>bankrupt in the form of transferring assets out of the company into
>>>>friendly hands to protect them. Like a lot of things about bankruptcy
>>>>it is a two-edged sword.
>>>
>>>Which is bull, of course,
>>
>>Not bull, but very likely an abuse of the law.
>>
>>> since a small-scale businessman
>>> who provided goods and services and was paid for them
>>> is hardly practicing "blatant fraud." On the other hand,
>>> it gives some additional money back to the primary creditors,
>>> who almost always happen to be banks or others well-
>>> connected,
>>
>>Not if you fight back. And you don't have to fight very hard. Once
>>again, you're dealing with a negotiating situation, not a
>>hard-and-fast legal determination. (Okay, there's a hard-and-fast
>>legal situation buried in the mddile of the mess, but as a practical
>>matter it comes down to negotiation.)
>>
>>> and it's a great source of revenue for the bankruptcy
>>> attorneys, since they usually collect a third of anything they can
>>> scare or bully people into coughing up
>>
>>Not in these cases. The attorneys in bankruptcies work on a fee basis,
>>not a recovery basis. (The exceptions are the bottom feeders who are
>>essentially collection agencies with a law degree.) Privately, lawyers
>>refer to the issues involving small amounts of money like this $10K as
>>'junk' and they wish feverently they would just go away. They would
>>much rather put their time and billable hours into something that's
>>going to get their clients vastly more money, such as weaseling
>>another couple of points on the recovery percentages or screwing the
>>other big creditors.
>>
>>> these people being,
>>> of course, the little guys who can't afford the fancy attorneys
>>> to fight back.
>>
>>Actually it doesn't cost all that much for the simple reason that the
>>creditors' committee can't afford to spend much money pursuing the
>>little guys. As I say, a good stiff letter from a bankruptcy attorney
>>letting the creditors know they are in for a fight if they try to
>>pursue this will usually make them go away.
>>
>>In order to collect that 'preferential transfer' the creditors have
>>got to convince the judge (ultimately) that it was in fact
>>preferential. The law may favor them, but it is not a slam dunk and it
>>will take time and money to press the issue. For $10 K or so, the
>>lawyers can't afford it. Especially not since they are consumed with
>>the much bigger fish they have to fry in a large corporate bankruptcy.
>>
>>Unless you roll over and don't fight it, or try to get by with a TV-ad
>>law firm, the chances that they will actually get that money back are
>>pretty slim and everyone knows it.
>>
>>That means all you are out is time, worry, attorney's fees, etc. Not a
>>good situation, but not the disaster you seem to think it is.
>>
>>--RC
>>Sleep? Isn't that a totally inadequate substitute for caffine?
>>

Sleep? Isn't that a totally inadequate substitute for caffine?

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:26:11 -0500, GregP <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 20:10:23 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>>This is done to prevent (or at least mitigate) blatant fraud by the
>>bankrupt in the form of transferring assets out of the company into
>>friendly hands to protect them. Like a lot of things about bankruptcy
>>it is a two-edged sword.
>
>Which is bull, of course,

Not bull, but very likely an abuse of the law.

> since a small-scale businessman
> who provided goods and services and was paid for them
> is hardly practicing "blatant fraud." On the other hand,
> it gives some additional money back to the primary creditors,
> who almost always happen to be banks or others well-
> connected,

Not if you fight back. And you don't have to fight very hard. Once
again, you're dealing with a negotiating situation, not a
hard-and-fast legal determination. (Okay, there's a hard-and-fast
legal situation buried in the mddile of the mess, but as a practical
matter it comes down to negotiation.)

> and it's a great source of revenue for the bankruptcy
> attorneys, since they usually collect a third of anything they can
> scare or bully people into coughing up

Not in these cases. The attorneys in bankruptcies work on a fee basis,
not a recovery basis. (The exceptions are the bottom feeders who are
essentially collection agencies with a law degree.) Privately, lawyers
refer to the issues involving small amounts of money like this $10K as
'junk' and they wish feverently they would just go away. They would
much rather put their time and billable hours into something that's
going to get their clients vastly more money, such as weaseling
another couple of points on the recovery percentages or screwing the
other big creditors.

> these people being,
> of course, the little guys who can't afford the fancy attorneys
> to fight back.

Actually it doesn't cost all that much for the simple reason that the
creditors' committee can't afford to spend much money pursuing the
little guys. As I say, a good stiff letter from a bankruptcy attorney
letting the creditors know they are in for a fight if they try to
pursue this will usually make them go away.

In order to collect that 'preferential transfer' the creditors have
got to convince the judge (ultimately) that it was in fact
preferential. The law may favor them, but it is not a slam dunk and it
will take time and money to press the issue. For $10 K or so, the
lawyers can't afford it. Especially not since they are consumed with
the much bigger fish they have to fry in a large corporate bankruptcy.

Unless you roll over and don't fight it, or try to get by with a TV-ad
law firm, the chances that they will actually get that money back are
pretty slim and everyone knows it.

That means all you are out is time, worry, attorney's fees, etc. Not a
good situation, but not the disaster you seem to think it is.

--RC
Sleep? Isn't that a totally inadequate substitute for caffine?

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041117/ap_on_bi_ge/kmart_sears_merger_13
>
> Comments?
>
> Wonder how this will affect their tool offerings?

Hurk. I hate K-Mart. There's nothing in one of those piles of crap worth
looking at. They're worse than Harbor Fright. I hope this doesn't spell
doom for ye olde Crapsmanne.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Yep, she'd know about chiseling....

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Wonder how this will affect their tool offerings?
>
> Martha Stewart chisels in designer colours? Each size of chisel would come
> in a different yet complimentary colour, that way you know at a glance
which
> chisel to use for opening Martha Stewart designer colour paint cans, and
> which chisel to use for scraping burnt food residue from the bottoms of
> Martha Stewart designer tri-ply stainless steel cookware.
>
>

Chris, would you sell your house at a distressed price if you couldn't make
your car payments this month, or would you seek relief from the lienholder?

"Chris Hornberger" <chris@no_spam.chornbe.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Ain't that just grand? "Yeah, Hi... we're strapped for cash. Mind if I
file
> for bankruptcy so I can reorganize? yeah? Great. Thanks... Oh, and by the
> way... I wanna buy this other really huge retailer, too. Great. Thanks...
> Take care now."
>
> ugh.
>
>

Doesn't seem likely, given statute. If you were paid, you're not a
creditor. If you haven't been paid in full, you would fall under the
secured claim creditor class, based on your mechanics lien or similar, and
be second in line to the tax collector.

Of course, neither a criminal nor a judge feels bound by the law....

"GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> There is another form of abuse that has been evolving over
> bankruptcy proceedings. Say you build the furniture for a
> Director's room for a company, get paid, say, $10K and two
> months later the company declares bankruptcy. In many
> cases now, the attorneys for the company will come after
> you for the money, claiming that you should be included in
> the list of creditors affected by the bankruptcy. In some
> bankruptcies, a thousand or more people and companies
> have been hit this way, and bankruptcy courts have
> supported it.

No difference at all. The problem is cash flow, the idea is to reorganize
your debt, promising future, rather than cashing present assets to
creditors. that's what Chapter 11 is about.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 08:56:23 -0500, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>
> >Chris, would you sell your house at a distressed price if you couldn't
make
> >your car payments this month, or would you seek relief from the
lienholder?
>
> A lot of people do. However this is a completely different situation
> both legally and practically.
>
SNIP of what doesn't bear at all on the situation.

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:18:31 -0500, GregP <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:37:57 -0500, "Chris Hornberger"
><chris@no_spam.chornbe.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Ain't that just grand? "Yeah, Hi... we're strapped for cash. Mind if I file
>>for bankruptcy so I can reorganize? yeah? Great. Thanks... Oh, and by the
>>way... I wanna buy this other really huge retailer, too. Great. Thanks...
>>Take care now."
>>
>>ugh.
>
>
> The "we" who represented the company and took it into
> Chapter 11 are not the "we" who are now running it. The
> latter put money into it to take it over. Creditors had the
> same option, if they could assemble the resources.
> Actually, in this particular case most classes of creditors
> didn't do as badlly as they often do in these situations.
>
> There is another form of abuse that has been evolving over
> bankruptcy proceedings. Say you build the furniture for a
> Director's room for a company, get paid, say, $10K and two
> months later the company declares bankruptcy. In many
> cases now, the attorneys for the company will come after
> you for the money, claiming that you should be included in
> the list of creditors affected by the bankruptcy. In some
> bankruptcies, a thousand or more people and companies
> have been hit this way, and bankruptcy courts have
> supported it.

In bankruptcy-speak that $10 was a 'preferential transfer' and any
transaction the company made within 12 months (I think) of filing can
be unwound in this fashion.

This is done to prevent (or at least mitigate) blatant fraud by the
bankrupt in the form of transferring assets out of the company into
friendly hands to protect them. Like a lot of things about bankruptcy
it is a two-edged sword.

What you can do if you get hit like this is to hire a _good_
bankruptcy lawyer to negotiate on your behalf. Most of the time the
bankruptcy trustee or (more likely) creditors' attorneys are just
trying it on for size and the appropriate death-threat letter from the
appropriate attorney will back them off and you'll never hear anything
more about it.

Of course it costs you money you didn't budget into that $10K you
charged the client for the work, but . . .

--RC

Sleep? Isn't that a totally inadequate substitute for caffine?

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:23:27 -0500, "George" <george@least> wrote:

>Doesn't seem likely, given statute. If you were paid, you're not a
>creditor. If you haven't been paid in full, you would fall under the
>secured claim creditor class, based on your mechanics lien or similar, and
>be second in line to the tax collector.
>
>Of course, neither a criminal nor a judge feels bound by the law....

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

Alas, you'd be wrong. Do a google on 'preferential transfers' and
'bankruptcy'. It may be an abuse, but it's legal and the law exists
for an excellent reason.

--RC

>
>"GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> There is another form of abuse that has been evolving over
>> bankruptcy proceedings. Say you build the furniture for a
>> Director's room for a company, get paid, say, $10K and two
>> months later the company declares bankruptcy. In many
>> cases now, the attorneys for the company will come after
>> you for the money, claiming that you should be included in
>> the list of creditors affected by the bankruptcy. In some
>> bankruptcies, a thousand or more people and companies
>> have been hit this way, and bankruptcy courts have
>> supported it.
>

Sleep? Isn't that a totally inadequate substitute for caffine?

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 20:10:23 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>
>This is done to prevent (or at least mitigate) blatant fraud by the
>bankrupt in the form of transferring assets out of the company into
>friendly hands to protect them. Like a lot of things about bankruptcy
>it is a two-edged sword.

Which is bull, of course, since a small-scale businessman
who provided goods and services and was paid for them
is hardly practicing "blatant fraud." On the other hand,
it gives some additional money back to the primary creditors,
who almost always happen to be banks or others well-
connected, and it's a great source of revenue for the bankruptcy
attorneys, since they usually collect a third of anything they can
scare or bully people into coughing up, these people being,
of course, the little guys who can't afford the fancy attorneys
to fight back.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:37:57 -0500, "Chris Hornberger"
<chris@no_spam.chornbe.com> wrote:

>Ain't that just grand? "Yeah, Hi... we're strapped for cash. Mind if I file
>for bankruptcy so I can reorganize? yeah? Great. Thanks... Oh, and by the
>way... I wanna buy this other really huge retailer, too. Great. Thanks...


I'm just reading a history of the American industrial revolution, and
particularly how it differed from that in England. Fascinating stuff
- your example is nothing new.


--
Smert' spamionam

"Searcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
...
> SEARS buy kmart
>

Not according to the news release I saw, the other way around. K Mart just
came out of Chapter 11 so I thought that was a surprise.

Soon you'll find Crapsman tools at Kmart too!

David

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041117/ap_on_bi_ge/kmart_sears_merger_13
>
> Comments?
>
> Wonder how this will affect their tool offerings?
>
> TMT

"Leon" writes:

> I hope Sears does not go down when KMart
> eventually does.

I agree with the retail analyst who states neither K-Mart or Sears will
still be in business in another 5-7 years.

Ever since K-Mart went upscale and forgot about the "Blue light special", I
haven't been in one.

When Sears got out of the catalog business, I also gave up on them.

Lew

Silvan wrote:
> Hurk. I hate K-Mart. There's nothing in one of those piles of crap worth
> looking at. They're worse than Harbor Fright. I hope this doesn't spell
> doom for ye olde Crapsmanne.


To my mind, they're akin to the Dollar General. I won't go in one. Then again,
I generally avoid Walmart and Sears, too.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[email protected]

Yep. Around here, J&L Industrial Supply (large metalworking supplier
intended for commercial customers) sells Krapsman hand tools. But they sell
good tools too.

"Greg O" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > might revive it.. there were a lot of rumors in the retail biz last
> > year that sears was considering selling the Craftsman brand to raise
> > capitol..
>
> I don't know about that, but you can buy Crapsman hand tools other places
> than Sears. Acme Electric Tool Crib of the north has Crapsman hand tools
in
> stock.
> Greg
>
>

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:21:08 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>
>>
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041117/ap_on_bi_ge/kmart_sears_merger_13
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> Wonder how this will affect their tool offerings?
>
>Hurk. I hate K-Mart. There's nothing in one of those piles of crap worth
>looking at. They're worse than Harbor Fright. I hope this doesn't spell
>doom for ye olde Crapsmanne.

might revive it.. there were a lot of rumors in the retail biz last
year that sears was considering selling the Craftsman brand to raise
capitol..

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 02:43:12 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:26:11 -0500, GregP <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>

You're right about the fighting back, but your lawyer
may swallow up a hefty percentage of what you are
trying to protect. Also, at least one article that I read
claimed that in many bankruptcies the Chapter 11
lawyers do do this on a recovery basis, but maybe
it was wrong.

>>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 20:10:23 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>This is done to prevent (or at least mitigate) blatant fraud by the
>>>bankrupt in the form of transferring assets out of the company into
>>>friendly hands to protect them. Like a lot of things about bankruptcy
>>>it is a two-edged sword.
>>
>>Which is bull, of course,
>
>Not bull, but very likely an abuse of the law.
>
>> since a small-scale businessman
>> who provided goods and services and was paid for them
>> is hardly practicing "blatant fraud." On the other hand,
>> it gives some additional money back to the primary creditors,
>> who almost always happen to be banks or others well-
>> connected,
>
>Not if you fight back. And you don't have to fight very hard. Once
>again, you're dealing with a negotiating situation, not a
>hard-and-fast legal determination. (Okay, there's a hard-and-fast
>legal situation buried in the mddile of the mess, but as a practical
>matter it comes down to negotiation.)
>
>> and it's a great source of revenue for the bankruptcy
>> attorneys, since they usually collect a third of anything they can
>> scare or bully people into coughing up
>
>Not in these cases. The attorneys in bankruptcies work on a fee basis,
>not a recovery basis. (The exceptions are the bottom feeders who are
>essentially collection agencies with a law degree.) Privately, lawyers
>refer to the issues involving small amounts of money like this $10K as
>'junk' and they wish feverently they would just go away. They would
>much rather put their time and billable hours into something that's
>going to get their clients vastly more money, such as weaseling
>another couple of points on the recovery percentages or screwing the
>other big creditors.
>
>> these people being,
>> of course, the little guys who can't afford the fancy attorneys
>> to fight back.
>
>Actually it doesn't cost all that much for the simple reason that the
>creditors' committee can't afford to spend much money pursuing the
>little guys. As I say, a good stiff letter from a bankruptcy attorney
>letting the creditors know they are in for a fight if they try to
>pursue this will usually make them go away.
>
>In order to collect that 'preferential transfer' the creditors have
>got to convince the judge (ultimately) that it was in fact
>preferential. The law may favor them, but it is not a slam dunk and it
>will take time and money to press the issue. For $10 K or so, the
>lawyers can't afford it. Especially not since they are consumed with
>the much bigger fish they have to fry in a large corporate bankruptcy.
>
>Unless you roll over and don't fight it, or try to get by with a TV-ad
>law firm, the chances that they will actually get that money back are
>pretty slim and everyone knows it.
>
>That means all you are out is time, worry, attorney's fees, etc. Not a
>good situation, but not the disaster you seem to think it is.
>
>--RC
>Sleep? Isn't that a totally inadequate substitute for caffine?
>

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:37:57 -0500, "Chris Hornberger"
<chris@no_spam.chornbe.com> wrote:

>
>Ain't that just grand? "Yeah, Hi... we're strapped for cash. Mind if I file
>for bankruptcy so I can reorganize? yeah? Great. Thanks... Oh, and by the
>way... I wanna buy this other really huge retailer, too. Great. Thanks...
>Take care now."
>
>ugh.


The "we" who represented the company and took it into
Chapter 11 are not the "we" who are now running it. The
latter put money into it to take it over. Creditors had the
same option, if they could assemble the resources.
Actually, in this particular case most classes of creditors
didn't do as badlly as they often do in these situations.

There is another form of abuse that has been evolving over
bankruptcy proceedings. Say you build the furniture for a
Director's room for a company, get paid, say, $10K and two
months later the company declares bankruptcy. In many
cases now, the attorneys for the company will come after
you for the money, claiming that you should be included in
the list of creditors affected by the bankruptcy. In some
bankruptcies, a thousand or more people and companies
have been hit this way, and bankruptcy courts have
supported it.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:36:25 -0800, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Wonder how this will affect their tool offerings?
>
>Martha Stewart chisels in designer colours?

Seen a Tool Crib catalog lately?

Why would a woman want a DeWalt, Makita, Festool, Hitachi, Bosch, PC,
etc... tool when they can have a Barbara J? <G>

How insulting to women who are serious about their work can it get.

Barry

On 17 Nov 2004 07:57:27 -0800, [email protected]
(Too_Many_Tools) wrote:

>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041117/ap_on_bi_ge/kmart_sears_merger_13
>
>Comments?
>
>Wonder how this will affect their tool offerings?
>
>TMT
Do they sell tools?

TWS

Yeah, the first article I read this morning showed Sears buying Kmart,
(which, in my opinion would make sense, given the decline of Kmart). But
when I saw it again listed in my news reel It said Kmart buying Sears.

My mistake
Searcher1

"alexy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Searcher" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>SEARS buy kmart
>
> I thought so, too, and was surprised when I read the article.
> --
> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked
> infrequently.

"Searcher" <[email protected]> wrote:

>SEARS buy kmart

I thought so, too, and was surprised when I read the article.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:38:36 GMT, "Searcher"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Yeah, the first article I read this morning showed Sears buying Kmart,
>(which, in my opinion would make sense, given the decline of Kmart). But
>when I saw it again listed in my news reel It said Kmart buying Sears.
>
>My mistake
>Searcher1
>

Which brand "officially" bought the other is kind of irrelevant, the
bottom line is that Ed Lampert now controls both companies.

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 08:56:23 -0500, "George" <george@least> wrote:

>Chris, would you sell your house at a distressed price if you couldn't make
>your car payments this month, or would you seek relief from the lienholder?

A lot of people do. However this is a completely different situation
both legally and practically.

The legal difference is that the holder of a mortgage is a secured
creditor and protected by the value of the asset. In other words, if
you quit making payments, they get the house. (Note that most mortgage
holders will work with the borrower to try to prevent that.)

However the _real_ difference is that a company like K-Mart doesn't
have just one creditor to deal with. They've got thousands of them,
from banks and other financial institutions to government agencies to
suppliers. Any single one of those creditors could bring down the
entire edifice by going to court on the debt and starting a land rush
of the other creditors. That kind of situation is flat unmanagable and
apallingly self-defeating without some kind of legal protection.

Also, it's my understanding that K-Mart had emerged from bankruptcy.
Again, it's not uncommon for companies in K-Mart's situation
(asset-rich, cash-poor) have wads of cash shortly after they emerge.

There are two other things worth noting about this particular
situation. First, it was anything but arms length. The same investors
controlled K-Mart and held a major share of Sears. They could act to
the detriment of the smaller shareholders pretty much with impunity.

Second, these guys are investors, not businessmen. If a company is
worth more as a dead, stripped carcass with its assets broken up and
sold, then so be it. I believe that is the major motive behind this
transaction, even if the companies will at least nominally continue in
business.

Could Sears and K-Mart have been rehabilitated and turned back into
major retailers? Perhaps. But that's not a game these guys know, or
would play even if they did know.

Asset-rich, cash-poor companies bring the vultures circling in.

--RC

>
>"Chris Hornberger" <chris@no_spam.chornbe.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Ain't that just grand? "Yeah, Hi... we're strapped for cash. Mind if I
>file
>> for bankruptcy so I can reorganize? yeah? Great. Thanks... Oh, and by the
>> way... I wanna buy this other really huge retailer, too. Great. Thanks...
>> Take care now."
>>
>> ugh.
>>
>>
>

Sleep? Isn't that a totally inadequate substitute for caffine?

SEARS buy kmart

"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041117/ap_on_bi_ge/kmart_sears_merger_13
>
> Comments?
>
> Wonder how this will affect their tool offerings?
>
> TMT

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:36:25 -0800, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Martha Stewart chisels in designer colours?

A file, surely ?

And a matching cake recipe.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 06:02:30 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>Then there's the fact that a business 11
>involving a corporation usually involves very little cash. Lawyers
>don't like to take stock and such in lieu of cash. They prefer a firm
>claim against the estate for X amount of dollars.

That was precisely the rational given for lawyers going
after the folks who had been already paid and receiving
a percentage of the recovery.

"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041117/ap_on_bi_ge/kmart_sears_merger_13
>
> Comments?
>
> Wonder how this will affect their tool offerings?

15 or so years ago KMart got in to trouble because it was too top heavy.
Too many exec's not pulling their weight. The sales have been fine but the
salaries were way too much. I hope Sears does not go down when KMart
eventually does.

"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041117/ap_on_bi_ge/kmart_sears_merger_13
>
> Comments?
>
> Wonder how this will affect their tool offerings?
>
> TMT

Ain't that just grand? "Yeah, Hi... we're strapped for cash. Mind if I file
for bankruptcy so I can reorganize? yeah? Great. Thanks... Oh, and by the
way... I wanna buy this other really huge retailer, too. Great. Thanks...
Take care now."

ugh.