Re:What it took to save the Twinkie
by toast0 on Monday September 12, 2016 @12:51AM
(#12477264)
> I believe they deliberately negotiated in bad faith with the goal of declaring bankruptcy and restructuring.
They were only two years out of their last bankruptcy, and the reorganized Hostess really has very little connection to the old Hostess. The old CEO resigned at the beginning of the bankruptcy, I'm not sure who from the old company benefited from the restructuring? Maybe investors, but why would they invest in 2009 with the goal of negotiating bad faith contracts and breaking up the business?
One of the reasons the new Hostess is more profitable than the old one is that they only purchased the snack lines, which was the most profitable part of old Hostess, and they also simplified distribution by delivering to warehouses instead of stores.
They were only two years out of their last bankruptcy, and the reorganized Hostess really has very little connection to the old Hostess. The old CEO resigned at the beginning of the bankruptcy, I'm not sure who from the old company benefited from the restructuring? Maybe investors, but why would they invest in 2009 with the goal of negotiating bad faith contracts and breaking up the business?
One of the reasons the new Hostess is more profitable than the old one is that they only purchased the snack lines, which was the most profitable part of old Hostess, and they also simplified distribution by delivering to warehouses instead of stores.