Dude, you're still here claiming that somehow driving a company into failure is profitable.
And yet you still can't show any evidence for your claims, even though you say it's easy to find.
There's a possibility that Sasquatch exists too. And that Jesus will return next week.
If you "know" this then you can provide examples, yes? Otherwise it's not something you know, but something you believe. Or is this going back to the claim that the owners drove the company into failure, at an enormous loss, just to give management (who are not the owners) a pay raise?
The lament of every conspiracy theorist ever.
Dude, you're still here claiming that somehow driving a company into failure is profitable.
You say they should have invested in new equipment, but unions are notorious for blocking such moves because efficient machines that save money usually do so by cutting the labor tp produce product.. See the US steel industry for an example. And we know there were some crazy union work rules at Hostess plants, such as one product per truck.
Now you claim that the owners somehow suckered lenders into giving them sacks of money, apparently with no conditions whatsoever. Not even dibs on the assets from liquidation.
This doesn't happen in the real world. Those lenders with hundreds of millions to invest didn't get that cash by being suckered by equity firms, they're going to demand first dibs on assets sold when the company fails. The owners don't just get to keep it like in your fantasy wortld.
So now we're back to the claim that this was all a scheme by the owners to give their hired management team raises at an enormous loss for themselves?
Oddly enough, you seem to have "forgotten" to post this evidence that "management voted itself a big bonus". The owners just give them a blank check and tell management to pay themselves whatever they want? Is this how it works in your company and others you worked for?
And then there's thos elike me who find your entire claim silly, unsupported, and without merit. Feel free to post the evidence of management "voting themselves a couple of million in golden parachutes".
A "modest profit"? You've shown no evidence at all for that. Likely they will lose many millions, perhaps hundreds of millions. You do realize that creditors get first dibs on the proceeds from these assets, don't you? And there's what, $1 billion or so owed to creditors not counting the money the owners poured into it?
An absolutely meaningless phrase. No one pays face value for debt, it's always discounted.
No, they still owe 100% of the value of the debt. That's how it works, and it's unlikely the sale will cover all the debts.
Once again, the CEO left. Now they have to hire a new one. They don't come cheap, especially when the task they're asked to accomplish is near impossible.
Servicing debt is an investment in the company. If you don't service that debt the company goes bye-bye. And this is money that never even existed in the first place, Hostess was losing boatloads of money. Those concessions don't represent cash in Hostess' account, it means they have to borrow that much less from lenders.
While you can make a case that there's a much too cozy relationship between corporate boards and CEOs in public companies, Hostess was a private company.
So now we're back to the claim that this was all a scheme by the owners to give their hired management team raises at an enormous loss for themselves?
