Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Why would Cannon volunteer to be the guy who now has no restaurants to his name?

 

If White was a Chef pulled out of nowhere to join Cannon's existing restaurants, that White wasn't the guy with his livelyhood on the line if anything major came along and hit the ownership group of Alto/Convivio in the pocket. This can happen quite easily - Isiah Thomas didn't shell out the 10+mm dollars to Anucha for example, James Dolan's company did.

 

Meaning, all it had to be was better than the alternative (something that could have been considered in the split agreement) for his hand to be forced (which would leave me pissed anyways)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

ADNY Caught in a cycle where they have to increase prices because they don't get enough customers thus discouraging new customers. Plus the food isn’t very good.   Pure Food and Wine If Roxanne

ADNY is not a loss leader for the whole Ducasse organization. I doubt that that many people would go to Ducasse's French/Italian establishments because they experienced a good meal at ADNY. If they a

Here are the details:   "SAM DE MARCO has closed FIRST, his 10-year-old restaurant at 87 First Avenue (Fifth Street). He will be the consulting chef at MOVIDA, a nightclub and lounge opening soon at

Posted Images

Why would Cannon volunteer to be the guy who now has no restaurants to his name?

 

If White was a Chef pulled out of nowhere to join Cannon's existing restaurants, that White wasn't the guy with his livelyhood on the line if anything major came along and hit the ownership group of Alto/Convivio in the pocket. This can happen quite easily - Isiah Thomas didn't shell out the 10+mm dollars to Anucha for example, James Dolan's company did.

 

Meaning, all it had to be was better than the alternative (something that could have been considered in the split agreement) for his hand to be forced (which would leave me pissed anyways)

this ignores the fact that you can file Alto and as long as you repay the trade creditors (because you need their products at your other restaurants - you have to be cute about how you do this, but it is doable) and things are fine. Cannon owned equity in all of them.

 

(Dolan paid Anuncha because in a sexual harassment suit its not the perpetrator on the hook, its the employer for not stopping the harassment.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

One last point - if they did what you are claiming - which really is quite possible - then they really are catastrophically stupid. If the litigation surrounding asbestos and what not is any guide - if they really did sever the businesses into a non-bankrupt, and bankrupt sub then they have committed fraudulent conveyance, and if they get caught the I believe the creditors (in this case the plaintiffs in the tipping thing) can pierce the corporate veil and force all of White and Fakhany's restaurants to pay up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would Cannon volunteer to be the guy who now has no restaurants to his name?

 

Perhaps he wants out of the restaurant business? Could anyone blame him?

 

We're taking his press release, which included this statement, on face value I guess:

 

"Mr. Cannon is focusing his immediate attention on the orderly winding down of these businesses, but in the future hopes to reenter the NYC restaurant market."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would Cannon volunteer to be the guy who now has no restaurants to his name?

 

If White was a Chef pulled out of nowhere to join Cannon's existing restaurants, that White wasn't the guy with his livelyhood on the line if anything major came along and hit the ownership group of Alto/Convivio in the pocket. This can happen quite easily - Isiah Thomas didn't shell out the 10+mm dollars to Anucha for example, James Dolan's company did.

 

Meaning, all it had to be was better than the alternative (something that could have been considered in the split agreement) for his hand to be forced (which would leave me pissed anyways)

Cannon owned equity in all of them.

 

This would seem, to me, to be the main point that my (ultra super pointless) line of speculation rests on. I would presume Cannon (or his entity) owned 90% of Alto/Convivio, but was instead a minority partner in the others. i.e. if Alto/Convivio are in legal/financial trouble, and creditors are trying to define the size of the pie - what Cannon owns - it's now been written down on paper that it doesn't extend past whatever compensation Cannon received for his now exant shares of the other restaurants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but all of the restaurants and the entity that held Cannon's equity should have been remote from one another so you can file Alto or Convivio w/out threatening the others. Assuming you did that, the only way to actually threaten Marea et al. would be some sort of screwing around like this.

 

At a minimum given the different investors in the later restaurants they would have been remote from Alto/Convivio even if those two weren't structured properly.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I end up having to learn about things like this for work. Back in the early '00s you had a rash of companies be accused of doing things like this to shirk asbestos liabilities. In the case it would be the tipping lawsuit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any restaurant that files is not having it's debts paid by the remaining siblings--at least not industry debts. And I'm sure Cannon and White were smart enough to have changed anything from a personal responsibility to a corporate responsibility when things were flying high. A lot of it would depend on how the parent company earns its income. I don't think I have ever seen a belly up place have its debts paid, even if there are sibling survivors. Most purveyors just want an assurance that you will use them in your next venture and you won't PURPOSELY screw them again down the road. Any purveyor that has an invoice outstanding that is more than 60 days has written that sucker off, mentally if not physically on their books, long ago. If they continued to deliver, they knew what they were getting into in this economy.

 

All that being said, I find it hard to believe that this is a Soprano's style bust out. That's a good way to end up making license plates in Attica (do they still make plates in jail? lol)

Link to post
Share on other sites

A very sad sight, Jeffrey's empty and closed following a 29% rent increase, according to Lost City. Yet again, this is a popular, busy spot closing not because demand has fallen away but simply because the rent can't be paid by selling what they sell.

 

One wonders if this will have any impact at all on the readers of Lost City, Vanishing New York, et al, who think bars and restaurants can simply be replaced by useful local businesses. Which will then go bust.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A very sad sight, Jeffrey's empty and closed following a 29% rent increase, according to Lost City. Yet again, this is a popular, busy spot closing not because demand has fallen away but simply because the rent can't be paid by selling what they sell.

Here is lostnewyorkcity's bizarre reaction:

 

Now we're reading that Jeffrey's Meats has been forced to close, owning to a 29% rent hike by his bastard landlord, in this case the Economic Development Corp.

 

Isn't there a single landlord in the City who thinks beyond his or her bank account, beyond the next paycheck, ever thinks about the greater good? What does the EDC think it's going to put in that space? A mini Rite Aid?

Since when are landlords "bastards" for renting space for what it is worth? Since when are they supposed to charitably offer below-market rent in search of a "greater good"? For all we know, perhaps the landlord charges market rent and donates lavishly to Save the Children. Is that not part of the greater good, too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when are landlords "bastards" for renting space for what it is worth? Since when are they supposed to charitably offer below-market rent in search of a "greater good"? For all we know, perhaps the landlord charges market rent and donates lavishly to Save the Children. Is that not part of the greater good, too?

 

That's the point the complainers have to get to grips with. If they believe the city or state should be intervening to impose restrictions on rent increases for certain types of business, they should say so. If they think taxpayers should somehow be subsidizing the businesses of which they approve, they should say so.

 

But cursing bars and restaurants (and Rite Aid and Starbucks) for being able to pay the rents, without suggesting any kind of a solution, is evidently ridiculous.

 

I'm afraid the logic of the current situation is that Essex Street Market will gradually be emptied as each lease comes up for renewal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here is lostnewyorkcity's bizarre reaction:

 

Now we're reading that Jeffrey's Meats has been forced to close, owning to a 29% rent hike by his bastard landlord, in this case the Economic Development Corp.

 

Isn't there a single landlord in the City who thinks beyond his or her bank account, beyond the next paycheck, ever thinks about the greater good? What does the EDC think it's going to put in that space? A mini Rite Aid?

Since when are landlords "bastards" for renting space for what it is worth? Since when are they supposed to charitably offer below-market rent in search of a "greater good"? For all we know, perhaps the landlord charges market rent and donates lavishly to Save the Children. Is that not part of the greater good, too?

Obviously I agree with you, but I do think its sort of crazy that they've set the rent so high that a butcher feels like he can't survive there. And a butcher that skews higher end then the others (although this might be part of the problem, it is also clear the city is trying to make the market more attractive to higher price point stands). I mean what else is going to move into that spot if a butcher can't make the math work?

 

put more simply - either the rent is set too high and the whole thing is doomed, or there were issues w/ Jeffrey's business that doomed it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, the logic of the situation seems to be that the landlord wants to do something else with the building - otherwise why start picking off the tenants? Obviously I have no insight into Jeffrey's business, but it is at the center of the market and, unlike some stands, usually looked busy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...