Landry’s cuts a deal with its bondholders

Landry%27s%20logo%20082107.gifHouston-based Landry’s Restaurants Inc cut a deal with its main group of bondholders on Monday afternoon, resolving litigation that had consumed the company over the past month (prior posts here). Essentially, the bondholders gave Landry’s an 18 month window to refinance the $400 million in debt in return for Landry’s agreeing to bump the interest rate on the bonds from 7.5% to 9.5%.
Although the deal allows Landry’s to avoid refinancing the debt now at an even higher rate of interest, my sense is that the entire episode has been fairly disastrous for Landry’s. First, as noted here awhile back and as Loren Steffy recently pointed out, Landry’s has not been doing all that well in a brutally competitive restaurant market even before this dustup with its bondholders. A couple of weeks ago, Landry’s CEO Tilman Fertitta publicly claimed that refinancing of the bond debt “was no big deal,” but then testified during the injunction hearing this past Friday that forcing Landry’s to refinance the bond debt now would irreparably harm the company. That sounds like a pretty big deal to me. Meanwhile, Landry’s will now be looking to refinance a large chunk of junk debt in a shaky credit market that knows that the company just got done acrimoniously suing the holders of the debt. That approach generally does not induce favorable terms from debt refinanciers.
Landry’s looks as if it is heading for some very choppy waters.

Judge Hughes finalizes his Hyde Act ruling

Judge%20Hughes%20in%20robe%20082107.jpgThese earlier posts reported on U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes’ decision to sanction the Department of Justice under the Hyde Act for its sloppy indictment and handling of a criminal fraud prosecution of Oklahoma lawyer John Claro. The always alert Ellen Podgor passes along that Judge Hughes has issued his formal ruling on the Hyde Act sanctions, in which he observes:

The United States Attorney indicted an Oklahoma businessman in conscious indifference to the legal and factual basis of the charges that they brought against him. The fifty-four-count indictment was a jumble of claims and stray facts ñ a garbled press release about working men who cannot get insurance. The court dismissed all counts of the indictment. The businessman seeks defense costs. He will be repaid because the prosecution was not substantially justified. [. . .]
Criminal prosecution casts a shadow on defendants that can linger even after an acquittal. The discretion the government has to prosecute those it thinks guilty of crimes must be grounded in a sound facts and articulated law. The Hyde Amendment was passed to give some recompense to those prosecuted without this most basic discretionary safeguard from prosecutorial oppression. The case against [this individual] lacked even a semblance of responsible work by the government. His attorneys had to work with a jumbled array of facts and theories, a mountain of documentary evidence, and unresponsive government lawyers.

Sort of makes you wonder what Judge Hughes would have done with a number of the Enron-related prosecutions, doesn’t it? Here’s a hint.

Looking for wide-outs

jabar%20gaffney.jpgAmidst the Chronicle’s incessant pre-season cheerleading for the Texans, most objective observers concede that the team is thin at the wide receiver position after Pro Bowl WR Andre Johnson.
Sort of makes you wonder why one of the team’s top draft choices at the wide receiver position is excelling with one of the top teams in the NFL rather than the Texans? And the guy who the Texans brought in to replace him is no longer with the team?
Count me as still skeptical of the Kubiak regime.