Hooters owner files for bankruptcy ( 'just standard stuff')
Source: Richmond Biz Sense
Cornett Hospitality LLC, headquartered on Staples Mill Road, made its filing Wednesday, listing 287 creditors and liabilities of between $1 million and $10 million. It lists assets of the same range.
The company owns nine Hooters restaurants and three Topekas locations in Virginia, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. It previously owned two Max & Ermas locations in Richmond but closed them after falling behind on rent and after the chain filed bankruptcy in 2010.
Its just wrapping up some of the old baggage from Max and Ermas, Cornett said. Its just a standard reorganization, just standard stuff.
Read more: http://www.richmondbizsense.com/2012/11/26/hooters-owner-files-for-bankruptcy/
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)CincyDem
(6,407 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)are the owners.
underpants
(182,950 posts)which is hard to get your head around
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)That fact raises more questions than it answers.
BTW, what did you ever do with those animated undies?
I hope they didn't end up in a bunch.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,374 posts)There is an announcement expected in December from the Mars Curiosity mission.
Fozzledick
(3,860 posts)Lint Head
(15,064 posts)Panasonic
(2,921 posts)Sold off the land and it's one big empty parcel (Ultimate Electronics was right next door, and it's also out of business).
I haven't been to Hooters in 17 years, nor do I care for it.
Suji to Seoul
(2,035 posts)Big boobs trumps food quality. Hooters sucks.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)When I was a lot younger and single I used to enjoy going to Hooters when the girls wore cut-off t-shirts.
Then they switched to gym clothes and the appeal was lost. You can see more skin walking through the mall.
TrogL
(32,822 posts)The waitresses are all University girls so you could actually have a coherent conversation with them.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)(so to speak).
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)mac56
(17,574 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)rocktivity
(44,580 posts)I miss having enough extra money to eat out, even if it's only two or three times a month, and apparently I'm not alone. I can imagine how much harder it is if you've got kids to take along.
rocktivity
Panasonic
(2,921 posts)My wife wanted to go to Buca di Beppo - a family style Italian chain restaurant. It was way overpriced, and the food wasn't very good - I ordered fettuccine Alfredo and they gave me a huge bowl full of noodles and a dubious cream they called "Alfredo" - it was terrible.
Previously, Buca had 3 restaurant located here in Colorado, but it's down to just one.
Now the wife wants to go back in New York (they just opened up a location in Manhattan) with her brother and eat there again.
I mean, come on, there's tons of _REAL_ family style Italian restaurant in New York, just have to pick the right one.
We're still looking for a real good Italian restaurant that serves decent eggplant parmigiana (wife's favorite) around here in Denver.
We used to go to Nonna's but the food quality went downhill pretty fast (and it was local too)
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)of Manhattan you want to eat in and I'll make sure you get the best Italian food in that area. No reason to eat in chains while in NYC.
Panasonic
(2,921 posts)We'll be coming in from Brooklyn.
Can't wait to come to New York next week!
In-law's house is fine - it's inland from the sea.
NoGOPZone
(2,971 posts)underpants
(182,950 posts)let's keep it clean in here...m'kay?
DaveJ
(5,023 posts)I have no happy memories of eating at any big chain. I can't stand how every town across the country looks exactly the same.
Local establishments are great, OTOH.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Last summer I drove I-40 from Barstow (CA) to Tucumcari (NM). It seemed like every one of the those blue highway signs listing places to eat when you approached a city had the same establishments:
Also, the same gas stations and the same motels.
It was like the only thing different from city to city was the name of the city itself.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Cheap lousy domestic beer.
Waitress dumb as a fence post.
Glad I wasn't paying for it.
msongs
(67,462 posts)Botany
(70,614 posts)... really bad food*, over priced beer, and a cheesy bit of the
waitress writing down her name on a napkin like she wanted
to give me her # ...... my then 16 year old son thought the
place was a joke and that the "girls" who were working there
saw us as small time and they went to work on a table of men
that were drinking.
I feel bad for the employees but if the whole chain went belly up
I wouldn't care.
* The worst chicken wings ever ..... cold, greasy, and tough.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(And no, I will NOT post an illustration of that).
Disconnect
(33 posts)We should really look at a bankruptcy as not as a failed business but as a business plan. Hostess comes to mind, they didn't want to sell bakery goods, they wanted to cash out!! Bankruptcys are thievery plain and simple, by the 1% to steal from the 99%.
surrealAmerican
(11,365 posts)Yes, when the owner is saying Its just a standard reorganization, about bankruptcy, there's something very wrong with this picture.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)I do believe businesses and individuals do need to have a second chance to make a fresh start, if necessary.
If becoming insolvent were a crime, Abraham Lincoln would have never become president, Henry Ford would have gone to jail, among countless others who availed themselves of the federal bankruptcy code.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)He was clearly living the high life at the expense of his business and tax obligations. I don't think he is especially deserving of a second chance.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)that opinion will substantively matter more than mine.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Yours is just silly.
The owner doesn't "need" to have a second chance. He "needs" to be responsible for his business obligations and paying his taxes, instead of buying multi-million dollar homes and living high-on-the-hog. No one "needs" or deserves to be a wealthy business owner. The only thing anyone really deserves, as a member of modern human civilization, is to have their basic needs met.
You shouldn't dismiss another poster's opinion, out of hand, like that. It's rather rude. It doesn't make me feel particularly charitable.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)I think some of what you think is right, but some isn't right.
I apologize if you were offended by my post, but you dismissed my own opinion, in turn, so two wrongs don't make a right, but you did it, too.
Setting that stuff aside, the federal bankruptcy code is federal law, not a matter of closeupready's opinion or ronnie's opinion as to whether or not Hooters "deserves" to reorganize, and start over.
The law, as affirmed by lawmakers, sets out guidelines as to who may avail themselves of Chapter 11. If Hooters is ineligible, so be it. If eligible, there may be clawbacks which apply, maybe not. It's not done on an ad hoc basis; there are rules to be followed.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Your opinion was that the business owner "needs" a second chance, and it was no less of a value judgment than my own opinion. It has no more to do with bankruptcy law than my opinion does. Federal code has nothing to do with weather or nor not a greedy, crappy business owner needs or deserves a second chance. That's what I was addressing; the moral implications, which was broached by you, not me.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)mac56
(17,574 posts)fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)...making Romney bankrupt.
Time for Hooters to call their bankruptcy man.
bluedigger
(17,087 posts)thelordofhell
(4,569 posts)C'mon now people..........there's more than 9 of these things out there
pstokely
(10,531 posts)nt
Supersedeas
(20,630 posts)not so standard when real people come before the bankruptcy judge