IBJNews

Hofmeister seeks financing to emerge from bankruptcy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Hofmeister Personal Jewelers Inc. may be a step closer to emerging from a year-long bankruptcy reorganization after receiving a judge’s approval to search for alternative financing to pay existing debt.

Hofmeister, one of Indianapolis’ best-known jewelry stores, filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in April 2011, listing assets of nearly $3.8 million and liabilities of $5.4 million.

On Monday, Judge Basil H. Lorch III granted Hofmeister’s request to hire Cincinnati consultant Charles & Associates despite objections from the jeweler’s unsecured creditors.

Hofmeister is seeking a lender to refinance existing debt and to provide more working capital. It said it will pay Charles & Associates a $10,000 retainer fee and 3 percent of the new loan amount.

The jeweler did not list in court documents the amount of financing it’s seeking. But an attorney for the unsecured creditors said the consulting fee could range between $45,000 and $55,000 based on the outstanding balance of a PNC Bank loan.

The estimate equates to a balance of roughly $1.5 million. At the time of Hofmeister’s bankruptcy filing last year, the jeweler owed the downtown Indianapolis office of the Pittsburg-based bank $2.5 million.

“[Hofmeister] has not demonstrated how, if at all, this will benefit the estate of any of its creditors other than PNC and the insider guarantors, but will only serve to diminish estate assets,” Marc Alexander Beatty, attorney for the unsecured creditors, said in a court filing.

Beatty, of local law firm Katz & Korin PC, further argued that Hofmeister has yet to file a reorganization plan and has not indicated what other efforts, if any, it has taken to locate financing on its own.

Hofmeister’s attorney, Eric Redman, said in court documents that the agreement with the consultant will result in a quicker bankruptcy resolution and a stronger chance unsecured creditors will get paid.

This is not the first time during bankruptcy proceedings that Hofmeister has sought help from an outside consultant.

In October, it received approval to hire Pittsburgh-based LFS Consultants to help it move merchandise during the Christmas shopping season and through Valentine’s Day.

LFS, which specializes in helping jewelry retailers move or liquidate stores, was hired to bring additional inventory into the store and generate more short-term cash to benefit Hofmeister and its creditors, a court filing said.

Hofmeister owes dozens of unsecured claims, including $1.1 million to Gems One Corp. in New York for inventory and $300,000 to PNC Bank for a townhome in Steamboat Springs, Colo. Hofmeister’s operates a small store there.

The jeweler had revenue of $5.2 million in 2010, according to the bankruptcy filing.

Through the first two months of this year, Hofmeister earned $49,826 in profit on $442,452 in revenue, monthly operating reports said.

Gary Hofmeister founded the store in 1973 in downtown Indianapolis. The retailer later moved to the basement of Glendale Mall and, in 1992, to the current free-standing location at Clearwater Crossing.

Gary’s son, Carter, owns 85 percent of the business and manages operations, according to the filing.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Best Wishes
    I am sorry to hear of the financial woes of Hofmeister Jewelers. I wish them the best and hope that they can emerge out of this bigger and better than ever. Their customer service is wonderful and I love their merchandise.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT