IBJNews

Slinky maker hoping to purchase bankrupt Fundex

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The maker of the iconic Slinky has made an offer to purchase Fundex Games Ltd., the Plainfield-based company seeking to reorganize its assets under the protection of bankruptcy.

Fundex, which filed Chapter 11 in September, said in court documents that Plymouth, Mich.-based Poof-Slinky Inc. so far is the only potential purchaser that has shown interest in acquiring the company’s assets.

If another bid is received, an auction will be conducted Dec. 19 to determine the buyer, said KC Cohen, the company’s bankruptcy attorney.

Cohen declined to divulge Poof-Slinky’s offer but said, “if that’s the only bid, you don’t have a lot of leverage.”

“Somebody’s got to set the floor,” Cohen said of Poof-Slinky’s offer. “You do everything you can to stoke the marketplace.”

Closing the transaction before the end of the year is critical to Fundex’s future because the company does not have sufficient operating capital to continue beyond December, Fundex said in a court filing.

The company’s bankruptcy represents a steep fall for the company that once had 50 employees, offices in Hong Kong and New York, and was the sole distributor of the industry’s second-most-popular card game, Phase 10.

Fundex’s other popular games include Gnip Gnop and What’s in Ned’s Head? What’s in Ned’s Head, which lets children pull items like moldy cheese, fake vomit and a rat from a stuffed head’s orifices, won a slew of awards and helped make Fundex a growing player in the game industry.

Just two years ago, Fundex boasted annual revenue of $25.8 million, according to court documents. The amount, however, fell by nearly half, to $13.3 million, in 2011, and at the time of the bankruptcy filing, the company had recorded a paltry $2.6 million in sales.

Fundex listed assets of nearly $1.5 million and liabilities of $8.9 million.

Some of the drop in sales likely can be attributed to its loss of Phase 10, whose owner is still trying to collect on royalties as part of a settlement agreement it signed with Fundex in October 2010.

The battle over the game began in December 2008 when Michigan inventor Kenneth Johnson accused Fundex of copyright infringement, trademark dilution, fraud, conversion and theft in a case filed in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis.

Phase 10, now distributed by Mattel, was a cash cow for Fundex, selling more than 3 million copies per year, second only to Uno.

The rummy-like game was the company’s first product when company President Chip Voigt and his father, game industry veteran Pete Voigt, launched Fundex in 1986.

Poof-Slinky, meanwhile, already is quite familiar with Fundex. On Sept. 7, the same day it filed for bankruptcy protection, Fundex signed a contract to switch its product distribution from San Francisco-based University Games Corp. to Poof-Slinky.

A sale to Poof-Slinky would represent the best result for creditors, Fundex said in a court filing, given the likelihood that any reorganization plan would require “substantially more operating net revenue than the debtor can reasonably predict it will generate.”

In addition to making the Slinky, Poof-Slinky is a leading manufacturer of foam sports balls. Its brands include Cadaco, Educational Design Toys and Ideal, which makes a variety of table-top and board games.

Poof-Slinky says its products are sold in more than 35,000 retail outlets. The company operates manufacturing plants in Michigan and Pennsylvania, and has more than 125 employees. 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

  2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

  3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

  4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

  5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

ADVERTISEMENT