Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: Dov Charney

Marcum Has Some Doubts About American Apparel’s Ability to Continue Selling Gold Lamé Leggings

Bad news for Dov Charney’s hipster retail paradise as Marcum – who replaced Deloitte last summer – has issued its auditor’s opinion with the language that no one likes to see.


But before we get to that, if you take a quick glance at the balance sheet you’ll see that the company barely has enough money to keep the lights on as their working capital is a measly $3 million (current assets of $216 million, current liabilities of $213 million). This shockingly bad number is mostly due to the $138 million in revolving credit facilities the company has included in its current liabilities. The company is also shows an accumulated deficit of over $73 million in its equity section. APP also bled over $32 million in cash from operations, according to its cash flow statement. All this bad news has lots of people talking about bankruptcy and that doesn’t touch the thirteen (that’s Gawker’s count, I only saw twelve) ongoing lawsuits against the company. Plus there’s the subpoena the company received from the U.S. Attorney General for SDNY last August over their auditor switcheroo.

We could go on and on but you get the pic. Here’s the final paragraph from Marcum’s opinion in APP’s 10-K:

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has incurred a substantial loss from operations and had negative cash flow from operations for the year ended December 31, 2010. As a result of noncompliance with certain loan covenants, debt with carrying value of approximately $138.0 million at December 31, 2010, could be declared immediately due and payable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company has minimal availability for additional borrowings from its existing credit facilities, which could result in the Company not having sufficient liquidity or minimum cash levels to operate its business. These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s plan in regard to these matters is also described in Note 1. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of these uncertainties.

Obviously the bad news is that investors are really spooked but the good news is that there could be a serious fire sale on hoodies and t-shirts in our future. Silver lining!

American Apparel Takes Issue with Deloitte’s Notion That Management Withheld Some Fairly Important Financial Statements

Remember the hipster drama Deloitte caused this past summer when they resigned as the auditor of American Apparel? It was quite the rs the stock took a beating (it has recovered in the meantime) and questions were raised about the company’s ability to continue as a [g]oing [c]oncern.

Some recent developments in this particular story have come to light as Dov & Co. have been providing a whole mess of information to Deloitte, as is SOP in these matters. For starters, Deloitte notified the APP audit committee that the 2009 financial statements are not kosher and anyone using them for any other purpose than lining a bird cage is nuts.


From the 8-K:

On December 15, 2010, the Audit Committee of the Company received notice from Deloitte stating that Deloitte had concluded that Deloitte’s report on the Company’s previously issued consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “2009 financials”), including Deloitte’s report on internal control over financial reporting at December 31, 2009, included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (such reports, collectively, the “Deloitte Reports”) should not be relied upon or associated with the 2009 financials.

Deloitte explained that its conclusion was based on the significance of the declines in operations and gross margin in the Company’s February 2010 monthly financial statement, combined with the January 2010 monthly financial statements, the Company’s issuance of revised projections in early May 2010 which reflected a significant decrease in the Company’s 2010 projections, and Deloitte’s disagreement with the Company’s conclusion that the results shown in the February 2010 monthly financial statements would not have required a revision to the Company’s projections as of the date of the 10-K filing and the issuance of Deloitte’s reports. Deloitte further indicated that their decision considered their inability to perform additional audit procedures, their resignation as registered public accountants and their professional judgment that they are no longer willing to rely on management’s representations due to Deloitte’s belief that management withheld from Deloitte the February 2010 monthly financial statements until after the filing of the 2009 10-K and made related misrepresentations.

So if you can get past how poorly written these paragraphs are, you can boil down Deloitte’s concerns about the 2009 10-K to a few things: 1) business was not looking good; 2) they didn’t buy APP’s notion that financial projections for February ’10 were hunky dory (which weren’t made available until after the 10-K was filed); 3) APP management was more or less full of shit. You can also read their official letter to the company, if you are so inclined.

You won’t be surprised to learn that Dov & Co. have a difference of opinion here:

The Audit Committee of the Company has commenced an investigation into the assertions that management withheld the February 2010 monthly financial statements and related misrepresentations. Management disagrees with Deloitte’s assertions and does not believe that the February 2010 monthly financial statements were withheld. The Company does not currently believe, including after discussions with Marcum, that the reaudit will result in any changes to the 2009 financials, though no assurance can be given in this regard.

So, somewhere, there are February 2010 financial statements stuffed in a drawer (but whose drawer?) that basically caused this whole fiasco. This seems like a completely plausible scenario.

American Apparel Subpoenaed Over Auditor Switcheroo

American Apparel’s downward spiral continues as Bloomberg reports that the company has been subpoenaed by the U.S. Attorney for the SDNY over the company’s “change in accounting firms.”

If you’re justl started with Deloitte quitting as the auditors of APP late last month. At that time, Deloitte warned that the ’09 financial statements may not (read: definitely are not) reliable and that they were getting the hell out of Dov.

Former APP auditor Marcum – for reasons unbeknownst to us – went back to their old client to try and help them straighten things out. Here’s the latest from the “preliminary results” for the second quarter, while thetardy 10-Q remains elusive. These prelims (i.e. a wild stab?), that were filed today warn that things are likely to get worse before they get better:

Potential Restatement of previously issued financial statements

Effective July 22, 2010, Deloitte resigned as our independent registered public accounting firm. On July 26, 2010, we engaged Marcum as our independent registered public accounting firm. On July 28, 2010, we reported on a Form 8-K that we had been advised by Deloitte that certain information had come to Deloitte’s attention that if further investigated may materially impact the reliability of either Deloitte’s previously issued audit report or the underlying consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2009 included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. Deloitte has requested that we provide Deloitte with the additional information Deloitte believes it is necessary to review before any conclusions can be reached as to the reliability of the previously issued consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2009 and auditors’ report thereon.

Depending on the outcome of this review, a restatement of our financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2009 could be required. Any restatement may subject us to significant costs in the form of accounting, legal fees and similar professional fees, in addition to the substantial diversion of time and attention of our Chief Financial Officer, our other officers and directors and members of our accounting department in preparing and reviewing the restatement. Any such restatement could adversely affect our business, our ability to access the capital markets or the market price of our common stock. We might also face litigation, and there can be no assurance that any such litigation, either against us specifically or as part of a class, would not materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or the market price of our common stock.

But that’s not all! The company discusses a few more issues, “We are subject to regulatory inquiries, investigations, claims and suits. We are currently defending one wage and hour suit, one sexual harassment suit and responding to several allegations of discrimination and/or harassment that have been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or state counterpart agencies.”

At that point, the filing finally gets to the problem du jour:

In addition, in connection with our previously disclosed change in auditors, on July 30, 2010, we received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York for the production of documents relating to the circumstances surrounding the change in our auditors. We have also received inquiries from the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding this matter. We intend to cooperate fully with these requests and any related inquiries.

If consider all that, plus the fact that the company is spending cash like Pacman Jones at a strip club and that they’re likely to be in noncompliance with a major debt covenants at September 30th, it’s no surprise that the stock is off even more than when Deloitte first quit as auditors.

American Apparel Drops After Receiving Subpoena on Change in Accountants [Bloomberg]
10-Q [SEC]

American Apparel Goes Two for Two: Q2 Filing Late, Q1 Still Pending

Fashion cannot be rushed people. Ask the gang at Fashionista. They’ll tell you.

However, it is still a business which sometimes includes dealing with auditors and other outsiders that want various documentation and whatnot that can simply be delayed if it hinders the creative process. That is, if you keep your company private.

But the second you want to give the American public the opportunity to invest in your skinny jeans, leggings, and thong tanks, you’re playing on the SEC’s turf. This means things happen on a schedule. Delays, excuses or pervy CEO behavior will not be tolerated if it results in late filings.

American Apparel expects to report a loss in the second quarter and requested additional time to file its financial report after the resignation of its auditor, Deloitte & Touche.

It is the latest bump for the hipster clothing chain. The company said in May that it expected a loss for the first quarter, but it hasn’t filed that quarterly report with the Securities and Exchange Commission either.

[…]

Deloitte & Touche resigned as American Apparel’s auditor after the accounting firm said it found material weaknesses in internal controls over financial reporting. Deloitte requested more information from the company to determine if there were problems in previous financial reports. American Apparel said Tuesday it was working to provide that information.

Dov! These 10-Qs are not optional! Plus, it doesn’t help that the financial data that you provide is less reliable than what the federal government issues.

Presumably Marcum was persistent (and comfortable) enough to get you to push the button before so what the hell man? You’ve got them back on your team so this should NBD. You best get the house in order before your stock gets banished to the sheets that are the same color as your undies.

American Apparel expects 2Q loss; request 2Q delay [Bloomberg BusinessWeek]

Earlier:
Deloitte Resigns as American Apparel Auditor; Hotness of Engagement Team Presumably Not an Issue

Deloitte Resigns as American Apparel Auditor; Hotness of Engagement Team Presumably Not an Issue

So for those of you that aren’t too fashion conscious, you probably don’t the name Dov Charney. He’s the Chairman and CEO of American Apparel and you’d be hard pressed to find something in one of his stores that qualify under your firm’s dress code.

Nevertheless! AA is a publicly traded company and is subjeities laws as everyone else. Last year they opted to drop Marcum as their auditor for Deloitte. One year later, the firm has apparently had all they can stand of AA because they resigned today, citing possibly unreliable financial statements for 2009, sending the company’s stock reeling.


The 8-K has the usual language that you would expect from a typical auditor/client break-up but here are the gory details for those you that enjoy that sort of thing (citations omitted and extra fun stuff is bolded):

During the period from April 3, 2009 through July 22, 2010, there were no “reportable events” except that (i) in Deloitte’s report dated March 31, 2010 (which was included in the 2009 Form 10-K) on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, Deloitte identified material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting related to the control environment and to the financial closing and reporting process, which are further described under Item 9A in the Company’s 2009 Form 10-K, and advised that the Company has not maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009; and (ii) Deloitte advised the Company that certain information has come to Deloitte’s attention, that if further investigated may materially impact the reliability of either its previously issued audit report or the underlying consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009 included in the Company’s 2009 Form 10-K. Deloitte has requested that the Company provide Deloitte with the additional information Deloitte believes is necessary to review before the Company and Deloitte can reach any conclusions as to the reliability of the previously issued consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009 and auditors’ report thereon.

As we mentioned, this has spooked plenty of people, including Ed Yruma an analyst at KeyBanc quoted by Bloomberg in a letter to investors, “The company has struggled since its IPO with both its internal controls and its ability to file SEC filings on a timely basis. An ability to file SEC filings on a timely basis has been an ongoing issue.”

Back to the superficial. Dov Charney is, what you might call, a character. Here’s a brief chat we had with Nick, Breaking Media web developer and occasional contributor to our sister site Fashionista:

me: When i say the name
Dov Charney
your response is…
Nick: LECH
PERV

You only need to snoop around the web briefly (e.g. here, here, here) to pick up what Nick is referring to.

Deloitte’s letter to the SEC is brief and makes no mention about the plethora of models not wearing pants or Dov judging the young auditors’ hot or not-ness, so that likely wasn’t part of the problem. Anyhow, AA ran straight back to Marcum who might be more comfortable with, what we imagine to be, an interesting work environment.

8-K [SEC]
American Apparel Falls After Deloitte Resigns as Accountant [Bloomberg BusinessWeek]