Design Group Americas Voluntarily Files for Chapter 11 Protection, Initiates Sale Process Aimed at Maximizing Value Through Going Concern Transactions
The Company intends to pursue a value maximization strategy by engaging with buyers who are interested in purchasing certain of the Company's business segments as a going concern, while concurrently winding down its domestically manufactured woven ribbon products business and supporting assets.
DGA includes over 50 product categories and brands, some of which were established over a century ago. Like many companies in the consumer products sector, DGA has been navigating a challenging operating landscape for several years, compounded by the loss of a major customer, who entered liquidation and significantly impacted DGA's revenue as well as new trade tariffs imposed in 2025 that increased operational costs, affected pricing strategies, and contributed to reduced customer orders. The Company's decision to pursue an in-court process was driven by liquidity constraints, substantial working capital requirements, and the seasonal nature of significant portions of its business.
'Following DGA's sale to an affiliate of Hilco Capital Group, we have worked diligently with our advisors to evaluate the optimal path forward for the business,' said Sue Buchta, Chief Executive Officer of DGA. 'We enter the court-supervised sale process in dialogue with multiple interested parties for certain of our business segments as a going concern and intend to leverage chapter 11 to maximize the value of our assets. We thank our employees, customers, and partners for their support and will work diligently to minimize any potential impact during the process.'
Additional Information about the Court-Supervised Process
DGA has secured an agreement for approximately $53 million in committed debtor-in-possession ('DIP') financing from an affiliate of Hilco to support its value maximizing strategy throughout its Chapter 11 cases, subject to Court approval.
Additionally, to uphold its commitments to its stakeholders, DGA has filed several customary 'first day' motions. These motions, upon approval by the Court, will provide authorization for the continued payment of employee wages and benefits arising under programs that were in effect as of the petition date, the maintenance of certain customer programs, payments to certain critical vendors for prepetition amounts owed, payment to vendors for amounts owed on post-petition goods and services delivered to the Company, and other relief measures standard in these circumstances.
DGA's non-U.S. affiliates are not part of the chapter 11 cases and will continue to operate while the Company considers the impact of asset sales and the optimal plan to maximize the value of the interests it holds in those subsidiaries.
Additional information is available at https://cases.ra.kroll.com/DGA. Stakeholders with questions may call the Company's claims agent Kroll, toll-free at (877) 307-2977 (U.S. and Canada) or (646) 290-6127 (International), or email at dgateam@ra.kroll.com.
Advisors
Latham & Watkins LLP is serving as legal counsel, Huron Consulting Group LLC is serving as financial advisor and investment banker, and C Street Advisory Group is serving as strategic communications advisor to DGA.
About DGA
Design Group Americas (DGA) is a diverse group of companies operating across multiple regions, categories, seasons, and brands. The company employs over 1,400 people and works with customers in the US and around the world, with offices and operations in the United States, UK, Australia and Asia. DGA products are found in over 100,000 retail outlets internationally, with products reaching millions of consumers of all ages. Design Group Americas creates, designs, and manufactures products that help the world celebrate life's special occasions. They are proud to serve the best retailers around the globe with a complete end-to-end service from design to distribution.
Design Group America's products are found within six core categories:
Gift packaging: DGA is one of the world's largest producer of celebrations products, including gift wrap, gift bags, ribbons & bows
Party: Party-ware, balloons and accessories
Ribbon: Craft, décor, ribbon for branded or floral business
Craft: Craft and creative play products that empower consumers of all ages to express themselves, learn new skills, as well as create individual looks, unique gifts and keepsake items
Stationery: Wide range of stationery products for consumers of all ages, for use in education, commercial, and home settings including both standard and fashion ranges
Homeware/Décor: Seasonal and everyday décor such as florals, holiday signs, tabletop décor and ornaments
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
3 hours ago
- Miami Herald
UN Nuclear Inspectors Quit Iran
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said its inspectors have departed Tehran and arrived safely to Vienna after Iran suspended cooperation in the wake of attacks on its nuclear program by Israel and the United States. Newsweek has reached out to the Iranian Foreign Ministry for comment. The move is a sign of the increasing uncertainty over Iran's nuclear program, with Tehran signaling it will press ahead with its nuclear program - including uranium enrichment - despite recent U.S. and Israeli strikes that damaged key nuclear facilities. The departure of the inspectors means a reduction in international monitoring of what Iran is doing. It comes a day after Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed a law suspending cooperation with the IAEA, after parliament had voted in favor of the bill previously. "An IAEA team of inspectors today safely departed from Iran to return to the Agency headquarters in Vienna, after staying in Tehran throughout the recent military conflict," the agency said in a statement on X. IAEA Director Rafael Grossi has "reiterated the crucial importance of the IAEA discussing with Iran modalities for resuming its indispensable monitoring and verification activities in Iran as soon as possible." According to The Wall Street Journal, the withdrawal of the inspectors from Iran is due to safety concerns. Months before Israel and the U.S. attacked, Iran had threatened to expel IAEA inspectors and suspend cooperation. The IAEA had assessed in June that Iran did not comply with its obligations. After the attacks, Iran has responded by saying it will establish a new facility for enriching uranium, which can be a step towards nuclear weapons. Iran says it is committed to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) commitment not to seek nuclear weapons. Through the NPT's safeguards agreements, the IAEA monitors and verifies that signatories are meeting their obligations not to acquire a nuclear weapon. A spokesperson for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) told Newsweek on Wednesday: "The IAEA is awaiting further official information from Iran." Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote on X Wednesday: "Iran remains committed to the NPT and its Safeguards Agreement. In accordance with the new legislation by Majlis, sparked by the unlawful attacks against our nuclear facilities by Israel and the U.S., our cooperation with @iaeaorg will be channeled through Iran's Supreme National Security Council for obvious safety and security reasons." U.S. State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce told reporters: "First of all – and I want to get this correct here – it is – we'll use the word "unacceptable" – that Iran chose to suspend cooperation with the IAEA at a time when it has a window of opportunity to reverse course and choose a path of peace and prosperity. Iran must cooperate fully without further delay." No talks are currently scheduled but Iran may use its suspension of IAEA cooperation as leverage in future nuclear negotiations. Related Articles A Real New Middle East Is Emerging | OpinionIran Issues Nuclear Update After U.S. Slams DecisionKey Trump Ally Bolsters Missile Defense as Iran ThreatensIran's Commanders Send Warning to U.S. 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Entrepreneur
3 hours ago
- Entrepreneur
How to Oust a Difficult Co-founder Legally and Smoothly
There are a number of reasons that a co-founder may want to part ways with another co-founder. There are also legal considerations to keep in mind when co-founders separate. Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. Imagine this. Jean and John, who met at a startup incubator, founded a company together. But as they grew, Jean realized that she and John weren't aligned on many things, including what the company's future should look like. Neither John's goals nor his behavior reflected the company's mission, so Jean ousts John from the business. Reasons for a co-founder's departure There are a number of reasons that a co-founder may want to part ways with another co-founder. 1. Lack of dedication A startup that wants to scale for a big exit typically requires founders who dedicate long hours for little pay (at least at the beginning). While some founders, like Jean, are willing to do that, some, like John, are not. Jean was willing to put in as many hours as it took to meet her responsibilities. John, on the other hand, arrived late and left early, demonstrating that he wasn't dedicated to his role — or the company. 2. Difficult to work with Some founders are simply difficult to work with. They're not collaborative, they're closed off to others' input or they belittle or micromanage their employees. While in the office, John's attitude was one of superiority. He felt that certain tasks were below him and that others should do the "heavy lifting." He criticized his employees at every opportunity, lowering morale and eventually pushing a very dedicated, key employee out of the company. 3. Lack of alignment with vision While a dream team of co-founders might be committed and great as colleagues, they might have different visions about the company's future. For example, they may disagree on a pivot other founders believe is necessary. Jean wanted to focus on R&D to ensure ongoing innovation, but John was focused on expanding the company. In addition to his behavior, this lack of alignment caused so much tension that Jean started the process of terminating her co-founder. Related: So Your Co-Founder is Threatening to Quit Unless You Give Them More Equity. What Should You Do? Legal considerations In addition to mistakes that can be made during the termination process, there are several legal considerations to keep in mind when co-founders separate. 1. Complying with employment law Founders are almost always employees by law. When terminating an employee, keep in mind — and meet — the legalities of termination, including filing certain paperwork and notices, and meeting deadlines for paying the final paycheck, for example. When the tension between Jean and John began, Jean documented each instance so she had relevant backup at the time of John's termination. 2. Is your relationship buttoned up? Make sure you are not giving an ousted co-founder leverage. Breaking promises or not protecting the company legally in its founding documents on IP assignments or confidentiality obligations means that they now have valuable IP the company needs. 3. Do you have the legal right? It's critical to ensure that a co-founder has the legal right to terminate another co-founder. If they do not, they should take the necessary steps to secure those rights; it might not be as simple as telling them they are fired. For example, the company's bylaws might allow a co-founder to be terminated only if the board votes to do so. The ousting founders need to make sure they can — and do — get board support. When John's performance began to decline, Jean consulted with the company's board to ensure the board was informed from the outset. More legal considerations: What NOT to do While there are considerations to make so as not to run into legal issues, there are also considerations for what NOT to do. 1. Don't think about a separation agreement A legally binding separation agreement can get you a release of claims, potentially non-disparagement terms and other benefits for the company, including agreements to not sue. Investors will want to see this if at all possible in diligence. It's worth some money to get this. As soon as John's performance started suffering and other employees began complaining about his behavior, Jean consulted an employment attorney to prepare the paperwork necessary for a separation agreement, enabling the process to be completed without worrying about a potential lawsuit. 2. Forget to cut off access to systems To prevent an ousted co-founder from accessing company information post-termination, ensure that they can no longer access the company's systems. Disgruntled employees with access to company data can cause major problems. Once John was officially "out," all access to company information was cut off; Jean knew that, if given the opportunity, John would have tried to access certain data once he exited the company. 3. Bash the ousted founder to employees, investors and other stakeholders Sometimes in trying to explain the ousted founder's departure, founders will resort to speaking negatively about them; this opens the company to defamation liability. It can also reflect badly on the company and the founding terms. Finally, it can lead to the ousted founder becoming more hostile toward the company. Despite their differences, Jean maintained reasonable levels of professionalism. Although the process was stressful for her, her team and ultimately the company, John's ouster and the reasons behind it remained within the executive leadership team. Related: 4 Sane Strategies for Maintaining Healthy Co-Founder Relationships Ramifications of skirting the law All of this advice hinges on the remaining founders meeting the requirements to legally terminate a co-founder. When they don't, there are ramifications. 1. Incurring penalties and legal claims First, by not complying with employment laws, penalties can be incurred, and legal claims are given to the ousted founder; these can add up. For example, in California, if all wages aren't paid on the final day of employment, the ousted founder is entitled to a penalty equal to one full day of wages for every day until they are fully paid (up to 30 days). Jean's diligence in consulting a startup attorney prepared her for the separation. In addition to the separation agreement, Jean presented John with his final paycheck at the termination meeting. 2. Post-termination negotiations If you don't button up your relationship with the founder prior to termination, you will be stuck post-termination negotiating for what you need. At this point, you are unlikely to have much leverage. 3. No separation agreement If you fail to get a separation agreement, investors may push on you in diligence to get one later; this is often difficult. Also, you may subject the company to claims that would have been released if money was offered as severance at the outset. Note that a founder may sign a separation agreement quickly if it's offered with a positive message and incentives. The absence of an up-front offer can result in litigation, and demands may increase. The bottom line While there are myriad factors that contribute to the ousting of a company founder, it behooves those on the company side to make appropriate preparations to avoid legal troubles. Ready to break through your revenue ceiling? Join us at Level Up, a conference for ambitious business leaders to unlock new growth opportunities.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
It's gone pear-shaped at Del Monte Foods
How can a century(plus)-old brand fall into the position where Chapter 11 appears the best option to help the business? That's the question hanging over Del Monte Foods, the nearly 140-year-old company that this week announced it was entering Chapter 11 proceedings and is looking for a new owner. 'This is a strategic step forward for Del Monte Foods,' president and CEO Greg Longstreet said on Tuesday. 'A court-supervised sale process is the most effective way to accelerate our turnaround and create a stronger and enduring Del Monte Foods.' The company, best known for its namesake brand of canned fruit and vegetables, has been owned since 2014 by Singapore and Philippines-listed Del Monte Pacific. Based in California, Del Monte Foods is also home to brands including College Inn broths and stocks and Joyba teas. With sales having recently come under pressure, laden with excess inventory and carrying debt from the Del Monte Pacific deal, the company has struck a 'restructuring support agreement' with creditors to pursue a 'going-concern sale process for all or substantially all' of its assets. Del Monte Foods says it has secured a commitment from its lenders for $912.5m in debtor-in-possession financing to keep the business going while a potential suitor is sought. It includes $165m in new funding, which is subject to court approval. The group has four factories – two in the US and two in Mexico. In May, the company shut a plant in Washington state. The closure followed three others last year. 'With an improved capital structure, enhanced financial position and new ownership, we will be better positioned for long-term success,' Longstreet added. It's important to note that Del Monte Foods is distinct from the publicly listed – and fresh-foods-focused – Fresh Del Monte Produce. That company felt compelled to issue its own statement yesterday to underline it's not affiliated to Del Monte Foods. 'Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.'s financial or operational performance is not impacted by that separate, unaffiliated company's announced legal or financial proceedings,' it said. 'The company remains financially strong, strategically aligned, and committed to delivering long-term value.' Fresh Del Monte Produce does own the Del Monte brand for prepared food products in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East – but Del Monte Foods holds the rights to the Del Monte brand for prepared food products in the US. And therein lies part of the reason for Del Monte Foods' woes. The company's range of shelf-stable products appeal less to the rising number of consumers in the US who are looking instead for minimally-processed, fresh-cut options. For Eddie Pearson, partner at US consultancy BeyondBrands, Del Monte Foods' move into Chapter 11 'isn't just a bankruptcy story – it's a snapshot of how quickly consumer preferences are rewriting the food aisle'. 'After nearly 140 years of keeping America shelf-stable, the iconic canned food brand is restructuring. Why? Because consumers have officially broken up with the can opener,' Pearson wrote on LinkedIn this week. 'The modern shopper wants fresh over shelf life, organic over artificial, farmers' market vibes over 'non-BPA liner' labels. Sure, Joyba bubble tea is still having its moment. But canned peaches? They're getting ghosted.' Del Monte Foods may also have been squeezed in a different way. Those US shoppers who are regular buyers of its type of canned fare may, in recent months, have been more attracted to the lower-price offerings sold under retailer own labels, especially at a time when consumer confidence has been under pressure. The company does manufacture products for US retailers' own labels but, as the Chapter 11 filings conceded, that side of the business 'has contracted substantially' after the recent plant closures. The recent tension over tariffs, especially the cost of inputs to make cans, would likely not have helped either. US industry body Consumer Brands Association has been vocal in its concerns about the US move to put tariffs on steel and aluminium. On top of all that, Del Monte Foods has held excess inventory in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. The company's sales were boosted during the worst of the pandemic amid the spike in at-home consumption and the temporary flight to well-known and staple brands. That elevated demand did not last. Then there are internal factors. Del Monte Foods has carried a pile of debt from the sale to Del Monte Pacific more than a decade ago. In the company's Chapter 11 filing, it said its annual cash interest costs stood at $66m in its 2020 fiscal year – but jumped to $125m in fiscal 2025 as its capital structure was refinanced and interest rates increased. In the wake of Del Monte Foods' statement on Tuesday, the price of Del Monte Pacific's shares listed in Singapore fell. Del Monte Pacific sought to underline its Asian and other international businesses continue 'to perform well, with resilient consumer demand, supported by a strong and stable supply chain'. The company added it is evaluating the potential impact of the Del Monte Foods' bankruptcy process, including any impairment charges that would have to be disclosed in future reporting. Nonetheless, according to Del Monte Pacific's annual report for fiscal 2024, Del Monte Foods accounted for 70% of its parent's sales. And those in logistics will be watching the situation closely. Logistics groups including CHEP USA, Saddle Creek and Uber Freight (as Transplace) are listed in the filings as creditors. "During the court-supervised process, Del Monte Foods will continue to fulfill customer orders across our portfolio of beloved brands during this process,' the group said. 'The company will have sufficient liquidity to continue paying vendors and suppliers for goods and services provided after the filing date. Our team remains focused on delivering high-quality food products that are healthy, delicious and convenient.' What lies further ahead remains to be seen. "It's gone pear-shaped at Del Monte Foods" was originally created and published by Just Food, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
