Bingham, Mayer Brown and Macfarlanes lead on Comet administration
Bingham McCutchen and Mayer Brown are advising the administrators of electricals chain Comet, which filed for administration last Friday (2 November).
Deloitte partners Neville Kahn, Nicholas Edwards and Christopher Farrington are trying to find a buyer for the goods retailer after retail turnaround specialist OpCapita, which bought the business for just £2 last year, failed to revive the high-street chain.
Mayer Brown London restructuring head Ashley Katz is the lead partner for the firm on the case, while City financial restructuring partner Liz Osborne is leading a team at Bingham. Both firms are advising the Deloitte trio on the administration.
Meanwhile, Macfarlanes confirmed that it had been advising Comet “in recent weeks in relation to its financial difficulty”.
Kahn said in a statement: “Comet has been battling the changing landscape of the electrical retail sector for many years. It has become increasingly difficult for it to compete with online retailers which don’t face the same overheads such as store rents and business rates.”
Background to this deal:
Macfarlanes partners Stephen Drewitt and Ian Martin advised OpCapita last year when Kesa, which is listed in London and Paris, offloaded its UK Comet stores to Hailey, a group of companies advised by retail turnaround specialist OpCapita, for just £2 (9 November 2009). The instruction came through the firm’s established relationship with OpCapital principal Joshua Spoerri, who Macfarlanes advised in a previous role in Bank of America’s European private equity business. SJ Berwin advised the Comet management.
The mandates come amid a string of UK administration cases in recent months, with Wragge & Co taking a role advising the administrators of London taxi maker Manganese Bronze (5 November 2012).
Readers' comments (7)
Anonymous | 5-Nov-2012 10:52 am
Comet has always been the poor relation operating in a overcrowded market. Its no surprise therefore that they continue to struggle.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 5-Nov-2012 10:58 am
It's no good trying to go up against the likes of Amazon etc without giving the customer an experience to draw them in. The need for reinvention has been around for a while now. This should be obvious but Comet seem not to have grasped that fact.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 5-Nov-2012 1:42 pm
to the comment above, can i just ask what customer service you had when u shopped at amazon? was there someone there to help you when you needed it? could u look and pick up the product? i doubt this very much. it is amazon that is killing the high street and the shops that have been part of our shopping experience for years, amazon can get there prices low as they dont pay a penny in tax to the uk goverment. so you may be saving now but in the long run when there is no shops left to pay tax im sure your tax will be going up. you should be supporting your local shops.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 5-Nov-2012 1:43 pm
It's only really the staff and consumer that that truly lost out. Winning situation to all else.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 5-Nov-2012 2:25 pm
The consumer hasn't lost anything from the demise of Comet. It is/was a dull shoppng experience (a throw back to the 80's) and one which was made doubly worse by the pushy sales people. Retail can't stand still despite what anon @1.42pm would like. I fear there are many synergies yet to be brought to life between retail and law. Watch out the dinosaurs.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 5-Nov-2012 2:41 pm
I know a lot of people will go to the high street store to have a look at the product and then if they like it will go home and order on-line to make a saving - no loyalty to the shop, it's price driven with like for like products.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ironic | 5-Nov-2012 3:26 pm
The irony of the comments from lawyers about Comet and its failure to meet the needs of modern clients/consumers is wonderful.
How many years until we start writing the same comments about many of the law firms in the Top 100? 'Pushy sales people', 'poor quality merchandise', 'not a pleasant experience', 'expensive overheads', 'not meeting modern expectations', 'easier to buy over the internet' and so on.
What is hitting retail now will hit the legal services sector soon. Some would say it has already begun. And in banking and insurance it is well established. Watch this space...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment