DOCSLIB.ORG

Barbara Templeton, Et Al. V. Safeway Inc., Et Al. 14-CV-02412-Class

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Barbara Templeton, Et Al. V. Safeway Inc., Et Al. 14-CV-02412-Class Case4:14-cv-02412-JSW Document1 Filed05/23/14 Page1 of 80 1 FRANCIS M. GREGOREK (144785) [email protected] 2 BETSY C. MANIFOLD (182450) [email protected] 3 RACHELE R. RICKERT (190634) [email protected] 4 MARISA C. LIVESAY (223247) [email protected] 5 WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 6 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 7 Telephone: 619/239-4599 Facsimile: 619/234-4599 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION 12 13 BARBARA TEMPLETON, on Behalf of Herself Case No. and All Others Similarly Situated, 14 Plaintiff, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR 15 v. VIOLATIONS OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT, SELF-DEALING, 16 SAFEWAY INC.; ROBERT L. EDWARDS; T. AND FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY GARY ROGERS; WILLIAM Y. TAUSCHER; DUTIES 17 MOHAN GYANI; ARUN SARIN; 18 JANET E. GROVE; FRANK C. HERRINGER; KENNETH W. ODER; GEORGE J. MORROW; 19 AB ACQUISITION LLC; ALBERTSON’S HOLDINGS LLC; 20 ALBERTSON’S LLC; SATURN ACQUISITION MERGER SUB, INC.; and CERBERUS 21 CAPITAL MANAGEMENT L.P., 22 Defendants 23 24 25 26 27 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case4:14-cv-02412-JSW Document1 Filed05/23/14 Page2 of 80 1 SUMMARY OF THE ACTION 2 1. Plaintiff Barbara Templeton (“Plaintiff”) brings this shareholder class action 3 for herself, and on behalf of all similarly situated holders of Safeway Inc. (“Safeway” or the 4 “Company”) common stock against Safeway, the members of the Company’s Board of Directors 5 (the “Board” or the “Individual Defendants”), AB Acquisition LLC (“AB Acquisition”), 6 Albertson’s Holdings LLC (“Albertson’s Holdings”), Albertson’s LLC (“Albertson’s LLC”), 7 Saturn Acquisition Merger Sub, Inc. (“Merger Sub”), and Cerberus Capital Management L.P. 8 (“Cerberus Capital” and/or, collectively, with AB Acquisition, Albertson’s Holdings, Albertson’s 9 LLC, and Merger Sub, “Albertsons”). This action seeks to enjoin defendants from further 10 breaching their fiduciary duties in their pursuit of a sale of Safeway at an unfair price through an 11 unfair and self-serving process to Albertsons (the “Proposed Transaction”). 12 2. Pursuant to the parties’ Agreement and Plan of Merger dated March 6, 2014 13 “Merger Agreement”), Albertsons intends to acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares 14 Safeway common stock in exchange for $32.50 in cash and contingent value rights (“CVRs 15 related to the disposition of certain of the Company’s “non-core assets,” which have an estimat 16 value between $3.45 and $3.85 per share. Further, Safeway intends to distribute the 37.8 milli 17 shares it owns in Blackhawk Network Holdings, Inc. (“Blackhawk”) to shareholders in mid-Ap 18 2014 (the “Blackhawk distribution”). Based on the closing price of Blackhawk’s common stock 19 $25.06 per share on March 5, 2014, the Blackhawk distribution has a current value of $3.95 p 20 Company share. All together, the $32.50 cash consideration, the CVRs, and the Blackhaw 21 distribution will result in a consideration for Safeway shareholders worth approximately $40 p 22 share (the “Proposed Consideration”). 23 3. Safeway is one of the largest food and drug retailers in the United States with 1,33 24 stores in twenty states and the District of Columbia and sales totaling approximately $36.1 bi 25 in 2013. The Company has thirteen distribution centers, twenty manufacturing plants, 26 employs approximately 138,000 employees. In addition, Safeway also has considerable “non 27 assets,” including (i) its majority stake in Blackhawk, a leading prepaid payment net 28 supporting the management and distribution of consumer gift cards; (ii) a 49% ownership of I CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 1 - Case4:14-cv-02412-JSW Document1 Filed05/23/14 Page3 of 80 1 Ley, S.A. de C.V. (“Casa Ley”), the fifth-largest food and general merchandise retailer in Mex 2 based on sales; and (iii) a portfolio of real estate development assets held through its subsid 3 Property Development Centers, LLC (“PDC”). Between its core business and these non-c 4 assets, the Company has delivered solid and improving financial results in recent years. In f 5 for eight of the past ten quarters, Safeway exceeded consensus analyst estimates for adjus 6 earnings per share (“EPS”) and on February 19, 2014, the Company reported sales and o 7 revenue was $11.3 billion for the fourth quarter of 2013 compared to $11.2 billion for the fo 8 quarter of 2012. Gross profit margin also increased year-over-year, reaching 26.52% of sales 9 the fourth quarter of 2013 and 26.27% for the full year 2013. The Proposed Transaction threat 10 to bring an end to this financial progress. 11 4. Several equity analysts had price targets for Safeway well above the Proposed 12 Consideration of $40 per share prior to the announcement of the Proposed Transaction, and 13 numerous others have been sharply critical of the deal since it was announced. Analyst Karen 14 Short (“Short”) of Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. described the Proposed Transaction as “a great 15 deal” for Albertsons and as undervaluing Safeway. In the four and a half months between the 16 first rumors of a deal with Albertsons and Safeway and the deal announcement, various analysts 17 valued a potential transaction between the two companies. Collectively, these analysts believe 18 that a deal between Albertsons and Safeway would result in a consideration for Safeway 19 shareholders between $43 and $56 per share. The Proposed Consideration, however, falls well 20 below this range. 21 5. Moreover, according to Bloomberg data, the Proposed Transaction is the cheapest 22 deal in the food retail industry in almost a decade and, based on comparable historical 23 transactions, a fair price for Safeway’s considerable assets should fall in the range of $48 to 24 $67 per share . The Proposed Consideration also falls significantly below this range. 25 6. In order to lock in the Proposed Transaction at the unfair Proposed 26 I the Board breached their fiduciary duty to the Company shareholders by entering into 27 I preclusive and onerous deal protection devices, as set forth in the Merger Agreement. 28 provisions, which further diminish the chances of obtaining maximum value for the Company’ I CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 2 - Case4:14-cv-02412-JSW Document1 Filed05/23/14 Page4 of 80 1 shareholders by collectively precluding any competing offers for the Company, include: (i) 2 impractically short “go-shop” period lasting just twenty-one days; (ii) a three business- 3 matching rights period during which Albertsons can match any superior proposal received by 4 Company; and (iii) a termination fee of $150 million if the Company had accepted a compet 5 bid during the “go-shop” period and a termination fee of $250 million now that the “go-sh 6 period has expired. 7 7. In order to further discourage any competing bidder interested in acqui 8 Safeway with its Blackhawk assets, Safeway distributed its equity stake in Blackhawk on A 9 14, 2014 to its shareholders, thereby precluding any further interest by such bidders in acqui 10 Safeway. 11 8. The Company has also left in place its shareholder Rights Agreement, other 12 known as a “poison pill,” adopted in September 2013 in order to prevent competing bidders f 13 making acquisition proposals directly to the Safeway shareholders and it has adopted an Execu 14 Severance Plan (the “Severance Plan”) that will substantially increase the acquisition costs for 15 potential competing bidder. 16 9. The Proposed Transaction is also the product of a deeply flawed and conflicted sal 17 process. The Board retained Goldman Sachs & Co. (“Goldman Sachs”) as its financial adviso 18 despite Goldman Sachs’s substantial ties to Albertsons’ principal investor, Cerberus Capital. As 19 result, the Board and Goldman Sachs conducted a sales process that was designed to confir 20 Albertsons as the winning bidder rather than maximize value for Safeway’s shareholders through 21 I competition process. 22 10. Furthermore, while the Company’s shareholders will lose control of Safeway at a 23 unfair price, the Company’s fiduciaries will receive immediate benefits from the closing of th 24 Proposed Transaction, including lucrative and prestigious positions at the post-merger compan 25 and/or sizeable severance packages. Additionally, Safeway’s officers and directors will receiv 26 millions of dollars in special payments for currently unvested stock options, performance shares 27 and restricted stock units (“RSUs”), all of which shall, upon the closing of the Propose 28 Transaction, become fully vested and exercisable. Finally, the Individual Defendants affiliate I CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 3 - Case4:14-cv-02412-JSW Document1 Filed05/23/14 Page5 of 80 1 with Safeway’s majority-owned subsidiary Blackhawk will receive unique benefits in connec 2 with the planned distribution of the Company’s equity stake in Blackhawk. These benefits, n 3 of which is shared equally by Safeway’s public shareholders, were key factors in the Indivi 4 Defendants’ decision to pursue the Proposed Transaction. 5 11. Not only did the Individual Defendants breach their fiduciary duties by agreeing 6 the sale of the Company at an unfairly low price as the result of a flawed and conflicted proce 7 the Individual Defendants also violated Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchan 8 Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by misrepresenting 9 omitting several material facts in the Company’s Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of 10 Securities Exchange Act of 1934, filed on April 17, 2014 (the “Proxy”). 11 12. The Proxy omits several material facts, including, inter alia (i) the estimated va 12 of synergies anticipated as a result of the Proposed Transaction; (ii) the current estimated value 13 the Company’s real estate holdings; (iii) what strategic initiatives pertaining to Safeway’s differ 14 geographic initiatives were discussed by the Individual Defendants in the process of negotiati 15 the Proposed Transaction; and (iv) the fees paid to Goldman Sachs in connection with its role 16 financial advisor to Safeway.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Consent Decree: Safeway, Inc. (PDF)
    1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 5 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 7 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 8 ) v. ) 9 ) SAFEWAY INC., ) 10 ) Defendant. ) 11 ) 12 13 14 CONSENT DECREE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Consent Decree 1 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 I. JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND NOTICE .............................................................2 4 II. APPLICABILITY....................................................................................................2 5 III. OBJECTIVES ..........................................................................................................3 6 IV. DEFINITIONS.........................................................................................................3 7 V. CIVIL PENALTIES.................................................................................................6 8 9 VI. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................6 10 A. Refrigerant Compliance Management System ............................................6 11 B. Corporate-Wide Leak Rate Reduction .........................................................7 12 C. Emissions Reductions at Highest-Emission Stores......................................8 13 VII. PARTICIPATION IN RECOGNITION PROGRAMS .........................................10 14 VIII. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS .........................................................................10 15 IX. STIPULATED PENALTIES .................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • Document.Pdf
    SAFEWAY // MCMINNVILLE, OR CORPORATE 20-YEAR ABSOLUTE NET LEASE Offering Memorandum EXCLUSIVELY LISTED BY JOSEPH BLATNER // Senior Vice President 503.200.2029 // [email protected] NON-ENDORSEMENT & DISCLAIMER NOTICE CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER The information contained in the following Marketing Brochure is proprietary and strictly confidential. It is intended to be reviewed only by the party receiving it from Marcus & Millichap and should not be made available to any other person or entity without the written consent of Marcus & Millichap. This Marketing Brochure has been prepared to provide summary, unverified information to prospective purchasers, and to establish only a preliminary level of interest in the subject property. The information contained herein is not a substitute for a thorough due diligence investigation. Marcus & Millichap has not made any investigation, and makes no warranty or representation, with respect to the income or expenses for the subject property, the future projected financial performance of the property, the size and square footage of the property and improvements, the presence or absence of contaminating substances, PCB’s or asbestos, the compliance with State and Federal regulations, the physical condition of the improvements thereon, or the financial condition or business prospects of any tenant, or any tenant’s plans or intentions to continue its occupancy of the subject property. The information contained in this Marketing Brochure has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable; however, Marcus & Millichap has not verified, and will not verify, any of the information contained herein, nor has Marcus & Millichap conducted any investigation regarding these matters and makes no warranty or representation whatsoever regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information provided.
    [Show full text]
  • Docket No. Fda–2011–N–0921
    DOCKET NO. FDA–2011–N–0921 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS OF THE AMERICAN HERBAL PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION ON PROPOSED RULE for STANDARDS FOR THE GROWING, HARVESTING, PACKING, AND HOLDING OF PRODUCE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION November 22, 2013 Docket No. FDA–2011–N–0921 November 22, 2013 Prefatory remarks ................................................................................................................................ 1 1. The broad and deep impact of the new regulations necessitates regulatory restraint ...................... 2 2. The same controls are neither necessary nor appropriate for non‐RTE foods as for RTE foods ......... 3 3. Wherever possible, food processors rather than farmers should ensure the biological safety of food ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Wherever possible, FDA should avoid burdening farmers and should rely on food processors rather than farmers to ensure biological safety ................................................................................ 7 3.2 Farmers are generally ill‐equipped to comply with either Part 112 or 117 ................................. 7 3.3 Food processors are the appropriate entity to ensure the biological safety of food wherever possible ...........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony of Karl Langhorst Director, Loss Prevention Randall's /Tom
    Testimony of Karl Langhorst Director, Loss Prevention Randall’s /Tom Thumb a Safeway Company before the House Judiciary Committee Crime Subcommittee’s hearing “Organized Retail Theft: Fostering a Comprehensive Public-Private Response” October 25, 2007 10:00 a.m. 2141 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Testimony of Karl Langhorst Director, Loss Prevention Randall’s /Tom Thumb a Safeway Company before the House Judiciary Committee Crime Subcommittee October 25, 2007 Chairman Conyers, Chairman Scott, Congressmen Smith and Forbes, and members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Crime Subcommittee today on the growing problem of organized retail crime. My name is Karl Langhorst, Director of Loss Prevention for Randall’s/Tom Thumb of Texas, a division of Safeway. Safeway Inc. is a Fortune 100 company and one of the largest food and drug retailers in North America. The company operates 1,738 stores in the United States and western Canada and had annual sales of $40.2 billion in 2006. I have been invited here to share with you our experience with the increasing problem of organized retail crime (ORC). Retailers have always had to deal with shoplifting as part of doing business, but let me be clear, ORC is not shoplifting. It is theft committed by professionals, in large volume, for resale. It is being committed against retailers of every type at an increasing rate. Safeway estimates a loss of $100 million dollars annually due to ORC. According to the FBI, the national estimate is between $15-30 billion annually. Let me describe for you how sophisticated and organized these enterprises are.
    [Show full text]
  • So What Business Are You REALLY In? By: Rob Andrews Formatted: Font: 10 Pt
    Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.08", Line spacing: At least 10 pt So what business are you REALLY in? By: Rob Andrews Formatted: Font: 10 pt My contention is that many boards, CEOs, and leadership teams do not fully understand the business they’re in. 74% of acquisitions fail. 23% have a neutral effect, and a miniscule 3% actually result in increased enterprise value, principally due to a lack of understanding of the acquisition. Here is an article citing one perfect example: Jim Dudlicek, Editor-in-Chief of Stagnitomedia, the leading resource periodical for specialty, gourmet, and convenience retailing said it perfectly in an article published October 159, 2013:. I can't say that it was a complete Commented [HB1]: A link ought to be added. Or some surprise to hear of Safeway's decision to pull out of the Chicago market after its 15-year attempt to make a go kind of citation. I find it here, but with Oct 9, 2013 as the of Dominick's. date (and a variety of other changes in the post): http://www.progressivegrocer.com/viewpoints-blogs/aisle- chatter/end-road-dominicks?nopaging=1 But I can say the news came with some sadness. I grew up in the Chicago suburbs, and my family became regular Dominick's shoppers after one opened close enough to home to make straying from our neighborhood Formatted: Font: Italic Jewel a convenient option. As an adult, I remained loyal to the banner, even as ownership passed from the DiMatteo family to Safeway (by way of Yucaipa), even as longtime local customers expressed their discontent with changes to the stores and lack of availability of some of their favorite brands.
    [Show full text]
  • Retail Globalization and Household Welfare: Evidence from Mexico
    Retail Globalization and Household Welfare: Evidence from Mexico David Atkin Massachusetts Institute of Technology and National Bureau of Economic Research Benjamin Faber University of California Berkeley and National Bureau of Economic Research Marco Gonzalez-Navarro University of California Berkeley The arrival of global retail chains in developing countries is causing a radical transformation in the way households source their consump- tion. This paper draws on a rich collection of Mexican microdata to es- timate the effect of foreign supermarket entry on household welfare and decomposes this effect into six channels. We find that foreign en- try causes large welfare gains for the average household predominantly driven by a reduction in the cost of living—both through price reduc- tions at domestic stores and through the direct consumer gains from foreign stores. These gains are, on average, positive for all income groups but are regressive. I. Introduction A radical transformation is occurring in the way households in develop- ing countries source their consumption. A key driver of this so-called “su- Zakia Akanda, Fatima Aqeel, Christopher Balette, Sakshi Kumar, Shruti Maken, Ramsha Mugal, and Fern Ramoutar provided excellent research assistance. We are grateful to Hec- tor Guzman at Banco de México and Mauricio Varela at the University of Arizona for pro- Electronically published January 16, 2018 [ Journal of Political Economy, 2018, vol. 126, no. 1] © 2018 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0022-3808/2018/12601-0008$10.00 000 This content downloaded from 136.152.142.088 on January 16, 2018 15:00:44 PM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
    [Show full text]
  • Consolidated-Annual-Report-2009
    2009 Consolidated annual report Key Figures Balance Sheet (in millions of Euros) 2009 2008 Change in per cent Assets 41,225 41,578 -0.8% Financial assets 14,543 14,367 +1.2% Receivables from customers 21,066 20,697 +1.8% Payables to customers 22,674 22,585 +0.4% Issued securities at cost 3,343 3,703 -9.7% Eligible own funds 2,826 2,180 +29.6% Income Statement (in millions of Euros) 2009 2008 Change in per cent Net interest income 564.3 652.5 -13.5% Net fee and commission income 154.8 143.9 +7.6% Gains and losses on assets and liabilities adjusted for minority interest 1) 138.9 -406.3 – Administrative expenses -517.3 -617.4 +16.2% Provisions and impairment losses -236.7 -281.4 +15.9% Profit (loss) before tax adjusted for minority interest 1) 45.5 -614.6 – Key figures 2009 2008 Tier I capital ratio 10.0% 6.6% Own funds ratio 13.6% 9.8% Cost:income ratio 2) 67.3% 174.4% Resources, as of 31.12. 2009 2008 Workforce (in full-time equivalents) 4,954 5,351 Bank branches 153 166 Post office branches 1,230 1,298 Rating 2009 2008 Moody’s rating 3) Baa1 Baa1 1) Under IFRS, the item Gains and losses on financial assets and liabilities also includes the valuation of securities whose risk is borne by minority shareholders. These securities are subject to substantial fair value fluctuations. In order to improve the comparability of the results, the valuation results attributable to minority shareholders have been excluded in the figures presented on this page.
    [Show full text]
  • Store Formats a Our New Safeway Stores
    Store formats A our New Safeway stores B The roll-out of New Safeway continues at an accelerating pace. During the year we refitted 73 stores including opening two new concept stores at Wimbledon and Woking. Our four New Safeway formats have now been launched at: • St Katharine Docks – convenience store • Wimbledon – supermarket • Woking – superstore • Plymstock – megastore In the first week of the current financial year, we opened two additional new stores in Reddish, Greater Manchester, and Carnforth, Lancashire. Added to the work we did in 2000/1, we have now refitted and relaunched 121 stores, equivalent to 26% of our total selling space. We will continue to roll-out the new formats across our store portfolio, incorporating all of the operational lessons we have learnt up to now and adapting them to fit the local market. We have received a lot of very positive feedback from our customers and we have taken 14 Safeway plc Annual Report and Accounts 2002 Store formats now fully refitted all but one of the 18 convenience stores in our portfolio. All of these stores have achieved industry- leading standards of product presentation. “Fresh to Go” supermarkets We launched the first full prototype at Wimbledon in May 2001 and by the end of the year we had reformatted 66 of our 205 supermarkets. We have created the feeling Fernando Garcia-Valencia Jim Maclachlan Property and Stores Director of a larger store with more space in the Development Director fresh areas and have often introduced cross aisles to make it easier for customers to shop.
    [Show full text]
  • MERGER ANTITRUST LAW Albertsons/Safeway Case Study
    MERGER ANTITRUST LAW Albertsons/Safeway Case Study Fall 2020 Georgetown University Law Center Professor Dale Collins ALBERTSONS/SAFEWAY CASE STUDY Table of Contents The deal Safeway Inc. and AB Albertsons LLC, Press Release, Safeway and Albertsons Announce Definitive Merger Agreement (Mar. 6, 2014) .............. 4 The FTC settlement Fed. Trade Comm’n, FTC Requires Albertsons and Safeway to Sell 168 Stores as a Condition of Merger (Jan. 27, 2015) .................................... 11 Complaint, In re Cerberus Institutional Partners V, L.P., No. C-4504 (F.T.C. filed Jan. 27, 2015) (challenging Albertsons/Safeway) .................... 13 Agreement Containing Consent Order (Jan. 27, 2015) ................................. 24 Decision and Order (Jan. 27, 2015) (redacted public version) ...................... 32 Order To Maintain Assets (Jan. 27, 2015) (redacted public version) ............ 49 Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Orders To Aid Public Comment (Nov. 15, 2012) ........................................................... 56 The Washington state settlement Complaint, Washington v. Cerberus Institutional Partners V, L.P., No. 2:15-cv-00147 (W.D. Wash. filed Jan. 30, 2015) ................................... 69 Agreed Motion for Endorsement of Consent Decree (Jan. 30, 2015) ........... 81 [Proposed] Consent Decree (Jan. 30, 2015) ............................................ 84 Exhibit A. FTC Order to Maintain Assets (omitted) ............................. 100 Exhibit B. FTC Order and Decision (omitted) .....................................
    [Show full text]
  • European Npls - FY18 an Overview of the Non-Performing Loan Market
    An Acuris Company Year-End 2018 European NPLs - FY18 An overview of the non-performing loan market Alessia Pirolo Head of NPL Coverage, Debtwire +44 (0) 20 3741 1399 [email protected] Amy Finch Data Journalist, Debtwire +44 (0) 20 3741 1187 [email protected] European NPLs – FY18 An Acuris Company Overview: A Record Year for NPL sales 3-7 Trends by Country Italy 8-13 Spain 14-17 New Entries: Portugal, Greece and Cyprus 18-24 UK and Ireland 25-28 Germany 29-30 Index List of closed deals 31-40 Criteria 41 Authors and contact details 42 2 European NPLs – FY18 An Acuris Company A Record Year for NPL sales The European non-performing loan (NPL) market reached its peak in 2018 with disposal totalling EUR 205.1bn in gross book value (GBV). Debtwire NPL Database tracked 142 transactions. The year just closed has been by far a record, compared with EUR 144bn in 2017 and EUR 107bn in 2016, according to data from Deloitte. The last quarter of 2018 saw a particularly intense pace of activity, given that at the end of the third quarter closed deals totalled EUR 125bn. The most active country was Italy, which totalled half of the total volume of NPL sales. In 2018, 64 NPL sales with a gross book value (GBV) of EUR 103.6bn were tracked in the country, almost half of which were via securitisations within the government’s Garanzia sulla Cartolarizzazione delle Sofferenze (GACS) scheme, which now has only until 6 March 2019 to run. Spain has started to see a slowdown of sales, but still completed a massive EUR 43.2bn in 27 deals.
    [Show full text]
  • Albertsons Companies, Inc. Form DEF 14A Filed 2021-06-24
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION FORM DEF 14A Definitive proxy statements Filing Date: 2021-06-24 | Period of Report: 2021-08-05 SEC Accession No. 0001140361-21-022208 (HTML Version on secdatabase.com) FILER Albertsons Companies, Inc. Mailing Address Business Address 250 PARKCENTER BLVD. 250 PARKCENTER BLVD. CIK:1646972| IRS No.: 000000000 | State of Incorp.:DE | Fiscal Year End: 0227 BOISE ID 83706 BOISE ID 83706 Type: DEF 14A | Act: 34 | File No.: 001-39350 | Film No.: 211043788 208-395-6200 SIC: 5411 Grocery stores Copyright © 2021 www.secdatabase.com. All Rights Reserved. Please Consider the Environment Before Printing This Document TABLE OF CONTENTS UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROXY STATEMENT SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Filed by the Registrant ☒ Filed by a Party other than the Registrant ☐ Check the appropriate box: ☐ Preliminary Proxy Statement ☐ Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2)) ☒ Definitive Proxy Statement ☐ Definitive Additional Materials ☐ Soliciting Material Pursuant to Rule 14a-12 Albertsons Companies, Inc. (Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter) (Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant) Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box): ☒ No fee required ☐ Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11. 1) Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies 2) Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies: 3) Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (Set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined): 4) Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction: 5) Total fee paid: ☐ Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.
    [Show full text]
  • Safeway Fact Book 2006
    About the Safeway Fact Book This Fact Book provides certain financial and operating information about Safeway. It is intended to be used as a supplement to Safeway’s 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K, and therefore does not include the Company’s consolidated financial statements and notes. Safeway believes that the information contained in this Fact Book is correct in all material respects as of the date set forth below. However, such information is subject to change. May 2006 Contents I. Investor Information Page 2 II. Safeway at a Glance Page 4 III. Retail Operations Page 5 IV. Retail Support Operations Page 8 V. Finance and Administration Page 12 VI. Financial and Operating Statistics Page 25 VII. Directors and Executive Officers Page 28 VIII. Corporate History Page 29 Note: This Fact Book contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Such statements relate to, among other things, capital expenditures, identical-store sales, comparable-store sales, cost reductions, operating improvements, obligations with respect to divested operations, cash flow, share repurchases, tax settlements, information technology, Safeway brands and store standards and are indicated by words or phrases such as “continuing”, “on going”, “expects”, “plans”, “will” and similar words or phrases. These statements are based on Safeway’s current plans and expectations and involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual events and results to vary significantly from those included in, or contemplated or implied by such statements.
    [Show full text]