41–50 of 89 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fail to understand why a coffee shop should be taking sides on geopolitical conflicts.
I agree. No idea why Starbucks, McDonalds, Zara etc. came out shouting support for Israel out of nowhere. Requiring a boycott from sane people.
Wasn't Philz the only Pro-Palestine coffee chain. That's too bad.
> At the end of 2023, five employees were sent home from the Gilman Street location for wearing Pro-Palestine pins. Despite asking for a written statement from management about why the pins were not allowed, the employees never received any information from management. The employees were sent home and the entire staff unionized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article implies that it's not a liquidation or bankruptcy, though, just a sale. I don't know how you can buy a company without buying its stock from the shareholders, given that they are the owners of the company, but there must be some special circumstance that's not mentioned in the article.
There are tricks. I've been through such an acquisition. The purchaser sets up a new "Philz Coffee Co LLC" then purchases assets and operations for the exact amount the preferred stock holders want. They then liquidate the old company. Because the old company was never legally "bought" the common stock holders are SOL because they now own stock in a fictional company. That's not to say they don't have options... but…
> “All Common Stock will be canceled for no consideration and all Options will be canceled and extinguished for no consideration” How is this even legal?
A follow up question: how can I check that my own stock is not subject to the same terms? Can publicly traded companies do the same?
Philz Coffee reportedly nearing a $145M PE acquisition. Just another "only in SF" story. Where your barista’s startup dream comes true, and the morning pour exits before your Series B.
Pretty sure the barista's startup dream wasn't to have the stock they own to be cancelled.
Is there any good reason why preferred stock exists? It just seems like another tool to screw people over in favor of investors.
I mean, look at Meta. The stock you can actually buy through your broker is not actually a stock that can control the company, so in a very real sense it's not a "share" in Meta. Zuck controls nearly all the "preferred" shares that have supervoting privileges, so he can operate it as though it's essentially a private firm. The board, which in a conventional public company could exercise control over the CEO, has no ability to remove him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"In a liquidation, common stockholders receive whatever assets remain after creditors, bondholders, and preferred stockholders are paid." Coupled with what sounds like an already bad financial state of the company... I'm not claiming no foul play, but it looks like there is a reasonable avenue for what is happening.
The article implies that it's not a liquidation or bankruptcy, though, just a sale. I don't know how you can buy a company without buying its stock from the shareholders, given that they are the owners of the company, but there must be some special circumstance that's not mentioned in the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. No idea why Starbucks, McDonalds, Zara etc. came out shouting support for Israel out of nowhere. Requiring a boycott from sane people.
Is that a thing that happened?
We have many more good locally owned coffee shops today.
Wasn't Philz the only Pro-Palestine coffee chain. That's too bad.
I fail to understand why a coffee shop should be taking sides on geopolitical conflicts.
Coffee production by itself is already mired in geopolitics.
And as a customer, where we spend our money matters. It’s often the only voice we have.
Take a look at Black Rifle Coffee Company. Their brand attracts a certain type of customer. It’s a market differentiator.