Skip navigation

CASH IS PAID, STOCK IS PLAYED, TATTLER HAS STRAYED

As is so often the case, the passage of time lends clarity to what previously seemed mysterious.What's coming into focus now is a reason the beleaguered A&P opted to sell its chief moneymaking asset, the Canadian division.As was mentioned in this space nearly a year ago, it's unusual that a company would sell its best asset. Typically, a company turns around by selling underperforming assets to support

As is so often the case, the passage of time lends clarity to what previously seemed mysterious.

What's coming into focus now is a reason the beleaguered A&P opted to sell its chief moneymaking asset, the Canadian division.

As was mentioned in this space nearly a year ago, it's unusual that a company would sell its best asset. Typically, a company turns around by selling underperforming assets to support beefing up its most profitable properties. Nevertheless, last July A&P exited Canada by selling its stores to Metro in a deal valued at about $1.5 billion. Some of that was debt assumption and stock, but A&P was able to retire its own debt and have more than $400 million in cash left. As was reported on the front page of last week's SN, A&P now intends to disperse most of that cash to shareholders in the form of a special dividend of $7.50 per share. As Christian Haub, A&P's top executive, remarked, the payout is a reward to shareholders for "their support in the past." Well, yes. The Haub family, through its Tengelmann Group, owns 53% of A&P stock. The Haubs are nothing if not supportive. Moreover, it's speculated, the dividend will reduce the share value of A&P, possibly paving the way for a combination with Pathmark, now 40% owned by supermarket financier Ron Burkle.

Now that Burkle's name has chanced to crop up in this narrative, it would be thoughtless not to mention the media brouhaha that has flared up around him lately, namely allegations that a writer for the New York Post sought to extort $220,000, at minimum, from him in exchange for muting unfavorable mentions of the mogul that have appeared in that newspaper's "Page Six" gossip column. Many of those mentions were transparent blind items. Strangely, the column has quite a following.

So Burkle invited one of the column's chief writers to Burkle's own New York apartment last month, ostensively to plumb what could be done to mute those mentions. At one point during lengthy conversations - recorded by a hidden ceiling camera - the luckless Post man, Jared Paul Stern, was prodded by Burkle: "How much - how much do you want?" Stern choked out that $100,000 to "get going" plus $10,000 a month thereafter might suffice. Soon, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was looking into the situation.

It's fair to observe that Stern hasn't been charged with a crime, and that he claims he was set up by Burkle. He confesses ineptitude, and has trotted out the gossamer defense that what he wanted Burkle to do was to pony up for media-consulting work, or to invest in his clothing line. (Nearly everyone in New York has a clothing line; if not, a fragrance line.)

All this poses two considerations: How could any thinking person, including Ron Burkle, care what appears on the Post's gossip page, and how could anyone, even a gossip scribe, be so maladroit on so many levels? Maybe everyone should get back to fiddling around with Pathmark and A&P.

Now, please, a private word to moguls. Picture this: A clothing line called "SUN Wear." It puts "U" into SN. Call. We'll talk. I'll pick the location.