• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog, Featured, Trademark

J.C. Penney Creates New Ways to Make Money after its Branding Fail

Submitted by Shannon Schoultz on February 28, 2013 – 7:25 AM6853One Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2013%2F02%2F28%2Fj-c-penney-creates-new-ways-to-make-money-after-its-branding-fail%2FJ.C.+Penney+Creates+New+Ways+to+Make+Money+after+its+Branding+Fail2013-02-28+12%3A25%3A17Shannon+Schoultzhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D6853

J.C. Penney rebrandedOnce a premier American department store, J.C. Penney faces numerous challenges when attempting to compete with so many other clothing stores that are becoming increasing popular.  While J.C. Penney used to dominate in the fashion department, with the rise of stores such as Forever 21 and H&M, J.C. Penney is seeking other ways to raise money.

J.C. Penney lost a lot of money at the beginning of 2012 when it announced a drastic “no sales” policy and attempted to rebrand itself as “jcp.” The rebranding attempt was an effort to revive the store, and make it more relevant amongst its competitors. Although backed by good intentions, the rebranding resulted in decreased revenue.

In an effort to “un-do” the failed re-branding, J.C. Penney, backed by hedge-fund manager William Ackerman, is set to raise billions of dollars through its revised credit line. Under changes to the company’s primary credit line, its banks affirmed that J.C. Penney can sell convertible preferred stock without triggering repayment provisions under the lending agreement, according to a February 12 regulatory filing. The revisions also permit the department store chain to obtain as much as $1.75 billion in new loans by pledging real estate and other fixed assets as collateral.

J.C. Penney has lost almost half its stock-market value in the past year, making it the fourth-worst performance among companies in the U.S. benchmark Standard and Poor’s 500 Index . The decline has weighed down the returns of Pershing Square’s funds, which had about 9 percent of their capital invested in J.C. Penney.

J.C. Penney’s cash and equivalents fell to $525 million at the end of the third quarter from $888 million three months earlier. J.C. Penney ended the 2012 fiscal year with less than $700 million in cash.

A copy of the amended borrowing agreement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12 shows new terms that, among other things, give J.C. Penney leeway to raise money through a stock sale underwritten by a financial institution. The amended filing affirms that this type of equity offering will not trigger change of control provisions in the credit line that authorizes lenders to force repayment of any outstanding borrowings if J.C. Penney is acquired.

Despite receiving a default notice from the company’s bondholders, a J.C. Penney spokesperson stated that the February 12 announcement of the credit agreement revisions is independent and unrelated to the default notice received. While there is no correlation between the default notice and credit agreement revisions, the credit agreement revisions are strongly related to re-vamping the company after its collapse from the rebranding fail.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Shannon Schoultz

Shannon Schoultz is a 1L at American University Washington College of Law. She is from Beech Island, South Carolina. She graduated from the University of South Carolina in May 2012 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Sport and Entertainment Management. She is interested in pursing a career in Sport and Entertainment Law. She enjoys watching SportsCenter and Law&Order SVU, and loves her Gamecocks & Cowboys.

Shannon Schoultz has written 6 posts for the IPB.

6853One Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2013%2F02%2F28%2Fj-c-penney-creates-new-ways-to-make-money-after-its-branding-fail%2FJ.C.+Penney+Creates+New+Ways+to+Make+Money+after+its+Branding+Fail2013-02-28+12%3A25%3A17Shannon+Schoultzhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D6853 »

  • games movies says:
    March 13, 2013 at 10:16 PM

    What’s up everyone, it’s my first visit at this web
    site, and post is actually fruitful designed for me, keep up posting
    these articles.

    Reply to this comment »

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

3D Printing and Intellectual Property: Copyright

3D Printing and Intellectual Property: Copyright

3D printing is the hot new topic in the tech world and with it come some possible issues related to safeguarding intellectual property. This two part post evaluates the possible issues that may arise due to 3D printing and why there isn’t any cause for alarm, yet.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Shortly after the oral arguments between Monsanto and Bowman, WCL hosted both parties for a post argument discussion. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the case, requiring annual purchases of Monsanto’s soybeans.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?

Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?

Following the explosions on April 15, “Boston Strong” emerged as a viral hashtag on Twitter, a rallying cry at public events, and a logo on all kinds of apparels. It does not take too long for business opportunists to take advantage of this national tragedy.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

Mutt’s v. Rutt’s: Dueling Hotdog Trademarks Protecting South Park, Strengthening Fair Use, and Laughing at Butters Stotch “Where There Is A Sea There Are Pirates.”  The Pirate Bay Threatens To Live Up To Its Name USPTO Attempts to Tackle Trademark Bullying Reclaiming our Technological Posterity at the Intersection of Intellectual Property and Taxation: Uncovering how Patent Pools are Key to Recovering the Benefits of Charitable IP Contributions Google and Yahoo Avoid Infringement Suit on User-Data Generated Search Method The Story of Saint-Tin and Tintin: The Life of a Parody in a World of Copyrights. USPTO Launches Trademarks Dashboard Feature J.R.R. Tolkien’s Estate Files Suit Against Warner Brothers: Can the Adversaries Find Some Middle-Earth? Russia Backs Down on Piracy Suit
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • 3D Printing and Intellectual Property: Copyright
  • Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?
  • Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business
  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License