The New York Times - USA (2020-12-02)

THE NEW YORK TIMES BUSINESSWEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2020 N B3

TECHNOLOGY | RETAIL

SAN FRANCISCO — For close to a
decade, supporters of the chip
technology that powers mobile
phones vowed to shake up the
market for computers. For the
most part, they made little head-
way.
Now that finally seems to be
changing, in a potential power
shift over the direction of the com-
puter industry.
The change is being driven by
Apple and Amazon, two tech be-
hemoths that are cutting their de-
pendence on the Intel chip tech-
nology that has long controlled
most personal computers and
larger server systems. Instead,
the companies are increasingly
leaning on homegrown chips that
were designed using technology
that Arm, a British company, li-
censes for smartphones and other
consumer products.
Apple fired a salvo last month
when it introduced Mac comput-
ers that for the first time used its
own Arm-based chips. In June,
Amazon’s cloud computing busi-
ness started marketing a new
computing service based on its
own Arm-based chips, telling
customers that the service was
both faster and cheaper by one-
fifth than its Intel-based offerings.
On Tuesday, Amazon unveiled
another computing service for
businesses based on those same
chips. It also discussed gains
made by users of the service that
was introduced in June, such as
Snap, the maker of the Snapchat
messaging app. Amazon added
that Twitter planned to begin us-
ing the technology as part of a
broadened relationship between
the companies.
“The larger the customer, the
more excited they are,” said Peter
DeSantis, who oversees comput-
ing infrastructure for Amazon
Web Services.
The actions by Apple and Ama-
zon are causing ripple effects
across the $400 billion semicon-
ductor industry. Their moves sug-
gest that key decisions in chips

may increasingly shift from sili-
con suppliers, where the power
had long resided, to chip users
with the resources to make their
own components. For computer
users, the moves may result in
more technology choices, snappi-
er computing speeds and lower
costs.
“Everyone’s like, wow, Apple’s
totally in, Amazon and others are
in,” said Keith Kressin, a senior
vice president at Qualcomm, a
large supplier of Arm-based chips.
“This is going to happen for real.”
Intel became a dominant force
in computing in the 1990s, emerg-
ing as the biggest supplier of pro-
cessors for PCs and later exploit-
ing its high-volume manufactur-
ing to make lower-priced chips for
servers. But the company did not
make chips for smartphones,
which became hugely popular
starting in 2007.
Enter Arm. The 30-year-old
company, which Nvidia recently
agreed to buy from SoftBank for
$40 billion, delivered chips that
used less power than Intel proces-
sors. That difference — which
meant that mobile phones might
run all day on a battery charge,
rather than just a few hours — at-
tracted makers of chips for mobile
phones, such as Qualcomm.
Last decade, some backers of
Arm technology also began say-
ing such chips could be used be-
yond mobile phones. Companies
like Broadcom and Qualcomm
started designing Arm-based
chips for data centers to cut down
on rising power bills for Intel pro-
cessors. They later gave up the
costly efforts, partly because
customers demanded greater
computing speed.
In PCs, Microsoft has also
talked up Arm, with little success.
While the software giant has
worked with Qualcomm to market
an Arm-based version of Windows

and laptops that use the operating system, sales have been minimal, largely because of a lack of programs created for the laptops, market researchers said. Then came Apple’s move. The company, which had previously designed Arm-based chips for phones and tablets, said in June that it would gradually shift from the Intel processors it has used in its Mac computers since 2005. Ap- ple said its first chip designed for the Mac, the M1, delivered twice the performance of a comparable Intel chip while using a quarter of the power. “Every Mac with M1 will be transformed into a completely different class of product,” Johny Srouji, Apple’s senior vice president of hardware technologies, said at last month’s online event to introduce the new Macs. Intel said it should not be counted out. It continues pro- ducing faster versions of its x86 chips, and many customers don’t want to rewrite software that runs on them. “Intel is building on more than 20 years of x86-based ecosystem work,” said Lisa Spelman, an Intel corporate vice president. “We en- sure software compatibility and high performance, important re- quirements for both consumers and data center customers.” Amazon also continues to ex- pand its use of Intel chips for some jobs. It announced a plan on Tues- day to run Intel-powered Mac mini computers in its data centers to help programmers develop software for Apple systems without using Apple hardware. But Arm is increasingly com- petitive in computing, said Rene Haas, president of Arm’s main products group. He said Arm had made key changes to improve the computing performance of each processor core, or the individual calculating engines laid out on each piece of silicon. Cloud-style computing chores also can better exploit lots of rela- tively simple cores and special- purpose circuitry, said Amazon’s Mr. DeSantis. Its Arm-based chip, the Graviton2, has 64 such cores compared with up to 24 more powerful cores on Intel server chips, he said. That helps it perform computing tasks that are done si- multaneously, like serving up web pages to different people. Ampere, a chip start-up in Santa Clara, Calif., has developed an 80-core Arm server chip and expects to release a 128-core version next year. Renée James, Am- pere’s chief executive, said its customers and investors included the software giant Oracle, which plans to offer a cloud computing service based on Ampere’s chips. Arm “is real with Amazon,” Ms. James said. “Their competitors will follow suit.” Gerard Williams III, chief executive of Nuvia, another start-up promoting Arm-based chips, said Arm backers had also benefited as Intel lost the lead in driving manufacturing innovations that make chips do more at a lower cost. Chip producers such as Taiwan Semi- conductor Manufacturing Com- pany and Samsung Electronics can now pack more functions on each slice of silicon, which means Arm chip designers that use them can achieve speed advantages. The change is showing up in many forms of computing. In lap- top computers, Gartner, the re- search firm, predicted that Ap- ple’s new Macs and rivals’ re- sponses would push Arm-based PCs to 13.5 percent of the market by 2024, up from 1.1 percent this year. Chromebooks, the simple and less-expensive portable laptops tailored for web use, are also increasingly adopting Arm-based chips. Arm-based laptops and related systems based on Google’s Chrome software accounted for about 11 percent of sales in the third quarter, up from about 4 percent a year earlier, according to IDC. Software remains a question mark, since most popular programs were designed for Intel- based systems. But even that is starting to change, with software makers like Adobe moving to sup- port Arm-based Macs and Win- dows laptops. For now, both Apple and Microsoft have created technology to help run existing programs on Arm-based systems. Some customers of Amazon’s Arm-based computing service said they had found it was speedi- er and cheaper than using a similar service based on Intel’s chips. Don MacAskill, chief executive of SmugMug, which operates its own photo site and the better- known Flickr, said computing jobs like searching through billions of images ran 10 percent to 20 percent faster than Amazon services using Intel or compatible chips. He also said SmugMug had saved 38 percent in computing costs. “That’s big,” he said, “and I see it right on my bottom line.”

Ripples in Chip Market

As Amazon and Apple

Turn to Intel Alternative

By DON CLARK

Apple said its M1 chip was twice as
powerful as a comparable Intel chip.

EPA, VIA SHUTTERSTOCK

A wider application

for the technology that

powers smartphones.

LONDON — The British department store Debenhams can trace its history back 242 years to a shop on Wigmore Street in central London. On Tuesday, it finally suc- cumbed to the pressures of 21st- century e-commerce. After more than a year of restructuring and several months of trying to find a buyer, the company said it would begin shutting down. Debenhams is the second big retailer to topple in two days, after Arcadia Group, which owns brands including Topshop and Miss Selfridge, filed for bankruptcy protection on Monday. The two are also linked because Arca- dia’s brands have a big footprint in Debenhams, with sections set aside for their clothes. And so, as Christmas lights flicker above the sidewalks in Britain’s downtowns and as the busiest shopping period of the year begins after a monthlong lockdown in England, the nation is watching two of its largest retailers fall. They have about 25,000 employees between them. More bankruptcies are expected, as the lockdowns have re- lentlessly exposed the retailers that have failed to pick up on customers’ willingness to shop online. “The retail house of cards on the high street is in danger of col- lapse,” said Susannah Streeter, an analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown. Britain’s fashion retailers en- joyed a golden period and were seen for a time as a source of national pride. The Debenhams evening wear department was a middle-class destination for all of life’s major celebrations. Marks & Spencer, which announced plans during the summer to lay off nearly 8,000 workers, was a by- word for quality for decades, with its cotton underwear and cash- mere knits a staple of British households. In the 2000s, Topshop — once considered the jewel in the crown of Philip Green’s Arcadia Group — was a genuine style authority thanks to sellout collaborations with the model Kate Moss and a vast Oxford Street emporium laden with catwalk-inspired knockoffs. But these brands have suffered for years. Fast-fashion giants from overseas, like Zara from Spain and H&M from Sweden, started selling cheaper, trendier clothes. They were followed by online-only upstarts such as Boohoo and Pretty Little Thing (similar to the American brand Fashion Nova). Geared toward young women and powered by social commerce, they offer low-priced fashion products designed to be browsed, bought and worn on social media. The pandemic has hastened the demise of brands found in Brit- ain’s high street shopping dis- tricts. For about a third of the year, clothing stores and other non- essential retailers have been shut- tered to comply with lockdowns, accelerating the move to e-commerce. Since February, online clothing sales have grown 17 percent in Britain, while in-store sales have slumped 22 percent. The old guard retailers and department stores that were too slow to invest in their online oper- ations have found themselves grappling with the costs of real estate empires visited by fewer and fewer people. Even accounting for scores of closures in recent years, Debenhams has 124 department stores, while Arcadia has 444 stores for its brands in Britain. “Like Arcadia Group, Deben-

hams might have stood a better chance had its footprint of retail stores been smaller, but they were stuck with too many shops, on long leases they could not wriggle out of,” Ms. Streeter said. Many fast-fashion retailers continue to thrive throughout the pandemic because they have few or no brick-and-mortar stores. Boohoo and Pretty Little Thing generally source from British- based manufacturers in cities like Leicester. Clothes can be produced quickly and distributed faster within the country. “If you are a high street shop, you have to sell a considerable amount in order to just break even,” because of high business property taxes and rents, said Stewart Perry, a partner in the in- solvency and restructuring prac- tice at Fieldfisher, a European law firm. “They are competing with a warehouse in the back-end of no- where.”

This summer, Boohoo came under intense public scrutiny after reports that its suppliers in Leicester were paying workers as little as 3.50 pounds, or $4.40, an hour. (The national living wage in Britain for ages 25 and above is £8.72, or $10.93.) But investors had already placed their bets on Boohoo. Its share price is up 7 percent this year, while the bench- mark stock index in Britain has dropped 15 percent. In the past five years, Boohoo’s share price has risen more than 800 percent. In a sign of its growing influ- ence, Boohoo bought the rights to the onetime British fashion retail- ing stalwarts Karen Millen, Coast, Oasis and Warehouse after they collapsed. By this same method, parts of Debenhams and Arcadia could still be rescued. There is speculation that Boohoo might bid for some of Arcadia’s brand port- folio, particularly Topshop. In Jan- uary, the consultancy Brand Fi-

nance estimated the value of Ar- cadia’s brands at £800 million, the bulk of which was attributed to Topshop. This week’s announcements are the latest in a slow-moving decline for both companies. Last year, Arcadia entered into a so- called company voluntary agree- ment in Britain, where it closed stores and renegotiated debt terms, and filed for bankruptcy in the United States. In April 2019, Debenhams went into administra- tion, wiping out some sharehold- ers, and did it again this April. The fact that neither company has been able to survive any longer even as the government is pouring tens of billions of pounds into shoring up businesses sug- gests that this trend for many retail stores is irreversible. Britain’s Treasury has ushered in a series of programs, breaks in the payment of business taxes, deferrals on sales taxes, protections from evictions, wage subsidies and grants. By one gauge, the measures have worked: Company insolvencies were 42 percent lower in Oc- tober than they were a year earlier. By another, they have failed: Britain’s economy is expected to decline more than 11 percent this year, worse than almost every other advanced economy, while it has spent more than most others on its fiscal response. There are likely to be more cas- ualties before Britain climbs out of the economic hole. “Corporate insolvencies have nearly halved at a time when obviously the economy is tanking,” Mr. Perry said. “There are an awful lot of insolvencies being stored up.”

Debenhams on Oxford Street in London. The retailer, founded in 1778, said Tuesday it would shut down, a victim of online and lower-priced competitors.

HENRY NICHOLLS/REUTERS

Two Pillars of British Shopping Fall

By ESHE NELSON and ELIZABETH PATON

Topshop on Oxford Street. Its parent, Arcadia Group, filed for bankruptcy.

SIMON DAWSON/REUTERS

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT,DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Inre: BBGIUS,INC.,et al., Debtors.

Chapter11 CaseNos.: 20-11785(CSS)Through 20-11797(CSS) and20-12112(CSS) (JointlyAdministered) NOTICE OF DEADLINES TO FILE PROOFS OF CLAIM TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO MAY HAVE CLAIMS AGAINST ANY OF THE FOLLOWING DEBTORS:Name of Debtor, Case Number, Tax Identification Number:BBGI US, Inc., 20-11785 (CSS),51-0368883;Brooks Brothers Far East Limited.,20-11786 (CSS),N/A; 696 White Plains Road, LLC , 20-11787 (CSS), 85-0557265; BBD Holding 1, LLC , 20-11788 (CSS), N/A; BBD Holding 2, LLC , 20-11789 (CSS), N/A; BBDI, LLC , 20-11790 (CSS), N/A; BBGI International, LLC , 20-11791 (CSS), N/A; BBGI Restaurant, LLC, 20-11792 (CSS), 46-1763846; Deconic Group LLC, 20-11793 (CSS), 32-0190969; Golden Fleece Manufacturing Group, LLC, 20-11794 (CSS), 26-2885649; RBA Wholesale, LLC, 20-11795 (CSS), 13-4280986; Retail Brand Alliance Gift Card Services, LLC, 20-11796 (CSS), 27-1731916; Retail Brand Alliance of Puerto Rico, Inc., 20-11797 (CSS), 04-3662147;BBGICanadaLtd.,20-12112(CSS),98-1344709 OTHER NAMES USED BY THE DEBTORS IN THE PAST 8 YEARS: BrooksBrothers;RetailBrandAlliance,Inc.;Brooks;GlobalTrading Company; Brooks Brothers Red Fleece Café; Carolee LLC and CaroleeDesignsInc.; SouthwickApparelLLC YOUARERECEIVINGTHISNOTICEBECAUSEYOUMAYHAVEACLAIM AGAINST THE DEBTORS IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED CHAPTER 11 CASES. THEREFORE,YOUSHOULDREADTHISNOTICECAREFULLYAND CONSULT AN ATTORNEY IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, INCLUDING WHETHERYOUSHOULDFILEAPROOFOFCLAIM. PLEASETAKENOTICETHAT: On July 8,2020 (the“Petition Date”),the above listed debtors,except BBGICanadaLtd.(“BBCanada”),asdebtorsanddebtorsinpossession(the “Original Debtors” and together with BB Canada, the “Debtors”), filed voluntary cases under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code (the “BankruptcyCode”)intheUnitedStatesBankruptcyCourtfortheDistrict of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”). On September 10, 2020 (the “Canada Petition Date”), Debtor BB Canada also commenced with the BankruptcyCourtavoluntarycaseunderchapter11oftheBankruptcyCode. On November 16, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court, having jurisdiction over the chapter 11 cases of the Debtors,entered an order (the“Supplemental BarDateOrder”)establishingthefollowingSupplementalBarDates: (i)December 18, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time)as the deadline for each person or entity (including individuals, partnerships, corporations, joint ventures, trusts, but not including governmental units (as defined in section 101(27) of the Bankruptcy Code) (“Governmental Units”)),to file a proof of claim (each,a“Proof of Claim”) in respect of a prepetition claim (as defined in section 101(5) of the Bankruptcy Code), including, for the avoidance of doubt, secured claims, unsecured priority claims, unsecured non-priority claims, and claims arising under section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code against BB Canada (the “Canada GeneralBarDate”),unlessotherwiseprovidedherein; (ii)March 9, 2021 at 5:00 p.m.(Eastern Time)as the deadline for Governmental Units to file a Proof of Claim in respect of a prepetition claim againstBBCanada(the“CanadaGovernmentalBarDate”); (iii) the later of (i) the Canada General Bar Date or the Canada Governmental Bar Date, as applicable, or (ii) 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) on the date that is 30 days from the date on which BB Canada provides notice of a previously unfiled Schedule or an amendment or supplement to its Schedules (as defined herein) as the deadline by which claimants holding claims affected by such filing,amendment or supplement must file Proofs of Claim with respect to such claim (the“Amended Canada Schedules BarDate”); (iv) the later of (i) the Canada General Bar Date or the Canada Governmental Bar Date, as applicable, or (ii) 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) on the date that is 30 days following the later of (1) if an order is entered,the dateofserviceofanorderapprovingtherejectionofanyexecutorycontract or unexpired lease of BB Canada and (2) if no order is entered,the effective rejection date for the rejection of any executory contract or unexpired lease ofBBCanada,asthedeadlinebywhichclaimantsassertingclaimsresulting fromBBCanada’srejectionofanexecutorycontractorunexpiredleasemust file Proofs of Claim for damages arising from such rejection^1 (the“Canada RejectionDamagesBarDate”); (v)December 18, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time)as the deadline for each person or entity (including, without limitation, each individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, estate, Governmental Unit, and trust) to file a Proof of Claim in respect of a claim against any Debtor (other than BB Canada) first arising on or after the Petition Date through and including August 31, 2020, including claims under section 503(b)(1)-(8) of the Bankruptcy Code and claims of Governmental Units that are deemed entitled to administrative priority despite some portion of the claim being attributable to the period prior to the Petition Date (such claims,collectively,“Administrative Expense Claims”and the deadline, the“InterimAdministrativeClaimsBarDate”); (vi)December 23, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time)as the deadline for each person or entity to file a Proof of Claim in respect of a claim on account of a pre-paid, reloadable gift card related to the Alexis Bittar®

brand of goods sold prior to September 11,2020 (such gift cards,“AB Gift Cards”) and merchandise or store credits issued prior to September 11, 2020 (“AB Customer Credits”, together with the AB Gift Cards, the “AB Customer Programs”, and the deadline, the “AB Customer Programs Bar Date”;the AB Customer Programs Bar Date together with the Canada GeneralBarDate,theCanadaGovernmentalBarDate,theAmendedCanada Schedules Bar Date, the Canada Rejection Damages Bar Date, and the InterimAdministrativeClaimsBarDate,the“SupplementalBarDates”); Youmaybeacreditorofoneormore ofthedebtors. Ifyouhave any questions relating to this Notice, please feel free to contact Prime Clerk LLC (“Prime Clerk”) at (877) 930-4317 (toll free) or 347-899-4592(international)orbye-mailatbrooksbrothersinfo@ primeclerk.com. INSTRUCTIONS:

WHO MUST FILE A PROOF OF CLAIM AGAINST BBGI CANADA
LTD.Pursuant to section 101(5) of the Bankruptcy Code and as used in this
Notice,the word“claim”means (i) a right to payment,whether or not such
right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent,
matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or
unsecured;or (ii) a right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance
if such breach gives rise to a right to payment,whether or not such right to
an equitable remedy is reduced to judgment, fixed, contingent, matured,
unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured, or unsecured. Further, claims
includeunsecuredclaims,securedclaims,andpriorityclaims.
Except as otherwise set forth herein, the following entities holding
claims against BB Canada (and only BB Canada) arising prior to the
Canada Petition DateMUSTfile Proofs of Claim on or before the applicable
SupplementalBarDatelistedabove:
a. Any entity whose claim against BB Canada is not listed in BB
Canada’s Schedules,or islistedas“contingent,”“unliquidated,”or“disputed”
if such entity desires to participate in any of these chapter 11 cases or share
inanydistributioninanyofthesechapter11cases;
b. Any entity that believes that its claim is improperly classified in the
Schedules or is listed in an incorrect amount and who desires to have its
claim allowed in a different classification or amount other than that identi-
fiedintheSchedules;or
c. Any entity who believes that its claim against BB Canada is or may
beentitledtopriorityundersection503(b)(9)oftheBankruptcyCode.

WHO NEED NOT FILE A PROOF OF CLAIM AGAINST BBGI
CANADA LTD.The following entities whose claims against BB Canada
would otherwise be subject to a Supplemental Bar Date need not file any
ProofsofClaim:
a. Any person or entity whose claim is listed on BB Canada’s Schedules;
providedthat (i) the claim is not listed on the Schedules as“disputed,”“con-
tingent,”or“unliquidated,”and(ii)thepersonorentitydoesnotdisputethe
amount,nature,andpriorityoftheclaimassetforthintheSchedules;
b. Any person or entity who already has filed a signed Proof of Claim
with Prime Clerk against BB Canada with respect to the claim being
asserted,utilizing a claim form that substantially conforms to the Proof of
ClaimForm(attachedtotheSupplementalBarDateOrderasExhibit1);
c. Anypersonorentitywhoholdsaclaimthathasbeenallowedbyorder
oftheCourtenteredonorbeforetheapplicableSupplementalBarDate;
d. Anypersonorentitywhoseclaimhasbeenpaidinfull;
e. Anypersonorentitywhoholdsaclaimforwhichaseparatedeadline
has been fixed by an order of the Court entered on or before the applicable
SupplementalBarDate;
f. Any current (as of the Canada Petition Date) employee of BB Canada,
if an order of the Court authorized the Debtors to honor such claim in the
ordinary course of business for wages, commissions, vacation or other
compensation or benefits; including theFinal Order (I) Authorizing the
Debtors to (A) Pay Prepetition Employee Wages, Salaries, Reimbursable
Expenses, and Other Obligations on Account of Compensation and Benefits
Programs and (B) Continue Compensation and Benefits Programs and (II)
Granting Related Relief[D.I. 275], as made applicable to BB Canada by
D.I. 602provided thatif the Debtors provide written notice to any current
employee of BB Canada stating that the Debtors do not intend to exercise
their authority to pay such claim, such employee shall have until the later
of (i) the Canada General Bar Date,and (ii) 30 days from the date of service
ofsuch writtennotice,tofilea Proofof Claim;provided further thata current
employee of BB Canada must submit a Proof of Claim by the applicable
Supplemental Bar Date for all other claims arising before the Canada
Petition Date, including claims for wrongful termination, discrimination,
harassment,hostileworkenvironment,and/orretaliation;
g. Any current (as of the Canada Petition Date) officer, director,
or employee for claims based on indemnification, contribution, or
reimbursement;
h. Any entity whose claim is solely against any of BB Canada’s non-
Debtoraffiliates;
i. Any Debtor or non-Debtor subsidiary or affiliate having a claim
againstBBCanada;
j. Any entity that is not required to file a Proof of Claim against BB
CanadapursuanttoapriororderoftheCourt;or
k. Anypersonholdingaclaimbasedonagiftcardormerchandisecredit
withBBCanada.

FILING ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CLAIMS AGAINST THE
ORIGINAL DEBTORS.Each person or entity asserting a claim against any

oftheOriginalDebtorsundersection503(b)(1)–(8)oftheBankruptcyCode that first arose on or after the Petition Date through and including August 31, 2020MUSTfile an Administrative Claim Form by no later than the InterimAdministrativeClaimsBarDate. ThefollowingentitieswhoseAdministrativeExpenseClaimsagainstthe Original Debtors would otherwise be subject to the Interim Administrative ClaimsBarDateneednotfileanyProofsofClaim: a. Professionals retained by the Debtors or the official committee of unsecured creditors (the “Committee”) and whose employment appli- cations (or employment as an “ordinary course professional”) have been approvedordeemedapprovedbytheCourt; b. TheU.S.Trusteepursuantto28U.S.C.§1930; c. Any party holding or previously holding an Administrative Expense Claim that has been paid or fully satisfied by the Debtors (or any other party) in the ordinary course of business or otherwise,or that is no longer entitledtoassertthatAdministrativeExpenseClaim; d. Any party holding an Administrative Expense Claim that has been allowed by order of the Court prior to the Interim Administrative Claims Bar Date,solelywithrespecttothatallowedclaim; e. AnypartythatpreviouslyfiledaProofofClaimforanAdministrative Expense Claim for the period from the Petition Date through August 31, 2020,solelywithrespecttothatfiledclaim; f. AnyemployeeoftheDebtorsthatwasemployedonthePetitionDate if an order of the Court authorized the Debtors to honor such claim in the ordinary course of business for wages,commissions,vacation or other compensation or benefits including theFinal Order (I) Authorizing the Debtors to (A) Pay Prepetition Employee Wages, Salaries, Reimbursable Expenses, and Other Obligations on Account of Compensation and Benefits Programs and (B) Continue Compensation and Benefits Programs and (II) Granting Related Relief [D.I.275];provided thatiftheDebtorsprovidewrittennoticetoanyemployee stating that the Debtors do not intend to exercise their authority to pay such claim,suchemployeeshallhaveuntil30daysfromthedateofserviceofsuch writtennoticetofileaProofofClaim;provided further thatanemployeemust submit a Proof of Claim by the Interim Administrative Claims Bar Date for all other claims arising between the Petition Date and August 31,2020,including claims for wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, hostile workenvironment,and/orretaliation; g. Any Debtor or current,as of October 23,2020,non-Debtor affiliates oftheDebtors;or h. AnyholderofanAdministrativeExpenseClaimthataroseonorafter September1,2020.

FILING CLAIMS FOR ALEXIS BITTAR GIFT CARDS OR MER-
CHANDISE CREDITS.Each person or entity asserting a claim for gift cards
or merchandise credits related to Alexis Bittar® brand of goods that were
sold or issued prior to September 11,2020MUSTfile an AB Claim Form by
the AB Customer Programs Bar Date.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING PROOFS OF CLAIM.Except as other-
wisesetforthherein,eachentitythatassertsaclaimagainstBBCanadathat
arose before the Canada Petition Date, or who asserts an Administrative
ExpenseClaimagainsttheDebtors,MUSTfileaProofofClaim.
Proofs of Claim must be filed (i) electronically through the website of
the Debtors’ claims and noticing agent, Prime Clerk, using the interface
available on such website located at https://cases.primeclerk.com/
brooksbrothers under the link entitled “Submit a Claim” (the “Electronic
Filing System”) or (ii) by delivering the original Proof of Claim or
Administrative Claim Form by hand,or mailing the original Proof of Claim
form on or before the applicable Supplemental Bar Date as follows:If by
overnight courier, hand deliver, or first class mail: BBGI US, Inc.,
Claims Processing Center, c/o Prime Clerk LLC, 850 3rdAvenue, Suite 412,
Brooklyn,NY11232.
A Proof of Claim shall be deemed timely filed only if itactually is
receivedby Prime Clerk as set forth in subparagraph (d) above, in each
case,onorbeforetheapplicableSupplementalBarDate.
Proofs of Claim sent by facsimile, telecopy, or electronic mail transmis-
sion (other than Proofs of Claim filed electronically through the Electronic
FilingSystem)willnotbeaccepted.

CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A PROOF OF
CLAIM BY THE APPLICABLE SUPPLEMENTAL BAR DATE. Pursuant to
theSupplementalBarDate OrderandBankruptcy Rule3003(c)(2),
anyholderofaclaimwhoisrequiredto timelyfileaProofofClaim
on or before the applicable Supplemental Bar Date as provided
herein, but fails to do so shall not be treated as a creditor with
respecttosuchclaimforthepurposesofvotinganddistributionin
thesechapter11casesonaccountofsuchclaim.
If you require additional information regarding the filing of a
proof of claim, you may contact the Debtors’ Claims and Noticing
Agent directly at: Prime Clerk LLC, 850 3rd Avenue, Suite 412,
Brooklyn, NY 11232; Telephone: (877) 930-4317 (toll free) or 347-
899-4592 (international); or by e-mail at brooksbrothersinfo@
primeclerk.com. 1
Notwithstanding the foregoing, a party to an executory contract or
unexpired lease that asserts a claim on account of unpaid amounts accrued
andoutstandingasofthePetitionDatepursuanttosuchexecutorycontract
or unexpired lease (other than a rejection damages claim) must file a Proof
of Claim for such amounts on or before the applicable Supplemental Bar
Date,unlessanexceptionidentifiedinthisnoticeapplies.

The New York Times - USA (2020-12-02)

Get our desktop app

Company

Features

Documentation

Resources