CHARMING
SHOPPES, INC.
|
(Name
of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
|
CRESCENDO
PARTNERS II, L.P., SERIES Q
CRESCENDO
INVESTMENTS II, LLC
CRESCENDO
PARTNERS III, L.P.
CRESCENDO
INVESTMENTS III, LLC
ERIC
S. ROSENFELD
MYCA
PARTNERS INC.
MYCA
MASTER FUND, LTD.
ROBERT
FRANKFURT
ARNAUD
AJDLER
MICHAEL
APPEL
CHARMING
SHOPPES FULL VALUE COMMITTEE
|
(Name
of Persons(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if Other Than the
Registrant)
|
|
(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):
|
Press
Release
|
Source:
Charming Shoppes Full Value
Committee
|
|
--
|
"We
believe that dissidents have raised valid concerns regarding the company's
core operating performance and strategic initiatives. Having reviewed both
the dissidents nominees' and the incumbent directors' respective
qualifications, we believe Messrs. Ajdler and Mr. Appel would bring
relevant expertise to the board."
|
|
--
|
"
... the company's profit margins declined substantially more than its
peers in FY07, resulting in margins that are the lowest amongst its peer
group."
|
|
--
|
"
... while both the company and its peer group have seen decreases in stock
price, CHARMING SHOPPES STOCK PRICE HAS DECLINED AT A MUCH STEEPER RATE."
(emphasis added)
|
|
--
|
"Since
its acquisition in June 2005, the Direct to-Consumer segment has had
significantly lower EBIT margins and ROA than the Retail segment
(excluding write-offs). Additionally, in FY07, the company took an $86.8
million charge for goodwill impairment related to the Crosstown Traders
acquisition. The goodwill impairment charge represents approx. 33 percent
of the acquisition price paid for Crosstown Traders in June 2005.
Additionally, in our discussions, the management conceded that the
integration of Crosstown Traders took longer than planned, including
missteps in the consolidation of the apparel catalog titles and
unanticipated increases in postage, paper and print
costs."
|
|
--
|
"Charming
Shoppes, as Plaintiff in the lawsuit between it and dissidents, served 17
subpoenas to third parties calling for the production of documents and the
giving of oral testimony. The majority of the parties served were
institutional shareholders of Charming Shoppes' common stock. Dissidents
moved to quash these third party subpoenas, claiming, among other reasons,
that the aggressive nature of the subpoenas acted to intimidate the
shareholders from meeting with dissidents during the proxy solicitation
process. The court granted dissidents' motion. ISS NOTES THAT ISSUING
SUBPOENAS TO A BROAD LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS DURING A PROXY CONTEST IS A
PARTICULARLY AGGRESSIVE AND DEFENSIVE ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY A TARGET
COMPANY." (emphasis added)
|
|
--
|
"
... it seems that the company's strategic initiatives, at least in the
past, have not succeeded in enhancing shareholder
value."
|