Who is the victim here? The owners cashed out to buyers who were presumably the ones offering the best exit, the buyers funded the purchase with debt, and their longterm plan failed. The banks who lent the debt took the risk and believed in Sterling, which was a bad bet. It seems like everyone got what they deserved.

What is the alternative? Legally forcing owners not to sell? Preventing owners from trying to expand “too quickly”? Outlawing poor management? None of this is feasible.

The real issue is the debt issuers. Why would you allow cash to leak out to equity holders when the business is doing poorly? Too much leverage and unrealistic growth expectations caused these issues.

> In the ensuing buyout, Sterling put $150 million into the company in return for an 80% ownership stake. The majority of that was debt. Needless to say, the debt landed on Fairway's books, not Sterling's.

WTF?

Excerpt:

"On a per-square-foot basis, the four Fairways were among the highest grossing grocery stores in the country."

Interesting!