COLUMBUS, Ohio /PRNewswire/ — Big Lots, Inc. (the “Company”) today announced that it has successfully closed its previously announced sale agreement with Gordon Brothers Retail Partners, LLC (“Gordon Brothers”) that will enable Variety Wholesalers, Inc. (“Variety Wholesalers”) to acquire between 200 and 400 Big Lots stores, which it plans to operate under the Big Lots brand, and up to two distribution centers. In addition, Variety Wholesalers may employ Big Lots associates at the acquired stores and distribution centers, as well as certain corporate associates needed to support Big Lots’ go-forward footprint.

Bruce Thorn, Big Lots’ President and Chief Executive Officer, said, “We are pleased to close this strategic transaction, which provides a framework to preserve thousands of jobs, maximize value, and maintain the Big Lots brand. We are working closely with the Gordon Brothers and Variety Wholesalers teams on this transition. We are grateful for the continued hard work and dedication of Big Lots associates across the Company.”

Kyle Shonak, Gordon Brothers’ Chief Transaction Officer, said, “We were proud to support Big Lots through the restructuring process to enable the Company’s continued operation, and look forward to working with Variety Wholesalers to support Big Lots’ go-forward footprint.”

Lisa Seigies, Variety Wholesalers’ President and CEO, said, “Variety is thrilled to officially welcome the Big Lots brand and looks forward to operating hundreds of Big Lots store locations. This strategic acquisition allows us to serve additional customers and communities. We plan to combine the best of Variety with the best of Big Lots and are excited about the possibilities ahead.”

Court filings and other information related to the proceedings, including how to file a proof of claim, are available on a separate website administrated by the Company’s claims agent, Kroll Restructuring Administration LLC, at https://cases.ra.kroll.com/biglots, by calling toll-free at (844) 217-1398 (or +1 (646) 809-2073 for calls originating outside of the U.S. or Canada), or by sending an email to [email protected].

Advisors

Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP is serving as legal counsel, Guggenheim Securities, LLC is serving as financial advisor, AlixPartners LLP is serving as restructuring advisor, and A&G Real Estate Partners is serving as real estate advisor to the Company.

Advertisement

Riemer & Braunstein LLP acted as counsel and M3 Partners LP acted as financial advisor to Gordon Brothers. Gordon Brothers’ Real Estate Services team will handle real estate matters for Gordon Brothers as well as Variety Wholesalers. For real estate inquiries, please contact Gordon Brothers’ Real Estate Services team at [email protected].

Cozen O’Connor is serving as legal counsel to Variety Wholesalers.

About Big Lots, Inc. 

Big Lots is one of the nation’s largest closeout retailers focused on extreme value. The Company is dedicated to being the big difference for a better life by delivering bargains to brag about on everything for the home, including furniture, décor, pantry and more. It fulfills its mission to help customers “Live BIG and Save LOTS” with sourcing strategies to grow extreme bargains through closeouts, liquidations, overstocks, private labels, and value-engineered products. The Big Lots Foundation, together with the Company’s customers, associates, and vendors, has delivered more than $176 million of philanthropic support to critical needs in hunger, housing, healthcare, and education. For more information, to shop online, or to find a store near you, please visit biglots.com.

Cautionary Statement Concerning Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements in this release are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and such statements are intended to qualify for the protection of the safe harbor provided by the Act. The words “anticipate, “estimate,” “continue,” “could,” “approximate,” “expect,” “objective,” “goal,” “project,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe,” “will,” “should,” “may,” “target,” “forecast,” “guidance,” “outlook” and similar expressions generally identify forward-looking statements. Similarly, descriptions of our objectives, strategies, plans, goals or targets are also forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements relate to the expectations of management as to future occurrences and trends, including statements expressing optimism or pessimism about future operating results or events and projected sales, earnings, capital expenditures and business strategy. Forward-looking statements are based upon a number of assumptions concerning future conditions that may ultimately prove to be inaccurate. Forward-looking statements are and will be based upon management’s then-current views and assumptions regarding future events and operating performance and are applicable only as of the dates of such statements. Although we believe the expectations expressed in forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions within the bounds of our knowledge, forward-looking statements, by their nature, involve risks, uncertainties and other factors, any one or a combination of which could materially affect business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

Forward-looking statements that we make herein and in other reports and releases are not guarantees of future performance and actual results may differ materially from those discussed in such forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including, but not limited to, the current economic and credit conditions, inflation, the cost of goods, our inability to successfully execute strategic initiatives, competitive pressures, economic pressures on our customers and us, the availability of brand name closeout merchandise, trade restrictions, freight costs, the risks discussed in the Risk Factors section of our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, and other factors discussed from time to time in other filings with the SEC, including Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K. This release should be read in conjunction with such filings, and you should consider all of these risks, uncertainties and other factors carefully in evaluating forward-looking statements.

Advertisement

You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they are made. We undertake no obligation to publicly update forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. You are advised, however, to consult any further disclosures we make on related subjects in our public announcements and SEC filings.

SOURCE Big Lots, Inc.

In a significant move to bolster its long-term viability, Kohl’s has announced the closure of 27 underperforming stores across the United States by April 2025. This decision comes at a time when the retail landscape is continuously evolving, and industry giants like Sears and JCPenney are stark reminders of what can happen when businesses fail to adapt.

Why the Closures Matter

As department store chains face increasing pressure from online retailers and changing consumer habits, maintaining a lean and efficient operation is crucial. Tom Kingsbury, Kohl’s outgoing CEO, emphasized the importance of making difficult choices to ensure the health and future of the business. By selectively closing stores, Kohl’s aims to avoid the pitfalls that have befallen some of its rivals in recent years.

The closures represent less than 3% of Kohl’s approximately 1,150 locations, which shows that while the company is taking action, it’s also confident in the strength of its remaining stores. Kingsbury, who is set to step down on January 15th, will be handing over the reins to Ashley Buchanan, the current CEO of Michaels, signaling a potential shift in strategy as Kohl’s forges ahead.

The List of Closures

The upcoming store closures span multiple states, with several locations concentrated in California and Illinois. Below is a detailed rundown of the locations set to close:

• Alabama: Spanish Fort – 21000 Town Center Ave.
• Arkansas: Little Rock West – 13909 Chenal Parkway
• California: Multiple locations, including San Diego, Mountain View, and Pleasanton among others.
• Colorado: Arapahoe Crossing (Aurora) – 6584 S Parker Road
• Georgia: Duluth – 2050 W Liddell Road
• Idaho: Boise – 400 N Milwaukee St.
• Illinois: Plainfield and West Dundee (Spring Hill).
• Massachusetts: Stoughton – 501 Technology Center Drive
• New Jersey: East Windsor – 72 Princeton Hightstown Road
• Ohio: Blue Ash and Cincinnati (Forest Park).
• Oregon: Portland Gateway – 10010 NE Halsey St.
• Pennsylvania: Pottstown – 351 W Schuylkill Road
• Texas: North Dallas – 18224 Preston Road
• Utah: Riverton – 13319 S 3600 W
• Virginia: Herndon and Williamsburg.

These closures reflect ongoing efforts to optimize Kohl’s portfolio, ensuring that its resources are concentrated in locations with the highest potential for growth.

The Bigger Picture

While the closures are indeed a challenge, they also present an opportunity for reinvention. As Kohl’s looks to sharpen its focus and adapt to changing consumer preferences, the company may shift resources toward strengthening its e-commerce platform, enhancing customer experience, and introducing more innovative store formats.

Kohl’s has already shown a willingness to experiment with partnerships and unique retail concepts, such as collaborations with major brands and shifts towards becoming a more experience-driven shopping environment. These closures may enable the chain to move forward with a more agile and responsive strategy.

Looking Ahead

As Kohl’s navigates this transitional period and under incoming leadership, all eyes will be on how it capitalizes on its strengths while learning from the complexities of the retail industry. The decisions made now could shape the future of the brand and its ability to thrive in a competitive marketplace.

Ultimately, consumers can expect to see a more streamlined and efficient Kohl’s that is better equipped to meet the demands of the modern shopper. As the company moves through these changes, one thing is certain: it’s committed to evolving while keeping its loyal customers at the heart of its strategy.

Advertisement

Related links about Kohl’s and store closings

https://www.axios.com/2025/01/09/kohls-closing-stores-list-april-2025

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohl%27s

Welcome to the Consumer Corner section of STM Daily News, your ultimate destination for savvy shopping and informed decision-making! Dive into a treasure trove of insights and reviews covering everything from the hottest toys that spark joy in your little ones to the latest electronic gadgets that simplify your life. Explore our comprehensive guides on stylish home furnishings, discover smart tips for buying a home or enhancing your living space with creative improvement ideas, and get the lowdown on the best cars through our detailed auto reviews. Whether you’re making a major purchase or simply seeking inspiration, the Consumer Corner is here to empower you every step of the way—unlock the keys to becoming a smarter consumer today!

https://stmdailynews.com/category/consumer-corner

Beverly Moran, Vanderbilt University

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a set of tax cuts Donald Trump signed into law during his first term as president, will expire on Dec. 31, 2024. As Trump and Republicans prepare to negotiate new tax cuts in 2025, it’s worth gleaning lessons from the president-elect’s first set of cuts.

The 2017 cuts were the most extensive revision to the Internal Revenue Code since the Ronald Reagan administration. The changes it imposed range from the tax that corporations pay on their foreign income to limits on the deductions individuals can take for their state and local tax payments.

Trump promised middle-class benefits at the time, but in practice more than 80% of the cuts went to corporations, tax partnerships and high-net-worth individuals. The cost to the U.S. deficit was huge − a total increase of US$1.9 trillion from 2018 to 2028, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. The tax advantage to the middle class was small.

Advantages for Black Americans were smaller still. As a scholar of race and U.S. income taxation, I have analyzed the impact of Trump’s tax cuts. I found that the law has disadvantaged middle-income, low-income and Black taxpayers in several ways.

Cuts worsened disparities

These results are not new. They were present nearly 30 years ago when my colleague William Whitford and I used U.S. Census Bureau data to show that Black taxpayers paid more federal taxes than white taxpayers with the same income. In large part that’s because the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow and structural racism keeps Black people from owning homes.

The federal income tax is full of advantages for home ownership that many Black taxpayers are unable to reach. These benefits include the ability to deduct home mortgage interest and local property taxes, and the right to avoid taxes on up to $500,000 of profit on the sale of a home.

It’s harder for middle-class Black people to get a mortgage than it is for low-income white people. This is true even when Black Americans with high credit scores are compared with white Americans with low credit scores.

Advertisement

When Black people do get mortgages, they are charged higher rates than their white counterparts.

Trump did not create these problems. But instead of closing these income and race disparities, his 2017 tax cuts made them worse.

Black taxpayers paid higher taxes than white taxpayers who matched them in income, employment, marriage and other significant factors.

Broken promises, broken trust

Fairness is an article of faith in American tax policy. A fair tax structure means that those earning similar incomes should pay similar taxes and stipulates that taxes should not increase income or wealth disparities.

Trump’s tax cuts contradict both principles.

Proponents of Trump’s cuts argued the corporate rate cut would trickle down to all Americans. This is a foundational belief of “supply side” economics, a philosophy that President Ronald Reagan made popular in the 1980s.

From the Reagan administration on, every tax cut for the rich has skewed to the wealthy.

Just like prior “trickle down” plans, Trump’s corporate tax cuts did not produce higher wages or increased household income. Instead, corporations used their extra cash to pay dividends to their shareholders and bonuses to their executives.

Advertisement

Over that same period, the bottom 90% of wage earners saw no gains in their real wages. Meanwhile, the AFL-CIO, a labor group, estimates that 51% of the corporate tax cuts went to business owners and 10% went to the top five highest-paid senior executives in each company. Fully 38% went to the top 10% of wage earners.

In other words, the income gap between wealthy Americans and everyone else has gotten much wider under Trump’s tax regime.

Stock market inequality

Trump’s tax cuts also increased income and wealth disparities by race because those corporate tax savings have gone primarily to wealthy shareholders rather than spreading throughout the population.

The reasons are simple. In the U.S., shareholders are mostly corporations, pension funds and wealthy individuals. And wealthy people in the U.S. are almost invariably white.

Sixty-six percent of white families own stocks, while less than 40% of Black families and less than 30% of Hispanic families do. Even when comparing Black and white families with the same income, the race gap in stock ownership remains.

These disparities stem from the same historical disadvantages that result in lower Black homeownership rates. Until the Civil War, virtually no Black person could own property or enter into a contract. After the Civil War, Black codes – laws that specifically controlled and oppressed Black people – forced free Black Americans to work as farmers or servants.

State prohibitions on Black people owning property, and public and private theft of Black-owned land, kept Black Americans from accumulating wealth.

Advertisement

Health care hit

That said, the Trump tax cuts hurt low-income taxpayers of all races.

One way they did so was by abolishing the individual mandate requiring all Americans to have basic health insurance. The Affordable Care Act, passed under President Barack Obama, launched new, government-subsidized health plans and penalized people for not having health insurance.

Department of the Treasury data shows almost 50 million Americans were covered by the Affordable Care Act since 2014. After the individual mandate was revoked, between 3 million and 13 million fewer people purchased health insurance in 2020.

Ending the mandate triggered a large drop in health insurance coverage, and research shows it was primarily lower-income people who stopped buying subsidized insurance from the Obamacare exchanges. These are the same people who are the most vulnerable to financial disaster from unpaid medical bills.

Going without insurance hurt all low-income Americans. But studies suggest the drop in Black Americans’ coverage under Trump’s plan outpaced that of white Americans. The rate of uninsured Black Americans rose from 10.7% in 2016 to 11.5% in 2018, following the mandate’s repeal.

The consumer price index conundrum

The Trump tax cuts also altered how the Internal Revenue Service calculates inflation adjustments for over 60 different provisions. These include the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit – both of which provide cash to low-wage workers – and the wages that must pay Social Security taxes.

Previously, the IRS used the consumer price index for urban consumers, which tracks rising prices by comparing the cost of the same goods as they rise or fall, to calculate inflation. The government then used that inflation number to adjust Social Security payments and earned income tax credit eligibility. It used the same figure to set the amount of income that is taxed at a given rate.

The Trump tax cuts ordered the IRS to calculate inflation adjustments using the chained consumer price index for urban consumers instead.

Advertisement

The difference between these two indexes is that the second one assumes people substitute cheaper goods as prices rise. For example, the chained consumer price index assumes shoppers will buy pork instead of beef if beef prices go up, easing the impact of inflation on a family’s overall grocery prices.

The IRS makes smaller inflation adjustments based on that assumption. But low-income neighborhoods have less access to the kind of budget-friendly options envisioned by the chained consumer price index.

And since even middle-class Black people are more likely than poor white people to live in low-income neighborhoods, Black taxpayers have been hit harder by rising prices.

What cost $1 in 2018 now costs $1.26. That’s a painful hike that Black families are less able to avoid.

The imminent expiration of the Trump tax cuts gives the upcoming GOP-led Congress the opportunity to undertake a thorough reevaluation of their effects. By prioritizing policies that address the well-known disparities exacerbated by these recent tax changes, lawmakers can work toward a fairer tax system that helps all Americans.

Beverly Moran, Professor Emerita of Law, Vanderbilt University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement