Connect with us

Business

Paramount was poised to buy Warner Bros. Discovery. What went wrong?

Published

on

Paramount was poised to buy Warner Bros. Discovery. What went wrong?

Oracle founder Larry Ellison was on the cusp of conquering Hollywood.

Just four months earlier, he had bankrolled his son David’s $8-billion acquisition of the storied Paramount Pictures.

Now the Ellison family had designs on scooping up Warner Bros. Discovery, too, offering to buy the entire company for at least $60 billion. The bold play had suddenly thrust this Silicon Valley titan and his son, David — chief executive of the newly-merged Paramount Skydance — into one of the most powerful positions in the film and TV industry.

By most outward appearances, Warner Bros. Discovery was theirs for the taking. Wall Street analysts, Hollywood insiders and even some of the other bidders expected Paramount to prevail. After all, it was backed by one of the world’s richest men. And it even had the blessing of President Trump, who openly expressed his preference for the Paramount bid.

But Ellison’s crowning moment was ruined when Netflix swooped in Friday announcing its own blockbuster deal.

Advertisement

The streamer snapped up Warner Bros. in a $82.7-billion deal for the Burbank-based film and television studios, HBO Max and HBO, delivering a massive blow to Ellison and his son, David.

In the Paramount bid, Larry Ellison was once again the primary backer. But the Warner Bros. Discovery board believed the Netflix offer of $27.75 a share, which did not include CNN or other basic cable channels, was a better deal for shareholders.

The announcement stunned many who had predicted that Paramount would prevail in the contentious auction. It also marked a rare defeat for Ellison, who was outmaneuvered by none other than Netflix’s co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos and his team.

Analysts and multiple auction insiders told The Times several factors complicated the process, including Paramount’s low-ball offers and hubris.

“This is a bad day for for Paramount and for the Ellisons,” said Lloyd Greif, president and chief executive of Greif & Co., a Los Angeles-based investment bank. “They were overconfident because they underestimated the competition.”

Advertisement

Representatives of Paramount and Warner declined to comment. A representative for Ellison at Oracle did not respond to requests for comment.

Characteristically, Ellison is not backing down, say sources close to the tech mogul who were not authorized to comment. Paramount — whose chief legal counsel is the former head of the U.S. Justice Department’s antitrust division during the first Trump term — is preparing for a legal battle with Warner Bros. over the handling of the auction. They are expected to urge the Securities & Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice to investigate claims that the Netflix deal would be anticompetitive and harmful to consumers and theater owners.

Paramount’s lawyers sent Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav a blistering letter Wednesday, accusing the studio of rigging the process in favor of a “single bidder” and “abdicating its duties to stockholders.”

What went wrong

Several sources said Paramount’s first mistake was making low-ball offers.

Paramount submitted three unsolicited bids by mid-October, the first for $19 a share. Warner’s board of directors unanimously rejected all of the bids as too low.

Advertisement

Top Warner Bros. executives were incensed, feeling that the Ellisons had just shown up in Hollywood and now were throwing their weight around to take advantage of Warner Bros.’ struggles.

Paramount had Larry Ellison guaranteeing its Warner bid with $30 billion of his Oracle stock, according to one knowledgeable person who was not authorized to comment.

But as the price of Warner went higher, Paramount needed considerably more money. It turned to private equity firm Apollo Global Management.

In late October, Warner opened the bidding to other suitors. Netflix and Comcast jumped in. Paramount’s leaders seemed to underestimate Netflix, according to several people close to the auction. A senior Netflix executive had publicly downplayed its interest.

“Maybe Netflix was playing possum,” said Paul Hardart, a professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business.

Advertisement

Paramount “thought they were the only game in town,” said a person close to the auction who was not authorized to comment.

At one point, Paramount’s team seemed more concerned about the movements of Comcast Chairman Brian Roberts, who had visited Saudi Arabia, reportedly on theme park business.

David Ellison and RedBird’s Gerry Cardinale were scrambling to line up Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds to provide more financing for their offer.

“They were going around trying to get money from elsewhere and that probably sowed some doubts among the board at Warner Bros. Discovery,” Hardart said.

Paramount’s negotiations with wealth funds for Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates were widely noted, people close to the auction said.

Advertisement

“It invited skepticism of the strength of the Paramount commitment,” said C. Kerry Fields, a business law professor at the USC Marshall School of Business.

When Oracle stock started dropping amid concerns of an AI bubble, it left Paramount‘s bid in a more precarious position.

Worries over Trump ties

In Hollywood, Larry Ellison’s close ties to Trump dampened enthusiasm for Paramount’s bid.

Oracle is among a group of U.S. investors expected to hold a majority stake in the U.S. business of TikTok, after the hugely popular video sharing app is spun out from Chinese parent company ByteDance — in no small part due to the influence and support from Trump.

This summer, Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle Trump’s lawsuit against CBS for its edits of a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris, as it was seeking to gain regulatory approval for the Ellison Skydance takeover. Days later, Paramount’s CBS announced that it was ending Stephen Colbert’s late-night talk show, citing its financial losses.

Advertisement

David Ellison in October made a controversial hire of the Free Press founder Bari Weiss to run CBS News — which delighted the president.

“Larry Ellison is great, and his son, David, is great,” Trump told reporters in mid-October. “They’re big supporters of mine.”

After Trump’s reported intervention, Paramount agreed in late November to distribute Brett Ratner’s “Rush Hour 4,” a project that had been shelved amid sexual assault allegations against the director highlighted in a Los Angeles Times report. Ratner has disputed all the allegations against him.

“They were in the pole position with the Trump administration, but then that [position] started to be not as appealing to people,” Hardart said.

Last month, there was a meeting at the White House to discuss Paramount’s bid and the threat of Netflix, sources said. That same week, David Ellison was among the guests at a White House dinner hosted by Trump for Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia.

Advertisement

A report in the Guardian also raised alarm bells among some foreign regulators, one knowledgeable person said. The newspaper reported, citing anonymous sources, that White House officials had informally discussed with Larry Ellison several female CNN anchors whom Trump disliked and wanted fired should Paramount succeed in buying Warner.

People close to Paramount contend that Zaslav and his mentor, John Malone, who serves as a Warner board member emeritus, were biased against Paramount and that Zaslav is angling to retain his mogul status.

Paramount ultimately submitted six offers to Warner, including a final $30 a share offer, but none were as strong as Netflix’s proposal, said two people involved with the auction.

Paramount executives knew last Monday that they had been bested, according to people close to the company. Two days later, they lobbed a missive at Warner: “WBD appears to have abandoned the semblance and reality of a fair transaction process,” Paramount’s lawyers wrote.

Netflix said Friday its deal won’t close for a year to 18 months, the anticipated time it will take to win regulatory approval. That’s far from guaranteed, however, given possible antitrust concerns over Netflix’s market dominance.

Advertisement

Now they’re girding for fight with Warner Bros. Discovery over its handling of the auction.

Until recently, Larry Ellison was perhaps best known in Hollywood circles for playing himself in an “Iron Man 2” cameo during which Tony Stark refers to him as the “Oracle of Oracle” — and as the father who quietly bankrolled the film business careers of his children, David and Megan.

Those who know Larry Ellison say he should not be counted out.

At 81, a determined and resolute Ellison has shown no signs of slowing down. Although he stepped down as Oracle’s CEO in 2014, he remains its executive chairman and chief technology officer — and continues to be deeply involved in the company and its growing tentacles.

Larry Ellison, third from right at the White House with President Donald Trump, SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, appears to announce Stargate, a new AI infrastructure investment.

Advertisement

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

“He keeps reinventing the company. Right when you think that they can’t figure it out, they figure it out and they’re pretty resilient,” said Brent Thill, a tech analyst at Jefferies.

The son of a 19-year-old unwed mother, Ellison grew up in a modest walk-up apartment on Chicago’s South Side, where he was raised by her aunt and uncle.

As he told Fox Business, “I had all the disadvantages necessary for success.”

Advertisement
Larry Ellison at the Oracle OpenWorld 2018 conference in San Francisco.

Larry Ellison at the Oracle OpenWorld 2018 conference in San Francisco.

(Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Smart and headstrong, Ellison attended the University of Chicago, but dropped out and drove to California in a used Thunderbird. He got a job as a bank computer programmer, the first of several computer jobs at various companies.

In the early 1970s, Ellison began working on early databases for a company called Ampex. As the story goes, it became the precursor to Oracle’s systems.

By 1977, Ellison co-founded Oracle with $1,200 and ideas deeply inspired by an IBM research paper. The start-up transformed how companies and organizations stored, managed and retrieved huge volumes of data. The software company quickly became an influential tech giant. Oracle’s first contract was with the CIA.

Advertisement

In 1986, Oracle went public and seven years later Ellison landed for the first time on Forbes billionaire’s list, with a net worth of $1.6 billion.

Even among the ego-driven billionaire eccentrics of Silicon Valley, Ellison stood out. “The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison” is the title of a 1997 biography — one of at least 10 tomes examining the life of Larry.

Unlike many of his tech titan peers, who preferred quiet pursuits and carefully crafted public personas, Ellison reveled in his flamboyant escapades and the attention it attracted.

Ellison has flown fighter jets for fun, won the America’s Cup, twice (in 2010 and 2013), collected super yachts, mansions and samurai swords.

As both Oracle’s and Ellison’s fortunes swelled, he earned a reputation for ruthlessness. For years, his archnemesis was Microsoft founder Bill Gates. During the rival’s antitrust trial in 2000, Ellison not only admitted to hiring private investigators to go through Microsoft’s garbage but he also defended his actions, calling the move his “civic duty.”

Advertisement

Mike Wilson, one of Ellison’s biographers, called him “the Charles Foster Kane of the technological age.”

At Oracle, Ellison pushed to expand into cloud computing, healthcare and, more recently, artificial intelligence, forging close partnerships with AI chipmaking behemoth Nvidia, Meta and xAI.

Hollywood, however, was the domain of Ellison’s children, David and Megan, whom he had with his third wife, Barbara Boothe. They divorced shortly after Megan was born.

Larry Ellison and his children, the producers Megan Ellison and David Ellison.

Larry Ellison and his children, the producers Megan Ellison and David Ellison.

(Lester Cohen / WireImage)

Advertisement

The Ellison scions grew up with their mother on a horse farm in Woodside, in the San Francisco Bay Area, and spent time with their father during school breaks, sailing around the world on one of his super yachts.

Early on, the tech entrepreneur set up trusts for his children with large tranches of stock in Oracle and later NetSuite, an enterprise software company he helped finance, that went public in 2007. Over time, the trusts, in addition to their independent holdings, have made David and Megan phenomenally wealthy.

With Ellison’s deep pockets, both pursued filmmaking. Megan launched Annapurna, an indie production company behind such acclaimed movies as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Her.” David, after a brief, unsuccessful stint as an actor and producer of the 2006 flop “Flyboys,” established Skydance Media, bankrolling a slew of massive box office and television hits such as “Top Gun: Maverick,” “Star Trek” and “Grace and Frankie,” later broadening into animation, sports and gaming.

“David made money, his sister made the art,” said Stephen Galloway, dean of Chapman University’s Dodge College of Film and Media Arts.

And Larry Ellison often stepped in.

Advertisement

In 2018, he shepherded a major reorganization of Annapurna after the company stumbled into hundreds of millions in losses amid several box office misfires.

It was Ellison who put up the bulk of his son’s $8-billion bid to buy Paramount, the iconic studio, as well as CBS, MTV and other properties — and he holds nearly 78% of the newly formed company’s stock, making him its largest shareholder.

The Ellison family announced plans to remake the fabled Paramount studio through major investments, leveraging technology and building on popular franchises including “Top Gun,” “Star Trek” and “Yellowstone.”

And they aren’t ready to walk away from Warner Bros.

If history has proven anything, Ellison is always up for a fight.

Advertisement

Times staff writer Queenie Wong contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

The rise and fall of the Sprinkles empire that made cupcakes cool

Published

on

The rise and fall of the Sprinkles empire that made cupcakes cool

After the dot-com bubble burst in the early 2000s, Candace Nelson reevaluated her career. She had just been laid off from a boutique investment banking firm in San Francisco’s tech startup scene, and realized she wanted a change.

From her home, she launched a custom cake service that soon morphed into an idea for a cupcake-focused bakery. Nelson and her husband — whom she met at the Bay Area firm where she had worked — then pooled their savings, moved to Southern California and together opened Sprinkles Cupcakes from a 600-square-foot Beverly Hills storefront.

The store quickly sold out on opening day in 2005, and over the next two decades, the Sprinkles brand exploded across the country, opening dozens of locations of its specialty bakeries as well as mall kiosks and its signature around-the-clock cupcake ATMs in several states.

“It was an unproven concept and a big risk,” Nelson told the Times in 2013, at which point the business had 400 employees at 14 locations and dispensed upward of a thousand cupcakes a day from its Beverly Hills ATM alone.

But now, the iconic cupcake brand is no longer.

Advertisement

Sprinkles abruptly shut down all of its locations on Dec. 31, leaving hundreds of retail employees across Arizona; California; Washington, D.C.; Florida; Nevada; Texas; and Utah in a lurch with little notice, no severance and scrambling to fulfill a surge of orders from customers clamoring to get their last tastes.

Candace Nelson, the founder of Sprinkles cupcakes, in Beverly Hills in 2018.

(Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)

Although Nelson long ago exited the company, having sold it to private equity firm KarpReilly LLC in 2012, she shared her disappointment with its fate on social media.

Advertisement

“As many of you know, I started Sprinkles in 2005 with a KitchenAid mixer and a big idea,” Nelson said in the post. “It’s surreal to see this chapter come to a close — and it’s not how I imagined the story would unfold.”

The company, now headquartered in Austin, Texas, made no formal announcement regarding the closures and Nelson has not said more than what she posted online. The company did share a comment with KTLA, saying “After thoughtful consideration, we’ve made the very difficult decision to transition away from operating company-owned Sprinkles bakeries.” Neither Nelson nor representatives of Sprinkles and KarpReilly responded to The Times’ requests for comment.

Sprinkles’ demise comes at a tough time for the food and beverage industry. At brick-and-mortar food retail locations, the non-negotiable ingredient and labor costs can be high. And shifting consumer sentiments away from sugar-filled sweets and toward more healthy and functional options, strained pocketbooks, as well as pushes by federal and state governments to nix artificial colors and flavoring, are creating uncertainties for businesses, those in the food industry said.

A 24-hour cupcake ATM at Sprinkles Cupcakes in Beverly Hills in 2012.

A 24-hour cupcake ATM at Sprinkles Cupcakes in Beverly Hills in 2012.

(Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press)

Advertisement

“Over the last 10 years the consumer has wizened up tremendously and is looking at the back of the label and choosing where to spend their sweets,” said David Jacobowitz, founder of Austin-based Nebula Snacks, an online food retailer.

At the same time, it’s also not uncommon for businesses owned by private-equity firms to close on a whim, where relentlessly profit-driven decisions might be made simply to pursue more lucrative projects. In recent years, private-equity deals have been seen to milk businesses for profit by slashing costs and quality, and have appeared to play a role in the breakup of some legacy retail brands, including Toys ‘R’ Us, Red Lobster, TGI Fridays and fabrics chain JoAnn Inc. On the flip side, private equity can help infuse much-needed cash into a business and extend its life.

Stevie León and her co-workers received a text the night before New Year’s Eve informing them the franchise Sprinkles location in Sarasota, Fla., where they worked would close permanently after their shifts the next day.

León, 33, said her position as a scratch baker mixing batter and frosting cupcakes overnight had been a dream job, since she had been searching for ways to develop baking skills without paying for expensive schooling.

“I really thought it was my forever job and it was taken away literally in a day,” she said. “I’m just taking it one day at a time.”

Advertisement

Ivy Hernandez, 27, the general manager at the Sarasota store, said that after the news was delivered to her boss, the franchise owner, they rushed to learn their options to keep the store afloat but quickly learned it could be legally precarious to continue operating. The store had been open less than a year.

A nearby corporate store, Hernandez said, had been in disarray for months, with employees contending with broken fridges and lapsed ingredient shipments, as managers implored higher-ups to pay the bills so the business could operate properly.

“It really felt like they were trying to do everything they could to screw everyone over as hard as possible until the end,” Hernandez said.

Sprinkles did not respond to questions about the franchise program or allegations of mismanagement in the lead-up to the closure.

A person walks by Sprinkles on the Upper East Side in New York City in 2020.

A person walks by Sprinkles on the Upper East Side in New York City in 2020.

(Cindy Ord / Getty Images)

Advertisement

The obsession with tiny cakes in paper cups traces back to an episode of “Sex and the City” aired in 2000 showing Miranda and Carrie savoring cupcakes on a bench outside a West Village bakery called Magnolia’s Cupcakes.

“Big wasn’t a crush, he was a crash,” Carrie says to Miranda as she peels down the wrapper on a cupcake topped with bright pink buttercream frosting. She punctuates the quip by taking a big bite, leaving a glob of frosting on her face.

The scene sparked a tourism phenomenon for the bakery — which went on to create a “Carrie” line of cupcakes — and helped propel the burgeoning cupcake industry and companies like Sprinkles Cupcakes, Crumbs Bake Shop and Baked by Melissa to new heights.

Within a decade there was already talk of a “Cupcake Bubble,” coined by writer Daniel Gross in a 2009 Slate article where he argued that the 2008 economic recession laid the groundwork for a proliferation of cupcake stores across America, because a lot of people could figure out how to make tasty cupcakes cheaply and scale up without a huge capital investment.

Advertisement

Amid the decimation of many other local retail businesses, one could take over storefronts in heavily trafficked areas for cheap. As a result, “casual baking turned into an urban industry,” Gross said.

The cupcake fervor hit its peak when Crumbs, which had started as a single bakery on Manhattan’s Upper West Side in 2003, went public in a reverse merger worth $66 million in 2011. The wildly popular mini-cakes were selling at $4.50 a pop. But it became clear very quickly that it had grown too large, too fast. It closed in 2014 after it lost its stock listing on Nasdaq and defaulted on about $14.3 million in financing.

Analysts at the time said consumers were cooling on opulent desserts and suggested tougher times were ahead for bakeries that focused solely on cupcakes.

But Baked by Melissa has thus far proved those analysts wrong. The company has remained privately owned, and according to its founder, is focused on nationwide e-commerce operations — and on expanding the brand beyond sweets. Founder Melissa Ben-Ishay has gained a following on social media by sharing recipes for nutritious, easy-to-make meals.

“Businesses that prioritize quick value increases to get acquired often crash,” Ben-Ishay told Forbes last year. “We’re committed to maintaining product quality and steady, long-term growth.”

Advertisement

Before its unceremonious and sudden closure, Spinkles company leadership had pushed to diversify its business as part of a strategy to recover from a pandemic-era lull.

Chief Executive Dan Mesches told trade publication Nation’s Restaurant News in 2021 that comparable sales had grown since pre-pandemic years. He said the company had ramped up its direct-to-consumer and off-premises offerings and created a line of chocolates made to look like the tops of their cupcakes. The company also introduced a new franchise program with the goal of opening some 200 locations in the U.S. and abroad over three years.

“Innovation is everything for us,” Mesches said.

Sprinkles was known for, among other things, inventive and somewhat corny methods of customer delivery. Besides the trademark ATMs, the company’s vending machines found at many airports made loud, attention-drawing jingles, drawing dramatic complaints and jokes from TikTok travelers. In the 2010s, the company debuted a custom-built truck — “the Sprinklesmobile” — to deliver cupcakes to cities without physical locations.

Frances Hughes, co-founder of online wholesale marketplace Starch, said there’s no question that gourmet sweet treats are still in vogue. But brick-and-mortar locations are much more risky, with more unpredictability. Having large fixed costs makes a business “extremely sensitive to small changes in traffic or frequency,” while online or e-commerce models can be more flexible.

Advertisement

“I think cupcakes as a product still have demand. But the novelty paths that support that rapid retail expansion have passed,” Hughes said.

When Nelson, the Sprinkles founder, posted her somber message about the closure, she asked people to share memories of the company. Many offered heartfelt responses, her comments flooded with stories, for example, of poor college students making the trek to the Beverly Hills location for a limited number of first-come, first-served free cupcakes.

But many of the comments also criticized Nelson’s sale to private equity.

“You sold it to PE and expected it to not close?? What planet are you living on? I don’t begrudge you for selling as that’s entirely your choice but to think any PE firm cares about a company in the slightest is insanity,” one Instagram user said.

Nicole Rucker, an L.A.-based pastry chef and owner of Fat+Flour Pie Shop, said she didn’t observe a decline in the quality of the product after the private-equity takeover. She has been a longtime admirer of the company, driving up from San Diego to sample the cupcakes when its store opened. The simple attractiveness of the box and the logo, and the consistency in the way cupcakes were decorated, “was inspiring,” she said.

Advertisement

“It had a strong hold on people for years,” Rucker said.

Rucker said however that when a private-equity-owned business shutters, she doesn’t feel sadness: “I would rather give my money to a fellow small-business owner, because I would rather know that every dollar and every sale matters.”

Michelle Wainwright, the owner and founder of Indiana-based bakery Cute as a Cupcake! said that although the niche cupcake industry may no longer be in its heyday — with “Sex and the City” no longer airing and competitive baking show “Cupcake Wars” (which Candace Nelson served as a judge on) now canceled — they are still versatile treats, with great potential for creativity.

And they are sentimental to her, because she uses her grandmother’s recipe.

“Cupcakes are still a winner,” Wainwright said. “It’s my belief that a life with out cupcakes is a life without love.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Business

Bay Area semiconductor testing company to lay off more than 200 workers

Published

on

Bay Area semiconductor testing company to lay off more than 200 workers

Semiconductor testing equipment company FormFactor is laying off more than 200 workers and closing manufacturing facilities as it seeks to cut costs after being hit by higher import taxes.

The Livermore, Calif.,-based company plans to shutter its Baldwin Park facility and cut 113 jobs there on Jan. 30, according to a layoff notice sent to the California Employment Development Department this week. Its facility in Carlsbad is scheduled to close in mid-December later this year, which will result in 107 job losses, according to an earlier notice.

Technicians, engineers, managers, assemblers and other workers are among those expected to lose their jobs, according to the notices.

The company offers semiconductor testing equipment, including probe cards, and other products. The industry has been benefiting from increased AI chip adoption and infrastructure spending.

Advertisement

FormFactor is among the employers that have been shedding workers amid more economic uncertainty.

Companies have cited various reasons for workforce reductions, including restructuring, closures, tariffs, market conditions and artificial intelligence, which can help automate repetitive tasks or generate text, images and code.

The tech industry — a key part of California’s economy — has been hit hard by job losses after the pandemic, which spurred more hiring, and amid the rise of AI tools that are reshaping its workforce.

As tech companies and startups compete fiercely to dominate the AI race, they’ve also cut middle management and other workers as they move faster to release more AI-powered products. They’re also investing billions of dollars into data centers that house computing equipment used to process the massive troves of information needed to train and maintain AI systems.

Companies such as chipmaker Nvidia and ChatGPT maker OpenAI have benefited from the AI boom, while legacy tech companies such as Intel are fighting to keep up.

Advertisement

FormFactor’s cuts are part of restructuring plans that “are intended to better align cost structure and support gross margin improvement to the Company’s target financial model,” the company said in a filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission this week.

The company plans to consolidate its facilities in Baldwin Park and Carlsbad, the filing said.

FormFactor didn’t respond to a request for comment.

FormFactor has been impacted by tariffs and seen its growth slow. The company employs more than 2,000 people and has been aiming to improve its profit margins.

In October, the company reported $202.7 million in third-quarter revenue, down 2.5% from the third quarter of fiscal 2024. The company’s net income was $15.7 million in the third quarter of 2025, down from $18.7 million in the same quarter of the previous year.

Advertisement

FormFactor’s stock has been up 16% since January, surpassing more than $67 per share on Friday.

Continue Reading

Business

In-N-Out Burger outlets in Southern California hit by counterfeit bill scam

Published

on

In-N-Out Burger outlets in Southern California hit by counterfeit bill scam

Two people allegedly used $100 counterfeit bills at dozens of In-N-Out Burger restaurants in Southern California in a wide-reaching scam.

Glendale Police officials said in a statement Friday that 26-year-old Tatiyanna Foster of Long Beach was taken into custody last month. Another suspect, 24-year-old Auriona Lewis, also of Long Beach, was arrested in October.

Police released images of $100 bills used to purchase a $2.53 order of fries and a $5.93 order of a Flying Dutchman.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office charged Lewis with felony counterfeiting and grand theft in November.

Advertisement

Elizabeth Megan Lashley-Haynes, Lewis’s public defender, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Glendale police said that Lewis was arrested in Palmdale in an operation involving the U.S. Marshals Task Force. Foster is expected in court later this month, officials said.

”Lewis was found to be in possession of counterfeit bills matching those used in the Glendale incident, along with numerous gift cards and transaction receipts believed to be connected to similar fraudulent activity,” according to a police statement.

A representative for In-N-Out Burger told KTLA-TV that restaurants in Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego counties were also targeted by the alleged scam.

“Their dedication and expertise resulted in the identification and apprehension of the suspects, helping to protect our business and our communities,” In-N-Out’s Chief Operations Officer Denny Warnick said. “We greatly value the support of law enforcement and appreciate the vital role they play in making our communities stronger and safer places to live.”

Advertisement

The company, opened in 1948 in Baldwin Park, has restaurants in nine states.

An Oakland location closed in 2024, with the owner blaming crime and slow police response times.

Company chief executive Lynsi Snyder announced last year that she planned to relocate her family to Tennessee, although the burger chain’s headquarters will remain in California.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending