Rich Products agreement
The company has entered into a definitive agreement to sell two of its in-store bakery facilities (in Fridley, Minn. and Lodi, Calif.) to Rich Products Corporation, a family-owned food company. The transaction is expected to close by April 10, the company stated in the press release announcing the agreement with Rich Products.
"The sale of the Fridley and Lodi facilities allows us to sharpen our focus at TreeHouse, and importantly, creates an opportunity for these plants to thrive under Rich Products' ownership," Steve Oakland, CEO and President of TreeHouse Foods, said in the release. "We continue to be committed to delivering great customer service within the in-store bakery category through our frosted sugar cookies and Lofthouse branded business."
"The facilities we are acquiring from TreeHouse enhance our current dessert and bakery product portfolios and align well with our long-term growth strategies," said Ray Burke, President and Chief Operating Officer, Rich's U.S. - Canada region. "These added capabilities will also allow us to provide greater fully-finished and artisan product options, which are in high demand among our customers."
About 400 employees will transition from TreeHouse Foods to Rich Products, the release stated.
Post Holdings agreement terminated
TreeHouse Foods, Inc. announced that it has mutually agreed with Post Holdings to terminate the previously-announced agreement to sell its ready-to-eat cereal business to Post, following the Dec. 19, 2019, Federal Trade Commission complaint filed in opposition of the sale. TreeHouse will begin the process of re-marketing the business for sale.
"After thoroughly evaluating our options and the potential outcomes, our Board has determined that terminating the agreement with Post and immediately seeking another buyer for the business is the proper course forward," said Steve Oakland, Chief Executive Officer and President of TreeHouse Foods in the release. "Unfortunately the business risk, necessary resources and extent of time required to challenge the FTC's position was not in the best interest of our constituencies."