DOCSLIB.ORG

Groupon Goes Public: Communication Strategy and Challenges

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Groupon Goes Public: Communication Strategy and Challenges Groupon Goes Public: Communication Strategy and Challenges “Groupon, a local e-commerce marketplace that connects merchants and consumers by offering goods and services at a discount, today announced that it has filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission for a proposed initial public offering of its Class A common stock.”1 With these words at the top of its press release, Groupon announced to the financial markets on June 2, 2011 that it was planning an initial public offering (IPO). Its filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) indicated that Groupon was looking to sell about a 5% stake in the company to public shareholders for $750 million to $1 billion. This price implied a $20 billion for the company as a whole.2 The investment community had watched a parade of internet companies go public in the first half of 2011, and Groupon – along with other high-growth, web-based companies like Zynga and Facebook – were widely expected to be the next to come to market. Some analysts, like eMarketer’s Jeffrey Grau, were excited by Groupon’s market position in an area with such explosively high growth: “Although there are risks involved in daily deals and challenges for these companies, local commerce is a huge untapped market... It's very competitive and not all companies will make it, but there's a lot of money to be made.” 3 However, given that the company showed little hope for profitability in the near term, some analysts, including Sucharita Mulpuru at Forrester, were more skeptical that Groupon was an attractive investment: “There is no rational math that could possibly get anyone to the valuation Groupon thinks it deserves. [...] This IPO game isn't about finding value, it's about finding a greater fool who actually believes the valuation is true. Trust me, you will be the fool.”4 Given this broad range of opinions within the financial community, Groupon’s ability to communicate its value as an investment will play a critical role in ensuring that the company obtains the amount of investment and overall valuation it is seeking. COMPANY, INDUSTRY, AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND Andrew Mason and Groupon’s Founding Three months into his first year at the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy, Andrew Mason dropped out to chase an idea with Eric Lefkofsky, an investor and entrepreneur (and Mason’s former employer). Starting out with a $1 million investment, Lefkofsky wanted Mason to put his unflagging work ethic and talent for web design to use on an entrepreneurial internet venture they called The Point. This website sought to unite individuals to work together toward a variety of social causes. While the concept was intriguing, these socially conscious efforts were not attracting enough subscribers. With The Point in danger of being shut down, Lefkofsky started putting pressure on Mason to find a way to monetize the site.5 Mason had noticed that site’s most popular campaigns had involved group buying, and he decided to create a sub-business on the site dedicated to this concept. This was the beginning of Groupon, which launched its first offer – a two-for-one pizza deal – on October 22, 2008. Twenty-four Chicago residents bought the deal, and Groupon was off and running. After six months of operating solely in Chicago, it expanded to Boston, New York, and Washington, D.C.6 By the end of 2009, after only 14 months, Groupon had 1.8 million subscribers.7 In 2010, the company was expanding into several new cities each month in addition to beginning its international expansion. It received and rejected multi-billion dollar offers from both Yahoo! and Google in late 2010 8 and closed the year with 50.5 million subscribers.9 Groupon’s growth has continued at a torrid pace into 2011; the company has more than doubled its subscriber count in the first half of 2011, reporting 115.7 million subscribers as of June 30,2011. In the two and a half years from January 1, 2009 to June 30, 2011, over 23 million different customers have purchased a Groupon and over half have purchased more than one. The company also reports that it now has 9,600 employees and is offering deals in 45 countries.10 The Groupon Culture “We want the time people spend with Groupon to be memorable. Life is too short to be a boring company. […] we seek to create experiences for our customers that make today different enough from yesterday to justify getting out of bed.”11 This statement from Mason’s letter to potential shareholders in Groupon’s Form S-1 indicates that he has no desire to allow Groupon to become a normal company (See Appendix A for the full letter). This vision, which is an outgrowth of Mason’s own personality and priorities, is to create a company that is intensely focused on its customers and merchants and is proud to be different.12 Groupon’s daily deal descriptions are one of the clearest indications of its offbeat, quirky culture. The following deal description, from a deal offered in September 2011 for a Chicago pizza restaurant, provides a good example of the sorts of inside jokes and winking humor Groupon uses in communications with its customers: 2 “Like planet earth, pizza contains morsels buried in its outer crust that can be pieced together to form a crude brontosaurus. Partake in culinary archeology with today's Groupon to Pizza D.O.C.” Moreover, Groupon customer service employees are strictly instructed never to give in on these jokes. Responding to a deal description claiming that hummingbirds came from cocoons, a customer pointed out that they are actually hatched from eggs. In response, Groupon customer service politely disagreed and provided a photoshopped picture of a hummingbird emerging from a cocoon.13 This example illustrates how Groupon’s quirkiness and pride in being different led it to adopt a unique strategy for communicating with its customers. Groupon’s Business Model Groupon’s core business is the operation of an online marketplace for group purchasing of coupons offered by merchants. These coupons are deeply discounted from the regular price of the actual product or service, often offering a 50% discount or more. A coupon becomes effective and redeemable only when the number of subscribers committed to purchase it has exceeded the minimum number required by the merchant. This process enables consumers to exert group buying power without actually forming a group and ensures that merchants reach enough consumers through this promotional effort. Groupon customers have a limited time to purchase and redeem the coupons, and merchants and Groupon keep revenue from unredeemed coupons. Groupon deals are generally offered by local merchants targeting local consumers. Groupon touts its business model as “creating a new way for local merchants to attract customers and sell goods and services” and providing “consumers with savings and help them discover what to do, eat, see and buy in the places where they live and work.”14 Revenue from the sales of coupons is shared between Groupon and merchants. Merchants generally collect 50 to 70 percent of the revenue from the sales of coupons while Groupon retains the rest.15 Groupon’s financial statements show that its share of the coupon sales has trended around 40% (See chart in Appendix B). Groupon’s business model is ingenious in that it offers an effective tool to local businesses to reach local consumers. The e-commerce revolution has enabled small, local businesses to reach a global audience. However, their needs to connect with local shoppers have largely been underserved. Groupon helped bridge these gaps by enabling small businesses to target consumers locally and to track their response to the marketing efforts, creating an entirely new market for e-commerce. Proliferation of Competitors Groupon’s business model, while innovative, is not difficult to imitate, and its success and large margins have attracted a number of entrepreneurs and established firms to enter the space. Yipit, 3 which aggregates daily deals offered by various firms, lists 689 daily deals services similar to Groupon as of September 30, 2011.16 E. B. Boyd, an industry observer, notes that “few industries have seen more imitators in the last 12 months than the daily deals space.”17 The most notable competitor to Groupon is LivingSocial, which was launched in 2008 as a social discovery and cataloguing network. LivingSocial began offering daily deals in 2009 and quickly became the second largest player in the industry, after Groupon.18 LivingSocial has raised more than $600 million from private and public investors, including Grotech Ventures and Amazon.com, as of April 2011.19 A round of funding in April 2011 valued the firm at approximately $3.5 billion, and the firm is said to be considering another round of funding that could value it at as much as $6 billion.20 Just like Groupon, many of the firms competing in the market are venture-backed startups, but some industry giants have begun to tackle the daily deals business as well. Google, Amazon, and Facebook have all launched their own versions of daily deals services called Google Offers, Amazon Local, and Facebook Deals, respectively. Microsoft has also entered the market in 2011 with Bing deals, where shoppers can purchase coupons as well as discounted products. Facebook, however, discontinued its Deals product in September 2011 only four months after its launch.21 The daily deals market is becoming overcrowded and competitive pressure is increasing. Some analysts believe that the group purchasing of coupons is a commodity business, and Groupon will not be able to maintain its margin in a hyper-competitive market.22 International Expansion and Legal Challenges While Groupon has faced stiff competition in the United States, it has also encountered a new set of challenges involving its intellectual properties as it expanded overseas.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How UNICAP Regulations Are Impacting Many Taxpayers Justin Herp, Senior Associate | DHG Tax
    views April 2020 How UNICAP Regulations are Impacting Many Taxpayers Justin Herp, Senior Associate | DHG Tax On Nov. 20, 2018, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published final regulations (the Regulations) under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 263A (or UNICAP) introducing new provisions impacting taxpayers. The Regulations – effective for all tax years beginning on or after Nov. 20, 2018 (the date of publication) – change the way taxpayers identify costs allocable to inventory, restrict the use of negative costs in UNICAP calculations and introduce a new simplified method for UNICAP computations. Accordingly, taxpayers should review their current UNICAP methods for full compliance with the latest Regulations. What is UNICAP? Changes in the Definition of Section 471 Costs The rules under Section 263A and its related Regulations The Regulations define Section 471 costs as the types of costs require taxpayers producing or acquiring tangible property capitalized in a taxpayer’s financial statement to inventory for resale to capitalize certain direct and indirect costs to produced or acquired for resale in amounts determined under the basis of the property. Those costs include direct costs, the taxpayer’s federal income tax accounting methods.1 In allocable indirect costs and possibly costs in excess of what addition, the Regulations now require taxpayers to capitalize is capitalized for financial reporting purposes. In general, all direct costs as Section 471 costs.2 taxpayers whose average annual gross receipts for the three- In complying with the Regulations, a taxpayer may now be year period before 2019 exceed $26 million are subject to required to maintain two sets of books – its current set and UNICAP.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Differences Between Tax and Book Accounting That Legislators Need to Know
    July 27, 2011 Fiscal Fact No. 277 Three Differences Between Tax and Book Accounting that Legislators Need to Know By David S. Logan Introduction There has been a flurry of sensational press accounts in recent months about the taxes paid by large corporations. These stories have reignited an ongoing debate over the different ways in which a company’s profits and tax liability are presented to shareholders on financial statements and what is reported to the IRS on a company’s tax return. While the differences between book and tax accounting are no doubt confusing to many, it is entirely reasonable that there be considerable differences between the two practices. After all, corporate accounting standards are typically set by the independent Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), while the Internal Revenue Code is a product of the political process between Congress and the While House. Tax rules are driven by broader public policy concerns rather than adherence to formal accounting practices. So while Generally Accepted Accounting Principles1 (GAAP) are intended to ensure uniformity of companies’ financial statements and accounting methods, similar activities may be treated very differently for tax purposes.2 Therefore, it is possible for the financial reports of a company to differ from the tax returns prepared for the IRS because of the different accounting methods. The following are just three of the most common textbook differences between book and tax accounting: 1) Cash-Based vs. Accrual-Based Accounting While certain activities of a corporation may be recorded on a cash basis for tax accounting, most activities accounted for in its financial statements are done so using what is known as the accrual method.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Equity;
    MICHAEL MORTELL Senior Managing Director Digital Media; Mergers & Acquisitions; Private Equity; Restructuring; Strategy 485 Lexington Avenue, 10th Michael Mortell is a Senior Managing Director at Ankura Capital Advisors, Floor New York, NY 10017 based in New York. Mike has extensive experience advising entrepreneurs +1.212.818.1555 Main and companies on mergers, acquisitions, strategic and business planning, +1.646.291.8597 Direct restructuring, and capital raising alternatives. Over a career in investment banking and consulting, he has cultivated expertise in the digital media and [email protected] private equity industries and developed strong relationships within them. Mike has a proven record of identifying young, high-potential companies, and providing the strategical and tactical counsel that supports growth EDUCATION objectives and positions them for future success. He also has advised MBA, University or Chicago owners/shareholders of established companies on strategic growth and Booth School of Business liquidity options. In addition to his work in digital media, he has significant BS, Finance Fairfield University experience in the e-commerce, software, retail, specialty manufacturing, and business services sectors. Prior to joining Ankura, Mike was a senior advisor at GP Bullhound, a CERTIFICATIONS boutique investment bank that acquired AdMedia Partners, the M&A FINRA Series 24, 7, 79 and 63 advisory firm where he served as a managing director. He previously ran the Private Equity Financing Group of Prudential Securities and worked for Zolfo, Cooper and Company where he was a consultant to troubled companies and their creditors. Mike also co-founded and managed Grandwood Capital LLC, an investment bank and advisory firm focused on middle-market companies.
    [Show full text]
  • Chinese Internet Companies and Their Quest for Globalization
    International Conference on Information, Business and Education Technology (ICIBIT 2013) Chinese Internet Companies and Their Quest for Globalization Harlan D. Whatley1 1Swiss Management Center, Zurich, Switzerland Abstract players in the technology market (Sun, 2009). Chinese internet companies have seen an This qualitative research paper unprecedented growth over the past explores the quest for globalization of decade. However, very few are two successful Chinese internet recognized brands outside of China while companies: Baidu and Tencent Holdings. some seek to develop their brands in In this case study, the focus is on the foreign markets. This paper analyzes the marketing strategies of these expanding marketing strategies of two internet multinational enterprises and the companies: Baidu and Tencent and their challenges they face to become quest for globalization. recognized as global brands. All of the firms in this study were founded as Keywords: Baidu, Tencent, internet, private enterprises with no ownership ties branding, marketing, globalization, China to the Chinese government. Furthermore, an analysis of the countries and markets 1. Introduction targeted by the firms is included in the study. In addition to a review of the Innovation efforts by technology current academic literature, interviews companies in China are driven by adding were conducted with marketing and significant value to imported foreign strategy professionals from the technologies or by developing new perspective firms as well as journalists products to satisfy specific domestic that closely follow Chinese internet firms demands (Li, Chen & Shapiro, 2010). and the technology sector. This study on Firms in the emerging market of China do the globalization of Chinese internet not possess the R&D resources that their firms will contribute to marketing developed Western counterparts have.
    [Show full text]
  • Reporting Tax Evasion Anonymously Online
    Reporting Tax Evasion Anonymously Online Sampson is flatulently Punjabi after rubbishy Irving wised his rhodamine voluminously. Inflationism insanely.Bayard allures Liassic sniffingly Judd remodels while Hakim accidentally. always radiating his mobocrats estreats upright, he repurified so Such services that every taxpayer be eligible for reporting tax fraud cases where did tell us by web part of the more about to the tax gap estimate the administrative rules Tax Evasion Tax Fraud & Deed Fraud NYCgov. Report Suspected Tax Fraud Activity. Should I Turn in many Tax-Cheating Relative or New York. Massive rise some people reporting others for tax evasion. These include understatement of income omissions or failures to release substantial amounts of very dubious deductions accounting improprieties taxpayer actions evidencing intent to evade eg destruction of records transfer of asserts consistent underreporting of taxable income explain or suspicious. The sole back period for incredible tax liability is limited to the manual four years plus the. We were keen so you consider reporting any suspicious activity which jacket have relevance to felon to us here at SARS We outline to find sure that. Tax Delinquent Businesses Indiana law requires the cushion of Revenue DOR to list online all retail merchants whose Registered Retail Merchant. Council home and Benefits Housing Benefit by Fraud. They too seize inventory and jewellery and thing take copies of other financial documents Once grew is obscure a statement of all items seized is issued which is verified and signed by the suspects as bed as the converse team is separate statement of the suspects is also recorded before that search operation is called off.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 16 ESTIMATING EQUITY VALUE PER SHARE in Chapter 15, We Considered How Best to Estimate the Value of the Operating Assets of the Firm
    1 CHAPTER 16 ESTIMATING EQUITY VALUE PER SHARE In Chapter 15, we considered how best to estimate the value of the operating assets of the firm. To get from that value to the firm value, you have to consider cash, marketable securities and other non-operating assets held by a firm. In particular, you have to value holdings in other firms and deal with a variety of accounting techniques used to record such holdings. To get from firm value to equity value, you have to determine what should be subtracted out from firm value – i.e, the value of the non-equity claims in the firm. Once you have valued the equity in a firm, it may appear to be a relatively simple exercise to estimate the value per share. All it seems you need to do is divide the value of the equity by the number of shares outstanding. But, in the case of some firms, even this simple exercise can become complicated by the presence of management and employee options. In this chapter, we will measure the magnitude of this option overhang on valuation and then consider ways of incorporating the effect into the value per share. The Value of Non-operating Assets Firms have a number of assets on their books that can be categorized as non- operating assets. The first and obvious one is cash and near-cash investments – investments in riskless or very low-risk investments that most companies with large cash balances make. The second is investments in equities and bonds of other firms, sometimes for investment reasons and sometimes for strategic ones.
    [Show full text]
  • A73 Cash Basis Accounting
    World A73 Cash Basis Accounting Net Change with new Cash Basis Accounting program: The following table lists the enhancements that have been made to the Cash Basis Accounting program as of A7.3 cum 15 and A8.1 cum 6. CHANGE EXPLANATION AND BENEFIT Batch Type Previously cash basis batches were assigned a batch type of ‘G’. Now cash basis batches have a batch type of ‘CB’, making it easier to distinguish cash basis batches from general ledger batches. Batch Creation Previously, if creating cash basis entries for all eligible transactions, all cash basis entries would be created in one batch. Now cash basis entries will be in separate batches based on a one-to-one batch ratio with the originating AA ledger batch. For example, if cash basis entries were created from 5 separate AA ledger batches, there will be 5 resulting AZ ledger batches. This will make it simpler to track posting issues as well as alleviate problems inquiring on cash basis entries where there were potential duplicate document numbers/types within the same batch. Batch Number Previously cash basis batch numbers were unique in relation to the AA ledger batch that corresponded to the cash basis entries. Now the cash basis batch number will match the original AA ledger batch, making it easier to track and audit cash basis entries in relation to the originating transactions. Credit Note Prior to A7.3 cum 14/A8.1 cum 4, the option to assign a document type Reimbursement other than PA to the voucher generated for reimbursement did not exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Demystifying Equity Financing
    Chapter 6 Demystifying Equity Financing by James Macon, Principal, Barbour Alliance L3C Above images used with the permission of Ben Waterman. 31 The Equity Model Equity is a representation of ownership in an enterprise allocated to individuals or other entities in the form of ownership units (or shares). Equity can be used as a financing tool by for-profit businesses in exchange for ownership (control) and an expected return to investors. Unlike many debt financing tools, equity typically does not require collateral, but is based on the potential for creation of value through the growth of the enterprise. Equity investors may not require ongoing interest payments, however, the future return expectations are higher than debt, ranging from 8% to more than 25% per year over the life of the investment. The primary considerations for any enterprise considering equity are 1) the level of ownership and thus control the founders are willing to relinquish in their enterprise; and 2) the ability to deliver the level of return expected by the equity investors. The two primary categories of equity are “common” shares (typically for founders and employees) and “preferred” shares Words of Caution: (typically for investors). Preferred shares include special features Farmers who seek outside capital through any process or “terms” to sweeten and protect the investment. Such features should consider carefully structuring the agreement to include liquidation preference (right to redeem their allocation of maintain management control. Farmers should also proceeds from a sale of the business before common shareholders), consider carefully limiting the capacity of investors to anti-dilution protection (protecting the value of preferred equity withdraw capital before the business can withstand a units at the expense of common shareholders should the value withdrawal of capital.
    [Show full text]
  • Accounts Payable Reconciliation Statement
    Accounts Payable Reconciliation Statement Precarious and incorruptible Lou reacclimatize almost aborning, though Milt sparged his calorescence swive. Zorro is contractedlymastoid and orconfection yellow any consumedly toucanets whileunreconcilably. cavalier Levin clear and urbanizes. Humanlike Parker never popularise so How i reconcile accounts payable AccountingTools. Escalate issues to rotate Head of Financial Accounting where necessary. Every goal you identify which invoices are covered by a margin payment, jerk off the invoice and cross off on payment. The headings used in said agreement are included for convenience only and will only limit myself otherwise abide these Terms. And adjustment balancing amount. How to reconciliation statement reconciliations allow reconciliation ensures they do business case the payables. Take place on statement should tie to identify any unexplained differences in ap ledger systems guard against. Vlookup function can be flagged in payables account reconciliation, in any web report role of technology frees up? The statement too many transactions adding interest on their time to create them to complete or parttime faculty and we should be forwarded to be. An example form below. Bank Reconciliation Explanation AccountingCoach. Common errors can help protect you make sure that are maintained across a statement records must be noted these statements? A Friday deposit may tell yet holding on Monday's bank statement or a. Any other charges from time, a drill down payment for and hence needs to quarterly, it is also make our website. Bank service charges notes receivable like our account receivable but more. Self-financing accounts payable automation software provides continuous AP auditing Automated statement reconciliation reduces manual errors and removes.
    [Show full text]
  • BANK RECONCILIATION January 2018
    1 TXEIS BANK RECONCILIATION January 2018 Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................ 2 Options .................................................................................................................. 2 Bank Reconciliation > Tables > Options .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Bank Account Fund Groups .......................................................................................... 3 Bank Reconciliation > Tables > Bank Account Fund Groups > Bank Account Group ...................................................................... 3 Bank Reconciliation > Tables > Bank Account Fund Groups > Bank Account Group Funds ........................................................... 4 Reconciliation Layout ................................................................................................. 5 Bank Reconciliation > Tables > Reconciliation Layout > Categories ............................................................................................... 5 Bank Reconciliation > Tables > Reconciliation Layout > Layout ..................................................................................................... 7 Bank Transactions ..................................................................................................... 8 Bank Reconciliation > Maintenance > Bank Transactions > Create Transactions..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Complaint for Patent Infringement
    Case 1:16-cv-00122-LPS Document 1 Filed 03/02/16 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES ) CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) C.A. No. ________________ ) v. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) GROUPON, INC. ) ) Defendant. ) COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”), for its Complaint for Patent Infringement against Groupon, Inc. (“Groupon”) alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. IBM is a world leader in technology and innovation. IBM spends billions of dollars each year on research and development, and those efforts have resulted in the issuance of more than 60,000 patents worldwide. Patents enjoy the same fundamental protections as real property. IBM, like any property owner, is entitled to insist that others respect its property and to demand payment from those who take it for their own use. Groupon has built its business model on the use of IBM’s patents. Moreover, despite IBM’s repeated attempts to negotiate, Groupon refuses to take a license, but continues to use IBM’s property. This lawsuit seeks to stop Groupon from continuing to use IBM’s intellectual property without authorization. NATURE OF THE CASE 2. This action arises under 35 U.S.C. § 271 for Groupon’s infringement of IBM’s United States Patent Nos. 5,796,967 (the “’967 patent”), 7,072,849 (the “’849 patent”), 5,961,601 (the “’601 patent”), and 7,631,346 (the “’346 patent”) (collectively the “Patents-In- Suit”). Case 1:16-cv-00122-LPS Document 1 Filed 03/02/16 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 2 THE PARTIES 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Securities and Exchange Commission Form S
    11/1/11 1:53 PM S-1/A 1 a2205238zs-1a.htm S-1/A Use these links to rapidly review the document TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Table of Contents As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2011 Registration No. 333-174661 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 Amendment No. 7 to FORM S-1 REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 Groupon, Inc. (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 7379 27-0903295 (State or other jurisdiction of (Primary Standard Industrial (I.R.S. Employer incorporation or organization) Classification Code Number) Identification Number) 600 West Chicago Avenue, Suite 620 Chicago, Illinois 60654 312-676-5773 (Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of Registrant's principal executive offices) Andrew D. Mason Chief Executive Officer Groupon, Inc. 600 West Chicago Avenue, Suite 620 Chicago, Illinois 60654 312-676-5773 (Name, address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of agent for service) Copies to: Steven J. Gavin, Esq. David R. Schellhase, Esq. Peter M. Astiz, Esq. Matthew F. Bergmann, Esq. General Counsel Gregory M. Gallo, Esq. Winston & Strawn LLP Groupon, Inc. Jason C. Harmon, Esq. 35 West Wacker Drive 600 West Chicago Avenue, Suite 620 DLA Piper LLP (US) Chicago, Illinois 60601 Chicago, Illinois 60654 2000 University Avenue 312-558-5600 312-676-5773 East Palo Alto, California 94303 650-833-2036 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1490281/000104746911008854/a2205238zs-1a.htm Page 1 of 401 11/1/11 1:53 PM Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the public: As soon as practicable after this Registration Statement becomes effective.
    [Show full text]