DOCSLIB.ORG

Sec Formalizes Its Position on Pipe Transactions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sec Formalizes Its Position on Pipe Transactions June 2007 SEC FORMALIZES ITS POSITION ON PIPE TRANSACTIONS By Jeffrey T. Hartlin, Elizabeth A. Brower and Michael L. Zuppone Private investment in public equity offerings, labeled primary offering made on behalf of the issuer, in which “PIPEs” by market participants, have become a case the PIPE investors would be viewed as effectively permanent alternative for raising equity capital by public acting as statutory underwriters with respect to the companies in need of financing. Pursuant to informal resale of their shares to the public. guidance issued by the Staff of the Securities and BACKGROUND Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in the mid 1990s, PIPEs have been treated as completed private placements not PIPE transactions have two components. The first subject to integration with subsequent registered component involves the original issuance of the secondary offerings by selling securityholders. Under securities – i.e., the private placement of securities by a this guidance, PIPE investors have been able to have the public company to one or more accredited investors in shares issued in (or the shares underlying convertible reliance on the statutory private placement exemption securities issued in) the PIPE transaction registered for provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act and/or public resale into the trading market concurrently with private offering exemption provided by Regulation D or soon after the closing of the PIPE transaction. under the Securities Act. The securities sold in PIPEs Recently, as described below, the treatment of PIPEs may include common stock, straight or convertible investors in registered offerings as just selling preferred stock, convertible debt or a combination of securityholders, as opposed to statutory underwriters, these securities, as well as warrants that are issued to has been called into question in certain circumstances. investors as a “sweetener.” Since they are privately placed to the PIPE investors, such securities are In a series of recent public statements, the Staff of the considered “restricted securities” within the meaning of SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance has provided the rules under the Securities Act. informal guidance as to the circumstances, under which it would view a registered offering of securities on behalf Because the PIPE investors require resale liquidity, the of PIPE investors as a primary offering on behalf of the second component involves the filing of a registration issuer. In these circumstances the offerings would no statement by the issuer to register with the SEC the longer be viewed as permissible delayed or continuous reoffer and resale of the shares issued in the PIPE by the secondary offerings on behalf of selling securityholders investors as named selling securityholders on a delayed under Rule 415(a)(1)(i) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the or continuous basis in one or more transactions at “Securities Act”), which permits delayed or continuous varying prices (i.e., variable priced). Although the PIPE offerings on behalf of unaffiliated selling securityholders. can be structured so that an effective registration In particular, the Staff indicated that, if the number of statement is a condition to the closing of the PIPE, most shares proposed to be registered on behalf of PIPE PIPEs today provide for the filing of a registration investors constitutes more than one‐third of the issuer’s statement with the SEC within some number of days non‐affiliate public float (i.e., one‐third of the after the PIPE is closed. Once the SEC declares the outstanding shares held by non‐affiliates) immediately registration statement effective, the PIPE investors are prior to the PIPE transaction, the Staff will then generally able to freely resell their shares in the presumptively view the proposed registered offering of trading market. shares for resale by the PIPE investors as an indirect 18 Offices Worldwide | Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP | www.paulhastings.com StayCurrent PIPEs offer a number of advantages over other financing to the PIPE, the registration will be presumed to be a primary alternatives. In particular, PIPEs allow issuers to raise offering on behalf of the issuer, and the PIPE investors whose capital much more quickly than an SEC registered shares are being registered will be deemed underwriters of the primary public offering by the issuer. Moreover, PIPEs offering. That is, the SEC will presume that the investors may be completed on a confidential basis. With are effectively acting as a conduit for issuers to sell registered public offerings, issuers are often forced to shares directly to the investing public. publicly announce their intent to sell shares by filing a The Staff appears to be particularly concerned that registration statement with the SEC in advance of pricing issuers may be attempting to disguise offerings made on and confirming purchase orders from investors. In many their behalf as offerings made on behalf of PIPE investors cases, issuers are not shelf registration eligible, or if shelf in order to obtain the benefits of shelf registration, registration eligible, other factors are present that would including the ability to effect an “at the market” offering prevent a shelf takedown either as an overnight bought to the public on a delayed or continuous basis using a deal or a confidentially marketed direct public offering. Form S‐3 shelf registration statement that the issuer The filing of a registration statement or a Red Herring might not otherwise be eligible to use. Although the Staff prospectus filed under a shelf registration statement for a announced that it does not intend to release formal marketed offering has a tendency to create “overhang,” guidance on this issue, it has informally articulated where the market perceives the pending issue as several points that issuers must address in PIPE potentially dilutive, which can exert downward pressure registration statements. Issuers must address on an issuer’s stock price and ultimately reduce the price at which shares may be sold by the issuer in the offering. • how long the investors have held the shares, the On the other hand, most PIPEs do not require any public circumstances under which the investors received disclosure by issuers until their purchase agreement with the shares, the investors’ relationships to the issuer, investors has been executed and the price at which the the amount of shares involved in the registration, securities are sold has been determined. whether the investors are in the business of underwriting securities and whether, under all the Historically, the Staff has permitted issuers to register a circumstances, it appears that the investors are significant number of shares issued in PIPE transactions acting as a conduit for the issuer.1 for reoffer and resale by PIPE investors under a “resale shelf” registration statement as permitted by Rule • the number of investors included in the registration 415(a)(1)(i) under the Securities Act. Rule 415(a)(1)(i) and the percentage of the offering being sold by each allows issuers to register the reoffer and resale of the investor; shares issued in the PIPE on behalf of investors, who are • the identities of the natural persons with voting or able resell them over time on a delayed or continuous investment power over the securities registered on basis in one or more transactions at varying prices, rather behalf of the investors; than at a fixed price. In many cases, the Staff has accepted for filing resale shelf registration statements • the relationships among the investors; that have included shares representing more than 75% • any payments the issuer has made, or will make, to (and in some cases, more than 100%) of the issuer’s non‐ the investors, their affiliates and/or the placement affiliate public float. agent for the PIPE; THE STAFF’S “NEW” POSITION • the net proceeds received by the issuer from the The New One-Third Test PIPE after taking into account all payments and expenses (i.e., how much the issuer will actually Beginning in 2006, the Staff began cracking down on receive from the sale of the securities); issuers attempting to use Rule 415(a)(1)(i) to register the shares issued in large PIPE transactions for immediate • how the issuer determined the number of securities resale by investors. Specifically, through a series of to sell to investors in the PIPE; public presentations and interviews, members of the Staff announced the following position: if an issuer seeks 1 These factors are set forth in Question D. 29 of the Staff’s to register shares issued in a PIPE that constitutes one‐third or Manual of Publicly Available Telephone Interpretations. more of its shares held by non‐affiliates as of immediately prior 2 StayCurrent • if the issuer sold convertible securities, the issuer’s INITIAL RESPONSE BY ISSUERS AND good faith estimate of the actual number of shares INVESTORS that will be issued to the investors upon conversion The Staff’s new guidance began taking shape through a of those securities (i.e., the maximum dilutive effect series of comment letters delivered to issuers attempting of these securities); to register shares constituting a substantial portion of • if the issuer sold convertible debt, the issuer’s ability their public float for resale by PIPE investors. Issuers or intention to repay the debt; have attempted to respond to the Staff’s comment letters in a variety of ways including the following: • if known to the issuer, the current short positions held by any of the investors; and • by referring the Staff to the issuer’s prior resale registration statements that included an equally • whether the issuer had recently completed one or large percentage of the issuer’s stock and noting they more financings with the same group of investors were declared effective with little, if any, reaction (i.e., whether the issuer is disguising one large PIPE from the SEC.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Initial Public Offerings
    November 2017 Initial Public Offerings An Issuer’s Guide (US Edition) Contents INTRODUCTION 1 What Are the Potential Benefits of Conducting an IPO? 1 What Are the Potential Costs and Other Potential Downsides of Conducting an IPO? 1 Is Your Company Ready for an IPO? 2 GETTING READY 3 Are Changes Needed in the Company’s Capital Structure or Relationships with Its Key Stockholders or Other Related Parties? 3 What Is the Right Corporate Governance Structure for the Company Post-IPO? 5 Are the Company’s Existing Financial Statements Suitable? 6 Are the Company’s Pre-IPO Equity Awards Problematic? 6 How Should Investor Relations Be Handled? 7 Which Securities Exchange to List On? 8 OFFER STRUCTURE 9 Offer Size 9 Primary vs. Secondary Shares 9 Allocation—Institutional vs. Retail 9 KEY DOCUMENTS 11 Registration Statement 11 Form 8-A – Exchange Act Registration Statement 19 Underwriting Agreement 20 Lock-Up Agreements 21 Legal Opinions and Negative Assurance Letters 22 Comfort Letters 22 Engagement Letter with the Underwriters 23 KEY PARTIES 24 Issuer 24 Selling Stockholders 24 Management of the Issuer 24 Auditors 24 Underwriters 24 Legal Advisers 25 Other Parties 25 i Initial Public Offerings THE IPO PROCESS 26 Organizational or “Kick-Off” Meeting 26 The Due Diligence Review 26 Drafting Responsibility and Drafting Sessions 27 Filing with the SEC, FINRA, a Securities Exchange and the State Securities Commissions 27 SEC Review 29 Book-Building and Roadshow 30 Price Determination 30 Allocation and Settlement or Closing 31 Publicity Considerations
    [Show full text]
  • China Client Alert
    China Client Alert Hong Kong Regulator issues Guidelines on IPO Cornerstone Investments Last month, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange ("HKEx") issued new guidelines for cornerstone investments (the “Guidance Letter”). In the Guidance Letter, HKEx sets out its general policies on IPO cornerstone investments and expresses its concerns over side arrangements made between cornerstone investors and listing applicants. Paul, Weiss Asia Offices Highlights of HKEx's policies on IPO Cornerstone Investments: A) Principles for Approving IPO Cornerstone Investments BEIJING Unit 3601, Fortune Plaza Office HKEx approves a preferential placing to cornerstone investors Tower A based on the following principles: No. 7 Dong Sanhuan Zhonglu Chao Yang District, Beijing 100020 • Placing price is at IPO price, People’s Republic of China • +86 10 5828 6300 IPO shares are subject to lock-up (at least 6 months), • Investor has no board representation, HONG KONG Hong Kong Club Building, 12th Flo0r • Investor is independent of listing applicant, its connected persons 3A Chater Road, Central and their respective associates, Hong Kong • Details of placing arrangements are disclosed in the prospectus, +852 2846 0300 and TOKYO • IPO shares are counted as part of the public float so long as the Fukoku Seimei Building investor is a member of the public under Hong Kong Listing Rules. 2-2, Uchisaiwaicho 2-chome Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, B) Reclassification of Cornerstone Investors as Pre-IPO Japan Investors +81 3 3597 8101 HKEx may reclassify a cornerstone investor as a pre-IPO investor if, with respect to acquisition of IPO shares, such investor (whether by way of side letters or otherwise): (i) receives any direct or indirect benefit (other than a guaranteed allocation of IPO shares), for example: • waiver of brokerage commission, • ©2013 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & put option for other person to buy back shares after listing, Garrison LLP.
    [Show full text]
  • Vermont Sense
    VERMONT DOLLARS, VERMONT SENSE A Handbook for Investors, Businesses, Finance Professionals, and Everybody Else BY MICHAEL H. SHUMAN & GWENDOLYN HALLSMITH Foreword by STUART COMSTOCK-GAY A PROJECT OF POST CARBON INSTITUTE, VERMONTERS FOR A NEW ECONOMY, GLOBAL COMMUNITY INITIATIVES, THE PUBLIC BANKING INSTITUTE, AND THE FRESH SOUND FOUNDATION ii Copyright © 2015 by Post Carbon Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be transmitted or Image credits: cover, upper left image © Erika Mitchell (via reproduced in any form by any means without permission in Shutterstock), other images as noted below; page 19, courtesy writing from the publisher. of City Market; page 23, courtesy of SunCommon; page 33, courtesy of Vermont Creamery; page 37, courtesy of Gwendolyn Interior design: Girl Friday Productions Hallsmith; page 50, courtesy of Real Pickles; page 53, courtesy Development and partnerships: Ken White of Opportunities Credit Union; page 71, courtesy of UVM Editing and production: Daniel Lerch Special Collections. ISBN-13: 978-0-9895995-3-5 Special thanks to John Burt and the Fresh Sound Foundation for ISBN-10: 0989599531 providing the funding for this handbook. Additional research and writing assistance was provided by Matt Napoli, now a graduate Post Carbon Institute of St. Michael’s College. 613 Fourth St., Suite 208 Santa Rosa, California 95404 Post Carbon Institute’s mission is to lead the transition to a more (707) 823-8700 resilient, equitable, and sustainable world by providing individ- uals and communities with the resources needed to understand www.postcarbon.org and respond to the interrelated economic, energy, and ecological www.resilience.org crises of the 21st century.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence from the Short Sale Ban on US Financial Stocks
    Short Sale Constraints, Dispersion of Opinion, and Market Quality: Evidence from the Short Sale Ban on U.S. Financial Stocks Don M. Autore Florida State University Randall S. Billingsley Virginia Tech Tunde Kovacs Virginia Tech Northeastern University June 2009 ABSTRACT The three-week ban on short selling during 2008 for nearly 800 U.S. financial stocks provides an opportunity to directly test how binding short sale constraints affect stock valuation. We focus on the relative valuation effects of the ban on stocks with higher vs. lower dispersion of investor opinion and stocks that experience greater vs. smaller deterioration in market quality. First, we find that the initiation of the ban is associated with abnormal price increases that continue even after the ban. Second, valuation increases are significantly more pronounced for stocks associated with greater dispersion of opinion. However, after the ban is removed, this dispersion effect disappears. Third, the ban is associated with large increases in relative quoted spreads and decreases in the average number of trades per day, consistent with a reduction in market quality. Finally, the banned stocks that face the greatest widening in their spread experience weaker abnormal stock performance during and after the ban. In summary, the dispersion-related findings support Miller’s (1977) argument that high dispersion stocks become overvalued under binding short sale constraints. The spread-related findings suggest that short sellers are viewed as informed investors. In the absence of short sellers, investors demand higher risk premiums to reflect the increased uncertainty about the stock’s value. From a policy standpoint, the actions of the Securities and Exchange Commission might have curbed excessive price declines for troubled firms without lasting differential valuation consequences for higher vs.
    [Show full text]
  • The China Stock Exchange – IPO Overview 1
    The China Stock Exchange – IPO Overview 1 1. Regulatory Background 1.1 Overview of Regulatory In China, there are two public stock exchange markets, i.e., Shanghai Stock Exchange (the “ SSE ”) and Shenzhen Stock Exchange (the “SZSE ”). As of December 2012, 954 companies were listed on the SSE with a total market capitalization of RMB15,869.844 billion 2. As of May 30, 2013, 1,537 companies were listed on the SZSE with a total market capitalization of RMB 8,101.91374 billion 3. Both the SSE and SZSE operate the Main Board while the SZSE also runs the Small & Medium Size Enterprise Board (“ SME ”) and the ChiNext Board. The Main Board is designed for large scale companies which intend to solicit large amounts of public funds. SME adopts the same listing requirements as the Main Board while targeting companies with a smaller scale for equity flow. The ChiNext Board provides an important platform, with less stringent listing criteria, for those enterprises engaged in independent innovation businesses and other growing venture enterprises to solicit public funds. The Stock Exchange of Mainland China is operated by SSE and SZSE, as membership institutions, and is directly governed by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (“CSRC ”). 1.2 Regulatory Entities CSRC is in ultimate charge of regulating the issuance, listing, trading, registration, depository and clearance of securities, and ensures that the operation of the stock market is in compliance with laws and regulations. SSE and SZSE provide a platform for the public trading of securities and oversee the trading of securities. 1.3 Required Approvals Any initial public offering (“IPO”) in China (including listings on the Main Board, SME and ChiNext Board) requires the approval of the Listing Committee of the CSRC.
    [Show full text]
  • OTC Markets Group Inc. Operates the OTCQX® Best Market, the OTCQB® Venture Market and the Pink® Open Market for 10,000 U.S
    September 24, 2019 Via Electronic Submission Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549-1090 [email protected] Re: Comments to the Concept Release on Harmonization of Securities Offering Exemptions (File Number S7-08-19) OTC Markets Group1 is pleased to submit this comment letter in response to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC” or the “Commission”) Concept Release on Harmonization of Securities Offering Exemptions. As the operator of markets where over 10,000 securities are traded, and as a publicly traded company ourselves, OTC Markets Group supports the benefits of public markets and their capacity to create capital growth opportunities for companies and investors. Public trading markets serve a basic purpose: to support investors that lawfully own, or would like to own, a piece of property – in this case, shares of a company – and their fundamental right to trade that property with interested counterparties. The ability of a shareholder to walk into a broker’s office, deposit their shares, and trade through their brokerage account has long been a central aspect of property ownership. Restrictions on an individual’s ability to buy or sell securities are a reduction of private property rights. As public trading has grown more complex over time, so too has the web of regulation designed to protect investors and promote orderly markets. These rules of fair play support our economy and have made our capital markets an example for the world to follow. We must also recognize that well-meaning regulation comes with a significant burden that has reduced the use of registered securities offerings, raised the costs of being SEC reporting, and lowered the number of companies that choose to be public.
    [Show full text]
  • Abn Amro Bank Nv, Hong Kong Branch
    18 JANUARY 2008 JOINT SUBMISSION by ABN AMRO BANK N.V., HONG KONG BRANCH BOCl ASlA LIMITED CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION LIMITED ClTlGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS ASlA LIMITED CREDIT SUlSSE (HONG KONG) LIMITED DEUTSCHE BANK AG, HONC KONG BRANCH J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES (ASIA PACIFIC) CO. LTD. LEHMAN BROTHERS ASIA L1MlTED MERRILL LYNCH FAR EAST LIMITED MORGAN STANLEY ASlA LIMITED UBS AG (in alphabetical order) in response to Issue 5A of the Combined Consultation Paper on Proposed Changes to the Listing Rules dated 11 January 2008 issued by The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the "Stock Exchange") in respect of the minimum level of public float under Rule 8.08 of the Rules Governing the Listing of Securities on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the "Listing Rules") 1. Introduction Reference is made to the consultation paper dated 11 January 2008 (the "Consultation Paper") issued by the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the "Stock Exchange") seeking comments from the market regard~nga number of substantive policy issues as well as amendments to the Rules Governing the Listing of Securities on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the "Listing Rules"). This submission seeks to provide specific comments to address the issues raised in the Consultation Paper regarding the minimum level of public float (under Issue 5A). Issue 5A: Minimum level of public float. The Stock Exchange has proposed the following amendments to Rule 8.08(1)(d) in respect of the minimum public float requirements far Main Board issuers: - Market capitalisation
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Public Offerings 2020 Fourth Edition
    Initial Public Offerings 2020 Fourth Edition Contributing Editors: Ilir Mujalovic & Harald Halbhuber With contributions by: Global Legal Insights Initial Public Offerings 2020, Fourth Edition Contributing Editors: Ilir Mujalovic & Harald Halbhuber Published by Global Legal Group GLOBAL LEGAL INSIGHTS – INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERINGS 2020, FOURTH EDITION Contributing Editors Ilir Mujalovic & Harald Halbhuber, Shearman & Sterling LLP Head of Production Suzie Levy Senior Editor Sam Friend Sub Editor Megan Hylton Group Publisher Rory Smith Creative Director Fraser Allan We are extremely grateful for all contributions to this edition. Special thanks are reserved for Ilir Mujalovic & Harald Halbhuber of Shearman & Sterling LLP for all of their assistance. Published by Global Legal Group Ltd. 59 Tanner Street, London SE1 3PL, United Kingdom Tel: +44 207 367 0720 / URL: www.glgroup.co.uk Copyright © 2020 Global Legal Group Ltd. All rights reserved No photocopying ISBN 978-1-83918-047-7 ISSN 2399-9594 This publication is for general information purposes only. It does not purport to provide comprehensive full legal or other advice. Global Legal Group Ltd. and the contributors accept no responsibility for losses that may arise from reliance upon information contained in this publication. This publication is intended to give an indication of legal issues upon which you may need advice. Full legal advice should be taken from a qualified professional when dealing with specific situations. The information contained herein is accurate as of the date of publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Corp & Sec Update #5
    Corporate and Securities Update www.BlankRome.com March 2008 No. 5 SEC Permits the Use of Forms S-3 and F-3 by Small Businesses Introduction public float of less than $75 mil- equivalent of one-third of its public The Securities and Exchange lion to take advantage of the ben- float in primary offerings registered Commission (“SEC”) recently efits of Form S-3, including “short on Form S-3 or Form F-3 within a amended the eligibility require- form” registration and shelf regis- 12-month period. In order to use ments for use of the registration tration in connection with certain Form S-3, a company and the offer- statement on Form S-3 (and Form limited primary offerings of securi- ing must meet certain registrant and F-3 for foreign private issuers) as ties, without compromising transaction requirements. The regis- part of its initiatives to increase investor protection. The amended trant requirements generally deal access to the capital markets by rules were effective on January 28, with a company’s reporting history smaller companies.1 Form S-3 is 2008. under the Exchange Act. The the “short form” registration state- The amended rules would transaction requirements provide, ment used by companies to regis- allow certain domestic public and among other things, that com- ter primary offerings under the foreign private issuers to conduct panies can use Form S-3 for Securities Act of 1933, as amend- primary securities offerings regard- primary offerings of nonconvertible ed (the “Securities Act”), which less of the size of their public float investment-grade securities, non- allows these companies to rely on or the rating of the debt they are investment-grade debt, certain their reports filed under the offering, as long as they satisfy the rights offerings, dividend reinvest- Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as eligibility conditions of the forms, ment plans, and conversions.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report December 31, 2009
    ANNUAL REPOR T 2 0 0 9 Corporate Information EXECUTIVE OFFICE: DIRECTORS & OFFICERS 150 King Street West OF THE COMPANY: Suite 1702, Toronto, Ontario Thomas S. Caldwell, C.M. M5H 1J9 Director and President Telephone: (416) 595-9106 Toronto, Ontario Facsimile: (416) 862-2498 John R. Campbell, Q.C. TRANSFER AGENT & REGISTRAR: Director and CIBC Mellon Trust Company Vice-President P.O. Box 7010, Toronto, Ontario Adelaide Street Postal Station Bethann Colle Toronto, Ontario Director M5C 2W9 Toronto, Ontario AUDITORS: DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP Michael B.C. Gundy Brookfield Place Director 181 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario Suite 1400 George Mencke Toronto, Ontario M5J 2V1 Director INDEPENDENT REVIEW Toronto, Ontario COMMIT TEE: Jean Ponter Robert Guilday Chief Financial Officer H. Clifford Hatch Jr. Harry Liu Sharon Kent Corporate Secretary Urbana Corporation’s Common Shares, Non-Voting Class A Shares are listed for trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Ticker Symbols: URB (Common Shares) URB.A (Non-Voting Class A Shares) Website: www.urbanacorp.com URBANA CORPORATION Year-End Report To Shareholders For the year ended December 31, 2009 The past year was essentially flat for Urbana Corporation (“Urbana”). The financial industry debacle of 2008 was compounded in the exchange space by existing low barriers to entry for numerous, low cost, new trading venues which resulted in hyper competition for most stock markets. The resulting squeeze on volumes and margins was evident within both Europe and North America. Emerging markets, such as India, still have enough barriers to entry to contain the destructive influence of institutions effectively re-mutualizing the exchange industry through their use of proprietary Alternative Trading Systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Can European Unicorns Defend the High Valuations?
    Norwegian School of Economics Bergen, Spring 2018 Can European Unicorns Defend the High Valuations? A challenge of the post-money valuation approach Kristian Hansen Lomheim & Ola Thune Øritsland Supervisor: Nataliya Gerasimova Master thesis in Financial Economics NORWEGIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS This thesis was written as a part of the Master of Science in Economics and Business Administration at NHH. Please note that neither the institution nor the examiners are responsible − through the approval of this thesis − for the theories and methods used, or results and conclusions drawn in this work. 2 Abstract We apply a DCF-based R-model on a sample of 12 European unicorns to show that post- money valuations overstate the fair value of VC-backed companies. At best, the initial result suggests that the majority of the sample is overvalued whereas some firms are slightly undervalued. The median overvaluation of the sample is 25%. When we increase the conservative cost of capital estimates with one percentage point, all firms are overvalued with a median overvaluation of 75% in the sample. Our results indicate that many of the firms will need an abnormal operational improvement toward steady state in addition to significantly outperform the peer group and industry forecasts in order to generate cash flows that are sufficient to defend the post-money valuation. 4 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................8 1.1 PURPOSE & BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Maximizing Shareholder Value? Spotify Direct Public Offering
    Journal of International & Interdisciplinary Business Research Volume 6 Article 6 November 2019 Maximizing Shareholder Value? Spotify Direct Public Offering Hoje Jo Santa Clara University, [email protected] John Throne Santa Clara University Michael Fieber Santa Clara University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.fhsu.edu/jiibr Part of the Business Commons Recommended Citation Jo, Hoje; Throne, John; and Fieber, Michael (2019) "Maximizing Shareholder Value? Spotify Direct Public Offering," Journal of International & Interdisciplinary Business Research: Vol. 6 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholars.fhsu.edu/jiibr/vol6/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FHSU Scholars Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of International & Interdisciplinary Business Research by an authorized editor of FHSU Scholars Repository. Jo et al.: Spotify Direct Public Offering MAXIMIZING SHAREHOLDER VALUE? SPOTIFY DIRECT PUBLIC OFFERING Hoje Jo, Santa Clara University John Throne, Santa Clara University Michael Fieber, Santa Clara University The typical method of going public has traditionally been an initial public offering (IPO), whereby a company works with an underwriter syndication to establish a price at which shares will be offered to the public before listing them. The purpose of this paper, however, is to evaluate whether IPOs are truly the best method for taking a company public. To answer this question, at least partially, we explore the upsides and downsides of a direct listing using the music streaming company Spotify (NYSE: SPOT) as a case study. Having officially registered to go public with the SEC and direct listed on April 3, 2018 with $149.01 closing price and a $26.5 billion market capitalization, Spotify becomes the first major private company to list its shares directly to the public on the NYSE without using an underwriter.
    [Show full text]