Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Date Certain M&A’

Article from Techcrunch.

Cisco has announced it plans to acquire Cloupia for $125 million. The software company helps customers automate their data centers.

Cisco sees Cloupia’s infrastructure management software enhancing its Unified Computing System (UCS) and Nexus switching portfolio. Cisco expects Cloupia will help better manage the automation of compute, network and storage as well as virtual machine and operating system resources.

Cisco UCS is a converged infrastructure play. Cisco has made a big bet on providing converged infrastructures that consolidates compute, storage and networking into one box. IT wants to decrease its data center dependency. Vendors like Cisco, EMC and IBM see converged infrastructures as a way to sell their hardware into the enterprise.

Investing in these systems has its costs for IT. The systems are pricey and create a lock-in with one vendor.

Cisco wrote a blog post about the acquisition today. Here’s a snippet:

Cisco’s acquisition of Cloupia benefits Cisco’s Data Center strategy by providing single “pane-of-glass” management across Cisco and partner solutions including FlexPod, VSPEX, and Vblock. Cloupia’s products will integrate into the Cisco data center portfolio through UCS Manager, UCS Central, and Nexus 1000V, strengthening Cisco’s overall ecosystem strategy by providing open APIs for integration with a broad community of developers and partners.

The post is a window into Cisco’s data center strategy. Like other big enterprise software companies, Cisco partners with companies such as NetApp and VMware to sell its solutions through its extensive sales channels.

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

Article from GigaOm.

After making a public appeal for investors, MiaSole has found a suitor in Hanergy, a large renewable energy company in China that just bought another solar equipment maker in Germany. The $30M sales prices of MiaSole shows how cheap solar manufacturing assets can be picked up.

Thin Film Solar Underdog MiaSole Looks Ahead to New Plant, Solar Shingles

The search for a financial suitor is coming to an end for solar thin film startup, MiaSole, which has agreed to be bought by China-based Hanergy, according to a shareholder letter.

Hanergy plans to buy MiaSole for a measly $30 million, according to the letter, and also reported by the San Francisco Chronicle. While the Silicon Valley solar company has been mum about how much venture capital it’s raised since its inception in 2001, published reports have put the figure somewhere between $400 million and $500 million by the end of 2011. Earlier this year, the company raised $55 million.

MiaSole was desperate for a white knight to rescue it from oblivion. After years of research and development, the company seemed to have finally nailed its manufacturing process to making solar panels out of copper, indium gallium and selenium (CIGS) that are more efficient than many rivaling CIGS thin film companies. But it was running out of money and needed to expand its production and attract customers. CEO John Carrington joined MiaSole late last year, and he made a public appeal in December for investors and partners who could bring money and sales and marketing expertise.

Hanergy may not be a well-known company in the U.S., but it’s large renewable energy producer in China. We pointed out in this post back in June that Hanergy is a company worth watching not only because of its large hydropower and solar panel production plants in China, but also because of its involvement in installing solar energy equipment. Hanergy won a 3-year deal to install solar panels on Ikea’s stores in China. The company also has built a wind energy generation business within China.

With the purchase of MiaSole, Hanergy is knitting together a global solar thin film empire. Last week, the company completed the purchase of CIGS thin film maker Solibro from Q-Cells in Germany. Hanergy said it would increase Solibro’s production for the European market. With MiaSole’s purchase, Hanergy, of course, will have a CIGS thin film manufacturing base in the U.S.

Solar startups have been picked off one by one cheaply – or filed for bankruptcy – over the past 19 months because the global solar market has been plagued by a glut of solar panels. The fast-falling panel prices – roughly 50 percent in 2011 alone and 30 percent so far this year – have put an enormous pressure on companies to lower their prices. That pressure is particularly difficult to handle for startups, which often have higher manufacturing costs initially when they are scaling up production of their technology. And many of them indeed were trying to raise more money and make that leap to mass production when the financial market crisis hit in late 2008, followed by the oversupply of solar panels starting in 2011.

One of the remaining CIGS thin film company from Silicon Valley, SoloPower, hopes to reverse the trend. The company inaugurated its first large factory in Portland, Ore., last week and plans to start making use of a $197 million federal loan guarantee to expand production.

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

Further to Gerbsman Partners e-mail of July 10, 2012 regarding the sale of certain assets of LumaTherm, Inc., I attach the draft legal documents that we will be requesting of bidders for certain assets of LumaTherm, Inc.  All parties bidding on the assets are encouraged, to the greatest extent possible, to conform the terms of their bids to the terms and form of the attached agreements.  Any and all of the assets of LumaTherm, Inc. will be sold on an “as is, where is” basis.  I would also encourage all interested parties to have their counsel speak with Stephen O’Neill, Esq., counsel to LumaTherm, Inc.

For additional information please contact Stephan O’Neill, Esq., of Murray & Murray counsel to LumaTherm, Inc.  He can be reached at 408 907-9200  and/or at      soneill@murraylaw.com

Following an initial round of due diligence, interested parties will be invited to participate with a sealed bid, for the acquisition of the LumaTherm Assets. Sealed bids must be submitted so that the bid is actually received by Gerbsman Partners no later than Thursday, August 23, 2012 at 5:00pm Central Daylight Time (the “Bid Deadline”) at LumaTherm, Inc.’s office, located at 12600 Northborough Drive, Suite 220, Houston, TX  77067.  Please also email steve@gerbsmanpartners.com with any bid.

For your convenience, I have restated the description of the Updated Bidding Process.

The key dates and terms include:

The Bidding Process for Interested Buyers

Interested and qualified parties will be expected to sign a Confidential Disclosure Agreement (attached hereto as Appendix B) to have access to key members of management and intellectual capital teams and the due diligence “war room” documentation (“Due Diligence Access”). Each interested party, as a consequence of the Due Diligence Access granted to it, shall be deemed to acknowledge and represent (i) that it is bound by the bidding procedures described herein; (ii) that it has had an opportunity to inspect and examine the LumaTherm, Inc. assets and to review all pertinent documents and information with respect thereto; (iii) that it is not relying upon any written or oral statements, representations, or warranties of Gerbsman Partners, ortheir respective staff, agents, or attorneys; and (iv) all such documents and reports have been provided solely for the convenience of the interested party, and Gerbsman Partners (and their respective staff, agents, or attorneys) do not make any representations as to the accuracy or completeness of the same.

Following an initial round of due diligence, interested parties will be invited to participate with a sealed bid, for the acquisition of the LumaTherm, Inc. assets. Each sealed bid must be submitted so that it is received by Gerbsman Partners no later than Thursday, August 23, 2012 at 5:00pm Central Daylight Time (the “Bid Deadline”) at LumaTherm, Inc.’s office, located at 12600 Northborough Drive, Suite 220, Houston, TX  77067.  Please also email steve@gerbsmanpartners.com with any bid.

Bids should identify those assets being tendered for in a specific and identifiable way. In particular, please identify separately certain equipment or other fixed assets.  The attached LumaTherm, Inc. fixed asset list may not be complete and bidders interested in the LumaTherm, Inc. equipment  must submit a separate bid for such assets.

Any person or other entity making a bid must be prepared to provide independent confirmation that they possess the financial resources to complete the purchase.  All bids must be accompanied by a refundable deposit in the amount of $200,000 (payable to LumaTherm, Inc.).  The deposit should be wired to LumaTherm, Inc.’s attorneys Murray & Murray, A Professional Corporation.  The winning bidder will be notified within 3 business days of the Bid Deadline. The deposit will be held in trust by LumaTherm’s counsel.  Unsuccessful bidders will have their deposit returned to them within 3 business days of notification that they are an unsuccessful bidder.

LumaTherm, Inc. reserves the right to, in its sole discretion, accept or reject any bid, or withdraw any or all assets from sale.  Interested parties should understand that it is expected that the highest and best bid submitted will be chosen as the winning bidder andbidders may not have the opportunity to improve their bids after submission.

LumaTherm Inc. will require the successful bidder to close within a 7 day period. Any or all of the assets of LumaTherm, Inc. will be sold on an “as is, where is” basis, with no representation or warranties whatsoever.

All sales, transfer, and recording taxes, stamp taxes, or similar taxes, if any, relating to the sale of the LumaTherm, Inc. assets shall be the sole responsibility of the successful bidder and shall be paid to LumaTherm, Inc. at the closing of each transaction.

For additional information, please see below and/or contact:

Steven R. Gerbsman
Gerbsman Partners
(415) 456-0628
steve@gerbsmanpartners.com

Kenneth Hardesty
Gerbsman Partners
(408)591-7528
ken@gerbsmanpartners.com

Philip Taub
Gerbsman Partners/Foundation Ventures
(917) 650-5958
phil@gerbsmanpartners.com   ptaub@foundationventures.com

Stephen O’Neill, Esq.
Murray & Murray
(408) 907-9200
soneill@murraylaw.com

Read Full Post »

Article from GigaOm.

“I meet a lot of owners of midmarket IT services companies who almost immediately ask me, “What is my company worth?” Even those who don’t ask want to know often ask.

It’s a fair question, with a complicated answer. I can do a back of the envelope calculation and determine the enterprise value of a company today based on 12 months trailing revenue or perhaps a multiple of EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization). But the real value of a company is based less on its past performance than on its potential worth to a future owner. What the buyer can bring to the party and how well its management believes it can execute the acquisition and business strategy going forward is where a company’s true value resides and where the domain expertise or strategy comes into play.

Case in point: In 1996, IBM bought Tivoli Systems for $743 million, paying about 10 times trailing revenue. Many analysts concluded at the time of the sale that IBM grossly overpaid for the asset. Within a year, IBM was able to leverage Tivoli into almost a billion dollars in revenue. Just like beauty, value is in the eye of the beholder. Tivoli had more value to IBM than Tivoli had to itself at the time. So did IBM pay 10 times revenue or less than one times revenue for Tivoli?

Unfortunately, I don’t have a crystal ball. So I don’t know what potential buyers can do to leverage a company’s value. And a calculation on the back of an envelope almost always fails to satisfy.

Here is something else the owners I talk with really don’t want to hear: Chances are they have taken actions that over time have eroded — or even destroyed — the value of their company without even realizing it. In my last post for GigaOM, I wrote about “5 things that destroy a company’s value.” In this post and in future posts, I’m going to examine these value killers one at a time in greater detail.

Today, my topic is opportunistic acquisitions. And to be clear, my message is for owners of midmarket companies who are interested in making acquisitions designed to increase their own value. In doing so, they hope to become attractive acquisition candidates to buyers in the future.

Acquisitions fail 70 to 90 percent of the time

If you search for the phrase “acquisition failure rates,” you’ll be treated to study after study that peg failure rates at somewhere between 70 percent and 90 percent. Dig a little deeper, and you’ll find articles enumerating the many reasons most acquisitions don’t work.

Nearly all of these reasons can be boiled down to two:

  1. The acquisition was a bad match between what the seller had and what the buyer could do to create value. The bad match often occurs because the buyer was fooled, misled, or overlooked key points of the deal, or the buyer simply suffered from hubris.
  2.  The buyer did a poor job of integrating the acquisition and executing on the business strategy designed for its new asset.

In both situations, acquisitions fail because the buyer doesn’t really know what or why it’s buying — let alone what to do with the acquisition.

Think about when HP bought Compaq or when Time Warner bought AOL.

Of course there are companies that are successful with acquisitions. Cisco has acquired 150 companies since its first acquisition in 1993. In fact, acquisitions are a core competency of Cisco — few companies are better at it.

Cisco’s purchases are fueled by the desire to speed up the rate at which the company can offer new technologies in a market that is hyper-competitive and evolving rapidly.

Not all of Cisco’s acquisitions are hits. Remember the Flip video camera that Cisco shut down in 2011? But many were successful, especially in the early days. At the peak of its acquisition activity in 2001, Cisco’s purchases were widely credited with laying the foundation for about half of its business at the time.

The secret to Cisco’s fruitful acquisitions is its ability to successfully onboard companies. Cisco employs a full-time staff solely focused on integrating new companies into the fold — instead of haphazardly assembling part-time transition teams whose members are all busy with their regular jobs.

In terms of strategy and execution, Oracle is even better at acquisitions. The company has spent billions on about 90 companies since its acquisition of PeopleSoft closed in 2005. Oracle’s chief skills are identifying companies that fit well into its longterm business strategy at the front end of the process, and its ability to integrate and act on these strategies at the back end. In 2011, readers of The Deal Magazine recognized Oracle’s track record with an award for most admired corporate dealmaker in information technology for deals completed from 2008 to 2010.

Until late in 2011, Oracle’s acquisition drive was to create the broadest portfolio of traditional enterprise software applications in the industry. With the company’s $1.5 billion acquisition of SaaS CRM applications provider RightNow Technologies (announced in September 2011 and completed in January 2012), Oracle now hopes to work its magic in the SaaS market. Oracle paid more than seven times trailing revenue for RightNow. I bet that in the next year or two, Oracle will make that multiple look like a bargain — just like when IBM bought Tivoli.

Still, Cisco, Oracle and other exceptions to the rule underscore the difficulty of making acquisitions work. It’s even harder when an acquisition happens because a buyer is presented with an unexpected “opportunity” and management decides it’s just “too good to pass up.” These so-called “opportunistic” acquisitions often lead to disappointment or disaster.

The reasons for failure are obvious. Acquirers lured by such a passive approach often have no clearly defined goals, have not thought through the attributes of ideal acquisition candidates, have done little or no pre-acquisition planning, and suffer from a lack of choice.

It reminds me of people who go to Las Vegas for the weekend and end up married. Getting married in Nevada is quick, easy and relatively inexpensive. All you need is a marriage license — no blood tests and no waiting period. And there is a wedding chapel on every corner.

Of course, when you wake up the next morning, there may be hell to pay.

I know. I’ve been there. Not in Las Vegas on the morning after, but at an organization that for many years only bought companies that showed up on its doorstep. We had no strategy and no process for integrating acquisitions into the mothership. I’m convinced that if the owner of the neighborhood car wash had offered us a “good” deal, we’d have taken it.

So here’s my advice for owners of companies seeking to enhance their value through opportunistic acquisitions. Acquisitions can do a lot of good. They can add to your growth and earnings, speed your entry into new markets, allow you to acquire human capital or intellectual property more quickly, and lower your costs through economies of scale. All of these things have the potential to increase the value of your company to a prospective buyer.

But just like marriage, acquisitions should never be decided on a whim. And you should never buy a company just because it’s for sale. Frankly, companies that are not for sale offer juicier profits and are likely a better strategic fit. Better to take some of that money and go have fun with it in Las Vegas.

And if you go there, don’t get married.”

Read more here.

 

Read Full Post »

Article from SFGate.

“LinkedIn Corp. raised the expected price of its initial public offering by $10, to a new range of $42 to $45 per share, making it even more overvalued by any conventional metric.

In my Sunday column (sfg.ly/k0PpDv), I pointed out that LinkedIn was going public at valuations that far exceed established tech companies such as Google, Apple and Amazon – and that was based on its previous expected IPO range of $32 to $35.

At $45 per share, LinkedIn would trade at roughly 17 times its 2010 revenues and 100 times its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, according to Morningstar analyst Rick Summer. That metric, dubbed EBITDA, is seen as a proxy for cash flow. With just $15.4 million in 2010 profit, LinkedIn’s price-to-earnings ratio is meaningless.

By comparison, Google is trading at just under six times revenue and about 14 times EBITDA, Summer says.

LinkedIn still plans to sell between 7.8 million and 9 million shares, which would raise up to $406 million and give it a market value of up to $4.3 billion.

The Mountain View company, which operates an online network for professionals, is expected to set a final IPO price tonight and begin trading Thursday under the ticker LNKD.

Investors are often willing to pay inflated price-to-sales or price-to-cash-flow multiples for fast-growing companies like LinkedIn, Summer says. However, for a higher-risk situation such as LinkedIn, you could argue that investors should be paying a lower multiple.

Less than 10 percent of the company’s shares will trade publicly, which could keep the price up in the short term if demand runs high. But eventually, the venture capitalists and insiders who own the rest of the shares will want to unload some and that could send the price down.

As the first major U.S. social-networking company to go public, LinkedIn could become a favorite of investors who like “pure-play investable themes,” Summer says.

But that also makes it hard to come up with an appropriate value for the company. “This is not an industry we understand incredibly well,” he adds.

Unlike the dot-com companies of yore, some investors argue that social-networking companies deserve lofty valuations because they have “real businesses and real business models,” Summer says. He agrees that LinkedIn has a strong business model and a competitive advantage. “But that’s like looking at a house and saying, ‘It’s livable, it has four bedrooms and two bathrooms. It’s worth any price because it’s a real house.’ ”

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »