Tag Archives: Acquisitions/Mergers

Elon Musk’s Twitter Takeover Debt to Be Held by Banks Amid Turbulent Markets

Banks that committed to help finance

Elon Musk’s

takeover of Twitter Inc. plan to hold all $13 billion of debt backing the deal rather than syndicate it out, according to people familiar with the matter, in another blow to a market that serves as a crucial source of corporate funding.

Twitter could have the dubious distinction of being the biggest so-called hung deal of all time, surpassing a crop of them in the global financial crisis, when banks were stuck with around $300 billion of committed debt they struggled to sell to investors.

Twitter will become a private company if Elon Musk’s $44 billion takeover bid is approved. The move would allow Musk to make changes to the site. WSJ’s Dan Gallagher explains Musk’s proposed changes and the challenges he might face enacting them. Illustration: Jordan Kranse

The Twitter move threatens to bring the faltering leveraged-buyout pipeline to a standstill by tying up capital that Wall Street could otherwise use to back new deals.

The $44 billion Twitter takeover is backed by banks including Morgan Stanley,

Bank of America Corp.

and Barclays PLC, which signed agreements in April to provide Mr. Musk with the debt financing he needed to buy the company. They had originally intended to find third-party investors, such as loan asset managers and mutual funds, who would ultimately lend the money as is customary in leveraged buyouts.

But rising interest rates and growing concerns about a recession have cooled investors’ appetite for risky loans and bonds. Mr. Musk’s past criticism of Twitter’s alleged misrepresentation of the condition of its business and the number of fake accounts on the platform aren’t helping either—nor is a deterioration in Twitter’s business, the people added.

Banks would likely face losses of around $500 million or more if they tried to sell Twitter’s debt at current market prices, The Wall Street Journal previously reported. If all the banks hold the debt instead, they can mark it at a higher value on their books on the premise that prices will eventually rebound.

Banks also face a timing problem: Mr. Musk and Twitter have until Oct. 28 to close his planned purchase, and there is still no guarantee the unpredictable billionaire will follow through or some other trouble won’t arise. (If the deal doesn’t close by that time, the two parties will go to court in November.) That means the banks wouldn’t have enough time to market the debt to third-party investors, a process that normally takes weeks, even if they wanted to sell it now.

Assuming the deal closes, banks hope to be able to sell some of Twitter’s debt by early next year, should market conditions improve by then, some of the people said. Twitter’s banks are discussing how to potentially slice up the debt into different pieces that could be easier for hedge-fund investors or direct lenders to swallow, one of these people said.

The banks have good reason to want to hold the debt for as short a time period as possible.

Holding loans and bonds can force them to set more capital aside to meet regulatory requirements, limiting the credit banks are able to provide to others. Banks also face year-end stress tests, and they will want to limit their exposure to risky corporate debts before regulators evaluate the soundness of their balance sheets.

So far this year, banks have already taken hundreds of millions of dollars worth of losses and been forced to hold a growing amount of buyout debt.

Twitter’s debt, including $6.5 billion of term loans and $6 billion of bonds, would add to the increasing pile banks eventually intend to syndicate, recently estimated by

Goldman Sachs

at around $45 billion.

Banks’ third-quarter earnings showed a steep drop-off in revenue tied to deal-making. Goldman’s debt-underwriting revenue dropped to $328 million in the third quarter from $726 million a year earlier.

Morgan Stanley CEO

James Gorman

said recently that his bank has been “quite cautious in the leveraged-finance arena” for new deals, while Bank of America’s

Brian Moynihan

said “there’s been a natural retrenching” in the leveraged-loan market and the bank “was working to get through the pipeline” of existing deals.

Private-equity firms, which rely heavily on debt to fund their buyouts, have increasingly turned to private-credit providers such as Blackstone Credit and

Blue Owl Capital Inc.

These firms don’t have to split up and sell debt and can provide funding from investment vehicles established to do so. Although it is more expensive and harder to come by than earlier this year, private-credit providers have been the main source of buyout financing recently.

To deal with debts they have already committed to, banks have gotten increasingly creative.

In a take-private of Citrix Systems Inc., banks agreed to turn some $6 billion of syndicated term loans into a more traditional bank loan that they chose to keep on their balance sheets, but they sold around $8 billion of bonds and loans at a loss of more than $500 million, the Journal reported. There was also a revision in the financing structure of the Nielsen Holdings PLC take-private, with $3 billion in unsecured bonds becoming a junior secured loan that private-credit provider

Ares Capital Corp.

agreed to lead. The banks held the remainder of Nielsen’s roughly $9 billion of debt on their balance sheets.

Write to Laura Cooper at laura.cooper@wsj.com and Alexander Saeedy at alexander.saeedy@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Elon Musk’s Revived Twitter Deal Could Saddle Banks With Big Losses

Banks that agreed to fund

Elon Musk’s

takeover of

Twitter Inc.

TWTR -3.72%

are facing the possibility of big losses now that the billionaire has shifted course and indicated a willingness to follow through with the deal, in the latest sign of trouble for debt markets that are crucial for funding takeovers.

As is typical in leveraged buyouts, the banks planned to unload the debt rather than hold it on their books, but a decline in markets since April means that if they did so now they would be on the hook for losses that could run into the hundreds of millions, according to people familiar with the matter.

Banks are presently looking at an estimated $500 million in losses if they tried to unload all the debt to third-party investors, according to 9fin, a leveraged-finance analytics firm.

Representatives of Mr. Musk and Twitter had been trying to hash out terms of a settlement that would enable the stalled deal to proceed, grappling with issues including whether it would be contingent on Mr. Musk receiving the necessary debt financing, as he is now requesting. On Thursday, a judge put an impending trial over the deal on hold, effectively ending those talks and giving Mr. Musk until Oct. 28 to close the transaction.

The debt package includes $6.5 billion in term loans, a $500 million revolving line of credit, $3 billion in secured bonds and $3 billion in unsecured bonds, according to public disclosures. To pay for the deal, Mr. Musk also needs to come up with roughly $34 billion in equity. To help with that, he received commitment letters in May for over $7 billion in financing from 19 investors including

Oracle Corp.

co-founder and

Tesla Inc.

then-board member

Larry Ellison

and venture firm Sequoia Capital Fund LP.

Twitter will become a private company if Elon Musk’s $44 billion takeover bid is approved. The move would allow Musk to make changes to the site. WSJ’s Dan Gallagher explains Musk’s proposed changes and the challenges he might face enacting them. Illustration: Jordan Kranse

The Twitter debt would be the latest to hit the market while high-yield credit is effectively unavailable to many borrowers, as buyers of corporate debt are demanding better terms and bargain prices over concerns about an economic slowdown.

That has dealt a significant blow to a business that represents an important source of revenue for Wall Street banks and has already suffered more than $1 billion in collective losses this year.

The biggest chunk of that came last month, when banks including Bank of America,

Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

and

Credit Suisse Group AG

sold debt associated with the $16.5 billion leveraged buyout of Citrix Systems Inc. Banks collectively lost more than $500 million on the purchase, the Journal reported.

Banks had to buy around $6 billion of Citrix’s debt themselves after it became clear that investors’ interest in the total debt package was muted.

“The recent Citrix deal suggests the market would struggle to digest the billions of loans and bonds contemplated by the original Twitter financing plan,” said Steven Hunter, chief executive at 9fin.

People familiar with Twitter’s debt-financing package said the banks built “flex” into the deal, which can help them reduce their losses. It enables them to raise the interest rates on the debt, meaning the company would be on the hook for higher interest costs, to try to attract more investors to buy it.

However, that flex is usually capped, and if investors still aren’t interested in the debt at higher interest rates, banks could eventually have to sell at a discount and absorb losses, or choose to hold the borrowings on their books.

Elon Musk has offered to close his acquisition of Twitter on the terms he originally agreed to.



Photo:

Mike Blake/REUTERS

The leveraged loans and bonds for Twitter are part of $46 billion of debt still waiting to be split up and sold by banks for buyout deals, according to Goldman data. That includes debt associated with deals including the roughly $16 billion purchase of

Nielsen Holdings

PLC, the $7 billion acquisition of automotive-products company

Tenneco

and the $8.6 billion takeover of media company

Tegna Inc.

Private-equity firms rely on leveraged loans and high-yield bonds to help pay for their largest deals. Banks generally parcel out leveraged loans to institutional investors such as mutual funds and collateralized-loan-obligation managers.

When banks can’t sell debt, that usually winds up costing them even if they choose not to sell at a loss. Holding loans and bonds can force them to add more regulatory capital to protect their balance sheets and limit the credit banks are willing to provide to others.

In past downturns, losses from leveraged finance have led to layoffs, and banks took years to rebuild their high-yield departments. Leveraged-loan and high-yield-bond volumes plummeted after the 2008 financial crisis as banks weren’t willing to add on more risk.

Indeed, many of Wall Street’s major banks are expected to trim the ranks of their leveraged-finance groups in the coming months, according to people familiar with the matter.

Still, experts say that banks look much better positioned to weather a downturn now, thanks to postcrisis regulations requiring more capital on balance sheets and better liquidity.

“Overall, the level of risk within the banking system now is just not the same as it was pre-financial crisis,” said Greg Hertrich, head of U.S. depository strategy at Nomura.

Last year was a banner year for private-equity deal making, with some $146 billion of loans issued for buyouts—the most since 2007.

However, continued losses from deals such as Citrix and potentially Twitter may continue to cool bank lending for M&A, as well as for companies that have low credit ratings in general.

“There’s going to be a period of risk aversion as the industry thinks through what are acceptable terms for new deals,” said Richard Ramsden, an analyst at Goldman covering the banking industry. “Until there’s clarity over that, there won’t be many new debt commitments.”

Write to Alexander Saeedy at alexander.saeedy@wsj.com, Laura Cooper at laura.cooper@wsj.com and Ben Dummett at ben.dummett@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Twitter, Elon Musk Talks Continue, Focus on Financing, Litigation

Representatives of

Twitter Inc.

TWTR -3.72%

and

Elon Musk

continued Thursday to work to hammer out an agreement that would allow the billionaire’s purchase of the social-media company to proceed, with the parties racing to seal a pact by Monday, a person familiar with the matter said.

Mr. Musk effectively kicked off the negotiations earlier this week with his surprise proposal to close the deal at its original price after seeking for months to get out of it.

The negotiations, which follow an earlier effort to negotiate a lower price, are focused on ensuring that Mr. Musk’s debt financing will remain in place and on conditions to stay litigation over the deal until it closes, as The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday. Mr. Musk is now requesting that the deal be contingent on his receipt of the necessary debt financing.

The lawyers are trying to reach an agreement that would pause a trial planned for Oct. 17 in the next few days, the person said. That would avert a deposition from Mr. Musk, which after being postponed is now scheduled for Monday.

The idea is to put the litigation on hold until the deal closes, at which point it would be dropped. That could take days or a few weeks.

Meanwhile, Mr. Musk’s team in a Thursday filing asked the court to stay the lawsuit. It said in the filing that the financing banks are working to fund the deal so it can close, which it expects to happen on or around Oct. 28. His team argues that proceeding with the litigation, as it says Twitter prefers, could keep the deal in limbo longer.

The two sides remain in active dialogue and things could change quickly, the person cautioned.

Mr. Musk agreed to buy Twitter in April for $54.20 a share, or $44 billion. He later moved to get out of the deal, claiming among other things that Twitter had misrepresented the number of bots on its platform. Twitter sued him over the summer and he countersued.

Renewed uncertainty about the deal has weighed on Twitter shares, which closed down 3.7% at $49.39 Thursday. They had shot up above $52 earlier in the week after Mr. Musk signaled a willingness to close the deal after all.

Write to Cara Lombardo at cara.lombardo@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Elon Musk and Twitter at Odds Over Terms of Agreement to Close Deal

Representatives of Elon Musk and Twitter Inc. are still grappling with terms of an agreement that would enable the purchase of the social-media company to proceed, continuing a monthslong drama surrounding the fate of the blockbuster deal.

The discussions are the latest the two sides have held as a courtroom clash draws nearer. They quietly held unsuccessful talks about a possible cut to the price of $44 billion for the social-media platform before Mr. Musk reversed course Monday and said he would return to the original agreement’s terms, people familiar with the matter said.

As of late Wednesday, representatives of Mr. Musk and Twitter were trying to hash out the details of his proposal this week to stick to that original agreement, the people familiar with the matter said. Sticking points include what would be required from both sides for litigation over the stalled deal to be dropped and whether the deal’s closing would be contingent on Mr. Musk receiving the necessary debt financing, some of the people said.

There was initially hope a deal could be reached Tuesday or Wednesday, averting a trial scheduled to start Oct. 17, the people said. The two sides have agreed to delay Mr. Musk’s deposition, which was scheduled to begin Thursday in Texas, some of the people said, to continue efforts to reach agreement on how to move forward.

The informal discussions about a cut in the $44 billion purchase price happened in a series of conference calls in recent weeks between lawyers and ended after the two sides failed to agree on terms of a potential deal, the people said.

The price-cut talks had broken off before Mr. Musk caught Twitter off-guard by sending Twitter’s lawyers a two-sentence letter proposing to move forward on the original terms.

Mr. Musk’s apparent change of heart Monday surprised many observers. The Tesla Inc. chief executive had spent the past several months trying to back out of the deal after alleging Twitter misled him about key elements of its business, including the amount of spam on its platform.

In July, Mr. Musk formally moved to walk away from the deal, prompting Twitter to sue him to follow through with the transaction on the agreed terms. Mr. Musk countersued, alleging Twitter misrepresented the condition of its business and key metrics about the users on its platform, which Twitter has denied.

For now, the Delaware Chancery Court judge presiding over the legal battle is pressing ahead with trial preparations.

Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick ordered Mr. Musk’s team Wednesday to search for any more possible electronic messages requested by Twitter as the two sides prepare for a five-day, nonjury trial in Wilmington, Del. She said neither party had moved to stop the litigation.

“The parties have not filed a stipulation to stay this action, nor has any party moved for a stay,” the judge wrote Wednesday. “I, therefore, continue to press on toward our trial set to begin on October 17.”

The Musk team has been aggressive in pushing for broad information from Twitter, including a range of employee communications and data related to spam and fake accounts. Those requests at times prompted frustration from Chancellor McCormick. She granted some requests but denied others, and once called Mr. Musk’s data requests “absurdly broad.”

Legal experts have maintained from the beginning that Twitter appeared to have the stronger case, in part because Mr. Musk waived due diligence before agreeing to the deal and the merger agreement gave Twitter the right to sue him to follow through with it under a concept called “specific performance.”

Still, even a small risk of Mr. Musk prevailing in a trial could be too much for a company the size of Twitter to bear. For this reason, the majority of broken deal cases end in negotiated settlements, often with a small price cut. Such was the case with litigation between LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE and Tiffany & Co. in 2020. Those parties agreed to a nearly 3% price cut to avert a trial.

While Twitter’s stock price has held up because of Mr. Musk’s potential acquisition, its performance has declined. The company reported a drop in revenue in the second quarter that it blamed on weakness in the advertising industry and uncertainty related to Mr. Musk’s acquisition.

Mr. Musk has given few specific details about his plans for Twitter, but he has said he wants to transform Twitter as a private company and unlock what he called its extraordinary potential as a platform for free speech.

Write to Cara Lombardo at cara.lombardo@wsj.com and Alexa Corse at alexa.corse@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Elon Musk’s Twitter Reversal Revives Takeover Bid for a Now-Weaker Firm

Elon Musk’s

latest about-face over his $44 billion deal to buy

Twitter Inc.

TWTR -1.35%

has him poised to take over a company that is weaker than it was before he tried to abandon the agreement—thanks in part to his own actions.

Broad economic concerns have intensified since July 8, when Mr. Musk made public his intention to terminate the deal. The Federal Reserve has raised interest rates by 0.75 percentage point at a second and third straight meeting, the Dow Jones Industrial Average last week fell into what investors call a bear market, and Twitter’s social-media rival

Snap Inc.

is slashing jobs.

While Twitter’s stock price has held up because of Mr. Musk’s potential acquisition, its performance has declined. The company reported a surprising decline in revenue in the second quarter that it blamed on weakness in the advertising industry and uncertainty related to Mr. Musk’s acquisition.

Twitter this year is expected by analysts to report one of its slowest annual rates of sales growth ever as a public company, at 4.5%. In 2021, revenue rose 37%.

Mr. Musk has given few specific details about his plans for Twitter, but the billionaire chief executive of

Tesla Inc.

has said he wants to transform Twitter as a private company and unlock what he called its extraordinary potential as a platform for free speech.

He has talked about modifying Twitter’s rules around content moderation, reducing its reliance on advertising—which provided more than 90% of its revenue in this year’s second quarter—and making Twitter’s algorithms open source, which would allow others to view and recommend changes. Mr. Musk also has proposed “defeating the spam bots and authenticating all humans.”

In texts released last week as part of the litigation between Twitter and Mr. Musk over his effort to abandon the deal, Mr. Musk said in April that his biggest concerns were Twitter’s head count and expense growth. He also said he wanted to oversee software development at Twitter and works better with engineers than people with business degrees.

Twitter will become a private company if Elon Musk’s $44 billion takeover bid is approved. The move would allow Mr. Musk to make changes to the site. WSJ’s Dan Gallagher explains Mr. Musk’s proposed changes and the challenges he might face enacting them. Illustration: Jordan Kranse

There are no guarantees that Mr. Musk will follow through with his proposal and close the transaction. Mr. Musk and Twitter are scheduled to go to trial Oct. 17 in Delaware over his effort to abandon the deal, and that could still go forward.

On Wednesday, the Delaware Chancery Court judge presiding over the legal battle said she is pressing ahead with preparing for the trial and issued a ruling that asked Mr. Musk’s legal team to produce more of his text messages to the extent they haven’t done so already.

Should a deal occur and avert a trial, the resolution could ease some of the uncertainty surrounding the company’s future.

“Assuming the deal closes, it’s a good price for shareholders,” said Jason Goldman, former Twitter product chief and board member. “But it’s a bad outcome for everyone else,” including employees who have labored under the uncertainty and users who rely on the product, he said. Mr. Goldman said he didn’t think Mr. Musk has presented serious ideas about how he would lead such an influential platform.

Mr. Musk has proven doubters wrong before in becoming the world’s wealthiest person. He has turned Tesla into the world’s most valuable car company and a leader in electric vehicles, and his SpaceX company is the world’s busiest rocket-launch operation.

Mr. Musk’s legal team declined to comment Tuesday about his proposal. Twitter on Tuesday confirmed receipt of Mr. Musk’s letter and said it intends to close the transaction at the original price of $54.20 a share.

The outlook for the social-media industry has darkened in recent weeks.

Snap Inc.

in August said it was slashing one-fifth of its workforce and curbing investment in a range of areas after a slowdown in its business. Facebook parent

Meta Platforms Inc.

last week told employees it was implementing a hiring freeze and looking for other ways to cut costs.

In July, Twitter said in a regulatory filing that attrition was slightly higher than in normal economic times, but remained in line with current industry trends. Twitter said Tuesday that it had anticipated higher attrition this year even before the merger agreement.

In addition, Twitter’s former head of security,

Peiter Zatko,

emerged in August with a whistleblower complaint listing a litany of criticisms about the company’s management of security and privacy issues. That complaint prompted new scrutiny from Washington lawmakers. Twitter CEO

Parag Agrawal

told employees in a memo at the time that the spotlight on Twitter would “only make our work harder.” Twitter also said that Mr. Zatko’s claims were inaccurate.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

If the deal goes through, how do you think Elon Musk might change Twitter? Join the conversation below.

Despite the industry’s challenges, Twitter said in July that its audience has grown, reporting a second-quarter average of 237.8 million monetizable daily active users, up 17% from the same period a year earlier. Advertising revenue increased 2% in the second quarter compared with the year-earlier period.

Mr. Musk, when he met with Twitter employees in June, was asked about what he would consider successful for Twitter five to 10 years from now, and said a substantial increase in daily active users to over a billion, according to people familiar with the meeting. He also said during the meeting that Twitter should be entertaining, like TikTok, and that he admired the Chinese app

WeChat,

which is used heavily in China for a range of purposes including e-commerce and social networking.

Asked about his stance on free speech, Mr. Musk drew a distinction between freedom of speech and freedom of reach, according to attendees. He said that meant people should be allowed to say pretty outrageous things within the law but didn’t necessarily deserve to have their tweets amplified and spread virally across Twitter.

In the texts released last week, Mr. Musk said in April, “Twitter is obviously not going to be turned into some right wing nuthouse. Aiming to be as broadly inclusive as possible.”

Accomplishing that balance will be a challenge, content-moderation analysts said Tuesday.

“Elon Musk and his new leadership are about to get a crash course in the complexities of moderating harmful content,” said Eddie Perez, a former Twitter employee who worked on civic integrity and misleading information and is a board member at the OSET Institute, a nonpartisan election-technology group.

Write to Alexa Corse at alexa.corse@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Humana, CVS Circle Cano Health as Potential Buyers

Humana Inc.

HUM 0.67%

and

CVS Health Corp.

CVS 0.06%

are circling

Cano Health Inc.,

CANO 32.17%

according to people familiar with the situation, as healthcare heavyweights scramble to snap up primary-care providers.

The talks are serious and a deal to purchase Cano could be struck in the next several weeks, assuming the negotiations don’t fall apart, some of the people said. Cano shares, which had been down nearly 7%, turned positive and closed up 32% after The Wall Street Journal reported on the talks with Humana and other unnamed parties, giving the company a market value of roughly $4 billion.

Bloomberg subsequently reported CVS’s interest.

It couldn’t be learned which other potential buyers might be in the mix, but Cano could be Humana’s to lose as the health insurer has a right of first refusal on any sale, part of an agreement that was originally struck in 2019.

Miami-based Cano operates primary-care centers in California, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Illinois, New York, New Jersey and Puerto Rico, according to documentation from the company. It mainly serves Medicare Advantage members, a private-sector alternative to Medicare for seniors.

Ties between the companies run deep: Cano was Humana’s biggest independent primary-care provider in Florida, serving over 68,000 of its Medicare Advantage members at the end of last year, according to a securities filing. Cano also operated 11 medical centers in Texas and Nevada for which Humana is the exclusive health plan for Medicare Advantage, the filing added.

Humana has already established a footprint in primary care, which it continues to expand. Earlier this year, its CenterWell Senior Primary Care business joined with private-equity firm Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe to open about 100 new senior-focused primary-care clinics between 2023 and 2025, building on an earlier, similar partnership.

At its investor day last week, Humana’s chief executive,

Bruce Broussard,

said that the company sees a total addressable market of over $700 billion in “value-based” primary care for seniors. He noted that Humana has accelerated its investment in the sector over the past five years, becoming the nation’s largest senior-focused primary-care provider.

There has been a frenzy of deal making involving large companies scooping up primary-care assets as a means of getting closer to patients and providing them more personal service.

Amazon.com Inc.

agreed to purchase the parent of primary-care clinic operator One Medical for about $3.9 billion in July, while CVS Health Corp. agreed to buy

Signify Health Inc.

for $8 billion earlier this month.

Cano went public in 2020 through a special-purpose acquisition vehicle backed by real-estate investor

Barry Sternlicht,

who sits on its board. The deal valued the company at $4.4 billion.

Cano has been the target of two shareholder activists this year, both of which independently pushed for its sale.

Dan Loeb’s

Third Point LLC currently has a roughly 5% stake in the healthcare company. In March, he pointed to the market’s unfavorable view of companies that went public through SPACs as a reason to explore strategic alternatives.

Then in late August, Owl Creek Asset Management LP sent a letter to Cano’s board stating that it had amassed a roughly 4% stake and urged the company to hire investment bankers to explore a sale to a strategic buyer.

Cano has been backed by health-care-focused private-equity firm InTandem Capital Partners since 2016. The firm mainly makes investments in small-to-midsize companies.

Write to Laura Cooper at laura.cooper@wsj.com and Dana Cimilluca at dana.cimilluca@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Appeared in the September 23, 2022, print edition as ‘Humana, CVS Target Cano Health.’

Read original article here

Judge Rejects Antitrust Challenge to UnitedHealth Acquisition

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols ruled for the companies in an opinion that he kept under seal for now because he said it “may contain competitively sensitive information.” The judge said he would release a redacted public version of the ruling in the coming days. In a one-page public order, he denied the Justice Department’s request to block the companies from completing the deal.

The court ruling represents an early blow to stepped-up antitrust enforcement by the Biden administration, which sued in February to block the deal. The Justice Department’s top antitrust official,

Jonathan Kanter,

said the department disagreed with the decision and was considering its next steps.

“Protecting competition and access to affordable healthcare is of the utmost importance to the antitrust division and the Department of Justice,” Mr. Kanter said.

The decision is a triumph for UnitedHealth, which owns the largest U.S. health insurer and a healthcare operation that comprises thousands of doctors as well as clinics, surgery centers and other assets, along with a powerful conglomeration of health data.

In a statement, a UnitedHealth spokesman said, “We are pleased with the decision and look forward to combining with Change Healthcare as quickly as possible so that together we can continue our work to make the health system work better for everyone.”

Change provides services related to payment processes for healthcare systems, analytics for financing and billing and tools that help hospitals make decisions about patient care.

UnitedHealth had agreed to divest business assets related to claims-processing to address competition concerns, an offer the Justice Department had dismissed as insufficient.

Judge Nichols in his order required UnitedHealth to make that divestiture.

UnitedHealth’s deal for Change, announced in January 2021, will bring the health-technology company under the company’s Optum health-services arm. UnitedHealth had argued that its combination with Change could help improve care by getting better information to doctors, and reduce waste. It agreed to pay nearly $8 billion for Change and assume about $5 billion in debt.

The Justice Department had argued that the deal would give UnitedHealth a virtual monopoly on an important tool that health insurers use to determine when a claim should be paid. And it said the company shouldn’t be allowed to own Change Healthcare’s data clearinghouse, which rival insurers use to compete with UnitedHealth.

The judge, an appointee of former President

Donald Trump,

signaled his skepticism of the lawsuit in a hearing earlier this month. A trial took place in August.

The lawsuit was part of an early batch of antitrust cases brought by the Justice Department under President Biden, a Democrat, that were designed to take a harder line on corporate deal activity. Among other cases, the department is waiting on a ruling in its challenge to a major publishing industry deal, Penguin Random House’s planned acquisition of Simon & Schuster. And it is preparing to go to trial next week in its lawsuit challenging a partnership between

American Airlines Group Inc.

and

JetBlue Airways Corp.

The current crop of antitrust officials, backed by calls from Democrats for a more aggressive approach, have sought to set new court precedents that would steer the law in a broader direction, after years of rulings in which the judiciary has tended to read the antitrust laws more narrowly than a generation ago. Monday’s decision served as a reminder that the Justice Department’s goals are dependent on proving their cases in front of a judge.

The Federal Trade Commission, which shares antitrust authority with the department, also is facing hurdles. It recently lost a ruling from its own in-house administrative law judge, in a case where it was challenging

Illumina Inc.’s

acquisition of cancer-testing developer Grail Inc.

Monday’s decision comes as UnitedHealth and its rivals have continued to move more deeply into vertical integration of health assets, spanning insurance and healthcare provider businesses, as well as pulling together ever-larger troves of health data.

Even after the Justice Department filed suit to block the Change deal, UnitedHealth moved ahead with other acquisitions, including a $5.4 billion takeover of home-health company

LHC Group Inc.

announced last March.

Earlier this month,

CVS Health Corp.

—the parent of health insurer Aetna, a pharmacy-benefit operation and its eponymous drugstores—announced an $8 billion deal to take over home-healthcare company Signify Health Inc. CVS has said it wants to get deeper into the business of primary care.

Write to Anna Wilde Mathews at anna.mathews@wsj.com and Brent Kendall at brent.kendall@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Opinion: Adobe’s stock got slammed for spending $20 billion on Figma. But it now owns a rare company.

Adobe beat revenue and profit expectations, and on the same day announced it would acquire a smaller but faster-growing rival in online design-collaboration tools. The stock market rewarded the company by pushing down its shares
ADBE,
-3.12%
to the lowest level in almost three years. 

Investors punished the company not for its earnings report, released Thursday, but for their disdain of the Figma deal. Specifically, the deal’s price. 

Read: Nervous investors are slamming tech deals. Just look at Adobe.

In a $20 billion half-cash, half-stock transaction, Figma became the highest-multiple cloud-scale SaaS deal ever done. An estimated $400 million in revenue for all of 2022 marks this deal at around 50 times this year’s revenue in what I believe to be the second-largest software as a service deal in history. 

In this market, where growth is persona non grata, the market deemed this deal a bridge too far. However, in this case, the market may have gotten this wrong.

Figma is among the fastest-growing companies 

If you aren’t familiar with Figma, it’s a red-hot, venture-backed (before Thursday) company that makes collaboration tools used for digital experiences. While Figma was founded in 2011, the first five years were spent trying to get to product. The company printed its first dollar in revenue in 2017 and will hit $400 million in annual recurring revenue (ARR) in 2022. 

For those who aren’t familiar with SaaS economics, hitting $400 million in recurring revenue in just over 10 years is remarkable. However, doing so five years from the first dollar of revenue is even more impressive.

For reference, the average cloud-scale SaaS company books $10 million in revenue after about 4.5 years, according to Kimchi Hill. In the same study, assessing more than 72 SaaS companies that reached $100 million, only eight did so in less than five years from the first dollar — and that was precisely $100 million. Most take five to 10 years to hit $100 million, and well-known names like DocuSign
DOCU,
-6.14%,
Coupa
COUP,
-4.28%,
RingCentral
RNG,
-5.34%
and Five9
FIVN,
-4.22%
took 10 to 15 years. 

Beyond its speedy growth, the company is also performing in a way that should have been lauded by at least the savviest of investors. Its 150% net customer retention rate, 90% gross margins, high organic growth and positive operating cash flow make it more of what investors want in a company today. Adobe already grows in the double digits, plays in attractive markets, compounds ARR and, at this point, has seen its multiple come way down off its highs. 

It is also worth considering how Figma may benefit from Adobe’s strong market position, known product portfolio and defined channels, and go-to-market strategies to speed its growth in this space with a total addressable market of about $16.5 billion. 

Rare companies are still rare 

Perhaps it sounds as if I’m gushing over this deal. I want to be clear that I am not. At least not yet.

However, the hive mind of the market can be quite perplexing at times, and there is a data-driven story here that justifies Adobe’s decision to buy Figma at such a lofty price. Unfortunately, we won’t know with any certainty for five or even 10 years. Investors may not like that, but Adobe’s longevity depends on operating with the longer term in mind. 

Tough economy or not, rare companies are still rare, and Figma is traversing market conditions and delivering growth in a large market, drawing Adobe in at an unprecedented price. Perhaps higher than it should have, or could have, paid. 

However, based on its rapid revenue growth, strong net dollar retention, 100% growth rate in 2022, massive margins and apparent synergies across the Adobe portfolio, it may be Adobe that has the last laugh on this one. 

Daniel Newman is the principal analyst at Futurum Research, which provides or has provided research, analysis, advising or consulting to Adobe, Five9 and dozens of other technology companies. Neither he nor his firm holds any equity positions in companies cited. Follow him on Twitter @danielnewmanUV.



Read original article here

Meet the 30-year-old on the verge of selling his company to Adobe for $20B

Almost overnight, this 30-year-old has become the tech world’s newest titan — and is poised to become one of the world’s youngest billionaires.

Dylan Field, the co-founder and CEO of San Francisco-based Figma, is on the cusp of an epic windfall after Adobe
ADBE,
-3.12%
announced plans to acquire his company for $20 billion this week. Field will stay on with Figma (which makes collaborative design tools), and he reportedly owns a a sizable stake in his company. Forbes estimated it at 10%, which means Field could be looking at a $2 billion payday from the deal. (Field declined to provide details of his ownership share with MarketWatch.)

Considered something of an upstart rival to Adobe, Figma describes itself as a “design platform for teams who build products together.” Its distinguishing factor is that it’s cloud-based, which has made its products especially valuable to designers and other workers separated physically from one another during the pandemic — or to those continuing to collaborate in today’s hybrid work environment.

And Adobe clearly saw value in Figma’s model. The acquisition is said to be the largest in Adobe’s history, although some Wall Street analysts have questioned whether it paid too much. (What’s more, Adobe’s shares tumbled toward their worst week since 2002 in light of the news.) But Adobe chief executive Shantanu Narayen advised investors that the deal will “significantly expand our reach and market opportunity.”

Either way, it’s a mighty leap for Field, who started Figma with Evan Wallace, a one-time Brown University classmate, in 2012. As a Wall Street Journal story noted, Field was living in a gritty San Francisco apartment just four years ago, and buying dollar cups of coffee on his way to work.

“I had a very small sip of Champagne last night.”


— Dylan Field, co-founder and CEO of Figma

On Friday, MarketWatch caught up with Field, who grew up in northern California, to learn more about the Adobe deal — and how it will change his life. Here is some of what he had to say (some comments have been edited for brevity and clarity):

On how Field’s life may change with the payout from Adobe: While Field wouldn’t discuss the specifics of what he’ll earn from the deal, he doesn’t deny he stands to benefit significantly. He says he’s not thinking about much beyond his company and its next chapter. “Right now, I’m just all in on Figma and trying to think about how to make Figma successful, especially in this new context,” he says. In other words, he’s not yet planning on colonizing Mars with his riches a la Elon Musk.

But Field admits he’s still pretty buzzed about the events of the past week. “It’s very cool though, I’m not going to lie,” he says.

On how he celebrated the deal: Field is known to love wine, but he says he hasn’t been drinking much in the last few weeks because he’s been so focused on his work and the deal. Nevertheless, he says, “I had a very small sip of Champagne last night” with the Figma team.

On Figma’s value proposition: Put simply, it’s all about the ability to work together via the cloud. “We’re able to make it collaborative,” says Field of the tools that Figma offers. “So, if you’re a designer and I’m an engineer, no longer do we have to exchange files back and forth… We can make edits together. We can riff off each other’s ideas. That collaboration mattered to a lot of our customers.”

A newer product that Figma offers is FigJam, which Field describes as a “whiteboard solution.” The thought behind it, Field explains, is “that we can help people go from ideation and brainstorming into the design process and all the way to production.”

On why and how the Adobe deal came together: Field notes that when he co-founded the company there was a serious question as to whether the world had enough designers to make Figma a viable entity. “We weren’t sure there’s a big enough market here,” he says. But with the world going ever more digital — and, by extension, tapping increasingly into digital design tools — the design community has flourished, and the need for good design has become ubiquitous. “Every company has to care about design,” he says.

“Adobe’s mission is creativity for all, Figma’s mission has been to make design accessible for all. Those are two sides of the same coin in some ways.”


— Dylan Field, co-founder and CEO of Figma

Thus, Adobe’s desire to tap into what Figma offers its customers as a leading-edge digital design platform, Field explains. And not just tap into it, but also help Figma expand its platform through adding different tools and capabilities — not only for the designer audience, but also for the broader creative audience. “That got us really excited, because it accelerates the impact that we already wanted to have, but also scales the impact,” Field says.

On Figma’s image as an “Adobe killer”: Yes, Figma has been described as that. And Field once even tweeted, “Our goal is to be Figma not Adobe.” Field says he still stands by the remark in that the two companies are distinct in certain respects, although he also notes they ultimately share similar goals: “Adobe’s mission is creativity for all; Figma’s mission has been to make design accessible for all. Those are two sides of the same coin in some ways.” He adds that both companies are aligned “around craftsmanship and community” and “there’s so much we can do together.”

On Field’s views about education: Much has been made of the fact that Field didn’t graduate from college — he attended Brown University, but left in his junior year to start his entrepreneurial career (he got accepted for a fellowship program run by financier Peter Thiel). Field says he is not anti-college per se. “I care a lot about learning, and (going to) a university can be a great way to do that in a structured fashion.” But he also says there are other ways to gain knowledge, pointing to online courses that are readily available. As a result, Field finds it hard to fathom that a lot of companies still require college degrees of applicants. “I think they’re missing out on a lot of great talent,” he says.



Read original article here

Oil Royalty and Mineral Companies Sitio and Brigham to Merge in $4 Billion Tie-Up

Sitio Royalties Corp.

and

Brigham Minerals Inc.

have reached a deal to merge to form one of the largest publicly traded mineral and royalty companies in the U.S., worth about $4 billion, the companies announced Tuesday.

Sitio and Brigham, like the rest of the industry, both have had increasing profits in the past few months on the back of rising oil prices. Combining the two companies would allow the new entity to achieve economies of scale and become a leader in the minerals-rights industry, the companies said.

“The mineral and royalty space benefits from scale unlike any other business in the energy value chain,” Sitio Chief Executive Officer

Chris Conoscenti

said in an interview Monday.

After the deal was announced, shares of Sitio fell about 2% to $24.71 in morning trading. Brigham stock fell 3.54% to $28.36.

Mineral owners take home a cut of the oil and gas pumped on their land in the form of royalty payments, often 12.5% to 20% of the value of the fuel. They don’t control the pace of development, but they aren’t on the hook for drilling or overhead costs, either, and they reap the benefits of high commodity prices.

Both Brigham Minerals and Sitio have been making substantial acquisitions this year in the oil-rich Permian basin.



Photo:

Michael Nagle/Bloomberg News

Upon the deal’s closing,

Noam Lockshin,

a partner at private-equity firm Kimmeridge Energy Management, which currently owns 43.2% of Sitio’s shares outstanding, would become chairman of the new company, the companies said. Mr. Lockshin currently serves as chairman of Sitio. Mr. Conoscenti will serve as CEO of the combined company, which will be based in Denver and operate under the name Sitio.

The all-stock deal is expected to close in the first quarter of 2023, according to the companies. Under the terms of the deal, Sitio’s shareholders will own about 54% of the company, while Brigham’s will own the remaining 46%, the companies said.

Both Sitio and Brigham have been pursuing a consolidation strategy in the oil-rich Permian basin of West Texas and New Mexico, making substantial acquisitions this year.

Sitio was formed after the merger of Kimmeridge-owned Desert Peak Minerals Inc. and

Blackstone Inc.

-backed Falcon Minerals Corp. earlier this year.

Brigham has announced mineral and royalty interest deals in the region worth about $150 million so far this year. Sitio, meanwhile, purchased more than 40,000 net royalty acres in the Permian in the second and third quarters of the year, the company told investors last month, including a roughly $323 million acquisition in June.

The newly formed company would have interests in more than 34% of all wells drilled in the Permian in the fourth quarter of 2021, the companies said.

Brigham CEO

Robert Roosa

said last month he is bullish on oil prices, citing supply-chain issues that limit production in the oil patch, issues related to Russia’s energy supplies, the need to refill the drawn-down Strategic Petroleum Reserve and what he described as the inability of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to ramp up production.

“We’ve seen long-term structural advantages to being in energy,” he told investors.

Write to Benoît Morenne at benoit.morenne@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here