Re:Splunk acquires cloud monitoring service SignalFx for $1.05B
by mlyle on Wednesday August 21, 2019 @10:14PM
(#20764012)
Yes, but that's pretty rare, because it doesn't make much sense.
A much more common carveout would be something like this:
- A $15M acquisition of a distressed company that may very well be insolvent if the deal is not completed
- $10M is owed to investors to repay liquidity preferences
- A founder is gone who would get $1.5M of the remaining
- Any reasonable escrow fund, etc, on the $3.5M that would go to the remaining shareholders is not enough for the acquirer to be sure they retain key talent.
This deal can't be reasonably done with $15M split according to the capitalization table.
So instead, the investors take $9M (10% haircut, since they're first in line for any fall-back plan); $4M goes to existing shareholders (20% haircut)-- including that missing founder who now gets $1.2M; $2M is held in an escrow for people that the acquirer needs to keep.
This isn't a breach of fiduciary duty, because it's mostly being dictated by the acquirer and because no shareholder class ends up worse off than they'd be in any likely alternative.
A much more common carveout would be something like this:
- A $15M acquisition of a distressed company that may very well be insolvent if the deal is not completed
- $10M is owed to investors to repay liquidity preferences
- A founder is gone who would get $1.5M of the remaining
- Any reasonable escrow fund, etc, on the $3.5M that would go to the remaining shareholders is not enough for the acquirer to be sure they retain key talent.
This deal can't be reasonably done with $15M split according to the capitalization table.
So instead, the investors take $9M (10% haircut, since they're first in line for any fall-back plan); $4M goes to existing shareholders (20% haircut)-- including that missing founder who now gets $1.2M; $2M is held in an escrow for people that the acquirer needs to keep.
This isn't a breach of fiduciary duty, because it's mostly being dictated by the acquirer and because no shareholder class ends up worse off than they'd be in any likely alternative.