Rocky3
2 weeks ago
Some of the most interesting discussion in the filing:
At a meeting held on December 7, 2024, the Revance Board unanimously (i) determined that the A&R Merger Agreement, providing for the Offer and the Merger in accordance with Section 251(h) of the DGCL upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the A&R Merger Agreement, and the Transactions contemplated by the A&R Merger Agreement are advisable and in the best interests of Revance and Revance’s stockholders; (ii) approved the execution and delivery of the A&R Merger Agreement by Revance, the performance by Revance of its covenants and other obligations thereunder, and the consummation of the Offer and the Merger upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the A&R Merger Agreement; (iii) resolved to recommend that Revance’s stockholders tender their Shares to Merger Sub pursuant to the Offer, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the A&R Merger Agreement; and (iv) resolved that the Merger shall be effected under Section 251(h) of the DGCL. The Revance Board consulted with members of Revance management and representatives from Centerview and Skadden at various times, and considered a number of reasons, including the following non-exhaustive list of material reasons (not in any relative order of importance) that the members of the Revance Board participating in the decision believe support their unanimous decision and recommendation.
•
Business, Financial Condition and Prospects. The Revance Board considered certain factors, including, but not limited to, the current and historical financial condition, results of operations, business, market dynamics, competitive position, assets and prospects, as well as the long-range plan, of Revance and the execution risks associated with executing the long-range plan of Revance as a stand-alone company, including the impact of Revance entering into the Sixth Amendment and ANZ Agreement. Revance weighed the certainty of its stockholders realizing an upfront payment of $3.10 per Share in cash in the Offer and the Merger against the risks and uncertainties associated with Revance and its business as a stand-alone company (including the risk factors set forth in Revance’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the SEC on November 7, 2024 and its other public filings). The Revance Board also considered that given the Company’s forecasted liquidity based on the Company’s current operating plan and excluding any impact from the pending consummation of the Merger, there was substantial doubt about Revance’s ability to continue as a going concern and that in order to mitigate the substantial doubt to continue as a going concern, the Company may be required to refinance its debt, conduct additional offerings, restructure operations, sell assets or reduce operating expenses.
•
Market Dynamics. The Revance Board considered changes in the dynamics of the aesthetic injectable market and Revance’s performance and positioning in the market, including, among other things, (i) Revance’s ability to compete in an increasingly competitive neurotoxin and hyaluronic acid filler landscape, including several new entrants and additional expanded indications expected in both the Botulinum Toxin and Hyaluronic Acid Filler market, (ii) relatively flat growth in the US Hyaluronic Acid Filler Market, (iii) the slower than anticipated commercial trajectory of DAXXIFY® in both the cervical dystonia and glabellar lines indications, (iv) overall aesthetic injectable market headwinds, including frequency of patient visits softening and spend per visit down, (v) the trend toward increasing pricing pressure from aesthetic account consolidation and (vi) anticipated challenges with attracting and retaining top talent.
•
Financial Risks. The Revance Board considered the financial risk due to the size of Revance’s current debt and nearing maturities, which constrained Revance’s ability to fund DAXXIFY® clinical trials in therapeutics indications, ex-U.S. opportunities and further investment in U.S. aesthetics and therapeutics commercial infrastructure. Further, material operating expense reductions would likely be required to extend the cash runway of the Company which would further challenge revenue growth. The Revance Board also considered potential debt restructuring options, but all such options were likely to incur significant costs, carried significant risk or require significant equity dilution.
•
Cash Consideration; Certainty of Value. The Revance Board considered the fact that the Offer Price and Merger Consideration payable to Revance’s stockholders in the Offer and the Merger will consist entirely of cash, which will provide Revance stockholders with immediate liquidity and certainty of value. The
29
Revance Board believed this certainty of value was in the best interest of stockholders, especially when viewed against the risks and uncertainties associated with Revance’s stand-alone strategy and the potential impact of such risks and uncertainties on the trading price of Shares.
•
Negotiation Process. The Revance Board considered the fact that the terms of the Transactions were the result of robust, arms’ length negotiations conducted by Revance with the knowledge and at the direction of the Revance Board and with the assistance of independent financial and legal advisors. The Revance Board also considered that Revance engaged with multiple parties on their interests in pursuing a strategic transaction (as more fully described above in the section titled “—Background of the Offer and the Merger”). Additionally, the Revance Board considered the enhancements that Revance and its advisors were able to obtain as a result of negotiations with Crown, including the increase in Crown’s price per share to be paid at Closing from the October 30 Proposal and negotiating terms in the A&R Merger Agreement that increased the likelihood of completing the Offer and consummating the Merger. Finally, the Revance Board considered (i) Crown’s view of the then current value of Revance based on Revance’s recent performance, (ii) market conditions and Crown’s view of the impact of Revance entering into the Sixth Amendment and ANZ Distribution Agreement and (iii) Crown’s unwillingness to commence the tender offer to the Original Merger Agreement given Crown’s view of the change in value of Revance.
•
Potentially Interested Counterparties. The Revance Board considered, with the assistance of Revance management and advisors, the low likelihood that other strategic counterparties would engage with Revance on the same or a similar timeframe as Crown and on contractual terms and conditions superior to those contained in the A&R Merger Agreement. Following entry into the Original Merger Agreement, the Revance Board considered the fact that additional outreach to strategic counterparties would have violated the terms of the Original Merger Agreement and could therefore jeopardize a potential transaction with Crown and result in risks of leak and disruption to the existing process or to Revance’s employees and business and that, in the event a third-party became interested in pursuing a transaction on terms more favorable to Revance and its stockholders than those contemplated by the A&R Merger Agreement, the Revance Board would be able to respond to such a proposal due to the A&R Merger Agreement’s customary “fiduciary out” provisions. Under those provisions, Revance has the ability to terminate the A&R Merger Agreement and accept and enter into a definitive A&R Merger Agreement with respect to an unsolicited Superior Proposal (as defined in the A&R Merger Agreement) provided that Revance pays the termination fee to Crown. The Revance Board also considered the fact that any “don’t ask don’t waive” provision contained in Revance’s confidentiality agreements with other potentially interested parties would cease to be effective upon the execution of the A&R Merger Agreement and the announcement of the Transactions.
•
Strategic Alternatives. The Revance Board, with the assistance of Revance management and advisors, engaged in a comprehensive evaluation of strategic alternatives, including acquisitions of Revance or components of its business, additional capital raising, a merger, partnerships, collaborations and equity investments. During this process, Revance has engaged with over a dozen third parties across strategics and financial sponsors to determine interests in pursuing a transaction. As of August 11, 2024, Crown was the only party to submit a proposal in connection with a strategic transaction. As of the date hereof, Revance has not received any offer or proposal that constitutes a Superior Proposal or could reasonably be expected to lead to a Superior Proposal under the Original Merger Agreement.
•
Certain Management Projections. The Revance Board considered certain forecasts for Revance prepared by members of senior management, which reflected an application of various assumptions and scenarios of Revance’s management. The November Projections reflected Revance operating as a stand-alone business, in the absence of a deal with Crown, and incorporated management’s latest view of the market. These projections were provided to the Revance Board in connection with its consideration of the Offer and the Merger and to Centerview in connection with rendering their fairness opinions to the Revance Board. For further discussion, see “—Certain Financial Projections.”
•
Centerview’s Fairness Opinion and Related Analysis. The Revance Board considered the opinion of Centerview rendered to the Revance Board on December 7, 2024, which was subsequently confirmed by delivery of a written opinion dated such date that, as of such date and based upon and subject to the assumptions made, procedures followed, matters considered, and qualifications and limitations upon the
30
review undertaken by Centerview in preparing its opinion, the Merger Consideration to be paid to the holders of Shares (other than as specified in such opinion) pursuant to the A&R Merger Agreement was fair, from a financial point of view, to such holders, as more fully described below ”
soma2022
2 weeks ago
Over a dozen parties hosted at the Revance open house and it appears that a couple had real interest. My focus is on party B overture of $250M investment for majority control. In essence, they wanted to invest $250M for 50+% share ownership = just over 105M shares = a secondary offering at $2.40/share. I am not optimistic, but let's see how motivated they may be now that lower TO price has printed. Perhaps shareholders may be willing to accept a significant share dilution for the chance to recoup some losses if newco can right this ship rather than the Crown go private.
Highlights of the Schedule 14D-9:
On February 2, 2024, Party B, a strategic party, executed a non-disclosure agreement with Revance (the “Party B NDA”) in connection with Party B’s consideration of a potential strategic transaction with, or investment in, Revance. Prior to February 2024, Revance and Party B had general conversations related to the potential for the parties to consider a potential strategic transaction or other partnership opportunities, but no specific terms were discussed.
On March 4, 2024, Revance announced the pricing of an underwritten public offering of 16,000,000 Shares at a public offering price of $6.25 per share (except with respect to 30,000 Shares purchased by Mr. Foley at $6.98 per share).
[color=red]On April 3, 2024, Revance received a non-binding proposal from Crown indicating Crown’s interest in pursuing an acquisition of Revance for $9.25 per share in cash, which indicated that Crown’s proposed offer price would be subject to completion of customary due diligence (the “April Proposal”).[/color] The April Proposal represented a 105% premium to the closing stock price of Revance’s Shares on April 2, 2024, the last trading day prior to the April Proposal. The April Proposal was based on certain assumptions made by Crown, including its review of publicly available information, information provided to date, and preliminary discussions with Revance.
On July 22, 2024, Mr. Foley met with representatives from Party B to continue discussions regarding a potential collaboration for a minority investment. No specifics on valuation or investment amount were discussed.
On August 10, 2024, a representative of Centerview met with a representative of PJT to discuss the offer price per share based on Revance’s latest available internal capitalization information. The representative of PJT confirmed that based on the fully diluted equity value offer of $719 million, the final price per share based on updated capitalization information is $6.66 per share (the “Original Offer Price”).
August 16th, 2024 Teoxane Breach Claim.
On November 24, 2024, representatives of Party B and representatives of Revance management had a phone conversation (the “Party B Overture”) whereby Party B stated that in the event that the transaction contemplated by the Original Merger Agreement does not move forward, Party B would be interested in considering a potential transaction with Revance that would involve: (i) an investment up to $250,000,000 in Revance in exchange for a majority ownership position in Revance by Party B and (ii) a significant commercial relationship between Party B and Revance.
On December 9, 2024, representatives of Party P contacted representatives of Revance via Short Message Service (the “Party P Overture”) and stated that Party P would be interested in discussing whether there was a potential opportunity to make a counteroffer to the Buyer Parties’ Offer. Party P did not provide any further detail regarding the Party P Overture and as required under the A&R Merger Agreement, Revance did not request additional detail or engage with Party P.
Other Items:
Inability to Solicit Takeover Proposals. The A&R Merger Agreement contains covenants prohibiting Revance from soliciting other potential acquisition proposals and restricting its ability to entertain other potential acquisition proposals unless certain conditions are satisfied. The Revance Board also considered the fact that the right afforded to Crown under the A&R Merger Agreement to make adjustments to the terms and conditions of the A&R Merger Agreement based on an alternative acquisition proposal that the Revance Board determines in good faith is a Superior Proposal (as defined in the A&R Merger Agreement) may discourage other parties that might otherwise have an interest in a business combination with, or an acquisition of, Revance.
•
Termination Fee. Revance may be required to pay the $13,373,000 termination fee to Crown if the A&R Merger Agreement is terminated under certain circumstances, including by Revance to accept a Superior Proposal. The Revance Board considered the risk that the amount of the termination fee would deter potential alternative acquisition proposals.
mouton29
2 weeks ago
That Revance and its financial advisors have been shopping the company for some time and getting indications of interest from multiple parties, on and off, till a few days ago. The first approach by Hildred (owner of Crown) was in November 2023. Contact with a variety of third parties has continued since then. In my view, it seems highly unlikely a topping bid appears at this point, even from Teoxane.
In the "Reasons for the Recommendation" [by the Board in favor of the tender] on page 30 there is this summary:
Strategic Alternatives. The Revance Board, with the assistance of Revance management and advisors, engaged in a comprehensive evaluation of strategic alternatives, including acquisitions of Revance or components of its business, additional capital raising, a merger, partnerships, collaborations and equity investments. During this process, Revance has engaged with over a dozen third parties across strategics and financial sponsors to determine interests in pursuing a transaction. As of August 11, 2024, Crown was the only party to submit a proposal in connection with a strategic transaction. As of the date hereof, Revance has not received any offer or proposal that constitutes a Superior Proposal or could reasonably be expected to lead to a Superior Proposal under the Original Merger Agreement.
As to the settlement with Teoxane, there is this discussion:
Prior to entering into the Sixth Amendment and the ANZ Distribution Agreement, on October 24, 2024, Revance communicated the terms of both agreements to Crown and sought their approval pursuant to the terms of the Original Merger Agreement. Crown withheld such approval, including because it was Crown’s view that, with respect to the Sixth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment (i) increased the minimum payments due to Teoxane, beyond projected sales levels for the Teoxane products, (ii) created risk that the Distribution Agreement could be terminated by Teoxane prior to completion of the remaining license term, (iii) provided operating terms more burdensome than the prior arrangement under the Distribution Agreement and (iv) with respect to the ANZ Distribution Agreement, such agreement provided Teoxane with rights for the Australian market on terms that were highly unfavorable to Revance.
The entrance into this Amendment without Crown's consent was a breach of the merger agreement and gave Crown a walk right, if refusing consent was reasonable.
soma2022
2 weeks ago
Revance History and Where We Stand (My post from Nov 2023 is linked here: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173214109)
For what it is worth: EV back in Nov 2023 was $650M and EV of current TO is around $585M at Tender price of $3.10 and 105M shares, $427M debt, and my estimate of $165 to $170M cash at year end.
I am very surprised by the significantly lowered price and disappointed.
25 years of human work/effort to get here and develop a differentiated Neurotoxin that is superior on a price/performance/duration basis. Zero approval risk. Over $1B invested to get here, now approaching year 2 post commercial launch with continued and significant market uptake and injector growth while gradually closing in on the more rapid upswing phase of their growth curve from 2026 to 2030. I estimate forward 12 month Daxxify sales of over $150M (despite the transition to Crown) and over $140M annual sales of RHA past 12 months at 60 to 65% GMs. Sales force and mid levels being right sized and messaging and training and injection patterns getting optimized and perfected with high satisfaction rates for Daxxify and strong word of mouth. The product works well! Then add in the potential of therapeutic revenue once they have cash to restart trials in spasticity and support the CD launch in 2025 onward.
Crown is paying 60% below invested capital on a real basis while saving over 10 years of human drug development capital. Backing out the value of the RHA agreement, I feel Crown effectively paid around $400M for Daxxify. Let that sink in, and they have over $1B in carry forward losses on the books.
For a new NT competitor to come along and compete against Revance, they will have to spend over $1B in drug development costs and need at least 10 years to get to where Revance is today and you can simply buy Revance today at less than half that price fully de risked.
The implications are significant, and the Daxxify story is far from over. If anything, Daxxify just gained even more superiority on a cost/performance basis because of this. Kudos to Crown and their PE backer. This will go down as a master class in Vulture capital. A private Crown with no reporting requirements, running much leaner than Revance ever did, and having acquired their NT at 30 cents on the dollar on a real basis will wreak some havoc on the $2.5B US Neurotoxin market. For Allergan, Galderma, Evolus, Merz, etc to sit idly by and allow this acquisition at such a low price will come back to haunt them in ways they have not yet considered. Crown will almost certainly cannibalize pricing in the coming years. I predict that a $400M Daxxify acquisition price today will destroy over $150M a year in profit margins for the entire US NT market in the coming years. For this reason, Allergan and the others should have made sure to force Crown to pay up. The original $6.66 TO price = EV: $950M, IMO was the right price to keep Crown from causing too much damage to industry pricing.
I see Crown growing their Daxxify business over the next 2 to 3 years and then taking the company public again at a value 3 to 5x greater. Congratulations to the Crown team.
Though I am not optimistic, now that the low ball offer of $3.10 has printed, perhaps we get a competing bid from someone from a defensive strategy. Allergan paid over $2B for Coolsculpting and Kybella and those products had no significant market potential. Daxxify at this price to Crown stands to harm Allergan and the other NT cos significantly.
News
Market Data
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
DewDiligence
7 days ago
stocksrising
2 weeks ago
biotech_researcher
2 weeks ago
IanFromSI
2 weeks ago
