Napster Said It Raised $3 Billion From a Mystery Investor. But Now the 'Investor' and 'Money' Are Gone (forbes.com) 41
An anonymous reader shared this report from Forbes:
On November 20, at approximately 4 p.m. Eastern time, Napster held an online meeting for its shareholders; an estimated 700 of roughly 1,500 including employees, former employees and individual investors tuned in. That's when its CEO John Acunto told everyone he believed that the never-identified big investor — who the company had insisted put in $3.36 billion at a $12 billion valuation in January, which would have made it one of the year's biggest fundraises — was not going to come through.
In an email sent out shortly after, it told existing investors that some would get a bigger percentage of the company, due to the canceled shares, and went on to describe itself as a "victim of misconduct," adding that it was "assisting law enforcement with their ongoing investigations." As for the promised tender offer, which would have allowed shareholders to cash out, that too was called off. "Since that investor was also behind the potential tender, we also no longer believe that will occur," the company wrote in the email.
At this point it seems unlikely that getting bigger stakes in the business will make any of the investors too happy. The company had been stringing its employees and investors along for nearly a year with ever-changing promises of an impending cash infusion and chances to sell their shares in a tender offer that would change everything. In fact, it was the fourth time since 2022 they've been told they could soon cash out via a tender offer, and the fourth time the potential deal fell through. Napster spokesperson Gillian Sheldon said certain statements about the fundraise "were made in good faith based on what we understood at the time. We have since uncovered indications of misconduct that suggest the information provided to us then was not accurate."
The article notes America's Department of Justice has launched an investigation (in which Napster is not a target), while the Securities and Exchange Commission has a separate ongoing investigation from 2022 into Napster's scrapped reverse merger.
While Napster announced they'd been acquired for $207 million by a tech company named Infinite Reality, Forbes says that company faced "a string of lawsuits from creditors alleging unpaid bills, a federal lawsuit to enforce compliance with an SEC subpoena (now dismissed) and exaggerated claims about the extent of their partnerships with Manchester City Football Club and Google. The company also touted 'top-tier' investors who never directly invested in the firm, and its anonymous $3 billion investment that its spokesperson told Forbes in March was in "an Infinite Reality account and is available to us" and that they were 'actively leveraging' it..."
And by the end, "Napster appears to have been scrambling to raise cash to keep the lights on, working with brokers and investment advisors including a few who had previously gotten into trouble with regulators.... If it turns out that Napster knew the fundraise wasn't happening and it benefited from misrepresenting itself to investors or acquirees, it could face much bigger problems. That's because doing so could be considered securities fraud."
In an email sent out shortly after, it told existing investors that some would get a bigger percentage of the company, due to the canceled shares, and went on to describe itself as a "victim of misconduct," adding that it was "assisting law enforcement with their ongoing investigations." As for the promised tender offer, which would have allowed shareholders to cash out, that too was called off. "Since that investor was also behind the potential tender, we also no longer believe that will occur," the company wrote in the email.
At this point it seems unlikely that getting bigger stakes in the business will make any of the investors too happy. The company had been stringing its employees and investors along for nearly a year with ever-changing promises of an impending cash infusion and chances to sell their shares in a tender offer that would change everything. In fact, it was the fourth time since 2022 they've been told they could soon cash out via a tender offer, and the fourth time the potential deal fell through. Napster spokesperson Gillian Sheldon said certain statements about the fundraise "were made in good faith based on what we understood at the time. We have since uncovered indications of misconduct that suggest the information provided to us then was not accurate."
The article notes America's Department of Justice has launched an investigation (in which Napster is not a target), while the Securities and Exchange Commission has a separate ongoing investigation from 2022 into Napster's scrapped reverse merger.
While Napster announced they'd been acquired for $207 million by a tech company named Infinite Reality, Forbes says that company faced "a string of lawsuits from creditors alleging unpaid bills, a federal lawsuit to enforce compliance with an SEC subpoena (now dismissed) and exaggerated claims about the extent of their partnerships with Manchester City Football Club and Google. The company also touted 'top-tier' investors who never directly invested in the firm, and its anonymous $3 billion investment that its spokesperson told Forbes in March was in "an Infinite Reality account and is available to us" and that they were 'actively leveraging' it..."
And by the end, "Napster appears to have been scrambling to raise cash to keep the lights on, working with brokers and investment advisors including a few who had previously gotten into trouble with regulators.... If it turns out that Napster knew the fundraise wasn't happening and it benefited from misrepresenting itself to investors or acquirees, it could face much bigger problems. That's because doing so could be considered securities fraud."
Kinda like.... (Score:2, Funny)
bitcon?
Re: Kinda like.... (Score:2)
Re: Kinda like.... (Score:1)
Who? (Score:5, Funny)
Who is Napster?
Re: (Score:3)
Wall street? I think all the lead con artists are located in the Bay Area now.
Re: (Score:2)
I know who Napster was, about 25 years ago.
But who are they now, other than some zombie trademark?
Napster?? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Napster?? (Score:2)
I hear whatever's left of AT&T's telegraph operation can be had for a steal and is sure to take off like a rocket any time now.
Re: Napster?? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I have over 10 of them, still sealed! I know what my relatives are getting for Xmas this year.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
surprise (Score:5, Funny)
I'm confused (Score:3)
Worse, did Napster management pay this mystery inv (Score:5, Interesting)
I worked with startups. We had this mystery investor who promised to pump our valuation into the stratosphere. Kinda like a $200M company thinking they could get $12B valuation. Problem was, mystery investor wanted a "small" due diligence payment. If we paid it, they would bill against it and disappear.
are there any actual adults in the room (Score:1)
Whew (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I would be so utterly disappointed and surprised if Napster had somehow grown up into a stable, solvent, law-abiding corporation.
Hate to disappoint...but it was exactly that for longer than it was the P2P network from which it got its notoriety.
Circa 2003, Napster came back [slashdot.org] as a legit music seller, just like iTunes. They spent a few years selling DRM'd WMA files, but they were between a rock and a hard place because Apple wouldn't license the iTunes DRM that worked on iPods, nor would they license Microsoft's WMA format, and the RIAA wasn't about to let them sell ordinary MP3 files without DRM (God knows how Amazon managed to score t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm betting you used to get really worked up in those "hacker vs. cracker" arguments too.
And what's the deal with herbal "tea"?!
Idiotic take on "securities fraud" (Score:5, Insightful)
> If it turns out that Napster knew the fundraise wasn't happening and it benefited from misrepresenting itself to investors or acquirees, it could face much bigger problems. That's because doing so could be considered securities fraud."
It's not "could be", it just is. Manipulating investors through false information is the literal textbook definition of securities fraud. Whether they are guilty is an entirely seperate issue from the meaning of "benefited from misrepresenting itself to investors". That's like saying "this thing that weighs a lot could be considered heavy".
Re: Idiotic take on "securities fraud" (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure securities fraud is the US Core Competence - so, perhaps Napster will be commended?
Matt Levine will be along soon... (Score:2)
... to tell us how everything is securities fraud and sometimes accounting fraud too.
$0.2B to $12.6B valuation in 8 months?!? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The reason scams like this are illegal is because there is always plenty of pople who believe this crap against all rationality. If regular people were able to fact-check, scammers would die out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No argument about that. Applies not only to governments, but to anybody that want power in order to control people (that is why most, but not all people go into politics). Hence religion, cults, company structures, even some people in groups of social media have this. It boils down to dominance in some form and it not a positive personality trait.
Feeling sorry for the llama (Score:5, Funny)
It got its ass whipped again for no reason.
Sounds like CEO was running a scam itself.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
\o/ (Score:2)
Is it only me that wondered if this post was stuck in the publication queue for twenty years?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: \o/ (Score:1)
+1 informative. Bonus points for details.
How do I submit a feature request to whichever website tracks congressional donations - it would be super helpful if it also listed the subject(s) of the bribery.
Re: \o/ (Score:1)
It seems like a multi-fail as music is already free and n00bs don't know what it used to be so the name is worthless.
Metallica (Score:1)