Reverse merger transactions seem to be trending upward. Here's what you need to know. Photo via Getty Images

Last year saw a record number of reverse merger transactions, with 398 reverse mergers valued at nearly $135 billion, according to figures tracked by Bloomberg Law.

Although 2021 marked the first time that many of such transactions involved special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), which totaled 246 out of the 398 transactions, it still marked 152 — a record-high number — non-SPAC reverse mergers.

What is a reverse merger?

The concept of a reverse merger, in short, holds that a privately held company acquires a publicly-traded company. In so doing, the private company can gain access to public equity markets without going through the lengthy process of an IPO filing. Although a reverse merger typically has the advantage of a shorter timeline over an IPO, there are still some requirements that companies involved in a reverse merger should keep in mind. This is particularly true as SEC scrutiny has recently increased around reverse mergers, both of the SPAC and traditional non-SPAC variety.

Among these requirements are the fair value measurements related to ASC 805, Business Combinations. In a reverse merger, like with all acquisitions, ASC 805 requires the allocation of the purchase consideration to identified tangible and intangible assets. However, in a reverse merger, the establishment of the purchase consideration to be allocated can be more difficult to accomplish.

Often, shares of the acquiring (private) company are issued as consideration, so the shares of the acquiring company may need to be valued. The value of private company shares to be issued might not always align exactly with the value of the acquired publicly-traded company; market conditions and other forces may bring about changes in the respective stock prices between the time that the transaction is announced and the time that it closes. The valuator should keep in close communication with the management of the acquirer, and the respective auditor, to ensure that there are no surprises when the transaction closes and the final purchase price allocation is performed.

What to consider about a reverse merger

Sometimes in a reverse merger, a question may arise as to whether a control premium should be applied to the consideration being paid. This will require the valuator to understand the terms of the purchase agreement and to understand whether a control element has already been priced into the transaction. For example, in the acquisition of a limited partnership, a general partner may have also been acquired in the transaction. Often, the amount paid for this general partnership interest may represent the “control” factor, i.e., the ability to affect change in the projected cash flows, above and beyond the acquisition of the limited partnership.

Another issue that may arise in a reverse merger is the existence of non-controlling interest. In some instances, certain shareholders may elect not to participate in the exchange transaction. In such instances, the value of the non-controlling interest would need to be measured, and this value would be based on the value of the stand-alone company in which the non-controlling interest is held, not on the value of the combined entity.

In the event of a reverse merger, these considerations, along with the associated accounting considerations, make it more critical than ever to have a strong, defensible valuation supporting the purchase price allocation.

------

Kevin Cannon is a director in Opportune’s Valuation practice based in Houston. He has 17 years of experience performing business and asset valuations and providing corporate finance consulting.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Houston startup taps strategic partner to produce novel 'biobased leather'

cleaner products

A Houston-based next-gen material startup has revealed a new strategic partnership.

Rheom Materials, formerly known as Bucha Bio, has announced a strategic partnership with thermoplastic extrusion and lamination company Bixby International, which is part of Rheom Material’s goal for commercial-scale production of its novel biobased material, Shorai.

Shorai is a biobased leather alternative that meets criteria for many companies wanting to incorporate sustainable materials. Shorai performs like traditional leather, but offers scalable production at a competitive price point. Extruded as a continuous sheet and having more than 92 percent biobased content, Shorai achieves an 80 percent reduction in carbon footprint compared to synthetic leather, according to Rheom.

Rheom, which is backed by Houston-based New Climate Ventures, will be allowing Bixby International to take a minority ownership stake in Rheom Materials as part of the deal.

“Partnering with Bixby International enables us to harness their extensive expertise in the extrusion industry and its entire supply chain, facilitating the successful scale-up of Shorai production,” Carolina Amin Ferril, CTO at Rheom Materials, says in a news release. “Their highly competitive and adaptable capabilities will allow us to offer more solutions and exceed our customers’ expectations.”

In late 2024, Rheom Materials started its first pilot-scale trial at the Bixby International facilities with the goal of producing Shorai for prototype samples.

"The scope of what we were doing — both on what raw materials we were using and what we were creating just kept expanding and growing," founder Zimri Hinshaw previously told InnovationMap.

Listen to Hinshaw on the Houston Innovators Podcast episode recorded in October.

Justice Department sues to block Houston-based HPE's $14B buyout of Juniper

M&A News

The Justice Department sued to block Hewlett Packard Enterprise's $14 billion acquisition of rival Juniper Networks on Thursday, the first attempt to stop a merger by a new Trump administration that is expected to take a softer approach to mergers.

The Justice complaint alleges that Hewlett Packer Enterprise, under increased competitive pressure from the fast-rising Juniper, was forced to discount products and services and invest more in its own innovation, eventually leading the company to simply buy its rival.

The lawsuit said that the combination of businesses would eliminate competition, raise prices and reduce innovation.

HPE and Juniper issued a joint statement Thursday, saying the companies strongly oppose the DOJ's decision.

“We will vigorously defend against the Department of Justice’s overreaching interpretation of antitrust laws and will demonstrate how this transaction will provide customers with greater innovation and choice, positively change the dynamics in the networking market,” the companies said.

The combined company would create more competition, not less, the companies said.

The Justice Department's intervention — the first of the new administration and just 10 days after Donald Trump's inauguration — comes as somewhat of a surprise. Most predicted a second Trump administration to ease up on antitrust enforcement and be more receptive to mergers and deal-making after years of hypervigilance under former President Joe Biden’s watch.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise announced one year ago that it was buying Juniper Networks for $40 a share in a deal expected to double HPE’s networking business.

In its complaint, the government painted a picture of Hewlett Packard Enterprise as a company desperate to keep up with a smaller rival that was taking its business.

HPE salespeople were concerned about the “Juniper threat,” the complaint said, also alleging that one former executive told his team that “there are no rules in a street fight,” encouraging them to “kill” Juniper when competing for sales opportunities.

The Justice Department said that Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper are the U.S.'s second- and third-largest providers of wireless local area network (WLAN) products and services for businesses.

“The proposed transaction between HPE and Juniper, if allowed to proceed, would further consolidate an already highly concentrated market — and leave U.S. enterprises facing two companies commanding over 70% of the market,” the complaint said, adding that Cisco Systems was the industry leader.

Many businesses and investors accused Biden regulatory agencies of antitrust overreach and were looking forward to a friendlier Trump administration.

Under Biden, the Federal Trade Commission sued to block a $24.6 billion merger between Kroger and Albertsons that would have been the largest grocery store merger in U.S. history. Two judges agreed with the FTC’s case, blocking the proposed deal in December.

In 2023, the Department of Justice, through the courts, forced American and JetBlue airlines to abandon their partnership in the northeast U.S., saying it would reduce competition and eventually cost consumers hundreds of millions of dollars a year. That partnership had the blessing of the Trump administration when it took effect in early 2021.

U.S. regulators also proposed last year to break up Google for maintaining an “abusive monopoly” through its market-dominate search engine, Chrome. Court hearings on Google’s punishment are scheduled to begin in April, with the judge aiming to issue a final decision before Labor Day. It’s unclear where the Trump administration stands on the case.

One merger that both Trump and Biden agreed shouldn’t go through is Nippon Steel’s proposed acquisition of U.S. Steel. Biden blocked the nearly $15 billion acquisition just before his term ended. The companies challenged that decision in a federal lawsuit early this year.

Trump has consistently voiced opposition to the deal, questioning why U.S. Steel would sell itself to a foreign company given the regime of new tariffs he has vowed.