Salesforce to buy Informatica for US$8 billion to bolster AI data tools
[NEW YORK] Salesforce said on Tuesday (May 27) it would buy Informatica for about US$8 billion, betting on the data management platform to sharpen its competitive edge in the booming artificial intelligence (AI) market.
The cloud software giant is returning to big-ticket M&A after years on the sidelines, driven by scrutiny from activist investors pressing for better profitability. Last year it shelved deal talks with Informatica after the companies failed to agree on deal terms.
The negotiations picked up steam again in early April, when a handful of potential buyers, including private equity firms and other companies, approached Informatica around the same time, according to a source familiar with the sale process.
Thoma Bravo and Cloud Software Group were part of the five interested buyers of the asset, that person and another source familiar with the process said. Thoma Bravo declined to comment, while Cloud Software Group was not immediately available to comment.
Buying Informatica, in its biggest deal since its nearly US$28 billion acquisition of Slack Technologies in 2021, would help Salesforce expand its data management tools as it doubles down on AI-powered products.
The deal would also allow Salesforce to tighten control over how business data is managed and used, an essential step as it races to embed generative AI deeper into its products.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign Up
Sign Up
'Salesforce and Informatica will create the most complete, agent-ready data platform in the industry,' said Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, adding the deal will strengthen its position in the US$150 billion-plus data enterprise market.
The company has been offering AI agents – programmes that can handle routine work without human supervision – to businesses for recruiting and customer service. It has closed more than 1,000 paid deals for 'Agentforce', its platform for creating AI-powered virtual representatives.
Salesforce is paying US$25 for each share of Informatica, a premium of about 30 per cent to Informatica's closing price on May 22, the day before news of renewed talks emerged.
Informatica shares were up 5.8 per cent in afternoon trading at US$23.86, while Salesforce was up 1.78 per cent.
Salesforce expects to close the deal in early next fiscal year starting February through a mix of cash and new debt. The deal is expected to boost its operating margin from the second year after closing.
Scotiabank analysts said the move could help Salesforce catch up with software rivals as 'data management software is now most often sold as part of mega-vendor tool kits'. The business software company has been a prolific dealmaker, buying data analytics firm Tableau Software in 2019 for US$15.7 billion in stock, and Slack in 2021 in its biggest deal.
Those deals drew scrutiny in 2023 when activist investors, including ValueAct Capital and Elliott Management, pressed for changes to improve profitability. REUTERS
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
4 hours ago
- Straits Times
The pro-doping Enhanced Games are partly the Olympics' fault
NEW YORK – Performance-enhancing drugs destroy the bodies, minds and reputations of athletes. Nonetheless, a group of investors, including Peter Thiel and Donald Trump Jr, see a business opportunity. They recently announced the first edition of the Enhanced Games – a kind of doping Olympics in which athletes are allowed and even encouraged to take PEDs – which will be held in Las Vegas next May. It is a perverse concept, but that has not stopped four Olympians from already signing on. Other athletes will likely follow, lured by millions of dollars in prize money and appearance fees. The actual Olympics have nothing to do with this, but the world's most popular sporting event is not blameless. Its business model, under which athletes are paid little – if anything – creates the opportunity for something as warped as a sporting event that encourages doping to emerge. Consider the dilemma faced by Kristian Gkolomeev, an accomplished 31-year-old swimmer who has competed in the last four Summer Olympics for Greece. By his own admission, it has not exactly been a financially lucrative existence. In 2016, for example, the Greek government supported some of its top Olympians with stipends of less than US$1,000 (S$1,300) per month. Then and now medal winners receive lucrative bonuses, but Gkolomeev has never won one. Enter the Enhanced Games. In 2024, in hopes of drumming up interest in the event, organisers offered a US$1 million bounty for breaking the men's 50 and 100-metre freestyle swim. Gkolomeev signed up, juiced himself, and sure enough, 'broke' – a term that should be used loosely when it involves steroid usage – the 50m record in February. In late May, at the Enhanced Games announcement, he was unapologetic when he told reporters: 'A successful year at the Enhanced Games for me is more than I could make in 10 careers.' That is a sorry commentary on the current state of Olympic sports such as swimming. After all, it is not as if the International Olympic Committee is hurting. Lucrative media rights contracts and sponsorships allowed the organisation to earn US$7.6 billion between 2021 and 2024. What happens to that cash? The IOC says 90 per cent of it is distributed to organisations throughout the Olympic movement, from National Olympic Committees to host cities. Unfortunately, most of that money does not reach competitors. Instead, it is devoted to things like training facilities, host city stadiums and executive salaries. According to a 2020 report by Global Athlete, an athlete welfare organisation, between 2013 and 2016, only 4.1 per cent of IOC and NOC funds went to contestants. The situation does not appear to have improved over the last decade. In 2024, a congressionally mandated report found that around 26 per cent of American participants in the Olympic and Paralympic pipelines earn less than US$15,000 per year. Athletes in developing countries often have it worse. In Kenya, for example, some who trained for the 2024 Olympics received allowances of roughly US$7.50 per day. Bonuses for winning medals can make up some financial ground. In Kenya, a 2024 gold medal was worth around US$23,000; in the US, it earned US$37,500. That is a nice check, but once an athlete spreads it out over four years (or more) and accounts for intensive, often full-time training, it is far less impressive. US Olympians, for example, report spending an average of US$21,700 annually on just competition fees and memberships. That compensation and expense structure is not an accident or oversight. The modern Olympic Games were launched by a European aristocrat who expected athletes to compete for the joy of sport, not money. That sentiment has remained stubbornly intact even as the Games have evolved into a multi-billion-dollar advertising platform for the world's biggest brands. In 2024, for example, the IOC reacted furiously when World Athletics, the governing body for sports such as track and field, announced plans to pay US$50,000 to gold medalists in its events. From the IOC's perspective, compensation only serves to widen the gaps between more and less privileged countries and competitors. It is a tone-deaf response that highlights how out of touch – and perhaps ambivalent – the Olympics are with the lived reality of the athletes who generate its revenue. The Enhanced Games are built to exploit the oversight. 'One of our core principles is we want to make our athletes as rich as possible,' explained Aron D'Souza, president of the sporting event, in a May interview with Men's Health. There will be ample opportunities to do that in Las Vegas. The Enhanced Games plan to host competitions in three categories – swimming, track and field, and weightlifting. Each event will feature a US$500,000 purse, with the winner earning US$250,000. In addition, everyone competing will receive an appearance fee and is eligible to win bonuses for 'breaking' world records (as Gkolomeev did). That is potentially a lot of money, though it is not likely to be enough for the world's top Olympians – those who might win Olympic gold. They would be forfeiting their reputations and chances at sponsorship deals. But the Enhanced Games does not need that kind of competitor. After all, enhancement is all about taking someone who cannot win a race or set a record and turning them into an athlete who can. There are many people who will never touch a medal podium who will be eligible for that role. For anyone who cares about the integrity of sports, this is a tragic outcome. And it would not be the last of its kind. As long as the Olympics and other elite sporting competitions remain tethered to outdated beliefs of compensation, there will be opportunities for exploitation. Over time, each instance will only serve to erode the public's confidence in the fairness of competition. BLOOMBERG Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Business Times
8 hours ago
- Business Times
Court partially allows Goh Jin Hian's appeal, finds he did not breach duty by not probing IPP's red flags
[SINGAPORE] The Appellate Division of the High Court has partially allowed an appeal by Goh Jin Hian against having to pay damages for breaching his duty of care as a then-director of the insolvent marine fuel supplier, Inter-Pacific Petroleum (IPP). The ruling on Thursday (Jun 5) said that Goh had breached his duty of care as a result of not being aware of IPP's cargo trading business – not because he had failed to open a probe into red flags surrounding the company. The justices presiding were Tay Yong Kwang, Woo Bih Li and Kannan Ramesh. Goh was also found not to have breached his duty to act in the best interests of IPP's creditors regarding drawdowns on bank facilities in relation to fraudulent cargo trades. This follows his being found liable in February 2024 for breaching of his director's duties, statutory duties and the losses suffered by the firm, which came to US$146 million plus interest. The liquidators of IPP had sued Dr Goh, the son of former prime minister Goh Chok Tong, to recover US$156 million in losses, accusing him of 'sleepwalking through his time as a director' and failing to discover and stop the drawdowns in trade financing between June 2019 and July 2019, said to have been funding non-existent or sham transactions. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up In his grounds of decision released last July, High Court Justice Aedit Abdullah said Dr Goh had not taken 'reasonable steps', such as by making the necessary inquiries, when red flags surrounding the company arose. Goh was also unaware of the existence of IPP's cargo trading business, despite being a director of the company, and therefore did not know this business was a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by IPP, said the justice. Following the appeal, the judgement has been set aside, and Dr Goh no longer has to pay damages to IPP. While the Appellate Division agreed with the previous judgement that Goh had breached his duty of care by being unaware of IPP's cargo trading business, it found that the three red flags raised in the previous judgement were not 'red flags that would have put Dr Goh on a train of inquiry leading to the fraud in the cargo trading business being uncovered'. One such red flag was an audit confirmation request relating to amounts of receivables due to IPP from customer Mercuria Energy Trading, which Goh signed and was sent to Mercuria on Feb 7, 2018. The sum due was US$132 million. While Justice Aedit said Goh should have made inquiries upon receiving the audit confirmation request, the Appellate Division said the fact that this sum was requested by Mercuria was 'not, in and of itself, enough to put him on inquiry'. This was because Mercuria was a big company and that the size of the receivable could have been explained by IPP's sizeable trading volume, amounting to about US$1 billion, with it. Two other issues that IPP's liquidators had called red flags – the suspension of IPP's bunker craft operator licence in June 2019 and three confirmations of indebtedness signed by Dr Goh in July 2019 – were also found not to be red flags by the Court of Appeal. In the case of the suspension, 'even if Dr Goh had made the inquiries... it is unclear if he would have uncovered fraud in the cargo trading business, even if he had learned that IPP was carrying on such business'. The judges were not persuaded that the suspension of the licence was a red flag. As for the confirmation of indebtedness, there was no assertion in the confirmations that the debts were for the cargo trading business, and they were thus not considered red flags. The Appellate Division therefore departed from Justice Aedit's finding that Dr Goh breached the care duty regarding the red flags. It also disagreed with Justice Aedit that Dr Goh did not breach his duty to act in the best interests of the respondent's creditors on the drawdowns for fraudulent cargo trades made on IPP's bank facilities. It found that IPP bears the legal burden of proving that the fraud would have been detected, and that the resulting loss would have been averted had Dr Goh known that IPP was undertaking the cargo trading business, but failed to discharge this burden. Dr Goh was represented by TSMP Law Corporation, led by joint managing partner Thio Shen Yi; IPP's liquidators were represented by LVM Law Chambers, led by managing director Lok Vi Ming. After the appeal, Thio said the decision has practical implications for all directors, as the Court of Appeal has clarified that it 'cannot be part of a director's duty of supervision and oversight to pick up fraud unless there are tell-tale warning signs'. 'Directors owe fiduciary obligations and the duty of care to the company, but the Appeals Court has crucially recognised the practical and commercial limits to their ability to scrutinise for and detect fraud, especially deep-seated fraud,' he added.
AsiaOne
8 hours ago
- AsiaOne
American group distributing aid in Gaza delays reopening sites, World News
CAIRO/JERUSALEM — A controversial private company distributing aid in Gaza, backed by the US and Israel, had yet to reopen its distribution sites in the enclave by mid-morning on Thursday (June 5), a day after shutting them following a series of deadly shootings close to its operations. The US-based Gaza Humanitarian Foundation had said on Wednesday that its sites would not reopen at their usual time due to maintenance and repair work. It did not say when the locations would reopen. A Palestinian father of four in Gaza's Khan Younis, who asked not to be identified over safety concerns, told Reuters the GHF site in nearby Rafah had not reopened by mid morning. GHF did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [[nid:718722]]
