Revolution Beauty rejects bid from private equity firm True, sources say
The London-listed makeup and haircare company, whose products retail online and via high street stores including Boots and Superdrug, kicked off a sale process in May, and in June said it had received proposals from a number of parties. True was the only company to submit a bid for the firm, which counts British online fashion retailer Debenhams as its largest shareholder, the people said, asking not to be identified because the talks were private.
However, the offer was seen as undervaluing the company, according to one source. Revolution Beauty declined to comment. Debenhams and True did not respond to requests for comment. Mike Ashley 's Frasers Group had also explored buying the firm but said last month it had pulled out of the process.
Revolution Beauty, founded in Kent in 2014, floated in a post-pandemic listing boom at a valuation of nearly 500 million pounds, but its value subsequently cratered to around 12 million pounds, according to LSEG data. The company is likely instead to revive plans to raise funds from key shareholders if no other bidders materialise, the people said.
It told shareholders earlier this year that it was reviewing its funding structure and mulling a fundraise from key shareholders after its annual sales slumped by more than a quarter. Debenhams' participation in any equity raise may hinge on the completion of its own debt refinancing plans, the second person said. In May, Revolution Beauty also said it had begun talks with lenders over amending and extending the terms of its revolving credit facilities.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
France 24
33 minutes ago
- France 24
Slot seeks Liverpool balance for Premier League defence
The new-look Reds, after a £260 million ($350 million) spending spree in the transfer market, looked slick in attack at Wembley with new signings Hugo Ekitike and Jeremie Frimpong on target. However, the Reds twice failed to hold onto the lead as Palace levelled through Jean-Philippe Mateta's penalty and Ismaila Sarr's strike 13 minutes from time as the match ended 2-2 before the shootout. Last season Liverpool beat Palace 1-0 at Selhurst Park and drew 1-1 on the final day of the season at Anfield as they romped to the title with four games to spare. Slot saw flashes of what his star-studded forward line are capable of as the most expensive of his new recruits, Florian Wirtz, teed up Ekitike for the opening goal after just four minutes. However, in keeping with the pattern of Liverpool's pre-season friendlies, they were cut open with ease on the counter-attack. AC Milan beat Slot's men 4-2 in Hong Kong, while Liverpool edged out Athletic Bilbao 3-2 in one of two friendlies against the Basques on their return to Anfield on Monday. "If you look at our attacking play against a team that is so compact, that might be a bit better than last season," said Slot. "We only could score one goal against Palace (last season). Now we scored two and created more against them. "But, on the other hand, we conceded two goals, which we did against Bilbao, and we conceded a couple more against Milan, so that is something we need to do better." Only Arsenal had a better defensive record than Liverpool in the Premier League last season and Slot is keen to rectify his side's issues before they begin their title defence at home to Bournemouth on Friday. "We are able to create more but we are conceding at the moment more as well. If you want to compete to win the league, you cannot concede these chances. "We conceded too much today to win the game." Liverpool's spending in the transfer market may not be over as they continue to be linked with a move for Newcastle striker Alexander Isak. However, Slot dismissed the claim that the transfer spending will put his players under more pressure this season.
Fashion Network
6 hours ago
- Fashion Network
Relief for UK's River Island as High Court approves restructuring, but the hard work starts now
Chris Bowers, a partner and head of insolvency at Forbes Solicitors, told 'The real question now is whether the restructure plans are anything more than just a sticking plaster, prolonging an inevitable collapse in the near future. Restructure plans concentrate on shutting stores and cutting rents. Such moves support liquidity but stop short of addressing declining sales. River Island's most recent accounts show turnover fell more than 19%. Any form of long-term survival needs to reconnect the retailer with consumers to boost revenues, and quickly.' Bowers cited Arcadia, which went into administration just over a year after a CVA-based restructure. Meanwhile, Marty Bauer, retail and e-tail expert at e-commerce marketing platform Omnisend, told us: 'River Island's decision to restructure, including the closure of 33 stores, is a stark reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by retailers operating on the British high street. 'Sadly, this is an all-too-familiar tale, with physical stores often struggling to compete with the convenience and accessibility of online shopping, and sailing against the wind when it comes to shifting buying habits. 'The future of the high street is uncertain, but while online shopping continues to innovate with better customer service and convenience, many shoppers still value the tactile in-store experience and personal interaction. This is where the key to success still lies. 'While the likes of River Island and New Look have faced challenges on the high street, other fashion brands such as Uniqlo are going from strength to strength by creating a seamless shopping experience that offers well-curated selections, an efficient checkout process and unique in-store experiences such as clothing alterations.' As for the reason for the court's approval of the plan, Lucy Trott, managing associate and insolvency expert at law firm Stevens & Bolton, added that with it having been supported by 80% in value of the company's creditors but failing to meet the required 75% support in each creditor class, 'the High Court was asked to 'cram down' the dissenting categories of creditors [ that is, impose it on them ], which reportedly included landlords, local authorities and trade creditors. 'For the court to grant sanction, it would need to be satisfied that none of the dissenting classes of creditors would be worse off than in the 'relevant alternative' scenario which would likely be administration or liquidation, with a sale of the company's business or assets to follow. 'It is possible that the dissenting creditors could yet seek to appeal the court's decision to sanction the plan particularly in light of the damaging precedent this decision sets in relation to cramming down commercial landlords. However, the River Island creditors will no doubt be wary of appealing the court's decision in light of the recent Court of Appeal judgment on the Thames Water appeal. If the restructuring plan were to be upheld on appeal, an adverse costs order would rub further salt in the creditors' wounds.'
Fashion Network
9 hours ago
- Fashion Network
Relief for River Island as High Court approves restructuring, but the hard work starts now
Chris Bowers, a partner and head of insolvency at Forbes Solicitors, told 'The real question now is whether the restructure plans are anything more than just a sticking plaster, prolonging an inevitable collapse in the near future. Restructure plans concentrate on shutting stores and cutting rents. Such moves support liquidity but stop short of addressing declining sales. River Island's most recent accounts show turnover fell more than 19%. Any form of long-term survival needs to reconnect the retailer with consumers to boost revenues, and quickly.' Bowers cited Arcadia, which went into administration just over a year after a CVA-based restructure. Meanwhile, Marty Bauer, retail and e-tail expert at e-commerce marketing platform Omnisend, told us: 'River Island's decision to restructure, including the closure of 33 stores, is a stark reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by retailers operating on the British high street. 'Sadly, this is an all-too-familiar tale, with physical stores often struggling to compete with the convenience and accessibility of online shopping, and sailing against the wind when it comes to shifting buying habits. 'The future of the high street is uncertain, but while online shopping continues to innovate with better customer service and convenience, many shoppers still value the tactile in-store experience and personal interaction. This is where the key to success still lies. 'While the likes of River Island and New Look have faced challenges on the high street, other fashion brands such as Uniqlo are going from strength to strength by creating a seamless shopping experience that offers well-curated selections, an efficient checkout process and unique in-store experiences such as clothing alterations.' As for the reason for the court's approval of the plan, Lucy Trott, managing associate and insolvency expert at law firm Stevens & Bolton, added that with it having been supported by 80% in value of the company's creditors but failing to meet the required 75% support in each creditor class, 'the High Court was asked to 'cram down' the dissenting categories of creditors [ that is, impose it on them ], which reportedly included landlords, local authorities and trade creditors. 'For the court to grant sanction, it would need to be satisfied that none of the dissenting classes of creditors would be worse off than in the 'relevant alternative' scenario which would likely be administration or liquidation, with a sale of the company's business or assets to follow. 'It is possible that the dissenting creditors could yet seek to appeal the court's decision to sanction the plan particularly in light of the damaging precedent this decision sets in relation to cramming down commercial landlords. However, the River Island creditors will no doubt be wary of appealing the court's decision in light of the recent Court of Appeal judgment on the Thames Water appeal. If the restructuring plan were to be upheld on appeal, an adverse costs order would rub further salt in the creditors' wounds.'
